Stephen Colbert Insults Donald Trump

[Gandalf]

We are witnessing Gandalf demonstrate how you turn a left leaning reliably Democratic voter into the poachable swing voter. Its very informative.

Huh?

[The Romulan Republic]

We are witnessing Gandalf demonstrate how you turn a left leaning reliably Democratic voter into the poachable swing voter. Its very informative.

Yeah, keep spouting that party line.

Huh?

He's probably referring to your supposed insults of Southerners.

The Right and its apologists have been flogging this line, or variations on it, ever since the election, if not before: "You lost because you weren't polite enough to us poor bigots fascists Rightists. You Leftists need to keep quiet and know your place if you want to get anywhere." I see it crop up particularly whenever someone points out how bigoted the Right is and it triggers them.

The idea, so far as I can tell, is that Trump's victory was a popular backlash against the insulting rhetoric from those nasty SJWs and such (but Trump's win was totally about economics, not race, honest). Essentially, they want to sell us on the idea that we "lost" (by plus three million in the popular vote) because we were too strident in our rhetoric, and not because of a rigged game and a bogus email scandal two weeks before election day.

[Patroklos]

We are witnessing Gandalf demonstrate how you turn a left leaning reliably Democratic voter into the poachable swing voter. Its very informative.

Huh?

The condescension, the belittling, the inability to broker any descent. This is how you treat people who broadly agree with you just because they point out that your side deserves even the slightest bit of blame for current events. For suggesting you have any agency over where you find yourself he gets silenced via derision.

JL is exactly the type of person you should be buttressing for 2018-20, not brow beating into submission. As has been pointed out over and over again, there was no ground swell of conservatives who ushered Trump to power. They voted as expected in normal numbers. The change was in center-left voters. Voters who for decades were reliable Democratic votes. The margins, things happen on the margins.

And as usually TRR, is wildly off the mark. Its not how you treat the right, as despicable as that is. Its how you treat EACH OTHER.

[Gandalf]

The condescension, the belittling, the inability to broker any descent. This is how you treat people who broadly agree with you just because they point out that your side deserves even the slightest bit of blame for current events. For suggesting you have any agency over where you find yourself he gets silenced via derision.

JL is exactly the type of person you should be buttressing for 2018-20, not brow beating into submission. As has been pointed out over and over again, there was no ground swell of conservatives who ushered Trump to power. They voted as expected in normal numbers. The change was in center-left voters. Voters who for decades were reliable Democratic votes. The margins, things happen on the margins.

Comedy continues!

Do you find anything I said to be wrong, or is that I'm somehow just not polite enough in saying it?

[Patroklos]

I don't believe I said a word about you being right or wrong. Democracy isn't about being right or wrong, its about winning hearts and minds. Did you learn nothing from November?

[The Romulan Republic]

I've learned that it is a bad idea to take advice on ones' political strategy from someone who is very clearly opposed to you and your values.

And it is hard to accept the claim that last November's vote represented a repudiation by the public when we won the popular vote by nearly three million.

The lesson, I suppose, is that in future, we have to make sure to win by enough to overcome a rigged system, until we can un-rig it.

We are witnessing Gandalf demonstrate how you turn a left leaning reliably Democratic voter into the poachable swing voter. Its very informative.

Huh?

The condescension, the belittling, the inability to broker any descent. This is how you treat people who broadly agree with you just because they point out that your side deserves even the slightest bit of blame for current events. For suggesting you have any agency over where you find yourself he gets silenced via derision.

JL is exactly the type of person you should be buttressing for 2018-20, not brow beating into submission. As has been pointed out over and over again, there was no ground swell of conservatives who ushered Trump to power. They voted as expected in normal numbers. The change was in center-left voters. Voters who for decades were reliable Democratic votes. The margins, things happen on the margins.

And as usually TRR, is wildly off the mark. Its not how you treat the right, as despicable as that is. Its how you treat EACH OTHER.

"Despicable", eh? I'm sorry I'm not more considerate of people who saw fit to put a KKK-endorsed gangster/con man who is also almost certainly a rapist and Quisling for Russia in the fucking White House.

As to the infighting among the Left and Centre, it is certainly a problem, but I will maintain, again, that we did not loose only, or primarily, because of our tone, or because we weren't accommodating enough of "politically incorrect" views- either from the Right or among our own ranks.

The 2016 Presidential election was close enough that any one of several factors being slightly different could have changed the outcome, and anyone saying otherwise is pushing an agenda. However, given the timing and the actual results, the two biggest factors were almost certainly the structural bias that is the Electoral College, and the email scandal (and, more broadly, the fact that Hillary Clinton was an astoundingly poor candidate, however capable she would have been in the actual office).

[Gandalf]

I don't believe I said a word about you being right or wrong. Democracy isn't about being right or wrong, its about winning hearts and minds. Did you learn nothing from November?

I learned that a sufficient amount of hearts and minds are apparently really easy to win through appealing to xenophobia, sexism, and some other ugly parts of society. Also, pointing that out makes people feel bad.

[mr friendly guy]

This has always puzzled me. If so called "moderates" are willing to accept racism, xenophobia etc, why would not insulting them make them reject such values. They are already a lost cause. At least if you stand up to them, you send a message to those who don't want racism or xenophobia that you are on their side and they might end up voting for you.

At least Michael Moore argued it was due to the economy why these people who weren't bigots ended up voting Trump.

Edit - the only problem with the deplorable label is that it might be perceived as covering too wide a group, not just the bigots, but also those who vote Trump on perceived economic benefits.

[Patroklos]

"Despicable", eh? I'm sorry I'm not more considerate of people who saw fit to put a KKK-endorsed gangster/con man who is also almost certainly a rapist and Quisling for Russia in the fucking White House.

Got it, so you have zero intention or motivation to woo the opposition. That's fine and honest (and limiting), and that just makes your infighting that much more damaging.

As to the infighting among the Left and Centre, it is certainly a problem, but I will maintain, again, that we did not loose only, or primarily, because of our tone, or because we weren't accommodating enough of "politically incorrect" views- either from the Right or among our own ranks.

The "tone," better characterized as hysterical raving mad temper tantrums, is only part of the problem. Nobody is going to vote for someone who overtly hates their guts. But sure, that goes only so far. At least you recognize this limits you.

The second half, the "politically incorrect" views part, is more on the mark. When your new DNC chair says pro-life postions of any flavor are unwelcome in the party when 26% of CURRENT (ie, after accounting for the swing voters from November) consider themselves pro-life you are simply eating your own.

Parties in the US simply can't be as streamlined and homogeneous in their makeup as some seem to want he Democrats to be. The simple fact is I can support gay marriage but want to repeal Obamacare and be welcomed with open arms by 99% of the GOP. If I am as cruchy as corn flakes but have one dissenting opinion from the left trend leaders whether that be pro-life, anti-minimum wage, or whatever I would be unwelcome in the current climate of the Democratic Party.

The 2016 Presidential election was close enough that any one of several factors being slightly different could have changed the outcome, and anyone saying otherwise is pushing an agenda. However, given the timing and the actual results, the two biggest factors were almost certainly the structural bias that is the Electoral College, and the email scandal (and, more broadly, the fact that Hillary Clinton was an astoundingly poor candidate, however capable she would have been in the actual office).

Did the electoral college change between now and 2012? 2008? 1996? It did not, so it doesn't explain anything really. Democrats can and have won, overwhelmingly at times, in that environment. It is thus a poor explanation for what happened in and of itself. You may be able to blame Democratic strategy not accounting for the structural environment, like focusing on increasing leads in already reliable states rather than maintaining wining margins in competitive states, but where should you place the responsibilty for that development?

[The Romulan Republic]

Got it, so you have zero intention or motivation to woo the opposition. That's fine and honest (and limiting), and that just makes your infighting that much more damaging.

Opposition is fine, even essential- I can assure you that my dream for America is not a one-party state.

However, that opposition, to earn my respect, has to be willing to play by the basic rules of a democratic society- to respect us in turn, to abide by the democratic and legal process, and to tolerate a high level of diversity. The contemporary American Right, by and large, is unwilling to do these things, or at the very least tolerates and supports, among its ranks, those who are unwilling to do these things. Therein lies the problem.

The "tone," better characterized as hysterical raving mad temper tantrums, is only part of the problem. Nobody is going to vote for someone who overtly hates their guts. But sure, that goes only so far. At least you recognize this limits you.

I could turn it around, and ask why I should be expected to reach out to people who have chosen to embrace a criminal who openly aspires to undermine our democratic institutions.

People on the Right has been calling the Left communists and Nazis, saying our President is a Muslim born in Kenya, condoning racism, misogyny and xenophobia within the upper levels of its party, and more for many years. And now, when we get angry, we're told that we need to moderate our tone?

Compromise has to go both ways.

The second half, the "politically incorrect" views part, is more on the mark. When your new DNC chair says pro-life postions of any flavor are unwelcome in the party when 26% of CURRENT (ie, after accounting for the swing voters from November) consider themselves pro-life you are simply eating your own.

Its a fine line. There are some issues that are-that have to be-fixed matters of principle, or we don't really have a coherent platform. At most, we might decide to hold off on pressing an issue for a time for practical reasons, but could not abandon it.

I presume that you have some issues that you would be unwilling to abandon your support of, whatever the potential gains? Do you not?

As to weather abortion should be one of those... no comment. My own views on the subject of abortion are rather complicated, and I don't wish to derail the topic into an abortion debate.

Parties in the US simply can't be as streamlined and homogeneous in their makeup as some seem to want he Democrats to be. The simple fact is I can support gay marriage but want to repeal Obamacare and be welcomed with open arms by 99% of the GOP.

And yet, the Republican Party largely supports discrimination against homosexuals, including many who want to outright repeal gay marriage. So you may say you support both, but by siding with the Republicans, you are likely, in effect, choosing to prioritize the latter over the former.

That is of course your choice to make, but do not be surprised if a lot of gay people and gay rights advocates take note of the fact that their interests are low on your list of priorities.

If I am as cruchy as corn flakes but have one dissenting opinion from the left trend leaders whether that be pro-life, anti-minimum wage, or whatever I would be unwelcome in the current climate of the Democratic Party.

You would be unwelcome by certain elements of the Democratic Party, but you would also be unwelcome by certain elements of the Republican Party if you said you supported gay marriage.

I don't think that the Democratic Party has a single "climate" on a lot of issues at the moment. We are essentially two factions, the Centrist/Wall Street/Foreign Policy Hawk Wing and the Progressive/Democratic Socialist wing, in an unease alliance of necessity (minus a few Bernie or Busters).

We are largely agreed on many issues; including those pertaining to the basic equality of women, racial minorities, and LGBT; a pro-environmentalism position; and the idea that the government has a role to play in social welfare and the economy. But there is intense disagreement on the specifics.

We are not nearly so homogenous as you claim, and the 2016 Primary should have made that obvious.

Did the electoral college change between now and 2012? 2008? 1996? It did not, so it doesn't explain anything really.

It is a fact that two of the three Republican Presidential victories in my life time were due to the EC going against the popular vote. It is also true that if the last election were reflective of the popular will, based on the actual votes counted, Hillary Clinton would be our President now. This is highly relevant when discussing weather the public has turned against the Democratic Party and its views.

At the most, you can say that a small portion of the public has, and that this meant we didn't quite have enough support to overcome a stacked deck.

Democrats can and have won, overwhelmingly at times, in that environment. It is thus a poor explanation for what happened in and of itself. You may be able to blame Democratic strategy not accounting for the structural environment, like focusing on increasing leads in already reliable states rather than maintaining wining margins in competitive states, but where should you place the responsibilty for that development?

I agree that the EC is not the sole factor. I said that it was (likely) one of the primary factors, along with the hyped but ultimately inconsequential email scandal developments shortly before election day.

Could the Democratic Party have more effectively tailored its message? Yes, probably. But even there, I don't think our problem is that the Left/Democrats as a whole took too strong a stance on social justice issues, as you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to be implying. I think backtracking too far on those issues would cost us more than it would gain, in addition to being cowardly defeatism.

If we needed to ditch anything, it was the candidate with close Wall Street ties and an ongoing scandal in an anti-establishment year. Hell, we didn't even need Bernie, much as I'd have liked him. I suspect almost any prominent national-level Democrat, running on Clinton's platform, could have wiped the floor with the Orange One.

[Patroklos]

However, that opposition, to earn my respect, has to be willing to play by the basic rules of a democratic society- to respect us in turn, to abide by the democratic and legal process, and to tolerate a high level of diversity. The contemporary American Right, by and large, is unwilling to do these things, or at the very least tolerates and supports, among its ranks, those who are unwilling to do these things. Therein lies the problem.

I am not concerned in this thread about why you have or do not have respect for your opposition. The fact is you do not, which in the context of winning elections means roughly 50% of the electorate is unavailable to you.

As a strategic implication of that you have established a hard limit to the percentage of the eligible vote you can get. So moving forward you have two options which is 1.) suppress the portion of that unreachable vote that turns out and 2.) maximize the portion of the eligible vote of your loyalists that turns out. Generally you can only indirectly influence #1. #2, However, is completely in your control. Which brings me back to the reason I commented on Gandalf post which is a text book example of how you fail to turn out your loyal voters.

I could turn it around, and ask why I should be expected to reach out to people who have chosen to embrace a criminal who openly aspires to undermine our democratic institutions.

People on the Right has been calling the Left communists and Nazis, saying our President is a Muslim born in Kenya, condoning racism, misogyny and xenophobia within the upper levels of its party, and more for many years. And now, when we get angry, we're told that we need to moderate our tone?

But not on the mainstream network late night talk shows....

The right can be nasty, but I think you would be hard pressed to deny that with every generation of government the opposition gets more and more unhinged whether its from Clinton to Bush, Bush to Obama, and now Obama to Trump. Some of this simply has to do with he ease at which you can be unhinged via media technology, but it is escalating.

I think we can also agree, and I would think this would be a matter of pride for you, that the Left is just "better" and being disgruntled than the Right is. At least as far as public displays go.

Its a fine line. There are some issues that are-that have to be-fixed matters of principle, or we don't really have a coherent platform. At most, we might decide to hold off on pressing an issue for a time for practical reasons, but could not abandon it.

I presume that you have some issues that you would be unwilling to abandon your support of, whatever the potential gains? Do you not?

The question is how specific you are. Is your plank going to be "women's rights" or is it going to be "unfettered abortion rights with zero restrictions and you must celebrate abortion as a moral good and you if you think anything different you are no different than Hitler on the matter." Which way to you feel the Democrats are headed? I hope you can appreciate that that direction leads to diminishing returns when it comes to voter recruitment. Sure your members will be ideologically more pure, but that doesn't make their vote count more.

As to weather abortion should be one of those... no comment. My own views on the subject of abortion are rather complicated, and I don't wish to derail the topic into an abortion debate.

I don't actually think I am allowed to discuss abortion with you should your memory fail you...

And yet, the Republican Party largely supports discrimination against homosexuals, including many who want to outright repeal gay marriage. So you may say you support both, but by siding with the Republicans, you are likely, in effect, choosing to prioritize the latter over the former.

Maybe. Or maybe it puts me in a position to influence others by allying with them on other common interests. This is actually how political parties are supposed to work in the big tent construct. And the simple fact is I don't care about all things the same. Even the things I REALLY care about are ranked, and if I can only get four out of five or one out of five that's still better than none.

The difference between me an you right now, presumably, is there are things I care about that are now getting a chance to become reality under the current government even if at the same time there are things I care about that have no chance. For you, nothing you want has a chance. You seem to be betting that the pendulum will swing into your direction and you can get the BIG WIN. All or nothing. That's your choice, but it seems to me akin to sitting on your couch unemployed clutching a lottery ticket.

You would be unwelcome by certain elements of the Democratic Party, but you would also be unwelcome by certain elements of the Republican Party if you said you supported gay marriage.

We are talking about the DNC chair. And he is actually tame compared to some mainstream left leaders.

We are not nearly so homogenous as you claim, and the 2016 Primary should have made that obvious

I am not talking about six months ago. I am talking about right now. The general character of left wing activities since that time can generally be described as a purge punctuated alternatingly by two minute hates and purity tests.

It is a fact that two of the three Republican Presidential victories in my life time were due to the EC going against the popular vote. It is also true that if the last election were reflective of the popular will, based on the actual votes counted, Hillary Clinton would be our President now. This is highly relevant when discussing weather the public has turned against the Democratic Party and its views.

Was someone talking about whether the popular vote turned against the democrats? I sure wasn't. You seem to equate the "public" to a national popular vote. For voting purposes no such public ever existed. We are not merely national citizens, but citizens of states. States in a Federal system. Both the things you mentioned are not defects of the EC, they are features.

Again, nothing about the EC has changed. If you want to pursue election strategies that willfully reject the reality of the election that's fine and dandy. You reap what you sow.

At the most, you can say that a small portion of the public has, and that this meant we didn't quite have enough support to overcome a stacked deck.

I know using this conspiracy jargon is cathartic for you, but how exactly is it a stacked deck? A staked deck is not known to the players. Its an intentional secret altering of the conditions for force players to make suboptimal decisions, while ensuring some make super optimal decisions usually not possible. Which part of the EC were you unfamiliar with prior to the election? Which part of the system applied to you but not others?

I agree that the EC is not the sole factor. I said that it was (likely) one of the primary factors, along with the hyped but ultimately inconsequential email scandal developments shortly before election day.

Could the Democratic Party have more effectively tailored its message? Yes, probably. But even there, I don't think our problem is that the Left/Democrats as a whole took too strong a stance on social justice issues, as you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to be implying. I think backtracking too far on those issues would cost us more than it would gain, in addition to being cowardly defeatism.

My only point in this thread is that the left is alienating it is own. This is what turned the election, and you are quadrulpling down on the trend in response.

If we needed to ditch anything, it was the candidate with close Wall Street ties and an ongoing scandal in an anti-establishment year. Hell, we didn't even need Bernie, much as I'd have liked him. I suspect almost any prominent national-level Democrat, running on Clinton's platform, could have wiped the floor with the Orange One.

I tend to agree with you. Then again if there wasn't an ordained HRC running around I doubt we would have had Trump as a candidate. You can't change an factor as large as having a shoe in candidate for one side and not expect it to totally change the equation.

[Simon_Jester]

"Despicable", eh? I'm sorry I'm not more considerate of people who saw fit to put a KKK-endorsed gangster/con man who is also almost certainly a rapist and Quisling for Russia in the fucking White House.

Got it, so you have zero intention or motivation to woo the opposition. That's fine and honest (and limiting), and that just makes your infighting that much more damaging.

Which opposition?

Bluntly, if you're a Trump voter, and you're a decent human being who holds a set of political views worthy of modern America...

You got played. You got conned.

This is okay; falling victim to a con happens to a lot of people. Donald Trump has made (and lost) vast fortunes because of just how big a con man he is. He's kept himself in the public eye for forty years by being some kind of mutant avatar of the god of used car salesmen.

But you still got played. And... you expect me to be polite and pretend that it was reasonable to listen to someone that millions of people pointed out as an extremely obvious con man? Just because he was big and brash and loud and rich? Just because he talked big talk about how the 'liberal elites' were enemies of America or whatever? Just because he seemed like the exact opposite of the bullshit stereotype of evil mean Ess-Jay-Double-Yous that someone else built up for you to make fun of? Just because he was the diametric opposite of 'typical politicians' because instead of being one of the politicians who takes bribes, he's the kind of guy who gives the bribes in the first place?

Yeah, pretending that it was reasonable to listen to a con man... That's really not doing anyone any favors.

If you voted for Trump, and you're a decent American, then you got played. I can sympathize, I can retain my respect for you.

But I'm not going to pretend that you didn't get played. Respect for your culture or your values doesn't extend to that. There is no set of valid, decent American culture and values that demands that Americans hand over their allegiance to a con man.

Pretending the emperor has clothes, just because to say otherwise would be to somehow 'disrespect the opposition' that claims he has clothes, is NOT on my list of priorities. Not when there is an aggressively, actively loathsome emperor waving his naked ass around and demanding that we admire his "biggest, best" pants.

The "tone," better characterized as hysterical raving mad temper tantrums, is only part of the problem. Nobody is going to vote for someone who overtly hates their guts. But sure, that goes only so far. At least you recognize this limits you.

And if you read the above as "this leftist guy hates my guts," then frankly you have a problem of perception on your own end. One that I can only avoid by a constant, persistent refusal to call a spade a spade.

Parties in the US simply can't be as streamlined and homogeneous in their makeup as some seem to want he Democrats to be. The simple fact is I can support gay marriage but want to repeal Obamacare and be welcomed with open arms by 99% of the GOP. If I am as cruchy as corn flakes but have one dissenting opinion from the left trend leaders whether that be pro-life, anti-minimum wage, or whatever I would be unwelcome in the current climate of the Democratic Party.

I've seen enough contradictory evidence to doubt this opinion of yours.

[Patroklos]

Bluntly, if you're a Trump voter, and you're a decent human being who holds a set of political views worthy of modern America...

*SNIP Repetitive bluster missing the point*

You seem to be under the impression we have the president we do because they were voting for Trump vice voting against people who as we have learned so spectacularly since November absolutely hate their guts.

Again, its not about being right or wrong, its about hearts and minds. I can think you are right on most things. Wholeheartedly agree with you. But if you overtly profess a seething unquenchable hatred for somebody they just aren't going to vote for you. Or more damaging vote to spite you. This is true for others, there is a reason gays don't vote for Republicans.

You can rant and rave how you are right and respectable and history is on your side and blah blah blah. I hope that's comforting to you as you sit on the outside looking in. Or if the current hysterical predictions hold true, the US descends into a death spiral.

And if you read the above as "this leftist guy hates my guts," then frankly you have a problem of perception on your own end. One that I can only avoid by a constant, persistent refusal to call a spade a spade

So the DNC chair didn't just reject 26% of this own party (sure he backtracked, but the damage is done)? Gandalf didn't just belittle a fellow lefty wholesale simply because they have the slightest bit of disagreement on the causes of their common route?

I've seen enough contradictory evidence to doubt this opinion of yours.

Fair enough. This thread sure as hell doesn't constitute any.

[Knife]

You seem to be under the impression we have the president we do because they were voting for Trump vice voting against people who as we have learned so spectacularly since November absolutely hate their guts.

Again, its not about being right or wrong, its about hearts and minds. I can think you are right on most things. Wholeheartedly agree with you. But if you overtly profess a seething unquenchable hatred for somebody they just aren't going to vote for you. Or more damaging vote to spite you. This is true for others, there is a reason gays don't vote for Republicans.

You can rant and rave how you are right and respectable and history is on your side and blah blah blah. I hope that's comforting to you as you sit on the outside looking in. Or if the current hysterical predictions hold true, the US descends into a death spiral.

You keep using 'hearts and minds' and Simmon changed it to 'you got sold a lie'. They are both the same thing which is why in the last few months you can see Home District meetings with GOPer congressmen getting yelled at by constituents about them voting against the ACA. Those voters voted Trump because they bought into the lie. What part of the lie depends on what voter but we all know Trump can't bring back all those jobs he promised because they are gone and not coming back. Mexico isn't paying for any wall and the wall itself isn't going to be build, at least not in any significant way. POTUS being a brash prick isn't making our allies or enemies any more or less compliant with our needs. But those voters are now seeing their impulse buy isn't doing what they hoped, and as more time passes more and more people will see that.

And yes, at some point, the other side of the political spectrum are going to point at them and say 'lol, told you'. People saying they are 'tired of being talked down on' are basically saying they don't like being told they were wrong and don't want to eat crow about it.

So the DNC chair didn't just reject 26% of this own party (sure he backtracked, but the damage is done)? Gandalf didn't just belittle a fellow lefty wholesale simply because they have the slightest bit of disagreement on the causes of their common route?

Liberal and leftist doesn't automatically mean Democrats and I'll agree the Democrats have a huge issue with not wanting input from outside the establishment. It is an issue and should be addressed. On the flip side, a lot of voters did the whole 'lets see if the grass is greener on the other side' bit and will be back when they realized they got conned.

[Simon_Jester]

Bluntly, if you're a Trump voter, and you're a decent human being who holds a set of political views worthy of modern America...

*SNIP Repetitive bluster missing the point*

You seem to be under the impression we have the president we do because they were voting for Trump vice voting against people who as we have learned so spectacularly since November absolutely hate their guts.

If it weren't for the voters who got played into voting for Trump because they expected him to do things he wasn't going to do, the 20% or so of the American adult population that would have voted for Trump would have resulted in Trump losing by a landslide.

My honest impression is that the people who are actually on the receiving end of contempt from real liberals as a whole are:
1) The people who are lunatics and bigots.
2) The people who insist on defending their right to ally with lunatics and bigots as though nothing was wrong with that.
3) The people who are too sensitive and easily offended to admit they got played.

Now, there are a lot of other people out there who are conditioned to think they are uniformly despised by "liberals." * Who think that everyone from the Appalachians to within a hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean is loathed as an untermenschen by swarms of effete, ignorant "liberals."

These people are being conned. It appears to me that you are being conned. They, and arguably you, are being conned to think that the Republican Party gives a fuck what you think if you (for example) want government-subsidized health insurance or like a progressive income tax or favor gay rights. If you're a moderate voter, the Democratic Party may or may not give a fuck what you think, but the Republicans assuredly do not.

Seriously, can you think of a single occasion in the past five to seven years where the Republican Party actually compromised with moderates, by adopting a more moderate policy? I'm struggling to do so. On the whole they just keep doubling down on radical policies, not compromising.
_________________

*(and while we're at it, all liberals are ultra-elite limousine people AND a bunch of poor stupid ingrates, because when you've been lied to long enough it's easy to imagine the enemy as being weak and strong at the same time, whichever is more convenient)

Again, its not about being right or wrong, its about hearts and minds. I can think you are right on most things. Wholeheartedly agree with you. But if you overtly profess a seething unquenchable hatred for somebody they just aren't going to vote for you. Or more damaging vote to spite you. This is true for others, there is a reason gays don't vote for Republicans.

You can rant and rave how you are right and respectable and history is on your side and blah blah blah. I hope that's comforting to you as you sit on the outside looking in. Or if the current hysterical predictions hold true, the US descends into a death spiral.

I'm going to be honest, I suspect that the Democrats are in a position where they can earn two or three hearts or minds by emphasizing "you got played" and "we're willing to fight over stuff" for every heart or mind they can win by saying "hey, guys who think we're all a bunch of elite latte limousine Ess-Jay-Double-You strawmen, we actually respect you, please stop hating us!"

And if you read the above as "this leftist guy hates my guts," then frankly you have a problem of perception on your own end. One that I can only avoid by a constant, persistent refusal to call a spade a spade

So the DNC chair didn't just reject 26% of this own party (sure he backtracked, but the damage is done)? Gandalf didn't just belittle a fellow lefty wholesale simply because they have the slightest bit of disagreement on the causes of their common route?

I'm talking about what I just said.

Gandalf can be an abrasive fuck sometimes. A lot of people on SDN can. I'm not going to claim responsibility for what he says.

The DNC chair? I'll be happy to talk about it, but I'm not going to even touch that issue as long as you're conflating what I just said with what some other person said or did.

[Joun_Lord]

Where did I blame people from the south? Or did you make the association between "people who would vote for Trump" and "south" on your own?

Like I said, this wasn't only directed at you but everyone stroking their erections about how stupid Trump supporters are. Some made the witty comments how we should pull a Trump-ism and wall off the South to point and laugh at because clearly only Trump voters come from the former Confederacy. Which speaks volumes of the holier then though attitude that turned so many voters off the Democrat platform and still has many giving up holding their noses and voting D.

Why vote for a people who seems to hate you, someone who reviles you for where you are born or live? Why continue to support a group that thinks you are inferior, you are racist, you are just plain bad because of what your neighbors might do or might have done? Why stand with a group that would paint me as ill educated or simple if I still spoke in a manner where words like "Big Bure" come out instead of Big Bear or "Hunington" instead of Huntington with no regards to any education or intelligence I might or might not have, simply a snap judgement from how I might sound?

You have to earn votes, even in former Democratic bastions like WV. That is achieved by practicing what you preach and not treating people like fucking garbage based on where they are from, how they sound, or what others of their kind do.

We are witnessing Gandalf demonstrate how you turn a left leaning reliably Democratic voter into the poachable swing voter. Its very informative.

I can understand the reasons for left wing voters turning right, even voting Trump. I don't think Republicans are automatically evil even if I think those that have been running the shitshow for some time are and pretty much their current policies are shit even when they aren't inhumane. If Republicans gave me a reason to vote for them I'd vote for them, I have no real party loyalty towards Democrats. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it I cannot in good conscience vote for Republicans. I might agree with them on guns and defense (mostly, I don't think the defense budget should be top priority to the point of sacrificing other things and that everyone should have automatic weapons if for nothing else then to maintain the market) but there is no way in hell I could agree with them on immigration, the environment, education, welfare, and especially basic human rights.

Anyone who believes someone doesn't deserve the same basic human rights of marriage and equality based on their gender, their race, their religion, their sexuality, their place of origin, whatever has no vote from me ever. Plus that whole thing of pretty much being considered a devil worshipping font of evil not fit to hold public office or even be patriotic kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Trump could probably sympathize.

Unfortunately others do not hold the same sort of importance to the trees and the happys as I do. Some are more desperate, some have to make the hard choice of doing what they believe is best for their family economically. If I was in financially dire straits with no job or no home or no money and certainly no hope I might be more willing to compromise my principles.

But others have had to make that choice or any of the others that pushed them into the decrepit pussy grabbing arms of Trump and the Republican party that somehow could not dig up a candidate that was slightly better then a former New York City liberal, best buds with the Clintons turned conspiracy theorist and even worse reality tv star. I cannot hate or even really fault them for it, they had a tough choice and while I think they choose VERY goddamn wrong as compared to just the wrong choice I am not in the same situation. How things look to me may not have looked the same to them, I didn't really have a tough choice to make this election beyond if I want the guns I don't currently own to possibly maybe probably be banned. Not exactly a nail biter.

The only thing close to a nail biter I had was a question if Clinton would throw the LGBT community under the bus again but considering the alternative and the fact the country as a whole has shifted to the point where its popular to support LGBT causes not really an agonizing choice.

But again, thats just the situation of me as one unique generic as fuck guy. For others with different situations, different questions, different answers.

[Flagg]

Joun. I like you, I don't know why, but I do. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Seriously.

[Simon_Jester]

Like I said, this wasn't only directed at you but everyone stroking their erections about how stupid Trump supporters are. Some made the witty comments how we should pull a Trump-ism and wall off the South to point and laugh at because clearly only Trump voters come from the former Confederacy. Which speaks volumes of the holier then though attitude that turned so many voters off the Democrat platform and still has many giving up holding their noses and voting D.

Why vote for a people who seems to hate you, someone who reviles you for where you are born or live?

WHY DO YOU EVEN THINK THIS IS RELEVANT?

One dumbfuck makes a stupid joke, Beavis and Butthead laugh, and suddenly we've got guys like you spending the next ten years convinced "liberals" despise them.

Newsflash! Dumbfucks making jokes and a few people laughing is not a left-wing monopoly. If you really, really want to be so sensitive and easily 'triggered' that you'll nurse resentment over random crap from dumbfucks who happen to have left-wing politics, when said dumbfucks make up a few percent of the population...

Why aren't you equally sensitive to the same thing on the other side of the political spectrum? Why are you more shocked by someone telling a "wall off the South" joke than you appear to be by someone telling a "wall off the Muslims" joke? Why are you spending hour after hour trying to explain to us how we'd better not make any jokes that make fun of Republicans, because otherwise the Republicans' feelings will be hurt?

The emperor has no clothes. I refuse to pretend otherwise to salve your pride. If that offends you, then you have just given up ANY right to ever sneer again at the dreaded Ess-Jay-Double-Yous.

Why continue to support a group that thinks you are inferior, you are racist, you are just plain bad because of what your neighbors might do or might have done? Why stand with a group that would paint me as ill educated or simple if I still spoke in a manner where words like "Big Bure" come out instead of Big Bear or "Hunington" instead of Huntington with no regards to any education or intelligence I might or might not have, simply a snap judgement from how I might sound?

You have to earn votes, even in former Democratic bastions like WV. That is achieved by practicing what you preach and not treating people like fucking garbage based on where they are from, how they sound, or what others of their kind do.

Look, I get that you're salty over perceived slights by nebulous random people who happen to be registered Democrats.

Obsessing over these slights is incredibly crazy. You do not have to explain that some people are actually crazy enough to obsess over these slights. Or crazy enough to vote for "let my uncle die of cancer" rather than vote for people who are members of the same party as these nebulous random people who made mean jokes. Or whatever.

Why even bother repeating this over and over? The reality is simple: the Republicans have spent decades convincing red state voters that 'liberals' hate them whether it is true or not, creating this utterly bullshit stereotype of 'liberals.' And now, all the Republicans have to do in order to con a bunch of voters into literally voting to kill their own parents and grandparents is point at the Democratic Party and say "those liberals say mean things about you."

Seriously, man, have some pride! It is pathetic that Americans have been reduced to a state where this is possible, and it is pathetic that you are trying to defend it.

We are witnessing Gandalf demonstrate how you turn a left leaning reliably Democratic voter into the poachable swing voter. Its very informative.

I can understand the reasons for left wing voters turning right, even voting Trump. I don't think Republicans are automatically evil even if I think those that have been running the shitshow for some time are and pretty much their current policies are shit even when they aren't inhumane.

Anyone who voted Republican, looks at what the House just passed today as the AHCA, and doesn't go "fuuuu-" on some level...

I'm going to be blunt. Either they're missing an important slab of human decency, they have fallen for a blatant con, or they're going "fuuuu-." There is no fourth option.

I refuse to pretend there is an 'understandable' sympathetic explanation for how we came to this place, where people are voting for smarmy assholes in suits who turn around and drink beer to celebrate having tried to make 'domestic abuse' a pre-existing condition insurers are allowed to boost your premiums for. The nicest explanation, the kindest one I have available, is "son, you just got played, now wake up and smell the coffee before the con men your stubborn ass voted into office get millions of people killed."

If Republicans gave me a reason to vote for them I'd vote for them, I have no real party loyalty towards Democrats. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it I cannot in good conscience vote for Republicans. I might agree with them on guns and defense (mostly, I don't think the defense budget should be top priority to the point of sacrificing other things and that everyone should have automatic weapons if for nothing else then to maintain the market) but there is no way in hell I could agree with them on immigration, the environment, education, welfare, and especially basic human rights.

Anyone who believes someone doesn't deserve the same basic human rights of marriage and equality based on their gender, their race, their religion, their sexuality, their place of origin, whatever has no vote from me ever. Plus that whole thing of pretty much being considered a devil worshipping font of evil not fit to hold public office or even be patriotic kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Trump could probably sympathize.

Okay, see? You are not falling for the stupid con. I can respect that. But the point is, the people who are falling for that con, they are not sympathetic. They're just making a mistake. It's like someone who gives his bank account information to a Nigerian prince via email.

Can you feel sorry for what's about to happen to them? Yes.

Can you somehow respect them for having made a decision that 'made sense to them' because their 'hearts and minds' told them to avoid taking the advice of the mainstream media about Nigerian email scams? Not really, no.

[Zaune]

You know, I think Joun_Lord is a lot closer to being right than they're getting credit for. Individually these sorts of jokes might not matter all that much, but if they'rre made by a sufficient number of people with sufficient frequency then the cumulative effect is non-negligible, and it does start to affect people's behaviour towards the target of those jokes. Even if they don't realise it and know on an intellectual level that the stereotype is exaggerated.

And of course I could cite numerous reliable sources proving that "exaggerated" is not the same as being untrue. But so could Joun_Lord, and they'd be right as well. If stereotypes didn't have a grain of truth in them, they wouldn't exist.

[Joun_Lord]

Joun. I like you, I don't know why, but I do. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Seriously.

I wish I could in all honesty but think someone needs to speak out with a slightly alternating point of view rather then allowing a damned echo chamber circle jerk to happen. People get so damn far up their own asses at times they seem to forget their shit don't stink, that the people on the other side aren't slavering enemy soldiers come to rape the crops, burn the gold and loot the women but people who aren't that different from them with reasons, sometimes good ones, for holding a different opinion.

Thats something some here seem to have forgotten.

WHY DO YOU EVEN THINK THIS IS RELEVANT?

One dumbfuck makes a stupid joke, Beavis and Butthead laugh, and suddenly we've got guys like you spending the next ten years convinced "liberals" despise them.

Newsflash! Dumbfucks making jokes and a few people laughing is not a left-wing monopoly. If you really, really want to be so sensitive and easily 'triggered' that you'll nurse resentment over random crap from dumbfucks who happen to have left-wing politics, when said dumbfucks make up a few percent of the population...

Why aren't you equally sensitive to the same thing on the other side of the political spectrum? Why are you more shocked by someone telling a "wall off the South" joke than you appear to be by someone telling a "wall off the Muslims" joke? Why are you spending hour after hour trying to explain to us how we'd better not make any jokes that make fun of Republicans, because otherwise the Republicans' feelings will be hurt?

The emperor has no clothes. I refuse to pretend otherwise to salve your pride. If that offends you, then you have just given up ANY right to ever sneer again at the dreaded Ess-Jay-Double-Yous.

One joke? No, one joke here in this thread. Probably plenty more on this side. Thousands and millions more elsewhere. Over a course of years. Done by people who say making jokes about people because of how they talk, where they are from, or whatever is wrong. You need not be a bottle rocket scientist to understand how that might make some people feel a bit.......unwelcome.

Yeah the dumbfucks spewing the shit make up probably only a fraction of the population.....on both sides but as its proven time and again usually the loudest and dumbest of both sides are the most visible. But this problem is certainly compounded by nobody speaking against it really. We are rightfully pissed when Republicans stay silent when assholes like Cliven Bundy wonder if black people were better off as slaves because Cliven Bundy is a massive moron and thief who only knows about hard work and loss of freedom by seeing it on tv. I'm sure the opposition is just as pissed when we don't say a word when one of our own accuse all southerners of being racist cousin fucking rednecks.

I am appalled by any jokes about walling people off, treating them as inferior or something that needs removed from society. And I'm not spending hours saying you shouldn't make jokes at Republicans expense, I am saying you should probably get a goddamn clue and see that making jokes of an entire group, not just Republicans mind you, might not be the best idea especially when some of those people are part of your own group too.

Also I've never really had a problem with SJWs except the idiots who take things too far and start labeling every white straight male as evil and bitch about guys having their legs spread while sitting down so as not to squash their boys. I have a problem with any extremist of a group though. Alot of people who could be labeled as social justice warriors I respect because they aren't just going around attacking people but actually trying to help people a bit disadvantaged by society including myself, striving for real equality.

Look, I get that you're salty over perceived slights by nebulous random people who happen to be registered Democrats.

Obsessing over these slights is incredibly crazy. You do not have to explain that some people are actually crazy enough to obsess over these slights. Or crazy enough to vote for "let my uncle die of cancer" rather than vote for people who are members of the same party as these nebulous random people who made mean jokes. Or whatever.

Why even bother repeating this over and over? The reality is simple: the Republicans have spent decades convincing red state voters that 'liberals' hate them whether it is true or not, creating this utterly bullshit stereotype of 'liberals.' And now, all the Republicans have to do in order to con a bunch of voters into literally voting to kill their own parents and grandparents is point at the Democratic Party and say "those liberals say mean things about you."

Seriously, man, have some pride! It is pathetic that Americans have been reduced to a state where this is possible, and it is pathetic that you are trying to defend it.

Personally I'm not all that salty about it. My connection to the American South or Southern culture is tenuous at best, it is considered fighting words by some here to be even called part of the South. I don't even like football despite the fact I'm fairly sure its a religion around here based on the strange presumably religious garb and body painting, odd chanting, and copious amount of prayer that occur when a major football game occurs.

What I am somewhat salty about is people acting like snobbish shits and making jokes about people to pad their own inflated sense of superiority. I am somewhat salty about others giving them a pass about telling those jokes. More then a bit salty about the Democrats not showing through words and not much through action they feel any differently.

Yeah Republicans have spend decades telling rural voters, not just Red states but rural areas in general, that Dems don't give a flying fuck about them beyond squeezing them for votes in between thumbing their noses at them. But its not like Democrats have actually done all that much to show any differently.

Also it seems a bit odd to tell a group "stop making a thing about jokes at your expense".

Anyone who voted Republican, looks at what the House just passed today as the AHCA, and doesn't go "fuuuu-" on some level...

I'm going to be blunt. Either they're missing an important slab of human decency, they have fallen for a blatant con, or they're going "fuuuu-." There is no fourth option.

I refuse to pretend there is an 'understandable' sympathetic explanation for how we came to this place, where people are voting for smarmy assholes in suits who turn around and drink beer to celebrate having tried to make 'domestic abuse' a pre-existing condition insurers are allowed to boost your premiums for. The nicest explanation, the kindest one I have available, is "son, you just got played, now wake up and smell the coffee before the con men your stubborn ass voted into office get millions of people killed."

I'm sure plenty of people who voted Republican in the last election are having as many regrets as i had the first and last time I smoked weed. But I'm sure there are plenty of other people who think they did the right thing because they thought and still do think the alternative was worse. They think Scary Old Hillary Clinton would have finished destroying all the coal jobs like she promised, would have sent her FEMA CIA stormtroopers into their houses and took all their guns, and let in the flood gates for Mexican migrants and unscreened Muslim refugees. Thats a little bit of hyperbole but still my point stands, even with Republicans shitting all over "Obamneycare" like they promised there are plenty of people who think they made the right decision even without being bad people or having massive regrets.

Were they conned into doing so? Yeah, thats a pretty apt word for I'd think. But goddamn its not like our own goddamn people didn't fucking sell that con like they were a fucking planted audience member.

Okay, see? You are not falling for the stupid con. I can respect that. But the point is, the people who are falling for that con, they are not sympathetic. They're just making a mistake. It's like someone who gives his bank account information to a Nigerian prince via email.

Can you feel sorry for what's about to happen to them? Yes.

Can you somehow respect them for having made a decision that 'made sense to them' because their 'hearts and minds' told them to avoid taking the advice of the mainstream media about Nigerian email scams? Not really, no.

My inability to get taken like a rube (in this case atleast) is not worthy of respect. I didn't fall for the con not just because of my bountiful intelligence or book learnins or liberal leanings or anything, I live a different sort of life then many who were conned. I swim in different circles, I haven't the same wants or needs as them. I can to a degree understand their motivations and lives but it is not my life nor my motivations.

Hell I'd say reading on here probably helped a great deal informing me of the lefts point of view as did taking a peek at more right wing leaning sites. It allowed me to look at things objectively, cold and clinically as I prefer. As a person without a solid grasp of emotions I find emotional arguments disturbing and confusing especially when conveyed by a real living physical person.

You can probably guess why I'm considered awkward as all fuck IRL around people. And don't even get me started if someone tries to touch me, shake my hand or something. You'd be amazed how fast a big bastard like myself can move in that instance. Also apparently racist according to Oxford because I hate looking people in the eyes.

But anyway my point was not conned because I am not really the target of the con.

I can still respect them for making the decision that they did because they honestly believed that what they did was for the best. No malice or ill intent, they believed voting for the pile of bullshit they voted for was better for their lives then voting for pile of horseshit in the other corner.

Was it the wrong decision? To you or I, most fucking defintely. But them, with their lives and wants and needs and other bullshit that makes up a person lives, I cannot say with reasonable authority it was. I think it was the wrong choice for society in general but I also hold the opinion that either choice was wrong, just one was more wrong then the other.

That is more then likely a difference of opinion (I can't recall your feelings towards Hillary I'm afraid, sorry) even between two people with fairly similar beliefs. Look at the whole Bernie or Bust movement that I felt quite a bit of comradery towards who had similar feelings towards the great Democratic party, to the point some might even have wound up voting for Trump in protest, feeling that for whatever goddamn moronic reason voting for Trump was still better then Clinton. That illustrates the divide even between people of fairly similar outlooks.

What we believe is not universal, is not the objective truth. I cannot stress this enough to try to inform of why some people, good people, not bastards, not monsters, not with any bad intent or hate, could vote for fucking Tool Trump and the Regressive Republicans.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/fcc-st ... 202410837/

FCC chairman Ajit Pai said that his agency will be looking into complaints made against Stephen Colbert for what some labeled a homophobic joke about President Donald Trump.

“I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints — and we’ve gotten a number of them — we are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it’s been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we’ll take the appropriate action,” Pai told Philadelphia’s Talk Radio 1210 WPHT.

“Traditionally, the agency has to decide, if it does find a violation, what the appropriate remedy should be,” he continued. “A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do.” Pai was appointed to the FCC in 2012 by President Barack Obama. He was elevated to the chairmanship of the commission by Trump in January.


Pai’s comments on Colbert are surprising as “The Late Show” airs outside the FCC’s long-established “safe harbor” time frame of 6 am to 10 pm in which the commission has the authority to police allegations of indecent and obscene material on the airwaves. They would also seem to clash with Pai’s vow to maintain a lighter regulatory environment for media overall.

Colbert faced backlash following the Monday night airing of “The Late Show,” during which he made numerous jokes about Trump during his opening monologue. Among them, he said, “The only thing [Trump’s] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c–k holster.” Colbert’s mouth was blurred and the term was bleepded out for the broadcast, however.

Viewers took to social media to declare Colbert’s joke homophobic.The hashtag #FireColbert began spreading around Twitter, along with calls for people to boycott sponsors of the late-night show.

RELATED

Stephen Colbert Defends Controversial Trump Jokes: ‘I Don’t Regret That’

Colbert responded to the controversy during his opening monologue on Wednesday, saying he regretted his choice of words but stopped short of an apology.

“So while I would do it again, I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be,” he said. “I’m not going to repeat the phrase, but I just want to say for the record, life is short, and anyone who expresses their love for another person, in their own way, is to me, an American hero. I think we can all agree on that. I hope even the president and I can agree on that. Nothing else. But, that.”

Also during Wednesday’s show, “Big Bang Theory” star Jim Parsons, who is himself gay, joked with Colbert about the controversy. “You taught me new terms,” Parsons said. “As a gay man, I didn’t know certain things — that’s titillating. I wouldn’t call it homophobic. That’s just my take on your good form.”

So much for the First Amendment, I guess.

[Gandalf]

So much for the First Amendment, I guess.

TV (and other broadcasting) aren't protected by the first amendment in the manner of other speech.

[The Romulan Republic]

So much for the First Amendment, I guess.

TV (and other broadcasting) aren't protected by the first amendment in the manner of other speech.

I'm aware that their are certain broadcast standards/rules, but it seems ridiculous that broadcasting (which is in some ways far more relevant now than print media or the spoken word) can be subject to political censorship, and saying "these are the rules" does not, in and of itself, justify those rules. In my opinion, if the courts rule in favour of political censorship of television, then I'm inclined to think that the courts are in error.

Regardless, this was a late night show, the obscenities were bleeped, and South Park, just to take one example, says much worse pretty much every show. Note also, to quote the article:

Pai’s comments on Colbert are surprising as “The Late Show” airs outside the FCC’s long-established “safe harbor” time frame of 6 am to 10 pm in which the commission has the authority to police allegations of indecent and obscene material on the airwaves. They would also seem to clash with Pai’s vow to maintain a lighter regulatory environment for media overall.

The only obvious reason that a particular issue would be made out of this is for the purposes of political censorship.

The allegation that it was homophobic is also dubious at best- Colbert is not known for having a homophobic message, and from the context, it comes across more as a vulgar way of insulting Trump for being a whore, than insulting him for being gay. And while I am not gay and cannot speak for how any other person perceives Colbert's words, I think that its a damn shame that gay rights activists appear to be playing into the hands of the Alt. Right here.

No, I'd bet the FCC is making an issue out of it because someone from the White House told them to. I can't prove that, of course, but that is my suspicion.

[Broomstick]

Why do you assume it's "Gay Rights Activists" driving the complaints of homophobia? You think rabid Trump supporters couldn't make that accusation for political purposes?

And yeah, I think the FCC probe is driven largely by complaints not from the public but the White House.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why do you assume it's "Gay Rights Activists" driving the complaints of homophobia? You think rabid Trump supporters couldn't make that accusation for political purposes?

Perhaps.

I can imagine that their would be some people who would genuinely feel it was homophobic. But they're being used by the Alt. Right here, I think.

And yeah, I think the FCC probe is driven largely by complaints not from the public but the White House.

Yes. This smells like another little step by Trump towards adopting the Russian way when it comes to handling the media.

Edit: In the event that this is political, I hope that Stephen Colbert sues the FCC for violating his First Amendment rights, though I could understand him wanting to avoid that.