YouTuber claims we'll never see another Democrat elected president

[David1967]

Both sides have a fringe element (the left has the SJWs, the right has the alt-right), and each side tries to present the opposing side's fringe element as representing the whole. To compound this, neither side denounces their own fringe element.

I wish we could take the extreme / fringe elements from both sides and put them on an island somewhere. Maybe then decent folks from both sides could work together without all the noise.....I know, I'm dreaming....but I'm not giving up.

 

[David1967]

Bill Maher denounces the SJWs, yet everyone on both sides seems to hate him. Granted he's said some really dumb and even offensive stuff on occasion, but overall I think he makes good points.

I agree. Bill Maher has got me equally worked up on things I both agree and disagree with him on. He is irritating, controversial, funny, and sensible, all at the same time. For a while I couldn't decide whether I liked him or didn't like him. Overall though, I do watch his show.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Because metropolises and rural areas all have Americans living in them. In presidential elections, without the support of "fly over America," Republicans win because of the electoral college, because the democrat strongholds are big cities, with few here and there scattered about. To win presidential elections, the democrat nominee pretty much has to appeal to the pro-union democrat leaning scattered about in otherwise lands that are largely Conservative Republican leaning. But, increasingly, the cater to focus on the metropolis areas and do become out of touch with one of their big key demographs, while the Republicans get in touch with those rural voters based on Conservative values.

But you said that Democrats are out of touch with Americans because they don't get as many votes from rural areas. That insinuates that urban areas don't have Americans in them.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's not criticizing when you ban someone from speaking because of their thoughts and opinions given certain subjects.

Peterson and Harris speak all of the time. No one is stopping them from speaking. You can freely buy their books, buy their tapes, see them on Youtube . . .

Surely people also have the right to choose who speaks at their facility, don't they?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Peterson and Harris speak all of the time. No one is stopping them from speaking. You can freely buy their books, buy their tapes, see them on Youtube . . .

Surely people also have the right to choose who speaks at their facility, don't they?

It's the reason such types are uninvited when they are a booked speaker, or even winding up unfairly on a list as an anti-Muslim bigot, that goes beyond criticism and free speech. And the reason is they don't like the speaker's opinions, that they spoke criticism and the Snowflakes decided it was "mean" and "bigoted."

But you said that Democrats are out of touch with Americans because they don't get as many votes from rural areas. That insinuates that urban areas don't have Americans in them.

No, that insinuates they are out of touch with Americans who don't live in big cities.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's the reason such types are uninvited when they are a booked speaker, or even winding up unfairly on a list as an anti-Muslim bigot, that goes beyond criticism and free speech. And the reason is they don't like the speaker's opinions, that they spoke criticism and the Snowflakes decided it was "mean" and "bigoted."

None of that is a violation of free speech.

No, that insinuates they are out of touch with Americans who don't live in big cities.

Does that mean Republicans are out of touch with Americans who live in big cities?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does that mean Republicans are out of touch with Americans who live in big cities?

Pretty much.

None of that is a violation of free speech.

Protesting and demanding someone you disagree with be forced into silence does not respect freedom of speech.

 

[Yerda]

They are a rather bothersome and troublesome fringe.The Democrats need to cut them out like a tumor.

Why is it that we are constantly told that a political party that doesn't have enough sympathy for white nationalist rage has lost touch but at the same time mustn't pay attention to the significant numbers of people who are sensitive to bigotry?

The social justice left makes a target of itself and is easy to ridicule the obvious flaws there but we still have a responsibility to engage with people who's ideas we dislike not reject them as if they are cancer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is it that we are constantly told that a political party that doesn't have enough sympathy for white nationalist rage has lost touch but at the same time mustn't pay attention to the significant numbers of people who are sensitive to bigotry?

This is a group who is so overly sensitive that they call people who aren't bigots a bigot. The SPLC thread concerning Maajid Nawaz demonstrates this. The Amy Schumer movie "I Feel Pretty" they even complain her role is played by a woman who fits societal standards of beauty, even though Amy is "plus sized" and some of her stand up routines revolve around her "arms registering as legs on the West Coast" and that she likes to eat too much to get to that societal standard of rail-thin "beauty."

The social justice left makes a target of itself and is easy to ridicule the obvious flaws there but we still have a responsibility to engage with people who's ideas we dislike not reject them as if they are cancer.

Social justice does not revolve around suppressing speech. If anyone needs to engage people with ideas they don't like, it's these Snowflakes who get Richard Dawkins banned from speaking due his criticisms regarding Islam or denounce Ricky Garvias as transphobic due to his joke that targeted Caitlyn Jenner's act of vehicular manslaughter. Even if the target of a crude gesture forgives the one who made it and dismissed it and moved on, the Snowflakes continue to be offended.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Democrats have won virtually every Presidential election since Bush I in the 80s. Maybe they need to get better at playing the rigged electoral system.
Or put more effort into democratizing it.
Tom

If I'm not mistaken, they've won exactly one popular vote in the last 30+ years, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I'm not mistaken, they've won exactly one popular vote in the last 30+ years, right?

Reagan won (pretty much by a landslide) both his elections, Bush Sr. won his term, with Bush Jr. winning the popular vote his second term.

 

[Yerda]

This is a group who is so overly sensitive that they call people who aren't bigots a bigot. The SPLC thread concerning Maajid Nawaz demonstrates this. The Amy Schumer movie "I Feel Pretty" they even complain her role is played by a woman who fits societal standards of beauty, even though Amy is "plus sized" and some of her stand up routines revolve around her "arms registering as legs on the West Coast" and that she likes to eat too much to get to that societal standard of rail-thin "beauty."

Social justice does not revolve around suppressing speech. If anyone needs to engage people with ideas they don't like, it's these Snowflakes who get Richard Dawkins banned from speaking due his criticisms regarding Islam or denounce Ricky Garvias as transphobic due to his joke that targeted Caitlyn Jenner's act of vehicular manslaughter. Even if the target of a crude gesture forgives the one who made it and dismissed it and moved on, the Snowflakes continue to be offended.

I've came across so many examples that I could rant about snowflakes and SJWs all year. The Maajid Nawaz case is a particularly soul destroying.

Having said that, how are we to get people to stop freaking out whenever their overly-sensitive bigot sensors are flipped? The only way I can see is by engaging people and trying to convince them that they need to recalibrate somewhat. To do this we have to be able to explain why they are wrong and why they are harming our ability to have public conversations. Pushing people out of the conversation seems to me to be more likely to put a further chill on speech and provide exactly the kind of environment the bigots want.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know, the OP makes me wonder if the correct perspective is not one of how short of their own inherited ideals the USA public has fallen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pushing people out of the conversation seems to me to be more likely to put a further chill on speech and provide exactly the kind of environment the bigots want.

They don't need silenced, the Democrats and Liberals need renounce them. A Democrat could probably get pretty far including "no more" into their campaign to state the Democrat party and those who espouse Liberal and Democrat beliefs will not tolerate such illiberal behaviors. Any time someone is uninvited to speak at Berkley, those like Hillary need to speak against it.

 

[Rehan]

I loath the SJW-stuff, or my understanding of it at least. Which is the only perspective that matter

Granted that I'm not American I also think the Democrats should focus on the working class and middle class more. In any case, I think many political solutions would solve things for the majority and the minorities. An example if healthcare with a single payer system. That would help people whatever their skin color is, whatever they believe in and so on. Another example is releasing non-violent drug offender and legalizing at least certain kinds of drugs. That would help black people, the group affected the most by the present laws, but not only them. It would help anyone who is in jail for this, in my opinion, non-crime.

 

[Yerda]

They don't need silenced, the Democrats and Liberals need renounce them. A Democrat could probably get pretty far including "no more" into their campaign to state the Democrat party and those who espouse Liberal and Democrat beliefs will not tolerate such illiberal behaviors. Any time someone is uninvited to speak at Berkley, those like Hillary need to speak against it.

Well, you might be right there.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Reagan won (pretty much by a landslide) both his elections, Bush Sr. won his term, with Bush Jr. winning the popular vote his second term.

I was thinking of Clinton's first run, in 1993. So, 25 years. My bad.

Since 1993, Republicans have won the popular vote just once, for G.W.'s second term.
Going back to '88, (30 years) they've won it twice.