Fucking idiots the lot of em...

A more robust assortment of stupid fucks you will not find.

Perfectly positioned to influence George W. Bush and the PNAC people.

Do stupid people wear that hat, or does the hat make people stupid?

to pander to, all while insulting Democratic voters.

I find it fascinating that people who claim the Democratic party is too much like the GOP now seek to remake the party in the image of the GOP.

Yeppers ...

I feel that mega doses of hot mugs full of cocoa and marshmallows, hugging it out with them, and kissing their arses will do the trick, especially do the trick on those tRumputin voters who would probably think that PNAC was a shortened term for the word Peanut (And probably none of them even KNOWS what PNAC is or means)

Are you saying DUers want that? If not, then who?

(and not call them by the terms they use to identify themselves) that the voters that really matter are Trump voters, and that we have to placate them--whether by excusing away white supremacy and misogyny, or abandoning gun control and abortion rights. Meanwhile, the Democratic base suffers from "stockholm syndrome," votes with our vagainas, or our votes shouldn't even count because we represent the "confederacy."

The entire argument about assuaging the ego of white male right wingers and ignoring "identity politics"--the concerns of non-white men--is to remake the image of the GOP.

The fact is there is a great deal of ultra-reactionary ideology being championed as "progressive." When the goal is to turn the clock back 50 or more years, that's regressive, not progressive.

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I haven't seen that here at DU. Could you flesh that out with a link to a thread where "ultra-reactionary ideology" received support from DUers?

I don't read every thread and don't read every post in the threads I do read, so apparently I missed it.

Nor have I seen support for placating neo-nazis and misogynists. I've see several threads arguing that not all Trump voters are racists and other threads arguing the Democratic Party needs to hone its policies and message to attract the rust belt voters we lost in the states that swung the election to Trump, but I really haven't seen anything that could honestly be termed support for changing core Democratic values on racism, sexism, abortion rights, etc.

Do you have direct quotes with DUers asserting "the voters that really matter are Trump voters" and "our votes shouldn't even count because we represent the "confederacy."?"

That's some pretty crazy shit, which I would expect from a RW mole but not from a real DUer. Anyone expressing such nonsense should be trounced upon vehemently, and most likely removed.

because such a post would be hidden, as you well know.

The disparaging remark about "the confederacy" came from a candidate during the primary. We then saw a spate of threads about how those states shouldn't even count. That same candidate argued that the diverse states put relatively early in the primary process (after Iowa and NH) "distorted reality" by voting before the predominantly white Western caucus states. I agree it was wholly offensive, but since it served the purpose of promoting the only thing that mattered--one man's political career, it was justified. Also offensive were multiple threads insisting African Americans suffered from "Stockholm Syndrome" for failing to vote as told, whereas women voted with our "vaginas" because we lacked the capacity for reason. We also heard great outrage that 1) The Clinton campaign informed Nevada voters they could legally register at caucus sites and 2) that the elderly and disabled were allowed to vote by proxy at another Western state caucus. It became clearly that no one's voting rights were too insignificant to dispense with in order to promote one candidate, and if that meant keeping historically disenfranchised citizens from voting, so be it. (I invite you to conduct searches by the terms I quoted above if you care to see examples.)

Juxtapose those attacks on the subaltern with the post election mantra about the white working class.
Now, evidently working class has come to be defined as people who make over $75-$100k a year, since voters who earn less than that voted for Clinton by wide margins. You see, the majority of voters who earn less than the Trump threshold of $75k are in fact women and people of color--the actual working class. But that a guy in Indiana who makes $150k is pissed off a black person is able to make $40k means we should cater to their sense of outrage.

As for your assessment:

I agree it is something no progressive or Democrat should argue, but many disagree. In fact, that--and comments disparaging Planned Parenthood, unions, and any number of civil rights leaders as "establishment"-- are taken as gospel. We are told that those who disparage "the confederacy," and who juxtaposes registered Democrats to "real people" are not only justified, they represent "real leaders" too superior to be criticized. I will not obey. I care about principles like voting rights and human equality far more than any politician's career, and it is that refusal to elevate one man's career over the rights of citizens that has promoted me to be targeted for well over a year with insults of being a "corporatist" and "Third Way" (whereas prior to that I was too "radical" for caring about the very same issues).

Of all the extreme accusations you've made, the only one I remember seeing is the "Stockholm Syndrome" nonsense, which was roundly criticized.

The way I see it, you've been taking a strand of truth and twisting it considerably. I suspect you were vehemently against the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and will twist those strands to suit a narrative in demonizing him.

Without providing links and actual quotes I can only judge by what you've written, which appears to be extremely slanted. If all the posts you refer to were hidden, then the ideas expressed therein most certainly do not represent even a significant minority of regular DU members.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply.

who need Obamacare benefits to survive. All those idiots voted for Trump and are now worried? Oh really you won't worried when he said he wanted to repeal it the whole campaign. The stupid is unmatched

Real projection of multi GWBush antics on to Obama . Bet he thinks Obama was in charge for the Iraq war and the whole recession thing too . Obama is to blame for it all in their pea size brainsMAGA YEAHWOOHOO

even though that one happened while George HW Bush was President.

I'll say it again, there are tens of millions of people in the US who are, essentially, batshit crazy.

It is almost like they are hypnotized. The light bulb is clearly not on and yet the mouth moves and words come tumbling out.

" target="_blank">

the dumbing down of America has worked. hope this idiot sees this and knows why it's being passed around as the ultimate example of brainwashing.

...without the Democratic Party going backward. So much of Trump's support is rooted in white identity politics (the growing white backlash to racial progress and multiculturalism) and an opposition to what some call political correctness--what I call basic human decency.

Most fake news is geared toward the likes of those who support Trump, because they're the ones who are drawn to it like flies are drawn to manure. It would be a mistake to not recognize that tens of millions of people in the US subscribe to patently false beliefs (see post #20 above). They've created an alternate reality from which there's no return.

They have to be outnumbered.

I'd start by asking him what year it is. And then, what year did 9/11 occur. Next, what year was Obama first elected. And then, assuming he answers those questions correctly, who was President on September 11, 2001.

Of course, chances are, he's extremely vague about all of these details.

It's hard to tell just how old the man with the Trump cap is. But to be a bit fair to him, history is one of the very worst subjects taught in public schools. The other is biology, and they're both taught badly for similar reasons. One is that all too often the football coach is assigned to teach either biology or history, and that poor man, while probably a pretty good coach, never took another history or biology class after he graduated high school himself.

And even if the biology and history teachers are actually certified history or biology teachers, the biology teacher is terrified to teach real biology, evolution for example, for fear the asshole fundamentalists will rise up and try to get him fired, and the history teacher has a text book that is sadly out of date, and even the best history classes are lucky to get to the beginning of the 20th century.

Were I in charge, we'd have non apologetic teachers of biology doing their job. And there'd be a one semester, maybe even only a six week class in modern history, and would cover the most recent 25 years or so. Which means kids would learn (if we're lucky) the events that have most strongly shaped the present.

Alas, I'm not in charge.

]

When faced with a microphone in there face do not always speak well.. This person did not speak well ... And made a fool of himself.

as if he'd been President that day.

Back in 8th grade, my wonderful social studies teacher spent a bit of time getting us to understand that it was important to know the order in which events occurred. It was okay (but just barely) that you didn't know the exact years of the Civil War, for instance, but you sure as hell needed to know that it came after the American Revolution and before WWI. Similarly, you'd better know that the War of 1812 came after the Revolution. And so on. While I myself am a stickler for exact dates, I won't fault you for not knowing them, as long as you know that Bill Clinton was President before George W. Bush, and that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch.

Right now climate scientists are frantically putting a whole lot of their research out of this country so that it can't be silenced or destroyed.

One real problem with our growing reliance on information held electronically and sometimes only electronically, is that it can be messed with all too easily. Then there's the problem of the development of different kinds of electronic or digital storage. Remember 8 track tapes? Remember the old floppy disks that I think were about 10 inches across? The earlier generation of computers where everything was stored on a tape? Old reel-to-reel?

One of the reasons I obsessively back up stuff that's important to me both on various flash drives and with hard copy is that I don't want certain things lost. As it is, not too long ago I came across an older thumb drive that I was pretty sure I'd saved some stuff to, and my computer thought it was blank.

More importantly, a friend who is the office manager of a local church got involved in a project trying to recover some church history that had been saved on to some old and no longer used computer system and was having a very difficult time getting anything.

Hell, maybe the dinosaurs developed a technological civilization not long before they were all killed by the asteroid and the reason we don't know about that is that they'd destroyed all their physical books, went completely digital, and all was lost in the impact. Sounds like the background for some sort of s-f story, come to think of it.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Did the idiot get his "facts" from that kind of BS website? No telling in this age of "fake news" and misinformation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-now-blaming-obama-for-embarrassing-override-of-his-veto_us_57edacd1e4b082aad9ba8595

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2670439

It's a problem that poses a serious threat and deserves far more attention.

Among other things, Democrats should be advocating for schools to promote media literacy and critical thinking. And every time Democratic Party officials appear on Meet the Press or some similar show, they should draw attention to how Republicans (be they media personalities or elected officials) are complicit in people subscribing to patently false beliefs (and how they should be ashamed of that).

As I wrote above, very few Trump supporters can be reached by the Democratic Party. Charles Pierce, in response to a quote from a Trump supporter, wrote the following:

It may be 99%, it may be 80%, who knows?

But I do think that there should be some outreach, particularly in those counties and precincts that voted for President Obama in 2008 & 2012 before fallinga for Trump's BS in 2016. To that end, I think we're better served by attacking Trump than by attacking Trump supporters as a group. It isn't easy when so many of them are assholes, but there are some who are not only reachable, but will be key to turning against Trump in 4 years. We may Blast them as a group in private and in places like DU, but the DNC will need to flip some of them in 2020. JMHO.

It's not clear that this is the only problem of the guy in the op, but it is a BIG problem. With the best TV news sources only being accurate 54% of the time according to punditfact (CNN) and the worst at 22% (Fox), the USA is in big trouble.