Thursday, November 10, 2016

The delusional left and the election

The enemy?

I agree with the below by Milt Shook. It's a good response to the ultra-left crap by David Talbot in today's Examiner:

...If there was a theme to this election, it was that everyone just wanted it to be over. Of course Donald Trump was an embarrassment as a major party candidate, but voters largely didn’t like Hillary, either. And one major reason for that comes from the left side of the proverbial “debate.” 

You don’t get to trash Clinton in the primaries and then pivot after the convention and say you didn’t mean it. Everything those of us with megaphones do becomes part of the overall politics...

See, here’s the thing; when both sides of the political debate are saying “Hillary sucks,” guess what the overall meme becomes? Of course Trump sucks, but so does Hillary. So why would you expect everyone to vote in droves when both choices are horrible? Why don’t more vocal lefties get that?...

In short, our side of the public debate is long on stridency, strong on opinion and just as fact-free as the far right. Worse, it lacks any kind of political sense. If you are talking about “organizing” right now, you’re clueless...If you spend all of your time complaining that the Democratic Party just doesn’t cater to progressives enough, you really need a new hobby. 

There are TWO viable political parties out there and one of them kicks our asses every election, which means your anti-Democratic rhetoric would seem to be at cross purposes. And you there, you with the petitions, well, stick them up your ass....

When it comes time to be an “activist,” if your strategy doesn’t involve winning elections for Democrats, you should realize that you’re not an activist, you’re a masturbator; you’re not pleasing anyone but yourself. 

If progressives are to have political success, those who think they alone have the definition of “progressive” and that everyone who doesn’t fit into that definition should be shunned. Those who think that being “activist” means never shutting up and thinking about the political consequences should be shoved into a corner somewhere so that they can’t continue to screw things up. 

It’s time to change the entire progressive movement to the model that Barack Obama put forth in 2008, in which our movement is one of hope and positive development. “Everyone sucks because they don’t do what I want” is not a political movement that will ever be successful. At some point, we have to make people like us.

I know, some of you think that people liking us is “selling out,” but you’re too stupid to listen to anyone about anything. You’re the types of morons who think that making the term “progressive” so exclusive that it takes a secret handshake to join is an effective political strategy. Such egocentric behavior as the “Bernie Stans” engaged in over the past two years has no place in a successful political movement. I know you think shouting “No more war!” at the Democratic convention was cute and brought you attention, but you would be wrong. 

I know you think your hashtag #NeverHillary marks you as a “maverick,” but again, you would be wrong. In fact, I’m curious; given that the Democratic Party, which is the only major political party that will even listen to us, has only had complete control of the federal government for two two-year terms since 1980, why would anyone listen to the professional left about anything? When do you people notice that your way stopped working about 50 years ago? When progressives worked WITH the Democratic Party, we accomplished great things. Since progressives started working against them, more and more of those great things we did have been coming apart...

Yet, look at the so-called “progressives” that serve as our voice right now. I mean, for Chrissakes, if you didn’t see similarities between Trump’s and Bernie’s “movements,” you weren’t looking very hard. Both of them portrayed America as an economic hellscape. You would swear that we had 30% unemployment, that everyone in the country wore rags and little girls were selling matches on street corners so their family could buy soup. 

There is a “yuge” problem with that. That type of vision works great for people who would happily vote for someone like Trump, but it works against progressives and anyone more liberal than the average right wing talk radio listener. How do I know this? Nearly 8 million fewer voters showed up to vote for president in 2016 compared to 2012. Again, Trump didn’t win, we lost.

Put simply, “hope and change” works for us, while “Oh my God! The country is falling apart!” works for the far right. Take your “we have to organize!” and shove it. Take your “we have to fight” and shove that, too. And you really have to take your “I blame Democrats” game and shove it so far that you’re forced to puke. Democrats showed up to vote; progressive “independents” did not...

There are TWO viable political parties in this country and one of them is irretrievably broken. And yet it stays in power because we attack the only functioning party in a way that mirrors the right’s attacks on it and causes increasing numbers of voters to stay home. Again, if both parties suck and both candidates suck, why would you expect people to vote in droves, you dumb-asses?

Milt Shook's list of President Obama's accomplishments, most of which will be quickly overturned by President Trump.

Rob's comment:
Talbot's allies---the "activists"---are right now disrupting traffic in San Francisco to protest Trump's election, even though few city residents voted for Trump. So why punish the people of this city with your jerk-off, narcissistic demonstrations? The answer: because you apparently think this election is all about you and your equally delusional comrades. 

See also this and this.

Labels: , , , ,


At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob, agreed. I think for me the quote that hits home following this election goes something like, Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

At 1:25 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Other views" are fine, until the president's "view" is that global warming is a Chinese hoax, that sexual assault by bigshots and celebrities is acceptable, and that Vladimir Putin is an admirable leader.

When, by the way, does it become treasonous for a candidate and a political party to collaborate with a foreign government?

At 3:26 PM, Blogger Mark Kaepplein said...

Michael Moore gets it. He lives in Michigan and knows people there and much of non-urban America have suffered decades of declining employment and prosperity. 8 years of hope and change never happened for them, just continued unemployment and higher costs of living especially healthcare. So they voted for change. Too bad Hillary and her people weren't listening.

I hope this chart explains the gender gap. It shows an unbroken decline in employment for men over the past 50+ years. These men and those they provide for were not served by Obama.

At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When, by the way, does it become treasonous for a candidate and a political party to collaborate with a foreign government?

Good question. I guess that HRC was also walking a fine line having accepted gifts from foreign countries for the Clinton Foundation whilse being Sec. of St.

At 3:31 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Evidence? Hillary had nothing to do with running the Clinton Foundation.

At 7:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

None, however one could turn that question around and ask why did the foundation accept such gifts knowing the foundation family had a member in one of the most important posts in the national government. Just an observation...doesn't really look good nor in my opinion pass the sniff test. Mind you, i am Jewish and have no problem with the foundation accepting gifts from many jewish people from the USA, I know the Clintons have been friends to Israel and America's Jewish population. Yes a double standard but I am being honest with you.

At 4:12 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I have yet to learn of a specific donation to the Clinton Foundation that was improper. Can you be more specific about that? Hillary Clinton got no money from that foundation, which is actually highly rated compared to other foundations. Did any contributors to the foundation get any favors from the Clintons? You're simply falling for lies by what Hillary once described as the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that's been dedicated to defaming the Clintons for more than 30 years. Those people are now running the country.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home