All trump voters can be put into 3 groups. Those that voted for him because of his racism and xenophobia. Those that voted for him despite his racism and xenophobia. And those that were so unaware that they somehow didn't know about his racism and xenophobia but still cared enough to show up and vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
If pointing that out makes me a snob I'm ok with that.
Or they didn't consider his positions on immigration to be racist or xenophobic, or they were troubled by what they considered to be his racism or xenophobia, but still considered him less objectionable than Clinton for any number of reasons. Our big political parties encompass such a diversity of opinions and attitudes, that it's possible to find unsavory types (especially with "unsavory" being a fairly subjective term) in either of them. Trying to associate all the members of a party with the least appealing ones seems at best like a waste of time and at worst an exercise in Trumpian thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I still maintain that if you want to impugn someone's morals or motivations you should do it on an individual rather than a group basis.
One of the great things about getting older is the benefit of experiencing long years of familiar themes. People have been presenting Republican voters in this manner since at least the Reagan years, and yet so many think it's some sort of new, unique observation. With the proper perspective, it's actually even entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I remember that with each new success his critics became more frenzied. He was stupid, he was reckless, he was "divisive" and "uncooperative". Anyone who voted for him was a dupe or selfish. People who didn't like him called him a "cowboy", apparently not getting that most Americans like cowboys. Of course, now that he's safely dead, I'm hearing that "Reagan couldn't get elected today".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I miss the Gipper.
http://www.cagle.com/working/040607/koterba.gif
In a world as dynamic as ours, there are very few things that never change. The modern liberal's view of the perceived opposition being one of the standouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
As a great man once said, "There you go again ".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
that pompous statement is exactly what I have been pointing out. "The modern liberal view". So there is only one and you are the expert. Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
The conservative leader Ann Coulter's definition of the modern liberal, in her own words:
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots."
ad nauseum. It is no accident that with this and similar propaganda emanating 24/7 from Fox News, along with the astro turf Freedom/Patriot/Tea Party groups funded by the Koch brothers and their ilk, that the problems of our nation are now conveniently blamed on a monolithic group called "liberals."
Meanwhile our kleptocracy continues to consolidate its power under the billionaires and millionaires now in the executive and legislative branches. The appointment of 1 or 2 more right wing judges should seal the deal.
Well, you know how we racist, xenophobic, ignorant (and lets not forget pompous) conservatives are. Just read any of the post election threads in this forum and you'll see the popular consensus leads you not to expect much from us. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
Yes, that may put us back on the path of a Constitutional Republic. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainey