Macarthur said:

---

And the right likes to think Trump won the election because he's a great conservative and you guys won the 'battle of ideas'. That's really kinda nonsense.

---

I don't think most of the Right thinks this.

As I've posted, most of the Right thinks:

• They've gotten destroyed in political/social battles when Democrats have had the upper hand in DC (1932-1968) but
• They've gotten destroyed in political/social battles when Republicans have had the upper hand in DC (1969-2020).

The two big Supreme Court decisions in 2015 on gay marriage and Obamacare seemed to confirm this.

Gay marriage in particular was one where the Right was on the winning side (51M to 35M votes in 39 ballot measures across 35 states) and had a Supreme Court majority.

Yet...somehow...the Right lost. Again.

So that's the backdrop for the Right. Do you expect Romneys and McCains to continue getting elected? Or the guy who is going to fight no-holds-barred?

Exactly. Essentially no one thinks President Trump is a bastion of conservatism, especially not economically.

Serotonin said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

And the right likes to think Trump won the election because he's a great conservative and you guys won the 'battle of ideas'. That's really kinda nonsense.

---

I don't think most of the Right thinks this.

As I've posted, most of the Right thinks:

• They've gotten destroyed in political/social battles when Democrats have had the upper hand in DC (1932-1968) but
• They've gotten destroyed in political/social battles when Republicans have had the upper hand in DC (1969-2020).

The two big Supreme Court decisions in 2015 on gay marriage and Obamacare seemed to confirm this.

Gay marriage in particular was one where the Right was on the winning side (51M to 35M votes in 39 ballot measures across 35 states) and had a Supreme Court majority.

Yet...somehow...the Right lost. Again.

So that's the backdrop for the Right. Do you expect Romneys and McCains to continue getting elected? Or the guy who is going to fight no-holds-barred?

---

I think you are severely misreading this issue. Public opinion has shifted pretty dramatically in the last few years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

And the right is def on the wrong side of history here.

I'm also curious what social battles you think the right lost from 32-68?

Zobel said:

---

Your condescension makes this discussion difficult. The point is that, as a party member who I think most will agree is far left, she is not condemned by the party for being too far left. In fact, I'm not sure anyone is too far left for today's democrat party. Bernie Sander's success is evidence.

Populism and socialism aren't the same thing. Saying if you strip away the labels they're the same is like saying if you strip away the labels Nazis are really just super interested in German culture. There's a massive difference in the economic policies of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and President Trump. Calling them both populism in an attempt to make them equivalent is insulting to the intelligence of everyone reading this.

I do agree that President Trump is a populist. And, in that regard, he has been roundly criticized by those on the right in this country. There's a massive amount of dissension relating to his economic policy from free-market capitalists. I think his stance on economic protectionism is wrong, and it hurts our country. I would put President Trump to the left of most free-market capitalists.

Where are the similarly withering attacks on Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez or Senator Sanders openly socialist policies from these centrist elements on the left?

I mean, are we really expected to believe that the Democratic party hasn't taken a hard step left in the past twenty years?

---

If you don't think the right hasn't fallen in line behind trump I simply don't know what more evidence will convince you. Keep in mind that the right nominated and fell in line behind trump, not Cruz not romney (this time anyway). The left did not not fall in line behind Bernie or AOC. Bernie and AOC fell in line behind joe Biden.

Neither party resembles itself from 30 years ago. The dems are harder left and the republicans are more...well whatever you want to call trump.

I do think it's a fair criticism to say the left is quite bad at silencing the far left. But republicans speaking out against trump are a relatively powerless group.

What's the left equivalent of the Lincoln project? Who's the left's McCain or Romney? Where are the Never-Biden-ers?

But at any rate I wasn't saying it was a uniquely left phenomenon. Both parties fall in line, which is why it's silly to say oh well that's the far left not the left.

If anything, Republicans aligning with President Trump should be viewed as a boon by those on the left. He's certainly not a right wing idealogue. I mean just two posts ago you've got a staunch Left wing guy saying his economic politics are basically the same as Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, just populism. You should be cheering, not condemning.

More whatever President Trump is? So not right. More populist?

Quote:

---

I think you are severely misreading this issue. Public opinion has shifted pretty dramatically in the last few years.

---

I'm simply stating that it was a political fight that was won by the Right against the Left across ballot boxes from 2005-2015 and with a 5-4 SC majority there was no reason to lose it.

Yet the Right lost to the Left...again.

Zobel said:

---

What's the left equivalent of the Lincoln project? Who's the left's McCain or Romney? Where are the Never-Biden-ers?

But at any rate I wasn't saying it was a uniquely left phenomenon. Both parties fall in line, which is why it's silly to say oh well that's the far left not the left.

If anything, Republicans aligning with President Trump should be viewed as a boon by those on the left. He's certainly not a right wing idealogue. I mean just two posts ago you've got a staunch Left wing guy saying his economic politics are basically the same as Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, just populism. You should be cheering, not condemning.

More whatever President Trump is? So not right. More populist?

---

In some regards, you are completely correct. The D's took the house in 18 and look like they are on the verge of taking the Senate and the WH and possibly gaining more seats in the house. Twitter world is even saying the Texas house may flip D.

So yes, he has been good for D's if this all comes to pass. Which makes it all the more strange that the R party has so sucked up to him. He is setting the party up for historic losses. But that's nothing to be cheered. He's bad for America so I do not see that as a 'win for my team'.

And I laugh at me being a 'staunch left-wing guy'. While I did say Trump won because of his populist message, he has not governed that way. He lied because he knew that was a successful message.

No point in having a discussion with a partisan. Political talking points are boring. Have a good one.

Zobel said:

---

No point in having a discussion with a partisan. Political talking points are boring. Have a good one.

---

What did I say that was political talking point? And it's pretty childish to label me like you and the others on here defending your side have 'taken the high gound'

Only one person in this thread that I've seen has insulted others, using terms like cultist, knuckle draggers, or liars. Call that the high ground if you like.

Zobel said:

---

What's the left equivalent of the Lincoln project? Who's the left's McCain or Romney? Where are the Never-Biden-ers?

But at any rate I wasn't saying it was a uniquely left phenomenon. Both parties fall in line, which is why it's silly to say oh well that's the far left not the left.

If anything, Republicans aligning with President Trump should be viewed as a boon by those on the left. He's certainly not a right wing idealogue. I mean just two posts ago you've got a staunch Left wing guy saying his economic politics are basically the same as Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, just populism. You should be cheering, not condemning.

More whatever President Trump is? So not right. More populist?

---

There were plenty of people that didn't vote in '16 or refused to vote for Hillary because, lets face it, the DNC torpedoed the Sanders campaign.

I wonder if there is less of a left equivalent to Lincoln Project because the left doesn't have a politician that is apples to apples with Trump. Now if Michael Moore or Sean Penn are ever on the Dem. ticket or become the POTUS, I think you'll see the 'never-Moores' or 'never-Penns'.

Trump is a unique political figure. There is no denying that.

Quote:

---

I'm also curious what social battles you think the right lost from 32-68?

---

If you exclude the New Deal legislation as not being "social" (and I'd agree, although they did have second order social effects), then I'd say the top 5 wins for the Left from 32-68 were:

1. Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. Engle vs Vitale (ending school prayer) 1962
3. Equal Rights Amendment 1972 (including this here since culmination of work done in 60s)
4. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
5. Brown vs Board of Education 1954

dermdoc said:

---

Agree. But I feel CNN is just as biased and affects people the same as y'all think Fox does.

---

Yes - this is a much better comparison than comparing Fox to Antifa.

Zobel said:

---

Only one person in this thread that I've seen has insulted others, using terms like cultist, knuckle draggers, or liars. Call that the high ground if you like.

---

I do apologize if you think that was aimed at you. That was directed to the looney Trumpers. I do acknowledge there are Trump voters that are not cultist.

However, I still stand by the point that there are a bunch of them out there. The evidence of this is overwhelming.

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm also curious what social battles you think the right lost from 32-68?

---

If you exclude the New Deal legislation as not being "social" (and I'd agree, although they did have second order social effects), then I'd say the top 5 wins for the Left from 32-68 were:

1. Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. Engle vs Vitale (ending school prayer) 1962
3. Equal Rights Amendment 1972 (including this here since culmination of work done in 60s)
4. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
5. Brown vs Board of Education 1954

---

So I'm clear, you think those are bad?

Macarthur said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm also curious what social battles you think the right lost from 32-68?

---

If you exclude the New Deal legislation as not being "social" (and I'd agree, although they did have second order social effects), then I'd say the top 5 wins for the Left from 32-68 were:

1. Civil Rights Act of 1964
2. Engle vs Vitale (ending school prayer) 1962
3. Equal Rights Amendment 1972 (including this here since culmination of work done in 60s)
4. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
5. Brown vs Board of Education 1954

---

So I'm clear, you think those are bad?

---

I depends which one, and some have had ambiguous consequences.

But that's not what my argument is about. To recap I made three assertions:
- The Left had many social victories while the Left was largely in control of DC.
- The Left has continued to have many social victories while the Right has largely been in control of DC.
- Voters on the Right are frustrated by this, therefore they are voting for an aggressive/combative outsider.

That's it. That's my claim.

I understand. Just trying to figure out why those are considered victories for the left and not vistories for American and equality?

I'm curious. Those on the right...these caravans and parades that have clogged up traffic (the NJ one comes to mind as particularly weird)

Do you see these as beneficial for Trumps re-election ?

Are they trying to persuade swing voters?

What exactly is the objective here?

If they are trying to persuade undecided voters, this seems particularly counter productive, to me.

Macarthur said:

---

I understand. Just trying to figure out why those are considered victories for the left and not vistories for American and equality?

---

Well I think this clarifies one of the problems in this discussion.

I view the Right and Left as having different moral visions for America, you view the Left as being on the "right side of history" and morally superior.

For you something like the Civil Rights Act is incredibly simple and for me it's incredibly complex.

Ultimately if you view any victory by the Left as a victory for America and any victory by the Right as (necessarily) a loss for America then there's really no point in discussing!

It doesn't matter who it was aimed at. You can't decry the coarsening of the political discussion and talk about how bad someone like President Trump is for our political discourse then insult others. And you certainly can't do that and then call others childish, which was absolutely aimed at me, by the way.

I think as the country becomes more of a democracy and less of a republic the political parties gain power. Rule of law tempers winner-take-all politics. Over the last few decades, we've moved further and further from rule of law as a foundational concept, and it significantly accelerated during the last two presidential administrations. When that happens, you end up with polarization of both the political parties and the electorate. And you end up with fewer people crossing party lines, because the parties are much more powerful.

It's no coincidence that increasing populism on both sides correlates with the increase in what I'd label the rise of the democratic (vice republic / rule of law) view of politics in this country.

The Overton window is lurching hard left in this country, and it drags the entire political spectrum with it. Personally I think this is an unstable trend, and left unchecked I think it will result in a political Minsky Moment. If it doesn't, it will be the first time in history.

Zobel said:

---

It doesn't matter who it was aimed at. You can't decry the coarsening of the political discussion and talk about how bad someone like President Trump is for our political discourse then insult others. And you certainly can't do that and then call others childish, which was absolutely aimed at me, by the way.

---

Point taken.

So help me understand why the civil rights act was bad?

Frok said:

---

You are not a bad person if you vote for Trump

---

Agreed. And you are not a bad person if you vote for Biden. You are not a bad person if you vote 3rd party. You are not a bad person if you don't vote.

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

You are not a bad person if you vote for Trump

---

Agreed. And you are not a bad person if you vote for Biden. You are not a bad person if you vote 3rd party. You are not a bad person if you don't vote.

---

Agree.

And you are not going to hell if you do not believe in ECT hell.

Haha, well played.

dermdoc said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

You are not a bad person if you vote for Trump

---

Agreed. And you are not a bad person if you vote for Biden. You are not a bad person if you vote 3rd party. You are not a bad person if you don't vote.

---

Agree.

And you are not going to hell if you do not believe in ECT hell.

---

Agreed, or reject Penal Substitution, sola scriptura, or are Catholic. Now, the violent, otoh, lol

PacifistAg said:

---

Frok said:

---

You are not a bad person if you vote for Trump

---

Agreed. And you are not a bad person if you vote for Biden. You are not a bad person if you vote 3rd party. You are not a bad person if you don't vote.

---

Of course. The "bad person" is generally the attack by the left wing right now. I felt pressure not to say who I voted for out of fear of being labeled every bad label thrown around in America.

The example in the reverse would be, "You aren't a Christian if you vote for Biden". You can be a Christian and be wrong.

Not voting is for wussies

Macarthur said:

---

So help me understand why the civil rights act was bad?

---

I wouldn't say that it's "good" or "bad", but it creates problematic issues in the same way that the Patriot Act does.

The problem with legally-enforced segregation like you had in the 50s wasn't that black and white schools couldn't be equal, because with proper funding they could be. That was even noted in Brown vs Board of Education.

No, the problem was that these laws trampled over the First Amendement's implied right to freedom of association. In other words, if a black family and a white family want to send their kids to school with each other, do business with each other, be part of a social club together, etc. then as Americans they should fundamentally have the freedom to do so.

The government should have no say in how private individuals and organizations wish to associate.

So from the perspective of the Right the dramatically expanded role for the federal government in enforcing private behavioral guidelines is problematic to say the least. Expanding the federal Civil Rights Commission, creating a new presidential agency (EEOC) with the power to file lawsuits, conduct investigations, order remedies/compensation, etc., laying out hiring practices for companies, etc.

Maybe you disagree, that's fine.

Serotonin said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So help me understand why the civil rights act was bad?

---

I wouldn't say that it's "good" or "bad", but it creates problematic issues in the same way that the Patriot Act does.

The problem with legally-enforced segregation like you had in the 50s wasn't that black and white schools couldn't be equal, because with proper funding they could be. That was even noted in Brown vs Board of Education.

No, the problem was that these laws trampled over the First Amendement's implied right to freedom of association. In other words, if a black family and a white family want to send their kids to school with each other, do business with each other, be part of a social club together, etc. then as Americans they should fundamentally have the freedom to do so.

The government should have no say in how private individuals and organizations wish to associate.

So from the perspective of the Right the dramatically expanded role for the federal government in enforcing private behavioral guidelines is problematic to say the least. Expanding the federal Civil Rights Commission, creating a new presidential agency (EEOC) with the power to file lawsuits, conduct investigations, order remedies/compensation, etc., laying out hiring practices for companies, etc.

Maybe you disagree, that's fine.

---

Ah, so the old if I'm a business and want to discriminate, I should have the freedom to do so.

You're right. I disagree.

Macarthur said:

---

I'm curious. Those on the right...these caravans and parades that have clogged up traffic (the NJ one comes to mind as particularly weird)

Do you see these as beneficial for Trumps re-election ?

Are they trying to persuade swing voters?

What exactly is the objective here?

If they are trying to persuade undecided voters, this seems particularly counter productive, to me.

---

I am still genuinely curious if anyone on the right can shed some light on this?

Whether it is pro-life issues or religious freedom, Trump seems to have a better understanding of the priorities of faithful Christians.

Quote:

---

I am still genuinely curious if anyone on the right can shed some light on this?

---

its exactly what you think it is - frustrated people doing stupid things because everyone keeps calling them stupid.

Quote:

---

Whether it is pro-life issues or religious freedom, Trump seems to have a better understanding of the priorities of faithful Christians.

---

Don't troll Pacifist so blatantly.