Conservative Democrats vs Liberal Republicans?

[dianaiad]

Interesting. I take an opposite conclusion from things like that.

When something generally apolitical like a knitting discussion board clamps down on extremism but only ends up booting right-wing extremists, this suggests to me that there are significantly more right-wing extremists than there are left-wing extremists.

The US has a very strong skew to the right, politically. Anywhere else in the world, a position like "let's not have concentration camps" would have wide political support; the only people opposing it would be the extreme right fringe. In the US, this view is seen as somewhat left of centre. It's bizarre.

When a political philosophy allows someone to ban any mention of Trump, and disallows MAGA hat patterns because doing so is support for 'white supremacy," but allows and encourages 152 patterns for p*ussy hats, and quite blithely allows "F***Trump" patterns, (there were, I believe, fifteen patterns for MAGA scarves or hats) I have to conclude that it's a bad political philosophy.
]
As well, the number of patterns involved here tell me that your opinion regarding the number of extremists is truly upside down.

Freedom of speech, along with freedom of religion, are the two MOST important freedoms we have, I firmly believe. When one side censors the other, everybody loses.

And I haven't seen sites censor left wing protests. Only right wing ones.

 

[e.r.m.]

He was mentioned in this article Climate Change: Conservatives Should Take a Sensible Approach | National Review which listed some other people as well.

Cool.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When a political philosophy allows someone to ban any mention of Trump, and disallows MAGA hat patterns because doing so is support for 'white supremacy," but allows and encourages 152 patterns for p*ussy hats, and quite blithely allows "F***Trump" patterns, (there were, I believe, fifteen patterns for MAGA scarves or hats) I have to conclude that it's a bad political philosophy.

Why's that?

As well, the number of patterns involved here tell me that your opinion regarding the number of extremists is truly upside down.

Calling ***** hats "extremist" is an example of what I'm talking about. Think about what a ***** hat symbolizes:

- opposition to sexual assault by political leaders
- support for women's rights in general

None of this should be considered "extreme." That fact that it is seen that way is a sign of just how skewed your country's politics is.

Freedom of speech, along with freedom of religion, are the two MOST important freedoms we have, I firmly believe. When one side censors the other, everybody loses.

I'd rank habeas corpus - the right that guarantees all other rights - higher than both of those, but I agree they're important.

I don't see how either is affected by anything that a private website does in administering content, though. Freedom of speech is the assurance that you won't be improsoned or otherwise punished by the government for what you say. It doesn't guarantee that a private web site will provide you with a platform and an audience for your views.

And I haven't seen sites censor left wing protests. Only right wing ones.

That's because left wing extremism in the US really isn't a thing.

If someone isn't proposing things like eradication of public property or execution of billionaires, they aren't a left wing extremist. Criticising Trump, advocating rights for women, and opposing concentration camps are all things that even the mainstream right wing can get behind in the rest of the world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When a political philosophy allows someone to ban any mention of Trump, and disallows MAGA hat patterns because doing so is support for 'white supremacy,"

BTW: MAGA hats are white supremacist symbols. They're the modern equivalent of the KKK hood. Any site is right to have a similar approach to both pieces of apparel.

I understand that nobody is the villain of their own story, and I'm sure you've come up with rationalizations for how MAGA hats and the views they represent are okay, but do you really not see what people are upset about?

 

[dianaiad]

Why's that?

If I have to explain why freedom of speech is important, then it's useless to try to explain it, frankly. The world views are simply too opposite.

Calling ***** hats "extremist" is an example of what I'm talking about. Think about what a ***** hat symbolizes:

- opposition to sexual assault by political leaders
- support for women's rights in general

No, they aren't. They are actually a political protest against a specific political opponent for saying something he did NOT say, and advocating something he does not advocate. As for 'women's rights in general,' no, they don't symbolize that at all. They are partisan political signs. Period.

Now think about what the left thinks that 'Make America Great Again' means...and it is strictly in their imaginations.

None of this should be considered "extreme." That fact that it is seen that way is a sign of just how skewed your country's politics is.

Politics in 'my country' has always been skewed. It's raucous and boistrous...but we haven't had many fistfights in congress (unlike the British Parliament) and nobody has take over the government and enforced someone else's rule yet, unlike almost EVERY other government in the world, including yours.

I'd rank habeas corpus - the right that guarantees all other rights - higher than both of those, but I agree they're important.

I don't see how either is affected by anything that a private website does in administering content, though. Freedom of speech is the assurance that you won't be improsoned or otherwise punished by the government for what you say. It doesn't guarantee that a private web site will provide you with a platform and an audience for your views.

No, you are correct. A private website, owned by a private person, has the right to make whatever rules s/he wants. That's PART of free speech.

And I have the right to point out just how wrongheaded, bigoted and discriminatory s/he is being. However, the particular website I refer to is, I have discovered, pretty much a monopoly in that particular world, and so is almost as influential in the 'knitting world' as any government agency is. I have noticed that if a photographer (as a private business) or a baker (as a private business) doesn't have the right to discriminate against someone because of ...anything...then why does this website have that right? Just because the people they discriminate against are politically incorrect? I can, and do, point out the hypocrisy. Now me, I personally want to see this website have the right to exclude, or include, anybody he wants to. I want the photographer and baker to have that same right, as privately owned businesses. Now a non-hypocritical leftist would say 'the photographer doesn't have the right to discriminate, let's sue him,' AND he would say the same about that website. However, I have noticed that the left is pretty darned hypocritical. They'll sue the baker for being discriminatory, and applaud the website because the TARGETS of that discrimination are correct or non, politically.

That's because left wing extremism in the US really isn't a thing.

Oh, yes it is.

If someone isn't proposing things like eradication of public property or execution of billionaires, they aren't a left wing extremist.

You are moving the goalposts. All the way past the stadium parking lot and past the city limits.

Criticising Trump, advocating rights for women, and opposing concentration camps are all things that even the mainstream right wing can get behind in the rest of the world.

Criticising Trump? i do that.

but the left goes further than mere criticism, doesn't it? NO idea that comes from the administration is a good one, even if it is a continuation of Obama's administration, because TRUMP came up with it. That knitting site? Doesn't allow any positive mention of the Trump administration AT ALL, because any positive mention of the Trump administration is support for white supremacy. Period. THAT is extremism. Trump is not a white supremacist. He's not a racist. he's a loud mouth, but that's not the same thing.

Unless one is left wing and must parse every syllable that comes out of any mouth.

 

[dianaiad]

BTW: MAGA hats are white supremacist symbols. They're the modern equivalent of the KKK hood. Any site is right to have a similar approach to both pieces of apparel.

Bull.

I have never thought that. The people who wear them don't think that. The only people who think that are Trump's POLITICAL opponents, and they are dead, bang, wrong. Symbols mean what the people who use them think they mean, and "Make America Great Again" does NOT refer to segragation, slavery, the KKK or Jim Crow laws, all of which were enacted and supported by DEMOCRATS. If anything, a REPUBLICAN wearing a MAGA hat would be referring to the fifties...where the REPUBLICANS were doing the DEsegragation, the elimination of 'black only' drinking fountains and schools, and working for civil rights.

Now if a DEMOCRAT were to wear one of those, I can see where it might mean returning to the days of the KKK, since the KKK was the military arm of the Democrat party, and the Democrats were aiming fire hoses at civil rights protesters, but for Republicans to wear them? WE get to tell YOU what "MAGA" means. You do not get to tell us what it means.

I understand that nobody is the villain of their own story, and I'm sure you've come up with rationalizations for how MAGA hats and the views they represent are okay, but do you really not see what people are upset about?

They are upset about not being in power at the moment. That's it. If they were REALLY upset about 'white supremacy,' they would make sure that a Democrat never got elected again.

BTW, don't believe me about the history of which group worked harder for civil rights? It's not a secret. Look up who was president during the fifties when most of the anti-segregationist legislation was enacted. Eisenhower. Republican.

Look up what party the governors of the states were who most opposed desegregation. Democrats. All of 'em.

Martin Luther King's niece said he was a registered Republican (actually, he didn't publicly endorse either party or any candidate, though he did campaign AGAINST a couple...Goldwater (Republican) and Johnson (Democrat).

MOST of the civil rights workers and leaders of the fifties and early sixties were Republicans.

Now Democrats NOW claim that, well, the parties switched, so that Republicans are now blamed for discrimination and they are the guys in the 'white hats,' but that's baloney. Republicans haven't changed any, and "MAGA" refers to making America individualistic, prosperous and economically healthy again, as well as free to speak, assemble, etc....for everybody. ...and if means 'going back to the fifties,' it means going back to a time when people (REpublicans, mostly) were actively working to make things better for EVERYBODY.

The only reason YOU think it means anything else is because Democrats have been ladling out the propaganda. Again. The BIG LIE regurgitated over and over and over....until everything tastes like cherry koolaid.

 

[e.r.m.]

If I have to explain why freedom of speech is important, then it's useless to try to explain it, frankly. The world views are simply too opposite.




No, they aren't. They are actually a political protest against a specific political opponent for saying something he did NOT say, and advocating something he does not advocate. As for 'women's rights in general,' no, they don't symbolize that at all. They are partisan political signs. Period.

Now think about what the left thinks that 'Make America Great Again' means...and it is strictly in their imaginations.



Politics in 'my country' has always been skewed. It's raucous and boistrous...but we haven't had many fistfights in congress (unlike the British Parliament) and nobody has take over the government and enforced someone else's rule yet, unlike almost EVERY other government in the world, including yours.




No, you are correct. A private website, owned by a private person, has the right to make whatever rules s/he wants. That's PART of free speech.

And I have the right to point out just how wrongheaded, bigoted and discriminatory s/he is being. However, the particular website I refer to is, I have discovered, pretty much a monopoly in that particular world, and so is almost as influential in the 'knitting world' as any government agency is. I have noticed that if a photographer (as a private business) or a baker (as a private business) doesn't have the right to discriminate against someone because of ...anything...then why does this website have that right? Just because the people they discriminate against are politically incorrect? I can, and do, point out the hypocrisy. Now me, I personally want to see this website have the right to exclude, or include, anybody he wants to. I want the photographer and baker to have that same right, as privately owned businesses. Now a non-hypocritical leftist would say 'the photographer doesn't have the right to discriminate, let's sue him,' AND he would say the same about that website. However, I have noticed that the left is pretty darned hypocritical. They'll sue the baker for being discriminatory, and applaud the website because the TARGETS of that discrimination are correct or non, politically.






Oh, yes it is.



You are moving the goalposts. All the way past the stadium parking lot and past the city limits.



Criticising Trump? i do that.

but the left goes further than mere criticism, doesn't it? NO idea that comes from the administration is a good one, even if it is a continuation of Obama's administration, because TRUMP came up with it. That knitting site? Doesn't allow any positive mention of the Trump administration AT ALL, because any positive mention of the Trump administration is support for white supremacy. Period. THAT is extremism. Trump is not a white supremacist. He's not a racist. he's a loud mouth, but that's not the same thing.

Unless one is left wing and must parse every syllable that comes out of any mouth.

I think you explained it well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bull.

I have never thought that. The people who wear them don't think that.

Like I said: nobody is the villain of their own story.

The only people who think that are Trump's POLITICAL opponents, and they are dead, bang, wrong. Symbols mean what the people who use them think they mean, and "Make America Great Again" does NOT refer to segragation, slavery, the KKK or Jim Crow laws, all of which were enacted and supported by DEMOCRATS.

That's quite the warped view of history. Regardless, go check out a Trump rally... or at least look at pictures online. There's quite a bit of overlap between the "Confederate flag" crowd and the "MAGA hat" crowd.

Lincoln may have been a Republican, but that hasn't stopped many modern Republicans from metaphorically pissing all over his legacy. The Republican party stopped being the defenders of civil rights a long time ago.

If anything, a REPUBLICAN wearing a MAGA hat would be referring to the fifties...where the REPUBLICANS were doing the DEsegragation, the elimination of 'black only' drinking fountains and schools, and working for civil rights.

The KKK endorsed Trump for President. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/

Now if a DEMOCRAT were to wear one of those, I can see where it might mean returning to the days of the KKK, since the KKK was the military arm of the Democrat party, and the Democrats were aiming fire hoses at civil rights protesters, but for Republicans to wear them? WE get to tell YOU what "MAGA" means. You do not get to tell us what it means.

Oh, it's been plenty clear:

- make America great again by keeping Muslims out
- make America great again by treating refugee claimants like criminals
- make America great again by destroying the environment
- make America great again by supporting discrimination

They are upset about not being in power at the moment. That's it. If they were REALLY upset about 'white supremacy,' they would make sure that a Democrat never got elected again.

The Republican party has been the party of choice for racists for a long time now.

BTW, don't believe me about the history of which group worked harder for civil rights? It's not a secret. Look up who was president during the fifties when most of the anti-segregationist legislation was enacted. Eisenhower. Republican.

Look up what party the governors of the states were who most opposed desegregation. Democrats. All of 'em.

Martin Luther King's niece said he was a registered Republican (actually, he didn't publicly endorse either party or any candidate, though he did campaign AGAINST a couple...Goldwater (Republican) and Johnson (Democrat).

MOST of the civil rights workers and leaders of the fifties and early sixties were Republicans.

I'm more concerned with the reality now than with your invented history. The Republican party consistently attacks human rights.

Now Democrats NOW claim that, well, the parties switched, so that Republicans are now blamed for discrimination and they are the guys in the 'white hats,' but that's baloney. Republicans haven't changed any, and "MAGA" refers to making America individualistic, prosperous and economically healthy again, as well as free to speak, assemble, etc....for everybody. ...and if means 'going back to the fifties,' it means going back to a time when people (REpublicans, mostly) were actively working to make things better for EVERYBODY.

Republicans - and Democrats - have changed quite a bit over the years. Eisenhower would be to the left of the Democratic mainstream of today.

The only reason YOU think it means anything else is because Democrats have been ladling out the propaganda. Again. The BIG LIE regurgitated over and over and over....until everything tastes like cherry koolaid.

No, I say that the MAGA hat stands for racism because it signals support for Trump and his racist policies, and because of my own experiences with the MAGA crowd.

For instance: I was at an event in Michigan last year. When they asked everyone to rise for the national anthem, I heard the person next to me shout angrily "and no kneeling!" I'll give you three guesses as to what that guy was wearing.

(And BTW: another example of something that's only considered "extreme left" in the USA: the idea that racist cops killing innocent people is a problem that needs attention)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Conservative Democrat" is redundant. "Liberal Republican" is either an oxymoron or describes a very confused person.

Libertarians in the Republican Party and Blue Dog Democrats are a thing, you know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Libertarians in the Republican Party and Blue Dog Democrats are a thing, you know.

Sure, but Libertarian <> Liberal and mainstream Democrats are conservative even if they aren't "blue dogs."

 

[dianaiad]

Like I said: nobody is the villain of their own story.


That's quite the warped view of history. Regardless, go check out a Trump rally... or at least look at pictures online. There's quite a bit of overlap between the "Confederate flag" crowd and the "MAGA hat" crowd.

Lincoln may have been a Republican, but that hasn't stopped many modern Republicans from metaphorically pissing all over his legacy. The Republican party stopped being the defenders of civil rights a long time ago.



The KKK endorsed Trump for President. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/



Oh, it's been plenty clear:

- make America great again by keeping Muslims out
- make America great again by treating refugee claimants like criminals
- make America great again by destroying the environment
- make America great again by supporting discrimination



The Republican party has been the party of choice for racists for a long time now.


I'm more concerned with the reality now than with your invented history. The Republican party consistently attacks human rights.


Republicans - and Democrats - have changed quite a bit over the years. Eisenhower would be to the left of the Democratic mainstream of today.


No, I say that the MAGA hat stands for racism because it signals support for Trump and his racist policies, and because of my own experiences with the MAGA crowd.

For instance: I was at an event in Michigan last year. When they asked everyone to rise for the national anthem, I heard the person next to me shout angrily "and no kneeling!" I'll give you three guesses as to what that guy was wearing.

(And BTW: another example of something that's only considered "extreme left" in the USA: the idea that racist cops killing innocent people is a problem that needs attention)

you are epitomizing the problem. MAGA means...to you...what you want it to mean because you hate conservatives and have a VERY twisted and warped view of what conservatism actually is. You don't like Republicans...therefore Republicans are guilty of all the things that the Democrats were guilty of...and still are.

MAGA is a symbol. It means what the wearers claim it means.

It does not mean what you wish it meant.

And your opinion doesn't count when defining what the symbol your political opponents 'really means.'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you are epitomizing the problem. MAGA means...to you...what you want it to mean because you hate conservatives and have a VERY twisted and warped view of what conservatism actually is. You don't like Republicans...therefore Republicans are guilty of all the things that the Democrats were guilty of...and still are.

MAGA is a symbol. It means what the wearers claim it means.

It does not mean what you wish it meant.

And your opinion doesn't count when defining what the symbol your political opponents 'really means.'

I think the MAGA hat is meant to signal support of Trump and his policies. What do you think it signifies?

BTW: would you say the same to someone wearing a white hood? The KKK claims that they're "an institution of chivalry, humanity, mercy, and patriotism." Do you accept what they say their symbolism represents?

 

[dianaiad]

I think the MAGA hat is meant to signal support of Trump and his policies. What do you think it signifies?

It symbolizes that. However, since the wearers do NOT think that support for Trump is the same thing as being a white supremicist, etc., we do get to tell you what it means.

BTW: would you say the same to someone wearing a white hood? The KKK claims that they're "an institution of chivalry, humanity, mercy, and patriotism." Do you accept what they say their symbolism represents?

Yep.

However, the KKK (remember, the KKK was...and still is...a DEMOCRAT thing) is quite open about it's stand on white supremacy. We can take their word for what they stand for.

Only Trump's OPPONENTS think that he is a racist and a white supremacist. I know better. I'm not, and neither is he, no matter what you want to paint him as.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It symbolizes that. However, since the wearers do NOT think that support for Trump is the same thing as being a white supremicist, etc., we do get to tell you what it means.

Trump's policies are racist. The only people who support Trump are:

- racists
- people for whom racism isn't a deal-breaker.

Yep.

However, the KKK (remember, the KKK was...and still is...a DEMOCRAT thing) is quite open about it's stand on white supremacy. We can take their word for what they stand for.

Just like I take Trump's word for it when he enacts racist policies and says racist things.

Only Trump's OPPONENTS think that he is a racist and a white supremacist. I know better. I'm not, and neither is he, no matter what you want to paint him as.

No, some of his supporters think that, too:

"While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?'" the endorsement reads, according to the Washington Post. "The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were. America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."

KKK Paper Endorses Trump; Campaign Calls Outlet 'Repulsive'

As the official start of the “Unite the Right” rally kicked off in Charlottesville, Virginia, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke said the gathering of white supremacists, neo-Nazis and far-right individuals pointed to a future fulfillment of President Donald Trump’s “promises.”

“This represents a turning point for the people of this country,” said Duke in video uploaded to Twitter by Indianapolis Star photojournalist Mykal McEldowney. “We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump. Because he said he’s going to take our country back. That’s what we gotta do.”

Ex-KKK Leader David Duke Says White Supremacists Will 'Fulfill' Trump's Promises | HuffPost

White supremacists are saying they were winners in last week's midterm elections.

They were already emboldened by the language used by President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration -- words like "nationalist" and "invasion" that have hateful dual meanings -- according to a review of sites frequented by white supremacists. And they saw Tuesday's results as a victory for white America with what they believe will be progress toward a border wall, an end to DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, and birthright citizenship.

Trump says he's not a racist. That's not how white nationalists see it - CNNPolitics

And I've seen no reason to believe you aren't a racist yourself. You've certainly hitched your wagon to some pretty heavy racism.

 

[dianaiad]

Trump's policies are racist. The only people who support Trump are:

- racists
- people for whom racism isn't a deal-breaker.

There is at least one other group;

-people who are not racist, who don't honestly believe that either Trump NOR his policies (most of which policies which gain the most criticism of 'racism' were begun by Obama, but heaven help anybody who called HIM a 'racist,') are racist, and believe that the charge of 'racism' is mostly drummed up by his political opponents in order to falsely smear him, and who believe that a vote for Trump is, no matter how loud mouthed he is, is a hundred times better than a vote for any democrat, who ARE racist.

-people like me. Now there isn't anybody on this planet who could call me a racist. Hell, penguin, I may personally be 'white' to my bone marrow, but I MARRIED a person of every color there is, including native American and African American, and my kids can check off ALL the boxes. My family, both close and extended, contain people of every possible genetic heritage. I have never looked at skin color for any reason except 'what cosmetics look best?" or "how DO I fix her hair?" or 'can she wear yellow, or does he look better in red?" Or for selecting sunscreen. I even have a disease that is mostly manifested in middle aged black men. NONE of my family, red, black or yellow (and OK, we only have one Asian in the mix, but he is really outspoken) think that Trump's policies are racist. Shoot, I even have democrats in the family. THEY, mind you, are all 'white,' but even they can't look at the rest of us and call US 'racist.' We celebrate Kwanza, have quincenarias, Pioneer day, You name an ethnic holiday, and someone in the family celebrates it. ....and if someone in the family does, we all do. We have a LOT of parties.

There are more people like me than you liberal left wing nuts think. AMOF, MOST Americans are like me. And we don't think that Trump's policies are racist. How can they be, when they benefit ALL of us?

As for me, I'd rather vote for...I can't think of anybody so repulsive as to be objectionable to both of us, frankly...than allow a Democrat back into the Executive Office.

 

[metis]

Even though I tend to vote more for Democrats, I am a fiscal conservative (Neo-Keynesian).

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump's policies are racist. The only people who support Trump are:
- racists
- people for whom racism isn't a deal-breaker.

That claim is a perfect example of TDS, ie, the unwillingness to
recognize any other viewpoints. I don't believe his policies are racist.
Moreover, this obsession with racism leads TDS sufferers to ignore
greater evils, eg, his flirting with all out war with Iran.