(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

My guess is that the number of liberals who use terms like that in a derogatory manner is equal to the number of conservatives who do similar things (e.g. suggest liberal men are weak/effeminate, etc.).

It definitely happens, but from my personal experience with my liberal friends, we don’t use terms like “flyover” unless it relates to conversations like the one that’s going on.

So do I need to start using Alex Jones as an example of someone who speaks for the entire right? This is silly.

(05-03-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

Gun control -- I guess you also must have missed the 'moral obligation to challenge a gun lobby callously destroying the lives of ordinary people' stuff. Or, just tune in to anything by David Hogg..... (and in a neat circle this also touches on his whining for a boycott of Laura Ingraham, mind you. The irony....)

Here is a sample re-tweet from him yesterday ---

Quote:"Unlike you, I stood with the Pittsburgh families who were victims because of the anti Semitism you inspire along with the easy access to guns you promote. Do not use the reality of anti Semitism to prop up the FAILING NRA and to try and sell more guns."

Cool -- make sure your opponent is castigated as an anti-Semite. No identity politics intended there in the fing slightest.

Protecting public lands -- I guess you all studiously forgot the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anytime there is the barest of threads to inject victimhood, or identity politics into the mix --- the left rolls all-in at the first whiff.

I guess some are so inured to the prevalence of this to simply dismiss it.

As for toll roads -- good god every time there is a toll road the progressives jump into it lock stock and two smoking barrels about the 'unfairness' of tolls to lower income and 'economic racism' issues. Happens with every toll road announced.

So no, I dont have to twist the unfairness into those issues for you. Your fellow progressives do a much, much better job on it in an incessant fashion.

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

(05-03-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

The driving force behind the concern for climate change is the idea that we are leaving future generations a planet that is going to be progressively inhabitable. I know I don't have to tell you that.

That "unfairness" climate change argument goes both ways... right-wingers have the matching rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair for America to try to combat climate change if India and China aren't going to match us step for step.'

(05-03-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

Gun control -- I guess you also must have missed the 'moral obligation to challenge a gun lobby callously destroying the lives of ordinary people' stuff. Or, just tune in to anything by David Hogg..... (and in a neat circle this also touches on his whining for a boycott of Laura Ingraham, mind you. The irony....)

Here is a sample re-tweet from him yesterday ---

Quote:"Unlike you, I stood with the Pittsburgh families who were victims because of the anti Semitism you inspire along with the easy access to guns you promote. Do not use the reality of anti Semitism to prop up the FAILING NRA and to try and sell more guns."

Cool -- make sure your opponent is castigated as an anti-Semite. No identity politics intended there in the fing slightest.

Protecting public lands -- I guess you all studiously forgot the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anytime there is the barest of threads to inject victimhood, or identity politics into the mix --- the left rolls all-in at the first whiff.

I guess some are so inured to the prevalence of this to simply dismiss it.

As for toll roads -- good god every time there is a toll road the progressives jump into it lock stock and two smoking barrels about the 'unfairness' of tolls to lower income and 'economic racism' issues. Happens with every toll road announced.

So no, I dont have to twist the unfairness into those issues for you. Your fellow progressives do a much, much better job on it in an incessant fashion.

In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

Hack. Coastal elite. Elitist. Hates America. Whiny. Beta. P***y. Cuck. Libtard. Snowflake. SJW.

I’ve seen many of those posted on this board to describe progressives. I’ve never seen anyone on this board actually use flyover in the way you suggest.

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

Gun control -- I guess you also must have missed the 'moral obligation to challenge a gun lobby callously destroying the lives of ordinary people' stuff. Or, just tune in to anything by David Hogg..... (and in a neat circle this also touches on his whining for a boycott of Laura Ingraham, mind you. The irony....)

Here is a sample re-tweet from him yesterday ---

Quote:"Unlike you, I stood with the Pittsburgh families who were victims because of the anti Semitism you inspire along with the easy access to guns you promote. Do not use the reality of anti Semitism to prop up the FAILING NRA and to try and sell more guns."

Cool -- make sure your opponent is castigated as an anti-Semite. No identity politics intended there in the fing slightest.

Protecting public lands -- I guess you all studiously forgot the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anytime there is the barest of threads to inject victimhood, or identity politics into the mix --- the left rolls all-in at the first whiff.

I guess some are so inured to the prevalence of this to simply dismiss it.

As for toll roads -- good god every time there is a toll road the progressives jump into it lock stock and two smoking barrels about the 'unfairness' of tolls to lower income and 'economic racism' issues. Happens with every toll road announced.

So no, I dont have to twist the unfairness into those issues for you. Your fellow progressives do a much, much better job on it in an incessant fashion.

In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

Not sure what you mean by "eclipses everything under the sun".

(05-03-2019 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

Gun control -- I guess you also must have missed the 'moral obligation to challenge a gun lobby callously destroying the lives of ordinary people' stuff. Or, just tune in to anything by David Hogg..... (and in a neat circle this also touches on his whining for a boycott of Laura Ingraham, mind you. The irony....)

Here is a sample re-tweet from him yesterday ---

Quote:"Unlike you, I stood with the Pittsburgh families who were victims because of the anti Semitism you inspire along with the easy access to guns you promote. Do not use the reality of anti Semitism to prop up the FAILING NRA and to try and sell more guns."

Cool -- make sure your opponent is castigated as an anti-Semite. No identity politics intended there in the fing slightest.

Protecting public lands -- I guess you all studiously forgot the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anytime there is the barest of threads to inject victimhood, or identity politics into the mix --- the left rolls all-in at the first whiff.

I guess some are so inured to the prevalence of this to simply dismiss it.

As for toll roads -- good god every time there is a toll road the progressives jump into it lock stock and two smoking barrels about the 'unfairness' of tolls to lower income and 'economic racism' issues. Happens with every toll road announced.

So no, I dont have to twist the unfairness into those issues for you. Your fellow progressives do a much, much better job on it in an incessant fashion.

In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

Hack. Coastal elite. Elitist. Hates America. Whiny. Beta. P***y. Cuck. Libtard. Snowflake. SJW.

I’ve seen many of those posted on this board to describe progressives. I’ve never seen anyone on this board actually use flyover in the way you suggest.

Hack -- that is a bilateral slur.

Coastal Elite -- that is a slur? really? Hate to tell you I can name more than a few I would label 'elitists' from the right side as well.

Elitist -- see above.

Hates America -- Yeah, I'll give you that one. I'll add another related 'hates the Constitution'.

Whiny -- that tends to be a bilateral slur. I did not know that progressives were so touchy about that adjective (or associated noun, verb). Any particular reason that whin[] hits progressives in the gut in manner that you assert?

Beta -- I see that on other boards; not so much here. I'll give you that one.

P-word -- I think that would be more of a generic bilateral term.

Cuck -- see above

Snowflake -- I dont think this would really refer to progressives in general. Just the ones who go apeshit when they dont like certain 'bad' speech. And, to be honest, I have seen this applied to conservatives who might similarly go into the cereberal version of epilepsy when encountering their view of 'double ungood speak'.

SJW -- well, what else would you call a person whose goal in life is to make sure there is no sexism present in computer games?

Libtard -- ill spot you that one.

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

I guess we just just have different definitions of elite. Baldwin makes the newscasts and talk shows and gets quoted. A lot of Tv and movie people(mostly based on the coasts) do. The think tank people just think they are elite.

For me, elite means they think they are better than us, for whatever reason. Elite is is mostly inside their own heads.

(05-03-2019 09:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

Actually one doesnt need to 'twist those items into victimhood' --- it is many times done for us.

Climate change -- I guess you all missed the rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair that the United States uses 108 per cent of the energy used on a yearly basis and only has 5 per cent of the population' thingy that continuously pops to the surface in the political discussion of the aspect.

Gun control -- I guess you also must have missed the 'moral obligation to challenge a gun lobby callously destroying the lives of ordinary people' stuff. Or, just tune in to anything by David Hogg..... (and in a neat circle this also touches on his whining for a boycott of Laura Ingraham, mind you. The irony....)

Here is a sample re-tweet from him yesterday ---

Quote:"Unlike you, I stood with the Pittsburgh families who were victims because of the anti Semitism you inspire along with the easy access to guns you promote. Do not use the reality of anti Semitism to prop up the FAILING NRA and to try and sell more guns."

Cool -- make sure your opponent is castigated as an anti-Semite. No identity politics intended there in the fing slightest.

Protecting public lands -- I guess you all studiously forgot the Dakota Access Pipeline. Anytime there is the barest of threads to inject victimhood, or identity politics into the mix --- the left rolls all-in at the first whiff.

I guess some are so inured to the prevalence of this to simply dismiss it.

As for toll roads -- good god every time there is a toll road the progressives jump into it lock stock and two smoking barrels about the 'unfairness' of tolls to lower income and 'economic racism' issues. Happens with every toll road announced.

So no, I dont have to twist the unfairness into those issues for you. Your fellow progressives do a much, much better job on it in an incessant fashion.

In short - opposing something is indicative of having a victimhood complex. Interesting idea.

It is an ineresting idea. Too bad I never said that. Bummer.

Going down your 'making stuff up of what you think or want to have heard'?

I am providing examples of progressives injecting 'unfairness', 'victimhood', or 'identity politics' into each of the topics that perhaps you think progressives are extremely 'clean' and 'untouched' on.

Progressives do this incessantly. This isnt to say that the injection overcomes the true issues, but for just about every issue the progressives can (and do) inject that triumvirate into it.

Now, back to the original question -- The current candidates do a smashing good job of that 'injection' act. Sometimes it is the entire topic - Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I mean, jeezus h krist, it seems to me the entire Gang of 22 is only seemingly trying to rhetorically out-'unfair' the rest of the 21 in the group.

No - your original comment was how the Dem candidates had no ideas that weren’t BASED on victimhood. Not whether or not progressives inject that into positions.

Both sides do that. I will agree that liberals do that.

Don’t move the goal posts that you set.

How are following *not* based on victimhood:

Quote:Bernie/felons voting (how unfair); Warren forgiving all college debt (how unfair); any topic on illegal immigration (how unfair *and* identity politics -- a veritable two-fer there); taxation (how unfair).

I will back away from the implication or statement of 'all'. How about a real fing healthy proportion? Does that make you feel better?

(05-03-2019 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Also, the coasts aren’t our strengths - urban areas are. I see no coasts near SA, Austin, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc

And if you actually look at election maps, significant swaths of the actual coast votes Republican year after year.

And the largest urban areas tend to be on coasts, near waterways and oceans, because that is where our history of reliance on water access has put them.

New York, California, New Eng;lland, Mass, Maryland, Delaware, DC

A map of county by county voting puts this in clearer perspective.

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That "unfairness" climate change argument goes both ways... right-wingers have the matching rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair for America to try to combat climate change if India and China aren't going to match us step for step.'

More useless than unfair, but how fair is it to you if the Homeowners Association makes you clean up your yard while letting the people down the street park junked cars on theirs?

(05-03-2019 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That "unfairness" climate change argument goes both ways... right-wingers have the matching rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair for America to try to combat climate change if India and China aren't going to match us step for step.'

More useless than unfair, but how fair is it to you if the Homeowners Association makes you clean up your yard while letting the people down the street park junked cars on theirs?

Ahhh.... but 93 has not mentioned the uncanny ability of every political statement from the progressive side re: climate change to be tethered to a secondary tag-along statement extolling the evils of the oil companies. In fact that is another two-fer --- 'unfair profits' leading to the implied class division rationale.

(05-03-2019 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

Hack. Coastal elite. Elitist. Hates America. Whiny. Beta. P***y. Cuck. Libtard. Snowflake. SJW.

I’ve seen many of those posted on this board to describe progressives. I’ve never seen anyone on this board actually use flyover in the way you suggest.

First, I will take credit for Beta. I coined the term specifically as a pun on Mr. O'Rourke's nickname, since I think he is the leading candidate for VP. Second place. Beta. Number two.
Get it? I have not used it for any other person and haven't noticed anybody else do it. It pleases me that you think it widespread. Thank you.

SJW. Isn't that the topic here? Eliminating a food purveyor because they don't like the charities they support? But if you consider SJW a pejorative, what phrase or word defines their position?

Snowflake. Who needs safe spaces? Who needs protection from being distressed?

\Coastal elite/elite. Elites think they are better than everyone else. Many of them are on the coasts, thus most of the safe Democratic states. If the shoe fits...

Hates America. Well, I think some do. Kaepernick would not stand for the anthem because the flag was a symbol of an oppressive nation. No Democrat's rose to defend the right's of people like me who were offended by that. I have trouble reconciling Rep. Omar's statements with a love for America. Democrats are defending those. I also have trouble with the choice of some of the left's targets. what is more American than Boy Scouts and church? I was never a Scout, and don't attend church, but my political views get me labeled. But in general, I would say that very few actually hate america - they just want to change it into Sweden or France. .

the rest i agree, they are largely or completely over the line - but I don't see them much here and rarely, if ever, use them myself. I have never heard a local liberal call me a deplorable - just your presidential nominee, a New York elite. I have never heard a local call me one who is afraid of people who "don't look like me, and bitterly clinging to my guns and religion" - that was the POTUS, and one of your most elite members, and one who was elite long before he was POTUS. There is just a general atmosphere of elitism in the Demo party, and the higher you go, the more it becomes apparent.

(05-03-2019 09:09 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:24 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Hate to tell you Baldwin isnt the only person who uses that verbiage in that manner.

Here is a question to you 93, have you *ever* used that term to describe a Trump or Republican voter? From my interactions with typical straight D voters (a lot, lived in N. California for 15 years, Austin for a total of 7) I dont think I have met a progressive who hasnt used that term.

So as much as you discount Alec Baldwin using that term in that sense without compunction, do you also discount about 90 per cent of the neighborhood where I currently live? Do you discount in the same way the 95 per cent of co-workers I had in California? Or the similar 95 per cent of people I met overall during my stint there?

I mean if you are going to discount Alec Baldwin using this term, there is a literal bucketload who also use it in pretty much everyday communication in the same manner that you need to magically erase from the 'tally board' onthe progressive side, I would think.

I personally don't use the term "flyover". Perhaps because most of my extended family consists of Trump-supporters in "flyover states".

But, yeah. I've used pejorative language to describe hard right-wingers. No surprise there. I'm sure that every one of us posting on both sides of this thread have done so.

I lived in Southern California during my adult life and continue to spend a ton of time there. I often hang out with liberals there. The vitriol I hear from them is certainly not worse from what I hear from Texas right-wingers. In fact it is much more tame.

What do you consider 'vitriolic' language from those Texas right-wingers that eclipses everything under the sun?

Not sure what you mean by "eclipses everything under the sun".

You have stated the vitriol from the right far surpasses the vitriol from the left (you actually said it in an inverse fashion, the left is "much more tame", but you get the drift) --- I would think 'eclipses' would be a proper verb for that, would it not?

(05-03-2019 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 08:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That "unfairness" climate change argument goes both ways... right-wingers have the matching rationale of 'well golly gee willikers it is inherently unfair for America to try to combat climate change if India and China aren't going to match us step for step.'

More useless than unfair, but how fair is it to you if the Homeowners Association makes you clean up your yard while letting the people down the street park junked cars on theirs?

Ahhh.... but 93 has not mentioned the uncanny ability of every political statement from the progressive side re: climate change to be tethered to a secondary tag-along statement extolling the evils of the oil companies. In fact that is another two-fer --- 'unfair profits' leading to the implied class division rationale.

Many layers to all the political arguments on both sides. Regarding climate change, I often get labeled as greedy or uncaring because of my viewpoints.

I always seem to have to defend myself in advance to discussions boiling down to incorrect assessments of my thoughts, so here I go again.

The world's climate has always changed. I beieive that that most of the current changes are natural, but of course there is some portion that can be attributed to man.

If the change is not 100% man caused, it is not 100% man reversible. So attempts to go back to some unknown past state defined as optimal are futile, especially when only a small fraction of the world is working toward that, too.

I think in effect, current climate change actions are much like caulking the lifeboats on the Titanic - can't hurt, but ultimately futile. The ship still sinks, and in the case of the Earth, it will sink with all hands.

The real danger to the world is overpopulation. Nobody is doing anything about that.

And for this, I will get labeled a climate denier.

Thank you for listening.