Ian O’Doherty’s A two fingers to a politically correct elite is an old article, but well worth reading. Registration may be required.
It’s chock full of points:
To quote more would, I think, go beyond fair use.
The same Ian O’Doherty who last month wrote an article titled “Trump critics are right to be scared - the adults are now back in charge”?
Can’t say I’ve ever heard of him before now, but he sounds like a delight. I’m definitely going to take his opinions to heart.
What exactly is the irony of calling Trump and his followers racist while supporting Black Lives Matter?
I found his opinion piece to be just a hatchet job on Hillary. No, BLM is not racist. Yes, Republicans are. If you can’t accept that reality, then your editorial is being built on quicksand.
I think this article touches on some good points, but doesn’t go far enough. The fact is that liberals no longer even try to sell their beliefs. They simply insult people who disagree with them. Both Obama and Hillary have referred to Republicans as “enemies”. So what? So you will never get an enemy to agree with you.
If you go to a friend and say, “I think you’re wrong about this, and here’s why…”, he will hear you out. He may change his mind, he may not, but you will get a fair hearing.
However, if you go to someone and say, “Look, you big bowl of ugly, I know you’re too stupid to get this, but I’ll try using small words…”, do you really think ANYTHING you say will get that person to change his mind? Of course not. He will become even more entrenched in his position, even if, and this is the important thing, you are factually correct.
Once you have declared yourself to be an enemy, they will care more about your downfall than their own success. They will be out to bring you down, even if it harms them in the process. That’s just the way the human mind works. I think this, as much as anything, contributed to Trump’s victory.
The left has spent the last decade calling every disagreement with their beliefs “sexism, racism, homophobia”, etc. If all you have is name calling, you cannot convince your opponent. You have to actually listen to the other side and try to understand where they are coming from rather than automatically assigning evil motives and/or stupidity.
Yeah, I know. The inevitable liberal response (as seen repeatedly on this board) will be, “But they ARE racist, sexist, stupid, etc, etc, etc.” And this is why you lost against the most easily beatable candidate you will ever see in your lifetime.
Cites of Obama and Hillary calling Republicans enemies, by the way:
Have you actually read the article?
The right, in general, and Trump supporters, specifically, need to stop trying to justify the reason they won this election. I understand that conservatives are just as shocked about the outcome as the liberals but I think it’s time to accept that the American electorate did in fact elect a dangerous buffoon as POTUS and it’s not entirely (though it is in large part) the left’s fault that they did so.
Yes. Why?
Some days I feel like I’m the only person who actually looked at Clinton’s website. She had plans. She had tons of plans. She presented those plans, albeit not as much as she should have. Hillary’s whole thing was that she was a policy wonk. She knew policy front to back. I don’t know why nobody listened.
Recall the past 8 years. There’s a reason bipartisanship has broken down, and it’s not “the democrats are big ol’ meanie pants”.
The trouble was that people recognised that she has never been a good implementor of plans.
Having the most splendid promises politicians can wave will do you no good if:
a/ people know you will fuck it up. [ Clintoncare ( allied with the Clintons’ spoken disdaib for the more successful Obamacare ), Libya, Yemen. The Drug War. ]
b/ People regard one as a consumate liar.
The impoverished millions of the Rust Belt and other parts are not fools — they voted for Obama because they knew the alternatives were worse; but they have long memories, and knew how the Clintons smashed Welfare once, and the number they did on Russia in the 1990s. They did not want the same for them, so mainly abstained or even voted for the Holy Fool himself.
Lost me when he ignores that most Americans did vote for Clinton anyhow.
Your inability to understand the Electoral College is rather sad.
Slee
Oh I understand correctly, the writer from the op does not because he says that:
Yep, he said most Americans. Not just Iowans or other states. Not correct then. And so it goes for a lot of the points he made. Now if it was just talking about what about half of the people in the rust belt and Florida think, then he can have a point.
You write with such certainty.
That wasn’t good enough. For Hillary to win, she had to convey a message in a way that was 1) Very short, pithy and easy-to-remember, and 2) Tapped into the anger and frustration that was boiling over in much of the American electorate this year.
She did neither. Her policies and plans were never communicated well (is there any policy proposal of hers that easily stuck and was remembered by much of America? Trump, on the other hand, was “Build the wall,” “Stop outsourcing,” “Drain the swamp,” “Keep out the Muslims,” etc. Short, pithy, extremely clear.) And her lengthy policies were like telling an angry person, “Calm down,” with a long lengthy talk. Not only does it not assuage the anger, it increases the anger and impatience. In any other election year, Hillary would have easily won. This year was a year for Bernies and Trumps.
Certainty when correct is no vice, and waffling when justified is no virtue. The bloke is correct, in this case.
Certainly not all Republicans are racist. But this election has shown us a whole bunch of them are.
Nice wishful thinking, Ivan, but most Americans do not obsess over “the number [the Clintons] did on Russia.” Most Americans wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about.
Racist or not, BLM is seen by some as racist.
All of them? Is our own OMG… a racist? Bricker? Shodan? Or do you just see the Republicans as racist?
You dont seem to understand what ‘most’ means.