Author Topic: Liberals have lost  (Read 2088 times)

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Liberals have lost
« on: June 29, 2018, 03:04:35 PM »
It's done.

Kennedy could be depended upon to stand up against the most egregious BS, but he's gone. What is life going to be like in an R SC environment?

They'll make abortion rights up to the states. So you'll have lots of women desperately trying to cross state lines. They will die or, they'll have a kid that they dont want, or they'll leave their children in a foster system that sucks ass because Republicans only care about children before they're born.

If you're gay? Well, your marriage isn't valid anymore. Deal with it, pussy.

And all the rest. Christ, our curent court has allowed companies to flat out bribe politicians with money aND declare that "free speech=money," can anyone carr to guess what the next unbelievable thing they'll agree with will be?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 03:08:09 PM by DJQuag »

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2018, 04:59:23 PM »
The pendulum is swinging and the world is turning back to the preference for the “strong man and might makes right, ends justify the means morality.

I’m an old single white male with no children’s so all good…  ::)

Over the last few years I’ve been observing various friends who have gone the mediation, yoga, the all is one, health food… yada, yada, yada route. I thought at first it might balance out the hard right except it isn’t because many of them don’t vote.  I wonder if perhaps standing up for anything upsets their balance. And then there are the millennial's, who (as a generalization) talk about concern for liberal ideals but are not on the whole voting that way. 

Just an observation, however I don’t see the swing reversing anytime soon especially as the left continues to underestimate the right while over estimate their own intelligence and superiority.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2018, 05:12:07 PM »
Is this the next of stage of TDS?  This is not remotely the end of the world for liberals or the left.  In fact, the idea that 5 justices following the law should start end of days thinking is offensive.  Virtually everything you are complaining about has a political solution (even assuming that it really came to pass by judicial fiat).

Not to mention, "Republican" appointed justices are  generally the only ones that ever act as swing voters and the only ones that break from "party" lines where legal principals require they do so.  Roberts has done so on multiple occasions, and even Gorsuch has done so.  It's far more likely that, no matter the credentials, this justice will be more a moderate than an extreme conservative.  That's particularly true if Trump gets his way and appoints a young justice. 

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2018, 05:20:47 PM »
Other than the obvious bait in that, I got to agree that the doom and gloom seems overstated on the part of the left. 

As long as the justices show a shred of integrity, during the initial flood of far right power grabbers trying to stuff things through, we should be fine.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2018, 06:09:03 PM »
A right leaning court was the only thing that kept FDR in check. Its not all bad, but there is going to be potentially major fallout. If more gets left to the states, the state supremes may all find themselves pretty busy.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2018, 09:59:55 PM »
Quote
Other than the obvious bait in that, I got to agree that the doom and gloom seems overstated on the part of the left. 

It's understandable. The left won for 50 years pretty much every battle that was fought on social issues, with the exception of gun control, which ended up a wash.

When winning is your baseline, even losing some of the time can seem catastrophic.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2018, 12:31:15 PM »
In terms of the power of corporations and the wealthy relative to the power of employees and those not in the 1%, conservatives have been winning in the Supreme Court for decades.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2018, 12:40:51 PM »
Justice Kennedy was the author of the Citizen's United decision, so it's not like all is lost with this retirement - much was already lost before.

But when the Democrats do take over, and that is the likely scenario at some point, the question is whether they use the Presidency and a majority in the Senate and increase the Supreme Court size to 11 justices (it takes two additional confirmations to offset the Gorsuch appointment).  Such an act is unprecedented, but no more so than what it took to take the seat Gorsuch now holds in the first place.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2018, 01:18:32 PM »
Over the last few years I’ve been observing various friends who have gone the mediation, yoga, the all is one, health food… yada, yada, yada route. I thought at first it might balance out the hard right except it isn’t because many of them don’t vote.  I wonder if perhaps standing up for anything upsets their balance. And then there are the millennial's, who (as a generalization) talk about concern for liberal ideals but are not on the whole voting that way. 

Just an observation, however I don’t see the swing reversing anytime soon especially as the left continues to underestimate the right while over estimate their own intelligence and superiority.

The biggest difference is that Rural America still trends towards larger families, and as Rural America trends strongly towards conservative outlooks, as such the "Conservative" side of the political spectrum tends to keep the population growing.

The Urban(Liberal) side of things tends to favor small or non-existent families, so their numbers don't "self-replenish" as easily. The advantage the "liberal" side is they DO have a pretty solid lock on most of the educational institutions the children of those Conservatives pass through, as well as popular culture. Which gives them a significant amount of time and opportunity to try to convert them away from their more conservative upbringing. Many such conversions stick, while others wane over time(often after they either start having families of their own, or return to more conservative areas).

The biggest thing that helps offset it for the liberals is their ability to keep "Racial issues" out there and the constant large inflows of racial minority immigrants in particular, and they know it. If the GOP found a way to reliably attain votes from minority groups(to the tune of 50% or more), much of the DNC would suddenly be changing its tune regarding immigration in all forms. But there are a multitude of issues present which obviously are preventing the Republicans from achieving that kind of outcome. Up to and including openly racist persons or groups supporting many of their objectives and the optics that presents.

Of course, we also have the more "recent" phenomena of Liberals in particular seeking the company of each other, IE "the liberal withdrawal" from Rural America. Which is both helping exacerbate the partisan politics as everybody's physical "bubble" gets MUCH larger because of that. But also in the form of that meaning that more conservative teachers teach in rural areas, and more liberal teachers teach in urban(liberal) areas, which further amplifies both the partisan disparities, and also serves to shrink "the window of opportunity" for conversion to other ways of thinking that challenge the bubble they grow up in.

Of course, this thread itself demonstrates that some posters in this very thread "don't get conservatives" in general, as their doom and gloom prognostications are DNC political fodder, rather than grist for any meaningful Republican Campaign.

Conservatives are by their nature, conservative--in that they're cautious about changes.

Yes, there are more extreme elements that get lumped in with Conservatives, who want to "roll back the clock" on a long laundry list of things. However, there isn't really a common word to use to meaningfully describe them, the closest I can come up with is "Revaunchism" but that historically covered territory more than anything else.

Many/most Conservatives are largely happy with the status quo, there are things they'd like tweaked or otherwise diminished(particularly in regards to Bureaucracy), but their ideal end state is not to find themselves back in the society of the 1950's, 1990's, or any other era of the past. They might prefer elements of those eras, but they don't want to go back to it wholesale, as I'm sure they could, if given time(or often, almost immediately), things from that social era they're just fine doing without. Don't confuse people waxing nostalgic with people who genuinely wish things were exactly as they were.

The NYT article a partially quoted in another thread regarding non-Trump-fan Republicans who are supporting many of his activities also demonstrates this to some degree. As this cycles to comments from others about "the pundits" on both sides failing to understand what is going on. Party self-identification with the Republican Party has been on a long-term decline since Bush(43) at the least. It might have spiked for short periods of time, but it's been slowly declining all the same(Even during Obama, IIRC). Yet at the same time, the behavior of self-identified "Independent" voters in the interim has also changed considerably as well. They used to be just about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans up through Bush 43's term of office. Since then, the Independent voter has started to skew very heavily in favor of Republican/Conservative candidates. The NYT Article for example, only reported on the matter that people who identify as Republican continues to decline while Democrat self-identification remains steady or seems to be growing slightly.

Which is something the MSM isn't "getting" in regards to conservative voters. Many of them aren't "Republicans" first, they're conservatives first. The problem the Democrats have is what they often espouse is such anathema to Conservatives that they turn up and vote Republican to stop the Democrat from winning. It wasn't so much that they were pro-Republican, as it was that they were anti-Democrat.

In some respects, the DNC sometimes gets that, which is why some of their smear campaigns, when run, are targeted as they are. Because those same conservatives find certain items that identify well with "Christian Fundamentalist Values" in particular to also be objectionable. And because they're not overtly pro-Republican, going negative with the right things can result in their not showing up to vote. Which brings us back to Hillary having been an absolutely terrible candidate to bring forward, as it encouraged Conservatives to show up to vote against her while not doing a particularly effective job of motivating people to vote for her.

And 2020 is still likely, in my view, to be so clouded with anti-Trump mania that the Dems are at a very high risk of fielding a candidate that is going to Alienate a number of "Reliable (historical) Democratic voters" and likewise motivate those Conservatives to turn up to vote against the Democrat because they view that candidate as a bigger threat than Trump. The "real fun" in all of this in the interim is in a generic ballot poll, the Democrat should win in a 2020 scenario at present, because even the conservatives don't like Trump.

It wouldn't be until the specifics of the Democratic candidate in question come to light that things will fall apart, and the likely forms that an Anti-Trump campaign will take isn't good in that respect.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2018, 01:20:57 PM »
But when the Democrats do take over, and that is the likely scenario at some point, the question is whether they use the Presidency and a majority in the Senate and increase the Supreme Court size to 11 justices (it takes two additional confirmations to offset the Gorsuch appointment).  Such an act is unprecedented, but no more so than what it took to take the seat Gorsuch now holds in the first place.

Unless the political axis realign a fair bit, the ability of the Democrats to reliably hold 51 seats in the Senate over the next couple of decades is questionable. Of course, they only need the Senate + White House for 2 years to do what you mention. But that's very dangerous political ground to tread upon.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2018, 01:38:13 PM »
Don't forget the urban centers also include a fair amount of economic and cultural refugees from rural areas. Urban liberal antipathy to rural areas isn't just elitist snobbery.

Though the big reason that rural areas appear to trend conservative is that urban liberals are *censored* at listening to people from rural areas. If the DNC actually listened to liberals and left-wing people outside the big cities, they could eviscerate the GOP advantage in rural areas. Frankly, I think that's an easier task than the GOP getting minorities on board. I think too much of their base would feel betrayed by serious efforts at reaching out to minority voters. There's a reason their anti-immigration policies are based in nativist garbage rather than worker's rights or other justifications for border control.

The problem for the GOP in 2020 is that there's almost no one they can demonize in the same way they did with Clinton. They'll never be able to get the same kind of anti-voter they did the first time around.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2018, 03:03:56 PM »
Though the big reason that rural areas appear to trend conservative is that urban liberals are *censored* at listening to people from rural areas. If the DNC actually listened to liberals and left-wing people outside the big cities, they could eviscerate the GOP advantage in rural areas. Frankly, I think that's an easier task than the GOP getting minorities on board. I think too much of their base would feel betrayed by serious efforts at reaching out to minority voters. There's a reason their anti-immigration policies are based in nativist garbage rather than worker's rights or other justifications for border control.

Did you even read what I typed? The Republican's are extremely easy the eviscerate politically, as the "decisive" portion of their vote comes from independent Conservatives who do NOT identify willingly with the GOP. If you can appeal to them(as Obama did in 2008, talking about reducing budget deficits among other things) you can easily undermine the Republicans. The problem is, much as you say, the "urban Democrats" largely ignore their more rural counterparts, and they present campaign platforms which make those Independent/Conservatives RUN for the Republican candidate's tent.

Quote
The problem for the GOP in 2020 is that there's almost no one they can demonize in the same way they did with Clinton. They'll never be able to get the same kind of anti-voter they did the first time around.

Time will tell, I think anti-Trump in and of itself has turned itself into a toxic enough entity in many ways that it will be more than enough to sink any candidate strongly tied to it, and I don't see any Democratic candidate getting the 2020 nomination without strong ties to "Anti-Trump."

It isn't even that being against Trump is going to be considered a bad thing. It just happens that a LOT of the groups associated with Anti-Trump are going to be a very bad thing. Which will makes 2020 a virtual repeat of 2016 w/respect to Hillary. "Sure, Trump is going to be bad, but the alternative is worse in our minds."

The DNC strategy in 2020 is likely going to be to run against Donald Trump, and that is exactly the wrong approach to take in his case. In his case, you defeat him by ignoring him or otherwise downplaying him to the maximum extent possible. Even better to pursue a down-play strategy as that would make him go completely bonkers.

But that isn't going to be what they do. I'm expecting to be nearly borderline on calling him either the anti-Christ or a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. In either case, that won't play well with Independent voters.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2018, 04:07:58 PM »
What annoys me here is that Trump's wrongdoings aren't even a secret.

His tweets are public, his financial dealings are the same.

Everyone knows what he is. The only hope is that young people pull their heads out of their asses and actually vote. If people can get the word out about what the SC is going to do in the next few years, I'm pretty certain that they will. Young people don't tend to take kindly to anti-abortion and anti-gay laws.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2018, 06:48:49 PM »
The legal position of the Trump Administration is that no matter what the President has done, it is impossible for Trump to illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”
(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/02/us/politics/trump-legal-documents.html).

This is not normal. This is not in alignment with American values or with basic principles of democracy. If Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had made such a claim, the Republicans on this site would have spontaneously combusted in horror.

Over the next year or two, it is highly likely that there are going to be multiple convictions and/or guilty pleas for crimes committed by members of the Trump Administration, Trump family, and the President himself.  There is no way Trump gets removed from office once illegal actions are proved, because enough Republicans will continue to support him. Instead, we'll hear from Republicans that his proven crimes are no worse than the imaginary/unproven crimes that they claim Democrats have committed.  And the right-wing media (starting with Fox News and Sinclair media) will sell those stories as if they are true. The Republicans (and those independents who are former Republicans too ashamed to call themselves that) will largely not listen to anything else.

What will ultimately turn the tide is that extreme policy actions on the right will motivate voters from the center and left, and the old white core of the Republican Party will age out of the voting population.


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2018, 02:15:42 AM »
This is not normal. This is not in alignment with American values or with basic principles of democracy. If Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had made such a claim, the Republicans on this site would have spontaneously combusted in horror.

*yawn* We said he was going to be a train wreck, his admin taking the policy position they did just illustrates that fact. It isn't news, it's practically expected from him. As such, the "shock and dismay factor" at him having done so isn't particularly high.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2018, 02:33:48 AM »
I guess I'll add to this:

I think a lot of this can actually quite literally be summarized as:

"Because Obama."

8 years ago many of us on the Conservative side were jumping up and down with considerable concern about many of the things Obama was getting up to. With the full support of his party leadership and very tacit support from much of the MSM.

Trump does NOT have the full support of his party's leadership. Trump does NOT have the tacit support of much of the MSM. Considering Obama did NOT manage to achieve a number of things he attempted to pursue, even with a lot of political support, the concern factor regarding Trump specifically is extremely low. We're almost expecting criminal charges and a potential impeachment, but part of that is the whole "because we're expecting it" we're not particularly concerned about it. In the mean time we're enjoying our popcorn and watching the festivities. It's largely out of our hands anyhow, we'll put our hand in when it might affect a real change(that we want), but otherwise, its not particularly worth getting "invested" in overly much, at least from "our side" of the aisle.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2018, 08:05:18 PM »
By what measure do you assert that Obama had "the full support of his party leadership and very tacit support from much of the MSM" while "Trump does NOT have the full support of his party's leadership".

Because Republicans in Congress have moved in lockstep to take actions (such as with the most significant legislative act of the Trump Administration, the fundamental restructure of the US tax code all done in 24 hours), whereas the Obama Administration had to work for months addressing the issues of Democratic members of Congress regarding the Affordable Care Act and many of the other legislative acts passed.

So, seriously, what evidence did you use to come up with the conclusion that Obama had more internal support than Trump?

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2018, 01:19:39 PM »
First of all, a rightward bias in the Supreme Court can be overcome very simply.  Just vote every legislature to be left-leaning.  Clarifying legislation and Constitutional amendments override pretty much everything the Supreme Court can do.  Not easy, but simple.

Quote
Not to mention, "Republican" appointed justices are  generally the only ones that ever act as swing voters and the only ones that break from "party" lines where legal principals require they do so.

You neglect the fact that the Republican justices have swung very hard to the right.  What counts as a "swing vote" for a Republican now would have been a solid conservative vote years ago.  You are moving the goalposts to the right, and claiming the kicks between the goalposts have not moved.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2018, 01:38:12 PM »
First of all, a rightward bias in the Supreme Court can be overcome very simply.  Just vote every legislature to be left-leaning.  Clarifying legislation and Constitutional amendments override pretty much everything the Supreme Court can do.  Not easy, but simple.

Yes, that's true.  If you can get political will not only can you do this, you should be able to do it.  That's what it means to live in a Republic.  Of course, you don't seem to believe in the other side of the coin, that when you are not in the majority the otherside should set policy.

Quote
You neglect the fact that the Republican justices have swung very hard to the right.

I am literally laughing out right now.  I posted the article last week that shows untrue that is.  I challenge you to prove this claim.

Quote
What counts as a "swing vote" for a Republican now would have been a solid conservative vote years ago.  You are moving the goalposts to the right, and claiming the kicks between the goalposts have not moved.

There's literally no basis for this.  Go ahead walk us through the history of the court moving the goal posts to the right.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2018, 02:43:30 PM »
By what measure do you assert that Obama had "the full support of his party leadership and very tacit support from much of the MSM" while "Trump does NOT have the full support of his party's leadership".

Because Republicans in Congress have moved in lockstep to take actions (such as with the most significant legislative act of the Trump Administration, the fundamental restructure of the US tax code all done in 24 hours), whereas the Obama Administration had to work for months addressing the issues of Democratic members of Congress regarding the Affordable Care Act and many of the other legislative acts passed.

So, seriously, what evidence did you use to come up with the conclusion that Obama had more internal support than Trump?

I know there was "internal strife" within the DNC during the 2 years they had both the White House and both houses of Congress, and I understood why that was so.

But they still were in far more agreement, and much more cooperative with Obama than the Republicans are with Trump. That you cannot discern the similarities and differences just demonstrates there probably isn't much point in trying to point them out to you. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to fathom that there is any degree of nuance to be found among "the right hand side"of the political spectrum as portrayed in the popular media.

As such, trying to educate with the specifics you want at this point is pointless, as we've already been trying to provide that education for some time now. Not worth the effort, as I have doubts you'd try to understand what is presented.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 02:46:01 PM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2018, 02:56:10 PM »
The Supreme Court isn't the end-all of culture. The idea that a conservative SC should imply the "liberals have lost" implies directly that the activities of the SC are the arbiter of what side "wins" the culture wars. And that's a terrifying thought! I shudder to think of a vision of America where a group of 9 people decide what the laws of the land and cultural landscape will be. On the contrary, I should think rather that although the SC does end up having some power to expedite or stall legal decisions that have important ramifications, they do largely end up reflecting the larger political and social landscape. Issues such as gay marriage, for example, came about not from judicial fiat but from public opinion. Yes, the courts do ultimately have to render legal decisions, but I suspect that in most cases their decisions will find some way or other of falling in line with what the 'general understanding' has become in the country. I will be impressed if, one day, the SC rules in a way that angers most of the country and is seemingly in defiance of public opinion. This brings up what "public opinion" means, since many people can be for or against a particular idea, such as gay marriage. No doubt sheer numbers, as well as the 'tides' of cultural change come into play, where a huge swell in one direction will have more seeming force than a slow and silent consensus. Nevertheless, the cultural landscape has little to nothing to do with the SC and liberals will have just as much leisure to pursue their important issues no matter who's on the SC. And if a ruling comes down disfavorably on a topic the liberals hold dear, if that issue retains its importance and gains more support over time we could likely expect a future SC ruling to finally recognize the matter in the desired way.

I don't mean to say by this that the SC should merely be a slave to public opinion, and yet likewise it also isn't meant to be some cloistered order that makes decisions alien to the general understanding of what's right. If important issues gain cultural traction then the SC will no doubt eventually make the general understanding a legal reality. And it's not such a bad thing if a new social idea is stalled out for the time being and given a chance to see if it has staying power. If it does then the delay is a minor thing in the long-run.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2018, 08:48:53 PM »
Quote
In terms of the power of corporations and the wealthy relative to the power of employees and those not in the 1%, conservatives have been winning in the Supreme Court for decades.

I suppose "conservative", like "liberal" is always a moving target.

I think we can agree that traditionally "liberal" organizations and their politicians are hardly strangers to corporate support or wealthy donorship. There are without a doubt anti corporate, populist elements on the right.

But if it helps, I'll concede that like gun control, this is an issue where the result has been mixed, and particularly in terms of organized labour, there is an argument that the right has given a bit more than it's got.

Doesn't negate what I said. On the keystone social issues of our time, from no-fault divorce, to abortion, gay marriage, pornography, affirmative action, sodomy, school prayer / religion in public life - you're delusional to suggest that the right has been doing anything but losing and losing badly. And the Supreme Court has been no small part in shaping that reality.

I don't think the left side has any memory of what it's like to lose on something they really care about. But I suspect they're going to find out. I suspect that violence is going to happen.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 08:56:59 PM by jasonr »

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2018, 08:54:43 PM »
Quote
What counts as a "swing vote" for a Republican now would have been a solid conservative vote years ago.  You are moving the goalposts to the right, and claiming the kicks between the goalposts have not moved.

How many years ago are we talking about, out of curiosity? Is it your implication that longstanding justices such as Scalia and Thomas were left of more recent Republican nominees, such as Roberts or Alito? Other than Kennedy, who are you referring to in the last 30 years that fits this mold?

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2018, 01:55:29 PM »
Quote
But they still were in far more agreement, and much more cooperative with Obama than the Republicans are with Trump. That you cannot discern the similarities and differences just demonstrates there probably isn't much point in trying to point them out to you. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to fathom that there is any degree of nuance to be found among "the right hand side"of the political spectrum as portrayed in the popular media.

As such, trying to educate with the specifics you want at this point is pointless, as we've already been trying to provide that education for some time now. Not worth the effort, as I have doubts you'd try to understand what is presented.

Your argument seems to be that you are so sure of yourself that you don't need specifics or evidence to prove it. In other words, you start with the presumption that you must be right. You further go on to presume that anyone who questions your premise must not be able to be educated, because the correctness of your premise is so self-evident that those who disagree are incapable of understanding why you are right, even without specifics.

A respectable argument would start with the premise that you believe Democratic support for Obama is greater than Republican support for Trump, and the respectable defense of that argument would be some measurable that supported your argument (such as relative difference in votes for/against each President by members of their own party).  Lacking such evidence, your argument is weak because it is unsupported, but your particular defense in response to my request for substantiation indicates an even greater weakness.


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2018, 02:15:53 PM »
Quote
As such, trying to educate with the specifics you want at this point is pointless, as we've already been trying to provide that education for some time now. Not worth the effort, as I have doubts you'd try to understand what is presented.

Your argument seems to be that you are so sure of yourself that you don't need specifics or evidence to prove it. In other words, you start with the presumption that you must be right. You further go on to presume that anyone who questions your premise must not be able to be educated, because the correctness of your premise is so self-evident that those who disagree are incapable of understanding why you are right, even without specifics.

A respectable argument would start with the premise that you believe Democratic support for Obama is greater than Republican support for Trump, and the respectable defense of that argument would be some measurable that supported your argument (such as relative difference in votes for/against each President by members of their own party).  Lacking such evidence, your argument is weak because it is unsupported, but your particular defense in response to my request for substantiation indicates an even greater weakness.

The kind of research you're requesting is something that would take a great deal of time to compile and put together. That we're now nearly 10 years removed from the relevant information regarding Obama just further increases the difficulty involved. That it isn't an apples to apples comparison just makes it that much worse. So I'm acknowledging upfront just about every factor involved is subjective rather than objective, and based on a number of other factors, unlikely to produce "satisfactory results" sufficient to get you to change your mind. Ergo, "Not worth my time" to pursue it.

You can call it whatever you want, but I'm not undertaking a research project which would probably take the better part of a man-week to compile at best in order to get an expected "null" result in return. I have other things I'd rather spend my time on. If that means you want to claim victory, more power to you.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2018, 08:29:28 PM »
TheDeamon,

Thanks for the honesty of your comments. I guess I am curious about how you know you are correct, because you made a pretty bold claim:

Quote
they still were in far more agreement, and much more cooperative with Obama than the Republicans are with Trump. That you cannot discern the similarities and differences just demonstrates there probably isn't much point in trying to point them out

My background, both probably from the community I grew up in, and certainly how I was educated, is that I would be obligated to be ready to provide substantiation to any controversial claim that I made. I was raised in a context of awareness that often we all can have mistakes of perception, and the safeguard against error is to examine controversial propositions carefully.

Incidentally, I have just today discovered a new website that is gloriously interesting - Social Science Research Network (SSRN) that has over 800,000 academic papers available on-line and ranked in terms of level-of-interest. They have very cool analyses, including Lazy, Not Biased: Susceptibility to Partisan Fake News Is Better Explained by Lack of Reasoning Than by Motivated Reasoning that uses an elegant approach to discern that regardless of party preference, those who are more analytical are more likely to identify fake news as fake (and that people are best able to discern news as fake when it supports their party preference, not the reverse as a cynic might suspect).  Here's the link, although you might need to give them your email and make a password to get an account to access
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165567

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2018, 09:24:45 PM »
TheDeamon,

Thanks for the honesty of your comments. I guess I am curious about how you know you are correct, because you made a pretty bold claim:

Quote
they still were in far more agreement, and much more cooperative with Obama than the Republicans are with Trump. That you cannot discern the similarities and differences just demonstrates there probably isn't much point in trying to point them out

A quick comparison off-hand:
The Stimulus Spending bill, unanimous support from Dems, no Republican support. (Many also used this as evidence that the Republicans were out to get Obama from the start)

ObamaCare, most of the Democratic jockeying was it either because they felt it didn't do enough, or Democrat (house members) who were (rightfully) concerned that if certain provisions were included in it, they'd be voted out in the next election.

Oddly enough "IF certain provisions are included in ____ bill, I maywill not get re-elected" is also a common reason for many Republicans to not back Trump's initiatives as well.

Which isn't to mention that the Republican Party's leadership has a very pronounced love/hate relationship with Donald Trump that was well reported on even before he was sworn into office. Something that is still an ongoing thing, where many Republicans are opting to be ambiguous on the matter because they're just as stymied as the pundits are(on both sides of the aisle) as to what exactly is going on with Donald Trump and his political support base, particularly when they find themselves squarely between Trump's Base, and the Democratic Party's (seemingly) potent Anti-Trump movement. Where they're stuck in the middle of something they'd just as soon avoid.

Yes, once the Tea Party started making itself felt in 2010 some Democrats attempted to distance themselves from Obama, Pelosi, and Reed in order to save their seats. However, the level of vitriol aimed at Obama, Pelosi and Reed combined with respect to the MSM doesn't even hold a candle to what is aimed squarely at Donald Trump. Yes, Conservative Talk Radio didn't like them, and that did a good job of motivating Republicans to turn out and vote, but that was mostly preaching to the choir. It also didn't hold true for the likes of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and company who were almost fully in the tank for Obama and doing everything they could to sink the Tea Party.

Show me the in depth reporting from any major network(that isn't Fox News) that is making any kind of comparable effort to undermine Anti-Trump. The negative aspects of AntiFa barely even registered on their radar for the most part for that matter. But rewind that clock to 2010 and ZOMG a Tea Party Member(and a black one at that, no less) showing up carrying a gun on his back(not to be confused with "waving a gun around" or otherwise making threats) to a rally and the entire world needs to be warned about how dangerous the Tea Party is with banner coverage about it from all major Networks. As opposed to AntiFa actually rioting in the streets and causing wide scale property damage as well as physically assaulting numerous people.

"But you're talking about the media" ...and you need to remember that in my initial comment that you quoted the "They" being referenced was BOTH the MSM and the Democratic Congressional Delegation.

The MSM(barring Fox) had Obama's Back, the MSM wants Trump's Blood. So on that count, the Media is actually going overboard on its "public watchdog" duties at present. The overboard/overblown aspects are annoying, but at the same time, it makes it quite clear that if there is a whiff of the Trump Admin doing something it shouldn't be, we're going to hear about it. "Unprecedented number of scandals" anyone? (Admittedly, that isn't just due to Hyper-vigilance on the part of the Press)

The Obama Admin on the other hand? How about the IRS audits of Tea Party Groups? Sure they reported on it, but they sure did try to bury it or otherwise make it go away. Benghazi? They had a love/hate thing going there, but usually major Press Attention only seemed to happen when Dems thought they could make Republicans look bad and "started making noises," or public hearings were going on.

And as to congress, again, let us rewind to 2016 and "Never Trump" and how many of those people are in Congress even now. Obama had no analogue to compare against in 2008/2009 within the DNC. The worst he had was potentially some very small number of) die hard Clinton supporters who decided to go against the advice of the Clinton's themselves. Sure the Republicans may have set aside the hatchet in order to beat Hillary, but rest assured, it wasn't buried. Ongoing press reports about the White House having to fight Republican Leadership in Congress should be a tell on that front. At least for Obama his problems weren't with the leadership, they were with the fringe elements of his own party, either the members in "purple districts" or ones so far into the blue that it would take an act of god to get the congressperson involved voted out, and in the meantime the delegate has been lost in the weeds of leftist utopianism.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2018, 11:38:38 PM »
Quote
The Stimulus Spending bill, unanimous support from Dems, no Republican support. (Many also used this as evidence that the Republicans were out to get Obama from the start)

Or they used this actual reporting which indicated that Republicans got together, led by Mitch McConnell before the inauguration, with the explicit intention to "show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html  This is what led over 115 Republican members of Congress to claim publicly that economic stimulus bills do not create jobs, despite (a) having voted for a smaller economic stimulus package a year earlier, and (b) claiming credit for the jobs created in their district by the very stimulus bill that they had previously said would not create jobs.

Quote
ObamaCare, most of the Democratic jockeying was it either because they felt it didn't do enough, or Democrat (house members) who were (rightfully) concerned that if certain provisions were included in it, they'd be voted out in the next election.
How does this claim support the position that you were arguing?  That Democrats were less supportive of Obama because they had reasons, so that somehow doesn't refute your basic point? 

How does this compare to the lockstep voting for the largest tax system overhaul in 3 decades that was written up during lunch and passed a day later with unanimous Republican votes?

Then you fill many paragraphs with your feelings about media coverage, which is not cogent to your argument either. And by the way, your feelings are wrong - during 2009-2012 the Tea Party protests got vastly more television coverage than the contemporaneous Immigration Reform protests, even though more American citizens participated in the marches in favor of immigration reform.

And the IRS and Benghazi coverage show conservative bias, not the reverse. For all the Republican disingenuous concern about the loss of life in Benghazi, there has not been 1/1000th the scrutiny of concern for American lives lost in unexplained but highly questionable Trump Administration operations in Yemen and Nigeria.

Trump did get far fewer endorsements in newspapers than previous Republicans - but maybe this is because he was an ignorant and undisciplined candidate (now President) who makes both false and cruel statements at a level not seen in American political history. But in terms of your premise about support of his party's leadership, that's measurable, and you have not shown the measurements that support your contention.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2018, 12:13:24 AM »
highly questionable Trump Administration operations in Yemen

Sorry to interrupt, but what's this about a Trump operation in Yemen? Would you mind elaborating on what operation that is?

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2018, 10:25:41 AM »
It is likely that President Trump ordered a poorly thought-out mission that led to an unnecessary US casualty (and multiple civilian casualties) for little gain. I don't know that for sure; it would take a more in-depth independent investigation to verify the facts. That's the main point I was making - for US casualties in Benghazi there were 8 separate Congressional investigations, why so little scrutiny for this incident under the Trump Administration?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/01/what-donald-trump-left-out-about-successful-yemen-/

Quote
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the operation "a failure" because the terrorists were allegedly tipped off in advance.

Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-commando/u-s-military-probing-more-possible-civilian-deaths-in-yemen-raid-idUSKBN15G5RX


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2018, 11:27:22 AM »
Greg, I read the link you cited. Taking what that article says completely at face value it seems to me that the crux of the matter is the quality of the intelligence gathered, which the article admits it has no way to verify. I don't see how an operation could be called either a success or a failure without taking into account the booty gained from it. Was it worthless or pure gold? Isn't that roughly speaking the sole criterion of whether it was worth it. In terms of execution, who knows. The article suggests that most of the planning happened before Trump took office, and although he green-lighted it the details were in the hands of the generals that recommended he do so. And the article doesn't say that Trump deviated from the specifics as Obama's people conceived of it. So are you arguing that Obama's plan was bad, or that Trump was wrong to go ahead with a plan conceived by his predecessor?

Btw, I engaged on the topic to make sure you're interpreting your own article fairly. I didn't even hear about this until you brought it up and to be honest it looks like a really minor issue either way. When you brought up Yemen I immediately assumed it was about something to do with what's been going on there for years now, which is to say, with Saudi Arabia's decimation of the country - while fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda. I couldn't have imagined what could be worse than that, and after reading about the incident, it isn't even close to being in the same league. I hardly think this can be counted as a reasonable strike against Trump - even if your read on it is completely accurate - when it comes on the coattails of a policy by a U.S. "ally" that has been sold hoards of weapons and then attacked a weaker country with them.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2018, 12:56:06 PM »
It is likely that President Trump ordered a poorly thought-out mission that led to an unnecessary US casualty (and multiple civilian casualties) for little gain. I don't know that for sure; it would take a more in-depth independent investigation to verify the facts. That's the main point I was making - for US casualties in Benghazi there were 8 separate Congressional investigations, why so little scrutiny for this incident under the Trump Administration?

What a bizarre thing to drag up.  I assumed you had new information since the last time we discussed this http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,330.0.html, but apparently you don't.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2018, 04:05:29 PM »
Quote
On the keystone social issues of our time, from no-fault divorce, to abortion, gay marriage, pornography, affirmative action, sodomy, school prayer / religion in public life - you're delusional to suggest that the right has been doing anything but losing and losing badly. And the Supreme Court has been no small part in shaping that reality.

I don't think the left side has any memory of what it's like to lose on something they really care about. But I suspect they're going to find out. I suspect that violence is going to happen.

I fear that you're right, jasonr.  Because when the Right creates legislation against sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, and no-fault divorce, and dictates to people what religions are permissible, they will have to use violence to enforce those unpopular laws that take away our Constitutional rights.  And I suspect the Right will have no problem using violence, because, after all, they have God and right on their side. Besides, it's just payback for all the wrongs the nation did to them before... :(

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2018, 04:19:42 PM »
I fear that you're right, jasonr.  Because when the Right creates legislation against sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, and no-fault divorce, and dictates to people what religions are permissible, they will have to use violence to enforce those unpopular laws that take away our Constitutional rights.  And I suspect the Right will have no problem using violence, because, after all, they have God and right on their side. Besides, it's just payback for all the wrongs the nation did to them before... :(

Or you could forgo the politics of division, and realize that the "right" includes a large number of people who'd never support laws against sodomy, gay marriage, abortion or no-fault divorce (though I grant you, there are probably less in raw numbers that would oppose laws against abortion, and possibly gay marriage).  Or realize that the right hasn't condoned violence to solve any of those issues, and in fact has decried the use of violence.  I mean killing abortion doctors has been almost universally condemned, and it's a logical extension of the pro life principals (I find it hard to believe any one would oppose killing to defend 12 year olds who were being systematically exterminated, for example).

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2018, 04:54:35 PM »
Quote
the "right" includes a large number of people who'd never support laws against sodomy

15 years ago, 14 states still had sodomy laws in place. So I think you'd also have to grant that large numbers of people did support those laws.

Texas wasn't trying to defend their sodomy law in front of the Supreme Court, but rather 3rd parties argued on their behalf.

Quote
The states of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah advised the Court that unlike heterosexual sodomy, homosexual sodomy had "severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences"

In 2003. BTW, that decision was 6-3.

Quote
Quinn decided to arrest Lawrence and Garner and charge them with having "deviate sex". In the separate arrest reports he filed for each, he wrote that he had seen the arrestee "engaged in deviate sexual conduct namely, anal sex, with another man".[22] Lawrence and Garner were held in jail overnight. At a hearing the next day, they pleaded not guilty to a charge of "homosexual conduct". They were released toward midnight.[23] Eubanks pleaded no contest to charges of filing a false police report. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail but released early.

That was the case, and it happened in 1998. Only twenty years ago. Read some of the comments on Breitbart, and tell me again that there aren't large numbers of people who would be delighted to see sodomy laws put back on the books.

The existence of those laws, and all others, are predicated on the threat of violence by the state to arrest and incarcerate the offenders. I think it is dangerous to make a blanket assumption that such recently hard won freedoms are to be taken for granted.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2018, 05:51:22 PM »
Quote
the "right" includes a large number of people who'd never support laws against sodomy

15 years ago, 14 states still had sodomy laws in place. So I think you'd also have to grant that large numbers of people did support those laws.

And how many enforced them?  How many have passed sodomy laws in the last 15 years?  Why do you think that is?

Quote
That was the case, and it happened in 1998. Only twenty years ago. Read some of the comments on Breitbart, and tell me again that there aren't large numbers of people who would be delighted to see sodomy laws put back on the books.

I'm sure there are a "lot" of such people. 

What's that have do with whether there's a majority that would oppose it?   You don't even need a majority of the Republican party, just a fair chunk and that fair chunk exists.

Here's a link on abortion http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/07/on-abortion-persistent-divides-between-and-within-the-two-parties-2/.  Shows a majority of moderate/liberal Republicans support abortion, as do a significant minority even of the conservative ones.

Gay marriage, 40% of Republicans support.  http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

For divorce, this Washington Post article is interesting because it also gives you world reaction (though it doesn't limit itself to no fault).  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/18/how-democratic-and-republican-morals-compare-to-the-rest-of-the-world/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af7179df9bc9

I do note the sources are not entirely consistent with each other (which is to be expected, as they probably ask slightly different questions).  I see no reasonable way to search for results that could be fairly interpreted to imply someone would support anti-sodomy laws (even disapproval of homosexuality doesn't imply one would support making it illegal), nor am I willing to experiment with the searches ;).

Quote
The existence of those laws, and all others, are predicated on the threat of violence by the state to arrest and incarcerate the offenders. I think it is dangerous to make a blanket assumption that such recently hard won freedoms are to be taken for granted.

I am not taking them for granted.  I'm pointing out the nonsensical idea that only Democrats care about these issues.  They have broad support, some of them majority support, they are very unlikely to being going anywhere.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2018, 06:16:21 PM »
I fear that you're right, jasonr.  Because when the Right creates legislation against sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, and no-fault divorce, and dictates to people what religions are permissible, they will have to use violence to enforce those unpopular laws that take away our Constitutional rights.  And I suspect the Right will have no problem using violence, because, after all, they have God and right on their side. Besides, it's just payback for all the wrongs the nation did to them before... :(

Or you could forgo the politics of division, and realize that the "right" includes a large number of people who'd never support laws against sodomy, gay marriage, abortion or no-fault divorce (though I grant you, there are probably less in raw numbers that would oppose laws against abortion, and possibly gay marriage).  Or realize that the right hasn't condoned violence to solve any of those issues, and in fact has decried the use of violence.  I mean killing abortion doctors has been almost universally condemned, and it's a logical extension of the pro life principals (I find it hard to believe any one would oppose killing to defend 12 year olds who were being systematically exterminated, for example).

I agree that there are a large number of people on the right who would not support such laws, and would neither urge nor condone violence to enforce those laws.  But, as we've seen recently with the separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents, it doesn't take a large number of people on the right to do these things.  It takes just enough to get those who would elected, and then they take care of it themselves. :(

The Left is as opposed to violence to solve these disputes as the Right.  But that has not stopped either the Left or the Right from resorting to it in the past.  I just wanted to remind jasonr that the Right is just as prone to violence as the Left, if not more so.  (After all, how many people has Antifa killed in the past few years, compared to White Nationalists? ;) )  And if hordes of people still oppose those issues that the Right has "lost badly" in the past few decades, how else is the Right going to finally "win?" :(

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2018, 07:00:30 PM »
I agree that there are a large number of people on the right who would not support such laws, and would neither urge nor condone violence to enforce those laws.  But, as we've seen recently with the separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents, it doesn't take a large number of people on the right to do these things.  It takes just enough to get those who would elected, and then they take care of it themselves. :(

And how many people on the left did it take to put children in cages under Obama? 

Quote
The Left is as opposed to violence to solve these disputes as the Right.

I disagree.  I find the support for Antifa and the lack of condemnation for groups that violently suppress right wing speakers to have no parallel on the right.  I agree it's probably not the majority of the left that acts this way (it's definitely not the majority that engages in violence, but it doesn't feel like the majority condemns those who do).

Quote
But that has not stopped either the Left or the Right from resorting to it in the past.  I just wanted to remind jasonr that the Right is just as prone to violence as the Left, if not more so.  (After all, how many people has Antifa killed in the past few years, compared to White Nationalists? ;) )

What *censored*ing nonsense

White nationalists are not "the right" except in liberal media delusion.  Might as well say radical islamic terrorists are the left.  Pick a real bogey man, not a group that virtually everyone in the country condemns.

Quote
And if hordes of people still oppose those issues that the Right has "lost badly" in the past few decades, how else is the Right going to finally "win?" :(

The rights going to win, or not win, by being correct about the issues and convincing people of the same.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Liberals have lost
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2018, 07:07:15 PM »
article

So, more evidence this isn't some odd fringe group of republicans:

Quote
For 10 Republican state Senators, however, protecting the current “crimes against nature” law was worth voting against an otherwise non-partisan goal of expanding laws against bestiality. Sen. Ryan Gatti, one of the Republicans that voted against the bill, said he feared the bill would “be used as a Trojan horse to delete the sodomy law.”

Gatti told the Associated Press, “This bill was written because the far left wants to undermine our other laws that protect family and traditional values that the people of Louisiana hold dear.”

Conservative Christian group Louisiana Family Forum has lobbied against the bill on similar grounds. LFF executive director Gene Mills said the current law “spells out community standards of morality.”

“We believe Louisiana law is instructional in nature and is written to reflect the values of the citizens of the state,” Mills told the Times-Picayune. “The last thing we need is another law on the books.”

While Morrell’s interest in separating bestiality from sodomy in order to make an enforceable and comprehensive law against bestiality, Louisiana police have tested the enforceability of anti-sodomy laws in recent years.

In 2013, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office made a public apology for sending undercover deputies to arrange sexual encounters with local gay men and then arresting them under suspicion of  “crimes against nature,” according to the Times-Picayune. Because the Lawrence v. Texas ruling had rendered Louisiana’s anti-sodomy law unconstitutional a decade prior, the Sheriff’s Office was forced to apologize and drop all charges against the men involved.

That's today, that's 10 elected Republican state senators. Is that a majority of even Louisiana Republicans? No, 25 senators voted for the bill (which actually doesn't even try to repeal the sodomy law, it only operates to separate it from bestiality.

23% of Americans still think homosexual relations should be illegal in 2018

Has there been a massive trend in the last 12 years? Sure, that number has been cut in half. And it isn't all Republicans who are anti-gay, Pew Research in a different study found 43% of Republicans who thought homosexuality should be discouraged, but 22% of Democrats also agreed with that lesser statement.

Is this trend going to do an about-face on the national scene? Unlikely. But for certain states could you see it, just like we are seeing with abortion? Absolutely. And it is very troubling, because it might not be more than a few Republican victories away before you start seeing abortion doctors put in prison for trying to help women after abortion becomes either impossible or prohibitively difficult to do legally. If that happens, I'm not sure you won't see violence involved in the backlash against the people responsible. I don't advocate or condone it, but it wouldn't surprise me.