You might have a point if not for the fact that Republicans now control the House, the Senate, most state governorships, and very likely have Supreme Court dominance for the next several decades.
I read recently that only something like 24% of the country identifies as liberal, with the remainder either independent or conservative. And much of the country feels it has been governed against its will for far too long by a vocal and impassioned minority that for the most part refuses to debate differences of opinion on political matters in a reasonable way and chooses to try to shut down its opponents through insult and vilification instead. This worked for a while. Almost 50 years in fact. But now people have finally had enough. They don’t care about transgender bathroom issues and they don’t care about whether calling a woman beautiful is sexist and they roll their eyes at safe spaces and trigger warnings coming from an academic elite that thinks ‘social promotion’ is a good idea and is more concerned with brainwashing kids into proper lib-thought than it is into actually teaching them things they’ll need to know to make their own way in the world (which liberals aren’t all that het up on anyway because less Democratic votes).
And obviously enough of those who normally vote Democrat aren’t sufficiently liberal and sufficiently arsed enough about these kinds of issues to get out and vote even when Supreme Court dominance is in play. Half of 'em (the youthful and recently brainwashed half) were pissed because Hillary wasn’t liberal/socialist/Bernie enough and the other half were put off by Clinton’s decades-long reputation as a liar and phony and political insider who also has little regard for the law.
So even there Democratic shortcomings themselves are responsible for the low Democratic turnout that resulted in Trump’s election.
So yeah, when you take into account all that contributed to Trump’s victory and all that contributed to the overwhelming dominance of Republicanism in all the other branches of state and federal leadership, the message couldn’t be more clear that the Democrats have become their own worst enemy.
And true to form they’re doubling down on the very behavior that did them in in the first place.
If liberals and Democrats in this country ever get back to the point of trying to reasonably debate the pros and cons of the country’s various issues and what to do about them instead of hurling insults and lying about their opponents’ motives, we might get back to having a functioning government and to achieve social progress more amenable to the populace at large.
In short, the country has at long last has reached a tipping point and if you want to keep it up with your ‘my way or the highway and if the highway you’re an asshole’ approach, you can expect that things aren’t going to be going your way for quite a long while.
Always funny to see someone complain about people “lying about their opponents’ motives” while exaggerating (at best) and making false statements about their opponents’ motives.
And more of this “calling women beautiful is sexist” crap… how is this a significant issue? Who cares about this beyond a few nuts on twitter? And did they really say “calling women beautiful is sexist”, or was it criticism of focusing on beauty rather than talent for someone who just passed away?
Really? I must have slept through that period. Who was it that wanted to debate the merits of the Garland nomination? Who wanted to debate health care reform?
I know! All those liberals fighting for civil rights and LGBT rights and to protect brown people from being treated like crap… it’s so funny! Some liberals are jerks, and they’re hilarious, but the funniest are those everyday libs who support treating people reasonably and equally regardless of race/religion/sexual orientation/gender ID/etc. LOL!
Keep telling yourselves that’s the ONLY message the public sees/understands from extreme liberal “debate”…
You know what is funny as fuck?
My interpretation of politics these past few/many years comes mainly from only a few things…one of the big 3 news channels evening broadcasts…a random spattering of FOX news…a FEW (and I mean like one every week or three) of “conservative” people I know send a link about something (I ain’t on Fuckbook)…
AND political discourse here…RIGHT ON the God damn fucking DOPE…
So IFFFF I am getting some “jesus fucking christ…these liberals are NOT having some reasoned fucking debate XYZ” but instead are more interested in shit slinging of flavor XYZ…" vibe…
No, I’m just mocking your posts. Liberals have screwed a lot of things up lately, but for some reason you and SA get those things wrong, IMO, and put up the fantasy-Limbaugh-liberal, who mostly don’t exist, as the real liberals.
There’s a lot of shit slinging by liberals – if you were on a majority conservative board, you’d probably see a lot of shit slinging by conservatives against liberals. But there’s also a lot of reasoned debate.
Where does the notion that celebrity award shows are so august and reverential that decorum must be kept for sake of the fine tradition of the respectful blah blah blah bullshit bullshit bullshit. People, it’s the Golden Globes, not the Nobel Prize. It’s about the glitziest, gaudiest, garish thing you’re likely to see on the TeeVee this year (at least until Trump redecorates the White House anyway). It’s put on by celebrities for celebrities to congratulate themselves. It’s the perfect place to hijack into an open forum.
Not to mention that all these rootin’-tootin’ conservatives are bitching and moaning like they were just riveted to their television sets watching the awards and chewing their nails over whether Moonlight or Manchester by the Sea would take the top prize … until Meryl Streep ruined the whole thing. I’ll bet most of the people bitching about this not only didn’t watch the show, but probably didn’t even know it was on until they read about how they were supposed to pissed off when they got to Breitbart .com the following day.
Well, I have a certain morbid curiosity about how low your country will sink, ethically and economically. I can’t speak for Hillary. If your response to “your president-elect is acting like a fool” is just “yeah, but he’s STILL our president-elect, so there!”, then what good are you in this discussion?
Hahahaha. A fake news story is still a fake news story. It’s not “real” or “truthful”. I understand that some people have arbitrarily claimed the definition of “fake news” as their own. :rolleyes: A satirist writes fiction. They also hope that someone, anyone, will find their satire to be interesting. I wish them (the satirist) the best of luck trying to earn a living.
I still wonder how many members of the Democrat collective will believe this fake news story, or pass it on as fact?
A fake news story is intended by the author to be taken as real. That is why satire such as Borowitz or The Onion is labeled as satire. So no one takes it be real news.
