A popular misconception about identity politics...

[Maou]

Why not? It works for Republicans. They've been doing that even before Mitch McConnell. Hell, how many people voted for Trump just because it "triggered" libs. No offense, but this appeal to the importance of the unity of the Republic (conveniently when your guy is in charge) is horseshit. I thought it was horseshit even when Obama was President. It's not the job or point of political parties to go along with everything the dude who holds the Presidency has.

No it didn't, thats just what you were told to believe. The most authoritarian thing Trump has done was assassinate the guy I cannot spell the name of.

The founding fathers told us to not use parties to begin with, we didn't listen and now we have a two party system. Aka, we fucked up, and continue to fuck up every time we divide ourselves as anything but American. America was suppose to appeal to an idea, not a group of people. That idea was equal opportunity reguardless of race or creed etc. Sure America fucked up, but The past should stay the past. If people looked forward rather than backwards, and stopped attempts to correct every fuck up. Then we can actually change to prevent further fuck ups, and actually be productive. This blame game bullshit gets us nowhere. The people are not going to stop making mistakes, and that is okay. Compromise is very important because you can get some of what you want, and your opponents do too . Everyone is happy, unlesss your a greedy fascist.

Now I know I laugh at Progressives, I admit, that is on me. I am also present for salt farming. Because honestly, its like way too easy to offend them. You have to question someone's character when they have the emotional maturity of a child. I don't feel any desire or loyalty to follow or believe people who display an exorbitant amount of weakness, lack of realistic tangible goals with an actual end, and leadership skills. How could anyone? Even if I agree with what they say. Just because you agree with an idea, doesn't mean you should blindly follow them and ignore their methods of actions. How do you put up with someone who, for example. Supports Black lives matters or Antifa, and ignores their violence and fear tactics? If you think its "worth it" then you yourself are the very thing you claim fascists to be. I would much rather follow someone like Candice Owens. But you know the worst part? Progressives treat Owens like shit, and are obscenely racist towards her. That once again, tells me of their character. Its rampant in Progressives, Sanders supporters, etc. How do you expect me to ever be convinced of changing sides to the one with horrible fucking people in it? That is more than enough reason to not vote Democrat ever again.

I have already explained in a different post why I support Trump a while back and why I excuse him from being an asshole. Because like me, he sees their shitty juvenile characters and pisses them off because its easy, and he can use it to his advantage.

 

[The Cat]

I love when the thread goes meta.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I have already explained in a different post why I support Trump a while back and why I excuse him from being an asshole. Because like me, he sees their shitty juvenile characters and pisses them off because its easy, and he can use it to his advantage.

But you just said it was important to compromise, lol. See, you don't actually believe in compromise unless it means other people compromising. "Compromise" means other people.

This is why we are in the state we are in, because this is representative of the way the Republican party operates.

If it works for them, why shouldn't we try it out? I'm pragmatic enough to try it out and see what happens. Because, clearly, Maou showed why compromise doesn't work unless it's treated as a last resort tactic of getting what you want rather than the noble end in itself that the Democratic establishment holds it up as.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A lot of establishment Dems are either dumb enough or corrupt enough to fall for the "Our Republic depends on compromise" bullshit.

 

[Maou]

But you just said it was important to compromise, lol. See, you don't actually believe in compromise unless it means other people compromising. "Compromise" means other people.

This is why we are in the state we are in, because this is representative of the way the Republican party operates.

If it works for them, why shouldn't we try it out? I'm pragmatic enough to try it out and see what happens. Because, clearly, Maou showed why compromise doesn't work unless it's treated as a last resort tactic of getting what you want rather than the noble end in itself that the Democratic establishment holds it up as.

Where exactly in my post did I say I won't compromise? (Specifically in policy just to clarify) You need to realize I am implying its the Progressives that do not compromise. So until they show they do, I will continue to make fun of them. Trump also wants to work with them, but they call him Literally Hitler and would rather die. Trump has repeatedly called for cooperation. You can't cooperate if both sides don't agree. So if you can't, you get what we have now.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Where exactly in my post did I say I won't compromise? (Specifically in policy just to clarify) You need to realize I am implying its the Progressives that do not compromise. So until they show they do, I will continue to make fun of them. Trump also wants to work with them, but they call him Literally Hitler and would rather die. Trump has repeatedly called for cooperation. You can't cooperate if both sides don't agree. So if you can't, you get what we have now.

Do you realize how many house bills Mitch McConnell has refused to consider? That doesn't sound like compromise. Hell, he's even bragged about not considering legislation. But I don't really expect him to do anything else. Especially since he's always been kind of hard-shelled.


Anyway, I've always found the Hitler comparison offensive. He's more like Mussolini.

Also, compromise only is possible between two sides that don't agree. There's no point in compromising between two sides that agree.

Finally, people aren't generally open to compromise with "horrible fucking people", which is what you called progressives.

 

[á´…eparted]

Anyway, I've always found the Hitler comparison offensive. He's more like Mussolini.

I thought I was being clever until I typed it in google

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I thought I was being clever until I typed it in google

That would make it easier to compromise, since they both agree with each other on paper.

 

[Maou]

Do you realize how many house bills Mitch McConnell has refused to consider? That doesn't sound like compromise. Hell, he's even bragged about not considering legislation. But I don't really expect him to do anything else. Especially since he's always been kind of hard-shelled.


Anyway, I've always found the Hitler comparison offensive. He's more like Mussolini.

Also, compromise only is possible between two sides that don't agree. There's no point in compromising between two sides that agree.

Finally, people aren't generally open to compromise with "horrible fucking people", which is what you called progressives.

One person =/= everyone in the party..

If you are agreeing, you're not compromising yes. But if one side refuses to agree to any compromising, despite the efforts one one side. You get the Trump situation. Im saying that both sides have to agree to compromise, not that both sides agree to an issue.

"Horrible fucking people" is what causes this contest to begin with. They are on both sides, but I feel that I am on the one with less. Often times, the "horrible people" are incorrectly blamed on the Right. While on the Left, its the opposite. Often times, the bad is painted as heroic. That deeply disgusts me. This isn't even a matter of policy, but on a personality and character scale. Since I always judge by fairness first.

 

[ceecee]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

One person =/= everyone in the party..

Lol, Mitch McConnell. is Senate Majority leader. Calling him just "one person" is underselling it. He holds a lot of weight.

"Horrible fucking people" is what causes this contest to begin with. They are on both sides, but I feel that I am on the one with less. Often times, the "horrible people" are incorrectly blamed on the Right. While on the Left, its the opposite. Often times, the bad is painted as heroic. That deeply disgusts me. This isn't even a matter of policy, but on a personality and character scale. Since I always judge by fairness first.

You don't compromise with the side you think is full of horrible fucking people. I don't like some SJWs, either, but the truth is that a lot of them are not Sanders supporters, as the OP was pointing out. But SJWs are better than literal Nazis.

 

[Maou]

Lol, Mitch McConnell. is Senate Majority leader. Calling him just "one person" is underselling it. He holds a lot of weight.



You don't compromise with the side you think is full of horrible fucking people. I don't like some SJWs, either, but the truth is that a lot of them are not Sanders supporters, as the OP was pointing out. But SJWs are better than literal Nazis.

Thats like saying Pelosi represents every Democrat.

Horrible people or not, you can compromise. You just have too much pride and juvenile arrogance. You can make a deal with anyone with the right leverage. Even the worst of people can be bought, it just depends on priority If you value gender neutral bathrooms more than boarder security for example.

SJW are the loud minority, but the establishment dems are too stupid to know they are the minority. That is the biggest issue with the Democrats right now.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Thats like saying Pelosi represents every Democrat.

Horrible people or not, you can compromise. You just have too much pride and juvenile arrogance. You can make a deal with anyone with the right leverage. Even the worst of people can be bought, it just depends on priority If you value gender neutral bathrooms more than boarder security for example.

SJW are the loud minority, but the establishment dems are too stupid to know they are the minority. That is the biggest issue with the Democrats right now.

Naw, the biggest issue with the Democrats is corporate lobbyists.

 

[Maou]

Naw, the biggest issue with the Democrats is corporate lobbyists.

You're implying thats exclusive to Democrats. Both sides struggle with that, therefor is an equalizing factor.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You're implying thats exclusive to Democrats. Both aides struggle with that, therefor is an equalizing factor.

That's an excellent point, and it is in fact true.

 

[Maou]

That's an excellent point, and it is in fact true.

So when Trump wins 2020, don't go hopping on the conspiracy train saying it was rigged, when the press has been rigged against him since he won. That is also, a fact. Before the results, is rhetoric. Since both Sanders, Trump, etc have all claimed pre-election day.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So when Trump wins 2020, don't go hopping on the conspiracy train saying it was rigged, when the press has been rigged against him since he won. That is also, a fact. Before the results, is rhetoric. Since both Sanders, Trump, etc have all claimed pre-election day.

Huh? See, I just compromised and agreed with you, and now you're throwing this in my face for whatever reason. I don't even get what it has to do with anything. I don't think Trump is going to do anything about the influence of corporate money in politics, sorry. I never watched The Apprentice, though, so maybe I'd understand that idea more if I had.

Corporate media doesn't like him because of his trade and foreign policy positions. It has nothing to do with the fact that he regulates corporations too much or something (which you seem to be against anyway).

 

[Maou]

Huh? See, I just compromised and agreed with you, and now you're throwing this in my face for whatever reason. I don't even get what it has to do with anything. I don't think Trump is going to do anything about the influence of corporate money in politics, sorry. I never watched The Apprentice, though, so maybe I'd understand that idea more if I had.

Corporate media doesn't like him because of his trade and foreign policy positions. It has nothing to do with the fact that he regulates corporations too much or something (which you seem to be against anyway).

I specifically stated compromise in the form of policy, not being best buddies. I am just bringing up the topic of the 2020 election, because it will prove that despite opposition. It is possible to win, at least on the Republican side. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination, it should tell you either he is unpopular, or the DNC is corrupt. Either way, you should rethink how you vote.

Also, I never even knew who Trump was till 2015. So you assuming my impressions are based on that is false.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I specifically stated compromise in the form of policy, not being best buddies.

I think it's pretty reflective of the Republican approach to compromise in policy-making, actually. You did a very good job at illustrating it.

I am just bringing up the topic of the 2020 election, because it will prove that despite opposition. It is possible to win, at least on the Republican side. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination, it should tell you either he is unpopular, or the DNC is corrupt. Either way, you should rethink how you vote.

Um, my interest is not just voting for a "winning" candidate. Is this why you switched to Trump from Obama?

I don't think Trump has the best interests of the country in mind. In fact, I think Trump is a "fucking horrible person." Why would I vote for him?

If I was really pissed about the way the DNC handled things, I'd write somebody in or vote third party. I wouldn't vote for, Trump, lol. He's a corrupt greedy ridiculous fool.

 

[á´…eparted]

I never actually answered the thread itself and it's gone off topic as it is. As per the thread question, everyone is involved in identity politics, it's just a question of how.

One of the key dividing lines I have seen regarding it on the left is actually strangely curious, as it makes the left-center seems more liberal than those solidly on the left on the surface.. Those on the left who are closer to the center seem to indeed be the biggest champions of diversity, intersectionality, and all of the social causes related to it, and often quickly decry anyone who isn't a vocal enough supporter of it all. Black lives matter, LGBT movements. You'd think it's be more frequent on the solid left instead of the left-center. For a while I never quite understood this, but I actually comes more down to economics. Everyone on the left wants these identity issues to be fixed, but the order and way in which it is tackled differs. The further left see the economic aspects of identity politics are more important (I am in this camp) because they rather underpin the identity politics itself. A core reason why many of the diversity issues seem to still suffer is because so many people are in poor economic conditions. It's great to have laws and benfits to minorities, but if that is all you focus on it really isn't going to do all that much to help them (it will, but it won't really "stick" long term), and unless you lift up everyone (in particular the poor conservative regions of the country) you aren't going to develop a voting block that will support those issues and start to undo the social issues that caused many of these issues in the first place. The undereducated and impoverished are some of the greater threats to us all because they unwittingly vote against their own interests and block indentity politic interests. The left-center seems to not really "get" this and wants to tackle identity politics head on as historically it is one of the great unifiers of the left, and they can get quite pissed off when left-left goes "well, we need to do the economic end of this too, and that kinda needs to come first". To them it makes them appear like conservative-like and quickly leads to calls of racisim and the like when it isn't actually present. It's really an issue of prioritization and lack of understanding of the complexity of it.

The right plays identity politics too, but they largely run against it in one way or another. It's more that they hate it or don't understand the importance of it or how it effects them. The right has their own concepts of identity in the US and can get very very upset and angry if it's challenged, far moreso than those on the left. Grow up in a conservative household and its very very apparent. One of the core issues with it all is many many people on the right (almost all of which are in the trump-supporter camp) are incredibly emotionally damaged people who lack the ability to properly self-reflect and understand how this effects their world views and how they can harm others. Much of it goes back to childhood and the overall culture of the brand of low-intellectual conservatisism. This is a major, major reason why so many trump supporters actively ignore reality and facts, because they are unknowingly so invested in the identities that the Trump movement has created. It lets them feel smart, healthy, like they are part of something, and like the understand things at a far greater level than everyone else. To have this inflation broken - something few of them have experienced in their lives prior to this and it feels good/brings much needed happiness - they are not going to allow anything to pop it, and generally lack the emotional experience and knowledge to walk this path. Their identities are too wrapped up with it and they care too much about it, and aren't even aware of it. It's not really identity politics in the way it is on the left, but it is certainly a wrapped up identity.