“I held my nose and pulled the lever for Trump.” (1 Viewer)

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Thank you @BobE for at least trying to (and mostly succeeding) to answer the OP cogently

 

[Heathen]

The extreme shift to the left and in particular the focus on intersectionality/identity politics which I see as cultural Marxism. Especially in the early debates, it seemed that each candidate believed that they would win if only they referenced racism, sexism and LGBTQ more than the other candidates.

This extreme pandering and fear of the offending the extreme left seemed to prevent the candidates from being able to seriously consider the issues. For example, when all of the candidates on stage raised their hands to indicate they would extend Medicare to illegal aliens.

It was if you could get a candidate to go as far left as you wanted, if only the question was framed in such a way that one of the answers called for the candidate to prove his/her wokeness.

Accusations of being bigots were slung around as if that was the ultimate debate skill. Kamala Harris' accusation against Biden was both canned and incoherent. The "I was that little girl" line seemed to suggest that she was Biden's victim because she waa bussed, but her complaint against him was that he voted against bussing.

Warren's accusation against Bernie was even worse. It seemed desperate and I think very few people believe that Bernie doesn't support women. It ran contrary to everything we know about him. Besides, even if he did question whether a woman is electable in a private meeting, how did that hurt her campaign?

To me, this hyper focus on such issues has really hurt the Democratic party. As has the wild allegations of people being Russian agents. Basically, if the Democratic establishment doesn't like you, the Russia smear will be tried. People just are not buying it and they are tired of that obsession.

So I agree in some regard to the hyper-focus on cultural issues to try and garner support. Although I agree that we should be sensitive to these issues, I think a lot of candidates take these matters in their own hands unfairly and in a way that is not genuine, but only for political gain or a talking point that can be replayed as a gotcha soundbite by the media.

I think as an issues-driven voter, my focus is entirely that and I try not to get sidetracked with what other silliness candidates try to boost their campaigns.

I view 'far left' only in the context of the issues. The moderates have to me never been about a paradigm shift in the system. They've never been truly about attacking head on the increasing economic strain on middle class American families. They've become increasingly beholden to corporations and an oligarchical trend. This worries me very deeply. This is why I chastise without regret both parties. It's an American politics problem, not a one party problem. IMHO, the 'lesser evil' argument is how we'll continue to slide into becoming an unabashed oligarchy.

The Republican party doesn't align with what young people want. The Democratic party can't for the life of them ever get anyone excited to vote. This is deeply problematic for what we think of American democracy going forward.

The 'far left' is only that in American terminology. Nothing Sanders proposes is in line with some red scare Communist ideology. Democrats and Republicans alike still use the big 'S' scare word to belittle unfairly opponents who in my view have rational ideas. It's in that vein that I think Sanders, despite undeniably strong support, still doesn't have most Americans comfortable with that terminology. Does that mean that Socialism in terms of a more social democracy is wrong? Nope. And it's a false equivalency thinking popular opinion makes this so.

So I suppose unsurprisingly I am against cheap ideological baiting and hypersensitivity, but I am also someone who believes very deeply that the platform of Sanders for the most part is in fact the moderate platform. I must ask how the campaigns of Trump, Clinton, Biden, etc. aren't the 'extreme' and 'radical' positions if the majority of Americans don't agree with increasing tax breaks to billionaires while giving the working class less, refusing to legalize marijuana, refusing to expand worker's rights in bold fashion, endless wars, etc?

I know that the answer to that question is simply that we've been conditioned as a society to expect less, and demanding more is met with ridiculous scare words by the media and party moderates.

 

[Dadsdream]

So I suppose unsurprisingly I am against cheap ideological baiting and hypersensitivity, but I am also someone who believes very deeply that the platform of Sanders for the most part is in fact the moderate platform.

Uh, no.

 

[Beach Friends]

So I agree in some regard to the hyper-focus on cultural issues to try and garner support. Although I agree that we should be sensitive to these issues, I think a lot of candidates take these matters in their own hands unfairly and in a way that is not genuine, but only for political gain or a talking point that can be replayed as a gotcha soundbite by the media.

I think as an issues-driven voter, my focus is entirely that and I try not to get sidetracked with what other silliness candidates try to boost their campaigns.

I view 'far left' only in the context of the issues. The moderates have to me never been about a paradigm shift in the system. They've never been truly about attacking head on the increasing economic strain on middle class American families. They've become increasingly beholden to corporations and an oligarchical trend. This worries me very deeply. This is why I chastise without regret both parties. It's an American politics problem, not a one party problem. IMHO, the 'lesser evil' argument is how we'll continue to slide into becoming an unabashed oligarchy.

The Republican party doesn't align with what young people want. The Democratic party can't for the life of them ever get anyone excited to vote. This is deeply problematic for what we think of American democracy going forward.

The 'far left' is only that in American terminology. Nothing Sanders proposes is in line with some red scare Communist ideology. Democrats and Republicans alike still use the big 'S' scare word to belittle unfairly opponents who in my view have rational ideas. It's in that vein that I think Sanders, despite undeniably strong support, still doesn't have most Americans comfortable with that terminology. Does that mean that Socialism in terms of a more social democracy is wrong? Nope. And it's a false equivalency thinking popular opinion makes this so.

So I suppose unsurprisingly I am against cheap ideological baiting and hypersensitivity, but I am also someone who believes very deeply that the platform of Sanders for the most part is in fact the moderate platform. I must ask how the campaigns of Trump, Clinton, Biden, etc. aren't the 'extreme' and 'radical' positions if the majority of Americans don't agree with increasing tax breaks to billionaires while giving the working class less, refusing to legalize marijuana, refusing to expand worker's rights in bold fashion, endless wars, etc?

I know that the answer to that question is simply that we've been conditioned as a society to expect less, and demanding more is met with ridiculous scare words by the media and party moderates.

I don't have the opportunity to give your post the focus it deserves, but I did find it interesting that when you got down to specific issues I agreed with all of them, except for maybe the point of a bold increase in workers' rights and that is at least in part because it's too broad to sign off on. I don't agree with Bernie's position that all employees should have their employment protected under a just cause standard.

Where we may disagree is you may tend to see their focus on identity.politics as empty rhetoric that distracts from issues. While I agree that is often the case, I think it is more harmful than that.

 

[Heathen]

Uh, no.

Did you read the part about only being far left relative to the American perspective?

 

[Dadsdream]

Did you read the part about only being far left relative to the American perspective?

Yes, but since I live in America, that's the only thing that is relative to me and mine.
Moreover, the rather socialist BBC says he's far left on their sliding scales too.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Yes, but since I live in America, that's the only thing that is relative to me and mine.

wait...so you're fine with people being able to determine the way language applies to them?
that seems different than previous inputs from you

Moreover, the rather socialist BBC says he's far left on their sliding scales too.

i mean if you're not even going to try...

 

[Heathen]

Yes, but since I live in America, that's the only thing that is relative to me and mine.
Moreover, the rather socialist BBC says he's far left on their sliding scales too.

You use socialist aa a perjorative. I do not advocate a purely socialist government but people who want HC to cover people past the manipative for profit insurance industry are called communists.

I see that as dishonest and toxic for reasonable conversation.

 

[Heathen]

For your anecdotal account (could you link me as well?), I could provide you tenfold that suggest that Sanders isn't far left in other successful social democracies.

What parts of this 'far left' narrative that Sanders pushes do you not agree with, specifically?

 

[Heathen]

I don't have the opportunity to give your post the focus it deserves, but I did find it interesting that when you got down to specific issues I agreed with all of them, except for maybe the point of a bold increase in workers' rights and that is at least in part because it's too broad to sign off on. I don't agree with Bernie's position that all employees should have their employment protected under a just cause standard.

I think the worker's protections under 'just cause' is an interesting topic. From a contractual standpoint, it is undeniable that in America the employer's position puts the employee at a disadvantage -- everything from fear to ask for a raise to unhealthy work conditions, employees usually don't get a fair shake, especially at lower paid positions.

I don't think it's unreasonable, broadly speaking, to make employers go through a verifiable step-by-step process to terminate an employee. It's not what I view as holding an employer's hands behind their back in that situation, though many view anything other than "im having a bad day and you gave me a look" as grounds for being fired to be restrictive. Economic reasons for termination also come to mind, among other scenarios, in which an employer in Norway for example would need to assist in helping find that employee another position. I know that mind sound radical, but I see it as more common sense and as that employer doing their due diligence. Many..heck, most..do not.

Where we may disagree is you may tend to see their focus on identity.politics as empty rhetoric that distracts from issues. While I agree that is often the case, I think it is more harmful than that.

I think it is harmful, no doubt. But when I balance the scales between our undeniably oppressive (to women and minorities, for example) past and the ideological purity tests, I see the latter as more of an annoyance. What level of harm do you see it bringing?

 

[Beach Friends]

I think the worker's protections under 'just cause' is an interesting topic. From a contractual standpoint, it is undeniable that in America the employer's position puts the employee at a disadvantage -- everything from fear to ask for a raise to unhealthy work conditions, employees usually don't get a fair shake, especially at lower paid positions.

I don't think it's unreasonable, broadly speaking, to make employers go through a verifiable step-by-step process to terminate an employee. It's not what I view as holding an employer's hands behind their back in that situation, though many view anything other than "im having a bad day and you gave me a look" as grounds for being fired to be restrictive. Economic reasons for termination also come to mind, among other scenarios, in which an employer in Norway for example would need to assist in helping find that employee another position. I know that mind sound radical, but I see it as more common sense and as that employer doing their due diligence. Many..heck, most..do not.



I think it is harmful, no doubt. But when I balance the scales between our undeniably oppressive (to women and minorities, for example) past and the ideological purity tests, I see the latter as more of an annoyance. What level of harm do you see it bringing?

I think there is immediate harm in that tends to divide rather than unite. We have undeniably made tremendous strides in our society. I think we have reason to celebrate where we are now compared to where we were not long ago. And yet, we are bombarded by people constantly telling us what that our society is best described as a racist, sexist, and we exist in a rape culture. I think that has a tendency to instill an overly pessimistic worldview in minorities and build resentment in those who are in the group accused, who mostly are just struggling in their own lives and are not in a position to "oppress" anyone even if they were of the mindset to do so.

If we have a society where, for example, people scream "he's a nazi" on a daily basis, that sets us up to ignore the alarm when a really evil character comes along. That concern is not something to be dismissed casually.

Going a little deeper, I think that there may be a belief among some that Western civilization is nothing more than a tyrannical patriarchy that has nothing worth preserving. Everything must be viewed through a lense of the oppressed vs the oppressor. People who don't want to even the tables, but rather turn the tables.

Therein lies a fundamental flaw of Marxism, not merely seeking equality but "equity."
Specifically, to achieve equality of outcome (rather than opportunity) the power of the government has to grow all encompassing and controlling.

 

[Heathen]

I think there is immediate harm in that tends to divide rather than unite. We have undeniably made tremendous strides in our society. I think we have reason to celebrate where we are now compared to where we were not long ago. And yet, we are bombarded by people constantly telling us what that our society is best described as a racist, sexist, and we exist in a rape culture. I think that has a tendency to instill an overly pessimistic worldview in minorities and build resentment in those who are in the group accused, who mostly are just struggling in their own lives and are not in a position to "oppress" anyone even if they were of the mindset to do so.

There are people all across the spectrum that espouse silly narratives, right and left. While there are truths that must be found out and dealt with in a common-sense manner, I do see the hypersensitivity as an issue. However, I don't think it's something that will greatly effect us as a society going forward as I believe most people are reasonable and open to some extent and may see past petty grievances that objectively go too far.

If we have a society where, for example, people scream "he's a nazi" on a daily basis, that sets us up to ignore the alarm when a really evil character comes along. That concern is not something to be dismissed casually.

Right, but how many people do this and is that number growing to such an extreme that it warrants a serious discussion? I dont think so. As I said earlier, I think most are reasonable and will see past stuff like this.

Going a little deeper, I think that there may be a belief among some that Western civilization is nothing more than a tyrannical patriarchy that has nothing worth preserving. Everything must be viewed through a lense of the oppressed vs the oppressor. People who don't want to even the tables, but rather turn the tables.

Therein lies a fundamental flaw of Marxism, not merely seeking equality but "equity."
Specifically, to achieve equality of outcome (rather than opportunity) the power of the government has to grow all encompassing and controlling.

My issue is not with a person's beliefs from an ideological anecdote standpoint, rather the problem of labeling anything novel and further to one side "communist" or "failed state food line venezualan socialism".

At this point in American history, there is from my perspective a blatant chasm in the sense of 'opportunity' or the 'american dream' vs. what there was even 50 years ago in terms of economic mobility. Sure, we may be further along in terms of racial and gender equality and I am thankful for that, but it doesn't erase the bleak writing on the wall which suggests we are on the fast track to becoming an openly oligarchical society. It's really hard for anyone to contest that and I would hope it concerns every American.

 

[Dadsdream]

For your anecdotal account (could you link me as well?), I could provide you tenfold that suggest that Sanders isn't far left in other successful social democracies.

What parts of this 'far left' narrative that Sanders pushes do you not agree with, specifically?

Charlie Daniels, lyrics: Uneasy Rider
Well he's a friend of them long-haired hippie type pinko f***
I betcha he's even got a Commie flag
Tacked up on the wall inside of his garage

 

[Heathen]

Does it make you feel good to answer honest discourse with silly mud-slinging?

 

[Beach Friends]

There are people all across the spectrum that espouse silly narratives, right and left. While there are truths that must be found out and dealt with in a common-sense manner, I do see the hypersensitivity as an issue. However, I don't think it's something that will greatly effect us as a society going forward as I believe most people are reasonable and open to some extent and may see past petty grievances that objectively go too far.



Right, but how many people do this and is that number growing to such an extreme that it warrants a serious discussion? I dont think so. As I said earlier, I think most are reasonable and will see past stuff like this.



My issue is not with a person's beliefs from an ideological anecdote standpoint, rather the problem of labeling anything novel and further to one side "communist" or "failed state food line venezualan socialism".

At this point in American history, there is from my perspective a blatant chasm in the sense of 'opportunity' or the 'american dream' vs. what there was even 50 years ago in terms of economic mobility. Sure, we may be further along in terms of racial and gender equality and I am thankful for that, but it doesn't erase the bleak writing on the wall which suggests we are on the fast track to becoming an openly oligarchical society. It's really hard for anyone to contest that and I would hope it concerns every American.

I hope you are correct. I will say that in my day to day life I don't see it as an issue. It can, however, go really bad. As an example, look at what happened at Evergreen a few years ago. Yes, it was at an ultra liberal college in the Northwest but the cult like movement was really bizzare.

But, it's not limited to colleges that focus on the "studies" type courses. I think wokeness captured the Democratic debates to such a degree that the candidates were afraid to even question where it was taking them. Personally, I think that approach was ineffective and it repulsed the majority of voters which is why the candidates seemed to go by the wayside in order of their wokeness. Well, with the exception of Warren who I think could have been a contender if she stuck to the issues.

 

[Dadsdream]

Does it make you feel good to answer honest discourse with silly mud-slinging?

It's the Mud Pit. Get over yourself, kid.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Charlie Daniels, lyrics: Uneasy Rider
Well he's a friend of them long-haired hippie type pinko f***
I betcha he's even got a Commie flag
Tacked up on the wall inside of his garage

Not too too surprising but I think you’re completely missed the point of that song

 

[Dadsdream]

Not too too surprising but I think you’re completely missed the point of that song

No. I didn't. You think too much.