I didn’t write that. I quoted octopus, who did write that. Honest mistake, I’m sure, so no worries.
A component, of course. The entirety as commonly portrayed? Absolutely not.
Are you kidding?
Conservative positions on this board are routinely and thoroughly misunderstood or inaccurately presented or summarized. Obviously such a rule is not universally true, but I find it to be far more the norm here than an exception.
Quid erat demonstrandum.
uh oh. I’m afraid you’re going to cite Beptimus’ Bitter and Boorish Barbs, 2nd edition. :eek:
Octopus wrote: “A component, of course. The entirety as commonly portrayed? Absolutely not.”
Rephrasing and repeating doesn’t make it any truer.
How ironic.
Well, because one’s skin color is immaterial, that’s why. Obama, who is black, is a slightyly bigger fuckup than Carter, who is white. The two of them are leading the pack in Presidential fuckups, and they are almost interchangeable. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
Obama’s only achievement in office has been to make Carter look marginally competent.
A President who got most US troops out of Iraq, killed OBL, helped US recover economically from the legacy of the Bush era and introduced some adequate health care reforms, yeah some President.
The problem is the celebrity-worship involved - where Americans see their president as the one person who is either causing all their problems, or could solve all their problems. Voting for Trump is almost irrelevant (though it certainly wouldn’t be GOOD). If the disaffected in these states want change in their lives, they should be looking at their local and state officials, replace their legislators and governors, mayors and senators. This was tried, I admit, in 2010, but the Tea Party candidates elected that year had promised lower taxes and literally nothing else, which is exactly what they delivered.
Burning the system contains a certain short-term satisfaction, like any fantasy, and like any fantasy it’s only fun while it lasts, while serious sobering reality can be kept at bay.
I’m sure you do, but since it’s a tad self-serving, I personally hold your conclusion to be somewhat suspect.
Snopes has weighed in - the clip is cut short at the moment Moore finishes building the premise that the second half of his presentation demolishes. In other words, the clip is taken out of its context.
Eh. I think Moore is hoping there will be a movement of the progressive left and the tea party right working together to promote leftist economics.
So he has a point about Trump voters. Some of them do feel left behind economically and Trump does talk about their interests a bit.
But a lot of Trump’s support really is cultural. The country is becoming more liberal, more diverse, more tolerant and the people who consider themselves the true Americans (conservative christian married whites) are feeling left behind politically and culturally. Lots of Trump’s supporters probably feel he is a firewall against a country becoming more non-white, more liberal, less religious. They feel this is ‘their’ country, and they think they are losing it to people they consider their inferiors. Non-whites, non-christians, women, liberals, etc.
By totally ignoring the cultural appeal of Trump, Moore is being disingenuous in his hopes that the far right and far left will work together to achieve leftist economic goals.
I think he’s trying to point out that their actual needs are better met by liberal policies (see: What’s The Matter With Kansas.) They have been convinced to vote against their self-interest by appealing to the worst aspects of their nature.
Undoubtedly. For perspective, I regularly browse conservative message boards and comment sections for highly nuanced, thoughtful and accurate analyses of who liberals are, what they believe, and what they collectively want to do to the world we live in.
It’s really like night and day. Gotta admit, I’m honestly ashamed when I compare it to this board.
If you actually know of a few good examples of thoughtful/accurate, can I ask for some links, sent privately? I admit curiosity.
While I agree liberals do not do a good job of explaining conservative views or values, I do not think conservatives do a good job of explaining liberal values.
Much of what I’ve seen is just strawman arguments and insults. That or they just assume the most angry, vocal liberals seen on college campuses are representative of the 20% of the electorate who consider themselves liberals.
Are you saying that the conservatives on this board are inarticulate bums? That there is a whole world of thought out there that we are not getting exposed to, just by being here?
Most of the rightie sites I see are so far gone, not to mention the (Clinton, Obama…) derangement. Could you just say what sites you are talking about?
Why isn’t it in conservatives interests to display this articulacy here and everywhere else? Why would SD cons not be good representatives? Why not share the wealth?
Jeez, and I thought I laid it on with a trowel.
No, I don’t know of any. Not saying they don’t exist, I just haven’t found one. Some of the righty regulars in the Slate comments (or trolls pretending to be conservative, perhaps) are actually kind of witty sometimes, but what kind of shallow thinker traffics in nothing but one-liners?
Yeah, you needed a sarcasm filter or something for that one. I suspected it, but I was actually thinking maybe it was serious.
Considering conservatives are outnumbered by liberals 10:1 on this MB (yes, I pulled those numbers out of… somewhere), it should be no surprise that conservative views would be misrepresented more often than are liberal views. Hyperbole is rampant, and the libs have the numbers here. Not rocket science.