The Liberals Thread

[JackRiddler]

That “evil” Trump voter

The Trump voter

[Joe Hillshoist]

Joe, stupid tools though they are, neither Ethan Coen nor Lena Dunham lost the election. (In fact, not even fucking Clinton lost the election, she's losing the vote of the Electoral College, not the people.) Both of them might as well be bloggers, for all their actual influence on making a difference. They are Clinton supporters, yes, who are now supposed to stand in for the vague category of "liberal" in the analysis of those who are normalizing the Electoral College selection of the proto-fascist.

In Culture War 3.0, we are being told that "poor whites" from "backwaters" felt so very insulted by these non-entities that they just had to vote for the guy who was telling them the inner cities are burning and he's going to unleash them coppers, round up that urban youth, deport those Mexicans and build a wall, and cut the head off ISIS and TAKE THEIR OIL (by military occupation, note), and block those Muslims from coming in.

You'd think with such dramatic and salient messages, people actually had a clear idea of what they were voting for if they voted for Trump? Maybe Lena Dunham wasn't the key influence?

Even worse than Sassy Sourstein's expression of intense hatred and mischaracterization of both the people of MY CITY, New York City (a traditional target of American fascist thinking), and apparently especially those of us stuck on the fucking subway -- no I'm not going to ignore that, I ride that subway every day and Sassy Sourstein should be strapped to the top of a car -- is her/his/its equally evident contempt for the people he/she purports to feel sympathy for:

That “evil” Trump voter, who on the flip side is enjoying this temporary glee, will wake up tomorrow still underemployed in a backwater with poor infrastructure and few prospects for advancement. They don’t even have free internships to complain about in these places.

This is not the Trump voter. Underemployed is a demographic lost nationwide by Trump. Sassy Sourstein is some Stimmungsmacher, not a reporter of facts, and I think about as important as Lena Dunham in the scheme of things, so let's finish up. The Trump voter makes a higher income on average than the Clinton voter, and is mainly the same old Republican voter as in past elections: white, middle class and up, but generally with fewer educational degrees. And absolutely angry at "liberals." Sure. That's got a long tradition in America, and historically "liberal" has meant university academics, teachers, municipal workers, artists, etc. (usually thrown in with "black" and "gay.")

.

Mate it is an indictment of a political party that basically lost the election (whatever the votes the Dems lost - they lost the plot, they lost their credibility, they lost a huge chunk of their support - people who didn't vote, for whatever reason.) They lost an opportunity in Sanders and a significant chunk of their support. And because of that loss could well have set back "progressive" causes in the US (and the rest of the world as a consequence) by 30 years. Effectively a generation.

There is an article in Vogue about the fashion choices of one of Clinton's biggest supporters and what her personal designer did, and while more working class, low income people voted for her than Trump, alot less voted for her than could have. Struggling voters do have access to Vogue but I doubt they relate to that sort of thing. Its not their world. I agree with you about what demographics voted for whom. But not enough of the underemployed voted for Clinton to make the difference and that is her fault and the parties fault because if she had inspired them to vote for her in greater numbers then she would have won the bloody election.

That Vogue article is a sympton or a sign of the issues that caused her failure.

The Democrats failed to beat Donald Trump in a popular election. They were lazy and arrogant, obviously or this would not have happened. Perhaps things like the sort of smug irrelevant crap that is that Vogue article need to be challenged in the light of that defeat, and not just those specific things but the whole context in which they occurred.

[MacCruiskeen]

Michael Tracey:

It was likely Trump who ended up having a superior ground game: He ran up stunning numbers in places like Southeastern Ohio and Northeastern Pennsylvania. In Luzerne County, Pa., Trump improved on Romney’s 2012 vote total by a whopping 34%. It should come as no surprise that Trump held multiple huge rollicking rallies in the area, and the tactic — long derided by media know-it-alls — paid off. He won Pennsylvania by 1%.

...

Meanwhile, Hillary’s support among black voters, who were long heralded by the media as her most reliable base, plummeted — paving the way for Trump to secure unbelievable upsets in Wisconsin and Michigan.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mich ... -1.2869736

[dada]

What word should the far left call liberals since that one is tainted by "populist" (woops there they go again) rhetoric?

Calling them moderates and declaring war on moderates is the kind of crazy idea that just might work...

We should all probably settle on a proper term quickly. Otherwise in the midterms we'll see more of the same. The unnamed problem is already making moves to fuck that one up, too.

[Morty]

Cuckerels?*

What word should the far left call liberals since that one is tainted by "populist" (woops there they go again) rhetoric?

Calling them moderates and declaring war on moderates is the kind of crazy idea that just might work...

We should all probably settle on a proper term quickly. Otherwise in the midterms we'll see more of the same. The unnamed problem is already making moves to fuck that one up, too.

*Apologies, been drinking.

[MacCruiskeen]

*Apologies, been drinking.

So make your apology credible by deleting the post.

[dada]

*Apologies, been drinking.

So make your apology credible by deleting the post.

Agreed. We're not looking for a derogatory term. We're critiquing liberalism from the left, not 'liberal-bashing.'

[Morty]

Well then, it's called "liberalism," isn't it? And individuals and groupings are called "liberals"?

[Morty]

Isn't it obvious that Lena Dunham, Lady Gaga, etc, are being taken for a ride against their own better interests (given that they claim to be operating from a lovingly humanist place)? And is it not bordering on the obscene, the extent of their delusion?

[MacCruiskeen]

Isn't it obvious that Lena Dunham, Lady Gaga, etc, are being taken for a ride against their own better interests (given that they claim to be operating from a lovingly humanist place)? And is it not bordering on the obscene, the extent of their delusion?

No, on the contrary, it's obvious to anyone who's sober that LadyG and LenaD are millionaires who know well indeed where their own interests lie.

And you still haven't deleted that post, although you appended an "apology" that's worth nothing until you do so.

[tapitsbo]

*Apologies, been drinking.

So make your apology credible by deleting the post.

Agreed. We're not looking for a derogatory term. We're critiquing liberalism from the left, not 'liberal-bashing.'

six months ago the internet was full of people insisting "cuckold" was a compliment

interesting that I'm not seeing that take here

Morty I highly recommend you not delete your post; the reactions to it are quite telling

[MacCruiskeen]

six months ago the internet was full of people insisting "cuckold" was a compliment

"the internet" lol

interesting that I'm not seeing that take here

"interesting", LOL. That's because this board is Rigorous Intuition, not Aryan Male Renaissance or wherever you normally hang out. What is this obsession you guys have with being cuckolded? Is that just "interesting" or is it in fact "telling"? What brings you, drunk or sober, to search "the internet" for news and views about it?

These are rhetorical questions. You too are in the wrong thread, tapitsbo. You have nothing to contribute to it (QED) and have completely misunderstood the point of it.

[tapitsbo]

I understand it better than you'd like me to, Sir

by "it" I mean your reaction to Morty's drunk post.

dada said it brought to mind bashing and you want it suppressed.

Yet all sorts of people indeed affirmed that the term "cuckold" is indeed a non-pejorative term for consensual activity.

If we follow Jack's line of argument anyone using it to "bash" abusively is simply projecting their fetishes!

And you guys would spend fifteen pages teasing this out if I wasn't here anymore to go there first.

how do you feel about that? what do you think your point is here, Mac?

[Morty]

I was apologising for my directness, not my drinking.

[tapitsbo]

I highly recommend that you not apologize.