Can someone explain the pipeline to me? I'm surprised this kind of thing is happening with Obama still as president, I figure there's something major I'm missing. My knowledge on it is thin at best
Oil company has support of the state government and uses legal chicanery to get around environmental impact studies. Wants to build pipeline on Native American land but just off the reservation, underneath a major water source for the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Which they are understandably concerned about.
Bonus: the original route was nixed because of concerns that it would negatively affect Bismarck's water supply.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Can someone explain the pipeline to me? I'm surprised this kind of thing is happening with Obama still as president, I figure there's something major I'm missing. My knowledge on it is thin at best
Oil company has support of the state government and uses legal chicanery to get around environmental impact studies. Wants to build pipeline on Native American land but just off the reservation, underneath a major water source for the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Which they are understandably concerned about.
Bonus: the original route was nixed because of concerns that it would negatively affect Bismarck's water supply.
Can someone explain the pipeline to me? I'm surprised this kind of thing is happening with Obama still as president, I figure there's something major I'm missing. My knowledge on it is thin at best
Oil company has support of the state government and uses legal chicanery to get around environmental impact studies. Wants to build pipeline on Native American land but just off the reservation, underneath a major water source for the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Which they are understandably concerned about.
Bonus: the original route was nixed because of concerns that it would negatively affect Bismarck's water supply.
Oh, that just makes me laugh harder and with more tears.
Bismarck's water supply, can't touch that, but the tribe's? Yeah, fuck them.
:biggrin:
I'm wondering how much of that is a result of veterans showing up and getting involved. That's one of the few groups that assholes can't get away with fucking with. So that probably means we're in for a shit show in North Dakota once Trump can fuck around with things because that stupid fucker will not understand the concept limits.
Can someone explain the pipeline to me? I'm surprised this kind of thing is happening with Obama still as president, I figure there's something major I'm missing. My knowledge on it is thin at best
Oil company has support of the state government and uses legal chicanery to get around environmental impact studies. Wants to build pipeline on Native American land but just off the reservation, underneath a major water source for the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Which they are understandably concerned about.
Bonus: the original route was nixed because of concerns that it would negatively affect Bismarck's water supply.
Oh, that just makes me laugh harder and with more tears.
Bismarck's water supply, can't touch that, but the tribe's? Yeah, fuck them.
:biggrin:
I had read that's not exactly the reason the original route was nixed. It was also 11 miles longer and included additional water crossings.
It's not exactly a case where the people of Bismarck were more important.
Marathon on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
So, the latest bullshit from the rightwing conspiracy machine has incited someone to violence.
You know whats sad. I find myself being literally afraid that white men I meet might be trump supporters. I want to interact with white people, espescially men as little as possible for my own safety and that of my family.
You know whats sad. I find myself being literally afraid that white men I meet might be trump supporters. I want to interact with white people, espescially men as little as possible for my own safety and that of my family.
And I'm a white guy myself!
Ditto.
I am somewhat comforted that I am in the bay area, but we're not immune from this kind of thing. We just get less of it.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. They're supposed to be the fearmongers and you're quaking in your boots because you might casuallly talk to a person who voted for Trump, about something completely disconnected from politics?
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. They're supposed to be the fearmongers and you're quaking in your boots because you might casuallly talk to a person who voted for Trump, about something completely disconnected from politics?
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
Agree with the first thing, have heard enough stories from minorities to believe they really do feel something like that not all the time but often enough it's fucked up, and overexaggeration of allyness is not why the (again, white) working class left, because that shit was not around in 1980.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+7
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
edited December 2016
They are deeply disturbed people who believe any lie Fox News or Alex Jones tells them. And they like guns. I don't want anything to do with someone with that combination.
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. They're supposed to be the fearmongers and you're quaking in your boots because you might casuallly talk to a person who voted for Trump, about something completely disconnected from politics?
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
I'm more concerned than offended. If you are having trouble interacting with the majority population, has it affected your everyday life to the point that you can no longer function adequately in society? If so, you should bring it up with a therapist or other medical professional.
I'm not being facetious. I've had to direct people to counseling recently for this reason.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. They're supposed to be the fearmongers and you're quaking in your boots because you might casuallly talk to a person who voted for Trump, about something completely disconnected from politics?
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
This came up in one of the previous threads but I'll post a short recap for those that missed it.
The morning after the election my boyfriend, who is Indian-American and therefore a lovely chestnut brown, was physically assaulted by someone who thought he was 'muslim'. This happened in California, in an airport of all places.
Shit is going down. Tbloxham is probably feeling as edgey about it as I do. When I go walking with the BF now, I watch everyone around us like a hawk. Just in case.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
When you are a minority you are constantly congnizant of your minority status, especially if that status is one that is physically discernable (race, gender, transgender, disabled, etc). When you are part of the majority, you never have to think about those sorts of things. This is part of why Sanders' message fell flat for minorities: he tried to insist his plans to fix the problems of the white working class would also equally affect the minority working class even though that's ostensibly, historically not true.
I had someone freak out because I was only six feet away from them at the ATM in broad daylight... I'm white enough that my Native heritage just makes me look vaguely Mediterranean.
People with racist fears are hyperventilating at anyone who can walk in the sun longer than a vampire.
Yeah, I was disappointed to read this. I saw the Comet Pizza thing take form on /r/The_Donald. It was disturbing to see how easily people latched on to the "international pedophile ring" idea based on highly questionable evidence. Some of those people probably just like to spread disinformation, but this event is proof that others wholly believe it, and are willing to take drastic action on the basis of their insane ultra-paranoid information bubble. When your version of reality is so twisted, your actions just aren't gonna be rational.
Yeah, I was disappointed to read this. I saw the Comet Pizza thing take form on /r/The_Donald. It was disturbing to see how easily people latched on to the "international pedophile ring" idea based on highly questionable evidence. Some of those people probably just like to spread disinformation, but this event is proof that others wholly believe it, and are willing to take drastic action on the basis of their insane ultra-paranoid information bubble. When your version of reality is so twisted, your actions just aren't gonna be rational.
Its amazing how conspiracy theories are being normalized in the US, in social media.
We've seen this kind of stuff happen in the Middle East, with Muslim leaders citing antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Protocols of Zion or holocaust denial, but now its happening in the US.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. They're supposed to be the fearmongers and you're quaking in your boots because you might casuallly talk to a person who voted for Trump, about something completely disconnected from politics?
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
This stuff has real world consequences.
Most people aren't going to get attacked but what I am supposed to do when the old man I hold the door for says that I am mighty white or I get dressed down from my boss for reading missquoting Jesus?
I wouldn't be suprised if it's like that for conservatives in more liberal places.
It's gotten pretty ugly, hasn't it?" said Clinton at last week's campaign event. "I've heard it from parents and kids across the country. … Kids are scared by the rhetoric they're hearing." What Clinton was alluding too is now known as the "Trump Effect," thanks to a paper of the same name published in April by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC's Teaching Tolerance program conducted a survey of teachers, and found a disturbing increase in bullying and, in particular, in bigoted harassment, especially toward vulnerable groups like immigrants, Muslims and others who've been targeted by Trump. In some cases, Trump's very name was used as a threatening taunt.
How did you discover the Trump Effect?
Back in March, we began seeing a number of stories about strange events at school basketball games. For instance, a predominantly Latino team playing a predominantly white team, and the white fans chanting, "Build a wall! Build a wall!" Or we'd see something similar at a soccer game. So we began saying, "If only we had a source of data on this kind of thing." And then we realized that we do have access to a lot of teachers [via the SPLC email list].
How did you reach out to them?
We very quickly put together a survey. Not scientific. We asked just a few questions. They were:
1. How have you seen the rhetoric of this year's presidential campaign affect your students? Your school?
2. If you have witnessed bullying or biased language at your school – from adults or students – that mimics the rhetoric of the campaign, please tell us about it.
3. Have you changed the way you approach teaching about the election this year? If so, how?
And 4. What resources do you need to help you teach safely and effectively about the 2016 election?
Additionally, teachers could answer "yes" or "no" to the following statements:
1. There has been an increase in anti-immigrant sentiment at my school since the 2016 presidential campaign began.
2. There has been an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment at my school since the 2016 presidential campaign began.
3. I have heard an increase in uncivil political discourse at my school since the 2016 presidential campaign began.
4. My students have expressed concern about what might happen to them or their families after the election.
We sent it out in March, when it was still primary season, and there were still a dozen candidates. In three days, we got 2,000 responses. And people weren't just checking boxes "yes" and "no." We got more than 5,000 comments.
What were the teachers telling you?
First of all, we looked at the quantifiable [results]. We tried to look at them on a map. I fully expected there to be regional differences, but there were no patterns. Negative reactions were distributed throughout the U.S. Kids I would describe as vulnerable – immigrants or perceived immigrants, kids who are Muslims or perceived to be Muslims – were terrified. Teachers used words like "terrified," "heartbroken," "scared." And not just the students, but their families. And there were no patterns by age. This was happening in preschool through high school.
How did it manifest in the kids?
There were children who broke down in tears in class. Immigrant students are everywhere. Two-thirds of the teachers reported that their immigrant students were under stress. Kids were hearing horrible things like, "I think that we should kill all the Muslims." Marginalized students are feeling very vulnerable. And then there was this weird finding: African-American students who were concerned that they were going to be "sent back to Africa." At first I thought this was an outlier; then I read it five more times.
What are the bullied kids saying, in response to this?
I think they feel, a) that the ideals of the country aren't being lived up to, but b) on a more basic level, "Why don't people like us?" You have instances where a child gets called a name by a complete stranger. It's heartbreaking.
It's almost like children are learning new ways to hurt each other.
Yes. What stood out to us is that the character of bullying was changing from the election rhetoric. There were many stories of a group of kids ganging up on one child and chanting, "Trump! Trump! Trump!" or "Build a wall!" or "Deport him!" And this kind of behavior peaked in middle school. Trump is the perfect candidate for a seventh-grade kid; bad behavior and repeating what Trump has said seems to be a part of testing limits.
How are teachers responding?
Well, kids would say things in class that were a racial slur or an ethnic slur and they'd be corrected and get pushback – "It's being said on TV so why can't I say it?" I doubt there's a teacher in the U.S. who has not had anti-bullying training in the past three years. And a lot of progress had been made. That is all being washed away in a tidal wave by this election. Kids are seeing, and repeating, that in the real world, people shout at each other, people are mean to each other. And we've also found teachers who want to speak out but are worrying about censure. Or who are trying to pretend this is a normal election. "Let's have a mock debate!" "Let's compare the policies!" They're trying to balance wanting to be nonpartisan with not wanting to endorse these policies. So in many cases you have vulnerable kids, emboldened kids, and a stressed-out teacher.
I've been following presidential elections closely since I was a middle school kid myself, in 1988 – Dukakis forever! – and this is hands-down the worst one I can recall. Is that true for you as well?
I've been following them since 1968. Nixon's elections were very polarizing, both of them, and I've certainly seen elections where people feel there is a lot at stake. But no, I've never seen anything like this. You'd probably have to go back to the election of Andrew Jackson to find anything this ugly. It's counterintuitive to label an entire group of people as "bad for the country." We've had nativism, but we've never had the degree to which social media speeds up the damage. It's the 24-hour news cycle on steroids. Look, teachers know how to teach a usual election. You look at the candidates' biographies, you look at the issues. No one has a pedagogy for teaching reality TV. There's a need for media literacy: why a message is being constructed, the way it's constructed, who is it crafted for? Even the previous ugly elections have not saturated us so much. We've lost our understanding of what journalism is. And because we've lost that understanding, it means that we have also lost the ability to ask the right questions.
Hillary Clinton actually mentioned the Trump Effect in the first debate, and now seems to be responding to it with her new campaign focus on bullying. What effect do you think the report is having on the election?
I think it resonates with a lot of people. Let me explain why we called it The Trump Effect. We are a non-profit and we are nonpartisan – how could we call it [that]? Well, it's because when we got those 5,000 comments back, there were over 1,000 mentioning Trump by name. All the other candidates combined – and this was back in March, so there were a lot of other candidates – all the other candidates combined added up to 167 comments. The phenomenon was clearly driven by the Trump campaign. We put a name to something that has been happening all across the country. And now it includes women. People like to think of kids as innocent, and right now impressionable children are seeing something that they shouldn't. Nobody likes to think of kids being the victim of a bully on television.
There must be some teachers out there though who are Trump supporters themselves. How they are handling it?
We did hear from some of them. "Why aren't you asking about the lies and crimes of Hillary Clinton?" But we didn't ask about any specific candidates. We got about 12 responses from people who called us left-leaning and said we were going to make children atheists. But plenty of Republicans are going to sit this one out. There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats who believe in fundamental American principles: the peaceful transfer of power, the right to a free press. People believe in that across the political spectrum.
So what can teachers do to mitigate damage, to alleviate fears? I went to Catholic school and was afraid of Hell, but then my Catholic Mom told me Hell wasn't real and that was that. In this case, some of the dangers could be real.
There are so many different circumstances. There's no one piece of advice that will work for everyone. There are factors: the community, the age of the students. But, let's look at something really real: deportation. It's real. And it's a part of our domestic policy. It happens under Obama, and if Trump is elected he promises it will happen en masse. Many teachers know they have students who are undocumented. They have a right to be there, and a right to an education, but no teacher can tell them for sure it's not going to happen. What they can say is that they are safe right now, that school is a safe place, that there are adults who care about them. Nothing happens that fast (though that's not always the case). They can tell scared kids that there are checks and balances in the government, that even though someone is elected, it doesn't mean what they say is going to happen. They can also remind them that most people don't feel this way, and point out the allies. Provide the kids with positive role models, and positive ideas of themselves. As part of the curriculum, include stories and texts that have positive ideas of the vulnerable group. We often talk about "mirrors and windows": The kids from the dominant group need windows into other people's lives, and the kids from the marginalized group need mirrors that reflect their reality. You can also tell them you have faith in American institutions to keep things in check.
I feel like I'd be reassuring children of that even as I was reassuring myself.
A lot of teachers said that. And a lot of teachers made the personal decision to come out as an ally for their students. Teachers' free speech is not the same as everyone else's. When they are teaching, they are agents of the state. That's the subject of a lively debate within secondary social studies. Can you be neutral? Some critical theorists believe there is no such thing as being neutral. So, can you tell kids who you support without requiring them to follow your opinion? Fifty percent of elementary school teachers [who responded to us] said they were not going to teach the election this year. Instead they are teaching the "ideal" election, the "idea" of voting. There are [elementary school] teachers teaching fictional races between a duck and a goose. They're simulating the process, but not talking about the actual candidates. And many teachers are adjusting their teaching to look at fact-checking and media literacy and rhetoric.
Both sides get really anxious when their rival candidates win. This isn't news such, merely the latest manifestation - the last few years it's been the right freak out about Obama, and later Hillary, for various reasons.
When kids see Trump as a role model these things happen.
Yeah, I was disappointed to read this. I saw the Comet Pizza thing take form on /r/The_Donald. It was disturbing to see how easily people latched on to the "international pedophile ring" idea based on highly questionable evidence. Some of those people probably just like to spread disinformation, but this event is proof that others wholly believe it, and are willing to take drastic action on the basis of their insane ultra-paranoid information bubble. When your version of reality is so twisted, your actions just aren't gonna be rational.
And this is already being declared a false flag and (literally) a hired gun because the dude has like four imdb credits for crappy Z-list horror films.
I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous. They're supposed to be the fearmongers and you're quaking in your boots because you might casuallly talk to a person who voted for Trump, about something completely disconnected from politics?
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
This stuff has real world consequences.
Most people aren't going to get attacked but what I am supposed to do when the old man I hold the door for says that I am mighty white or I get dressed down from my boss for reading missquoting Jesus?
I wouldn't be suprised if it's like that for conservatives in more liberal places.
Seen quite a lot of this revealed in the novel community via Sad Puppies.
So, Greenwald has the latest on the Keith Ellison bid for DNC leadership. In short, the donors said no. He writes:
Ever since he announced his candidacy to lead the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison, the first American Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, has been the target of a defamation campaign that is deceitful, repugnant, and yet quite predictable. At first expressed in whispers, but now being yelled from the rooftops by some of the party’s most influential figures, Ellison is being smeared as both an anti-Semite and enemy of Israel — the same smears virtually any critic of the Israeli government reflexively encounters, rendered far worse if the critic is a prominent American Muslim.
Ok, context. The ADL searched up for these quotes from a 2010 speech:
Stop, you know why are we sending a mill — $2.8 billion dollars a year over there when they won’t even honor our request to stop building in East Jerusalem? Where is the future Palestinian state going to be if it’s colonized before it even gets up off the ground? …
… Now you got Clinton, Biden, and the president who’s told them — stop. Now this has happened before. They beat back a president before. Bush 41 said — stop, and they said — we don’t want to stop, and by the way we want our money and we want it now. [Ellison laughs.] Right? You know, I mean we can’t allow, we’re Americans, right? We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM. Right? And so we ought to stand up as Americans.
The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? [A male says “no.”] Is that logic? Right? When the people who, when the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.
So, what was the big deal?
As J.J. Goldberg of The Forward noted, Ellison wasn’t lamenting the insidious influence of U.S. Jews — as the ADL shamefully claimed — but rather was “plainly describing how American Muslims could have greater influence on American policy if they learned to organize.”
And agree or disagree with those positions, it is an indisputable fact that Israel receives far more in U.S. aid than any other country yet continually does exactly that which numerous U.S. presidents have insisted it not do, often to the detriment of U.S. interests. And many prominent foreign policy experts — including David Petraeus — have warned that excessive U.S. support for the worst actions of the Israeli government endangers U.S. national security by alienating Arabs in the region and fueling support for anti-American terrorism. The idea that a member of Congress is not permitted to debate these policies without being branded an anti-Semite is sheer insanity: malicious insanity at that.
This anti-Ellison campaign got a major shot in the arm last friday. I give you the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban:
Haim Saban: Keith Ellison 'is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual'.
(CNN)Prominent Democratic donor Haim Saban on Friday described Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running to head the Democratic National Committee, as an "anti-Semite."
Saban, who gave millions to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, spoke about Ellison at the Brooking Institution's Saban Forum, an annual gathering between American and Israeli political leaders, during a question-and-answer portion of a conversation with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and moderated by CNN's Jake Tapper.
"If you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted, he is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual," the Israeli-American said Friday about the Minnesota lawmaker. "Words matter and actions matter more. Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party."
Greenwald goes for the throat and points the center of this contradiction:
As CNN itself acknowledged when digging up these old Ellison quotes: “None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.” How is that, by itself, not the end of the controversy?
The reason why it isn’t is a glaring irony. With the advent of Donald Trump and policies such as banning all Muslims from the country, Democrats this year incorporated anti-Islamophobia rhetoric into their repertoire. Yet what is being done to Ellison by the ADL, Saban, and others is Islamophobia in its purest and most classic form.
Now, let's be fair here. There's voices within the Dems defending Ellison from these smears. But let's be honest, Ellison's bid for DNC leadership is dead in the water since "the Dems have bills to pay for".
I'm not sure what attempts you've made, Harry. Honestly I'm not particularly looking for any from you, I know poor white people, and those in rural areas aren't exactly your wheelhouse. I have interest there from my own life you may not have. But no, its not one snide comment, and no it's not an excuse. It's the hypocrisy of the thing that gnaws, seeing the contrast between the liberal ideology you're upholding and how you seem to feel about those who don't fall in your wheelhouse. At any rate, your personal feelings in this probably aren't relevant, and for that I apologize. I read that comment and I honestly just got mad, like.... I don't know if you think of people when you talk about groups like that but I do. They're my family, my friends. And when you write them off in such a manner, it's.... what, a trigger? I dunno. But yes, this isn't the thread for me to rant at you about things, and for that I truly am sorry.
I've made plenty of attempts in our discussions, and so have others. I honestly have no idea why it hasn't sunk in. And I'm not going to repeat myself when I'be already gone over that in this thread in others. If you truly think I haven't, I suggest rereading my posts. Quote the relevant sections if you must and we can dissect them again if you like.
That rage you're feeling at being dismissed and insulted? That we can built on. That feeling is what minorities and women go through every day and we'd have plenty of both accounts from posters, as well articles from reports to draw upon. This is what's puzzling, after all you've read on this forum on these subjects you don't find any common ground with the people we're talking about?
They don't have to be in my wheelhouse to understand them. They're not aliens, they're people. And neither are the women or minorities I'm advocating for. Understanding goes both ways.
I may not know of those people personally, but I know of them to sympathies what they're dealing with. What is demoralizing is that many of the rural voters won't do the same for others. America is more than your social circle, or your state. And it's vital to understand what everyone is going through, including those who are a different gender, or a minority. These people shouldn't be that strange to them, they should be friends and family, as well. So, why aren't they a priority? It's disappointing considering the progress we've made the last few years for their causes.
I'm also sorry for ranting at you, as well.
That's no argument for anything though.
Sure it is. Do you consider the GOP the bigger evil or not? There are only two mainstream parties in the US who get to control the congress and presidency, they belong to the Democrats and the Republicans. Electing either party has massive consequences to America, their lives and the world. I'd consider Trump winning and the Dems losing congress a massively Bad Thing.
This will probably fall under the tangent I'm back off of above, so I'll let it be unless you really want me to follow up on it.
It's not really a tangent, we're discussing voters from the other party and coming up with comparisons to how they engage online. Yes, I want a follow up.
The point I'm trying to get across is that we didn't offer them anything. That's what started all this. We've basically abandoned them and I don't think there's much point in denying that.
That's been your point for multiple posts, what it doesn't answer is my statements about the GOP and how they impact politics. Nor why I'm supposed to represent the party. I can't have a conversation with you if you are unwilling to go into detail about your beliefs and sections to my arguments. You've got plenty of material to build a defense against with my post.
As to the final bit, this forum doesn't need another poster ranting about Trump. Y'all are doing fine on that. I've done my own venting on the subject to my friends and on forums that don't have quite the same hive mind in this regard.
What's one more? I'm curious about why you're pissed about Trump. You've got nothing to hide here. This is something w're supposed to have in common with.
Vent away, really.
How are the right wing doing there in a post-Trump world?
And yes, I have major problems with the Democrats: mostly with the gap between what they are and what they say they are or what they say they want to be. As long as I'm arguing like this it means I have hope that some of these things can change. In same places I do have hope. In others, such as our inability to reconcile messages of class and race, or of the complete ceding of the labor class and rural america.... eh.... my hopes have continually dimmed as these threads go on.
On the surface this a sensible argument, I'll admit. However, it is a wrong idea to place Democrats on pedestals because no party is going to deliver everything you want.
This isn't about arguing, it's finding a connection with the common ground with those voters. Being in your situation, you can offer insight into how to do this. You're not a bystander here. That's where hope lies.
Your talk of being human is relevant here, because humans aren't built to put others first. Society only works because of what WE as capital I Individuals get out of it. We demand our share or we rise up and chaos ensues. That's again, what I was getting at in my first post on the matter. When shit is bad--when the bad times have gone on without reprieve or hope of reprieve for so long--it's hard to see past that. Almost impossible. It is stupidly easy to vote for your self interest because society has failed you, because your family needs you, because you see your way of life dying around you without hope of a better one ahead. It is a frighteningly human response. I'd be surprised to see someone choose differently. And I'd be surprised if such people were not taken advantage of and sold a bill of goods by exploitative assholes.
This is informative, thank you. My question to you is - what you think Democrats need to cut through that? How would you do it?
It's true that what you're saying is a common response being under that pressure can screw you up psychologically. The thing here is many, many people do the opposite. This is how Obama and Hillary built their coalitions.
It's also important for when we go through events like that that we analyze ourselves, pick apart what we did right and wrong to avoid those mistakes in the future. It is not an excuse for making bad choices, they're teachable moments when we let ourselves allow them to be.
And no Harry, no one is going to read your post and suddenly hate Democrats. But your sentiments are neither rare or new among liberals, and it has leaked over the years. And that's unfortunate.
This isn't new on either side, it's part of the political process. Liberals aren't perfect beings, and neither are conservatives. (That's what I was talking about upthread.) We're allowed to get angry and make mistakes. That's being human.
She really didn't.
I disagree.
That said, that beings another question into light - forget Hillary, she wasn't operating in a vacuum. What drove them to consider Trump the better politician? What was he selling that Hillary wasn't? And how were they effected by the media?
One of the things I will enjoy about the Trump presidency is watching non-business writers try to explain his methods. Case in point, the recent stories about Ford and Carrier keeping some parts of their manufacturing in the United States because Trump negotiated/bullied them into staying. If you tell that story through a political filter – which is all I have seen so far – you focus on the facts. In this case, the political story is that both the Ford and Carrier situations are exaggerated claims of success.
The political filter misses the story completely. As usual.
Here’s the real story. You need a business filter to see it clearly. In my corporate life I watched lots of new leaders replace old leaders. And there is one trick the good leaders do that bad leaders don’t: They make some IMMEDIATE improvement that everyone can see. It has to be visible, relatively simple, and fast.
Why?
Because humans are not rational. Our first impressions rule our emotions forever. Trump has a second chance to make a first impression because his performance as President is fresh ground. Trump is attacking the job like a seasoned CEO, not like a politician. He knows that his entire four-year term will be judged by what happens before it even starts. What he does today will determine how much support and political capital he has for his entire term.
So what does a Master Persuader do when he needs to create a good first impression to last for years? He looks around for any opportunity that is visible, memorable, newsworthy, true to his brand, and easy to change.
Enter Ford.
Enter Carrier.
Trump and Pence recognized these openings and took them. Political writers will interpret this situation as routine credit-grabbing and exaggerated claims. But business writers will recognize Trump’s strategy as what I will call the “new CEO Move.” Smart CEOs try to create visible victories within days of taking the job, to set the tone. It’s all about the psychology.
If you are looking at Trump’s claims of success with Ford and Carrier in terms of technical accuracy and impact on the economy, you will be underwhelmed. But if you view it through a business filter and understand that psychology is the point of the exercise, you’re seeing one of the best new CEO moves you will ever see.
I’ll say this again because it’s important. We’re all watching closely to see if President Elect Trump has the skill to be president. And while you watch, Trump and Pence are pulling off one of the most skillfully executed new CEO plays you will ever see. Remember what I taught you in the past year: Facts don’t matter. What matters is how you feel. And when you watch Trump and Pence fight and scratch to keep jobs in this country, it changes how you will feel about them for their entire term. This is a big win for Trump/Pence disguised as a small win.
The political press will dismiss Ford and Carrier with fact-checking. But the stock market will be smarter. Experienced business people recognize the “new CEO” move and they know how powerful and important it is.
If you are worried about Trump’s talent for leadership, this should help set your mind at ease. He hasn’t even started the job and he’s already performing better than any past president in the same phase.
Does he realize Trump isn't the first CEO president? C'mon, Scott, I know you remember Dubya!
edit: And for the love of --- Trump's already pissed off China over Taiwan, and he hasn't been sworn in yet.
Harry Dresden on
+6
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Now, let's be fair here. There's voices within the Dems defending Ellison from these smears. But let's be honest, Ellison's bid for DNC leadership is dead in the water since "the Dems have bills to pay for".
The ADL is the best argument against dual-citizenship I know about
One of the things I will enjoy about the Trump presidency is watching non-business writers try to explain his methods. Case in point, the recent stories about Ford and Carrier keeping some parts of their manufacturing in the United States because Trump negotiated/bullied them into staying. If you tell that story through a political filter – which is all I have seen so far – you focus on the facts. In this case, the political story is that both the Ford and Carrier situations are exaggerated claims of success.
The political filter misses the story completely. As usual.
Here’s the real story. You need a business filter to see it clearly. In my corporate life I watched lots of new leaders replace old leaders. And there is one trick the good leaders do that bad leaders don’t: They make some IMMEDIATE improvement that everyone can see. It has to be visible, relatively simple, and fast.
Why?
Because humans are not rational. Our first impressions rule our emotions forever. Trump has a second chance to make a first impression because his performance as President is fresh ground. Trump is attacking the job like a seasoned CEO, not like a politician. He knows that his entire four-year term will be judged by what happens before it even starts. What he does today will determine how much support and political capital he has for his entire term.
So what does a Master Persuader do when he needs to create a good first impression to last for years? He looks around for any opportunity that is visible, memorable, newsworthy, true to his brand, and easy to change.
Enter Ford.
Enter Carrier.
Trump and Pence recognized these openings and took them. Political writers will interpret this situation as routine credit-grabbing and exaggerated claims. But business writers will recognize Trump’s strategy as what I will call the “new CEO Move.” Smart CEOs try to create visible victories within days of taking the job, to set the tone. It’s all about the psychology.
If you are looking at Trump’s claims of success with Ford and Carrier in terms of technical accuracy and impact on the economy, you will be underwhelmed. But if you view it through a business filter and understand that psychology is the point of the exercise, you’re seeing one of the best new CEO moves you will ever see.
I’ll say this again because it’s important. We’re all watching closely to see if President Elect Trump has the skill to be president. And while you watch, Trump and Pence are pulling off one of the most skillfully executed new CEO plays you will ever see. Remember what I taught you in the past year: Facts don’t matter. What matters is how you feel. And when you watch Trump and Pence fight and scratch to keep jobs in this country, it changes how you will feel about them for their entire term. This is a big win for Trump/Pence disguised as a small win.
The political press will dismiss Ford and Carrier with fact-checking. But the stock market will be smarter. Experienced business people recognize the “new CEO” move and they know how powerful and important it is.
If you are worried about Trump’s talent for leadership, this should help set your mind at ease. He hasn’t even started the job and he’s already performing better than any past president in the same phase.
Does he realize Trump isn't the first CEO president? C'mon, Scott, I know you remember Dubya!
edit: And for the love of --- Trump's already pissed off China over Taiwan, and he hasn't been sworn in yet.
The problem with analyzing his performance as a CEO is that inflating the stock price through bullshit and then bailing on a golden parachute before the bubble bursts is not a measure of success for the job as POTUS. Like, personal success for Trump maybe, but not for the rest of us. So no, this does not put my mind at ease.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
One of the things I will enjoy about the Trump presidency is watching non-business writers try to explain his methods. Case in point, the recent stories about Ford and Carrier keeping some parts of their manufacturing in the United States because Trump negotiated/bullied them into staying. If you tell that story through a political filter – which is all I have seen so far – you focus on the facts. In this case, the political story is that both the Ford and Carrier situations are exaggerated claims of success.
The political filter misses the story completely. As usual.
Here’s the real story. You need a business filter to see it clearly. In my corporate life I watched lots of new leaders replace old leaders. And there is one trick the good leaders do that bad leaders don’t: They make some IMMEDIATE improvement that everyone can see. It has to be visible, relatively simple, and fast.
Why?
Because humans are not rational. Our first impressions rule our emotions forever. Trump has a second chance to make a first impression because his performance as President is fresh ground. Trump is attacking the job like a seasoned CEO, not like a politician. He knows that his entire four-year term will be judged by what happens before it even starts. What he does today will determine how much support and political capital he has for his entire term.
So what does a Master Persuader do when he needs to create a good first impression to last for years? He looks around for any opportunity that is visible, memorable, newsworthy, true to his brand, and easy to change.
Enter Ford.
Enter Carrier.
Trump and Pence recognized these openings and took them. Political writers will interpret this situation as routine credit-grabbing and exaggerated claims. But business writers will recognize Trump’s strategy as what I will call the “new CEO Move.” Smart CEOs try to create visible victories within days of taking the job, to set the tone. It’s all about the psychology.
If you are looking at Trump’s claims of success with Ford and Carrier in terms of technical accuracy and impact on the economy, you will be underwhelmed. But if you view it through a business filter and understand that psychology is the point of the exercise, you’re seeing one of the best new CEO moves you will ever see.
I’ll say this again because it’s important. We’re all watching closely to see if President Elect Trump has the skill to be president. And while you watch, Trump and Pence are pulling off one of the most skillfully executed new CEO plays you will ever see. Remember what I taught you in the past year: Facts don’t matter. What matters is how you feel. And when you watch Trump and Pence fight and scratch to keep jobs in this country, it changes how you will feel about them for their entire term. This is a big win for Trump/Pence disguised as a small win.
The political press will dismiss Ford and Carrier with fact-checking. But the stock market will be smarter. Experienced business people recognize the “new CEO” move and they know how powerful and important it is.
If you are worried about Trump’s talent for leadership, this should help set your mind at ease. He hasn’t even started the job and he’s already performing better than any past president in the same phase.
Does he realize Trump isn't the first CEO president? C'mon, Scott, I know you remember Dubya!
edit: And for the love of --- Trump's already pissed off China over Taiwan, and he hasn't been sworn in yet.
The problem with analyzing his performance as a CEO is that inflating the stock price through bullshit and then bailing on a golden parachute before the bubble bursts is not a measure of success for the job as POTUS. Like, personal success for Trump maybe, but not for the rest of us. So no, this does not put my mind at ease.
Yeah, I hope we don't go bankrupt like trumps other ventures.
That said, that beings another question into light - forget Hillary, she wasn't operating in a vacuum. What drove them to consider Trump the better politician? What was he selling that Hillary wasn't? And how were they effected by the media?
Honestly I suspect a lot of it is the idea that they felt abandoned, and he was one of the few politicians that directly spoke to their issues. There's an article I've posted a couple of times now where the general feeling of these areas tends to be "I'm poor white trash, nobody cares about me."
Obama reached out to them during the 08 primaries (interestingly enough, Trump and Sanders weren't the first candidates to run on overturning NAFTA). It's a common theme though, Democrats think they're safe, so they campaign there briefly, and then they're not seen again for 4 years.
What the Clinton campaign should have done was get Sanders to do a circuit of these areas given that he was able to speak to their issues too, and was passionate about it. Sending surrogates like Chelsea was a bad idea.
The NPR personalities have a lot of gentle charm. I don't want to hear someone ranting on radio while I'm stacking the dishwasher. I don't know why conservatives want so much anger as background wallpaper.
Because modern conservatism is heavily based on anger. Anger at liberals, anger at things changing, etc, etc.
We have plenty of our own anger, we just express it in a more passive aggressive manner... Like mockery on our talk shows!
It's good though, I would be worried if deeply held beliefs and contentious politics did not cause anger. That's the first sign the robots are taking over.
You remember how there was a joke that Obama could solve his problem with Republican opposition by endorsing breathing as a great policy for America? That joke does not work with the left.
Conservatism as it exists today and has for awhile now is almost entirely a reactionary movement. This is not at all how the left works.
Look at shit like climate change really. The holdouts at this point aren't even like oil companies. The rhetoric does not revolve around any specific real objection. Liberals say it's happening so Conservatives say it isn't because that lets them rub Liberals being "wrong" in our faces. That's the motivation. Every cold winter day, every polar bear spotted is a chance to stick to to the lefties for thinking climate change is real.
I've seen this idea around here quite a bit, that conservatives come up with their beliefs just to oppose liberals. It strikes me as utterly bizarre and rather self-important.
Most obvious version is that the ACA was their health care plan.
That's a pretty silly example. There is geographical distinction between party ideologies and political pressures as well as differences of opinion on goals/methods that lead to that outcome.
National Republicans (and probably Romney as well), are against government subsidy of health care, full stop. In one of the most liberal states in the country, under intense political pressure to do so, they came up with a way to do it with the goal of minimal interference in market operations. Add to this the margin of people who came up with the plan exaggerating its benefits and opponents exaggerating its costs for political reasons and you get a situation where conservatives are against a plan being rolled out nationally that was come up with by a much smaller subset of more moderate conservatives because it is at least some kind of solution to a goal that is prominently demanded by liberals. It doesn't at all indicate that conservatives are against something just because liberals are for it, and claiming that it does obfuscates the real reason we are losing a lot of battles.
Posts
Oil company has support of the state government and uses legal chicanery to get around environmental impact studies. Wants to build pipeline on Native American land but just off the reservation, underneath a major water source for the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Which they are understandably concerned about.
Bonus: the original route was nixed because of concerns that it would negatively affect Bismarck's water supply.
Thank you.
Oh, that just makes me laugh harder and with more tears.
Bismarck's water supply, can't touch that, but the tribe's? Yeah, fuck them.
:biggrin:
I'm wondering how much of that is a result of veterans showing up and getting involved. That's one of the few groups that assholes can't get away with fucking with. So that probably means we're in for a shit show in North Dakota once Trump can fuck around with things because that stupid fucker will not understand the concept limits.
I had read that's not exactly the reason the original route was nixed. It was also 11 miles longer and included additional water crossings.
It's not exactly a case where the people of Bismarck were more important.
Thankfully nobody got hurt.
http://jezebel.com/gunman-attacks-d-c-pizzeria-wanted-to-investigate-ele-1789673657
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Including the gunman!
Oh goodie, lets further weaponize 'S.W.A.T'ing' by mixing conspiracy theories and doxxing.
MWO: Adamski
And I'm a white guy myself!
Ditto.
I am somewhat comforted that I am in the bay area, but we're not immune from this kind of thing. We just get less of it.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Well, that was kinda my point.
And you think this is how "minorities feel 100% of the time"?
And you don't understand how the Democrats lost the working class?
Agree with the first thing, have heard enough stories from minorities to believe they really do feel something like that not all the time but often enough it's fucked up, and overexaggeration of allyness is not why the (again, white) working class left, because that shit was not around in 1980.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Why are you getting offended?
I'm not being facetious. I've had to direct people to counseling recently for this reason.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This came up in one of the previous threads but I'll post a short recap for those that missed it.
The morning after the election my boyfriend, who is Indian-American and therefore a lovely chestnut brown, was physically assaulted by someone who thought he was 'muslim'. This happened in California, in an airport of all places.
Shit is going down. Tbloxham is probably feeling as edgey about it as I do. When I go walking with the BF now, I watch everyone around us like a hawk. Just in case.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
People with racist fears are hyperventilating at anyone who can walk in the sun longer than a vampire.
Its amazing how conspiracy theories are being normalized in the US, in social media.
We've seen this kind of stuff happen in the Middle East, with Muslim leaders citing antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Protocols of Zion or holocaust denial, but now its happening in the US.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Most people aren't going to get attacked but what I am supposed to do when the old man I hold the door for says that I am mighty white or I get dressed down from my boss for reading missquoting Jesus?
I wouldn't be suprised if it's like that for conservatives in more liberal places.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-trump-effect-how-hateful-rhetoric-is-affecting-children-w448515
Both sides get really anxious when their rival candidates win. This isn't news such, merely the latest manifestation - the last few years it's been the right freak out about Obama, and later Hillary, for various reasons.
When kids see Trump as a role model these things happen.
Here's a view of the other side of the equation
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1313784&page=1
And this is already being declared a false flag and (literally) a hired gun because the dude has like four imdb credits for crappy Z-list horror films.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Seen quite a lot of this revealed in the novel community via Sad Puppies.
This anti-Ellison campaign got a major shot in the arm last friday. I give you the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban: Greenwald goes for the throat and points the center of this contradiction: Now, let's be fair here. There's voices within the Dems defending Ellison from these smears. But let's be honest, Ellison's bid for DNC leadership is dead in the water since "the Dems have bills to pay for".
I've made plenty of attempts in our discussions, and so have others. I honestly have no idea why it hasn't sunk in. And I'm not going to repeat myself when I'be already gone over that in this thread in others. If you truly think I haven't, I suggest rereading my posts. Quote the relevant sections if you must and we can dissect them again if you like.
That rage you're feeling at being dismissed and insulted? That we can built on. That feeling is what minorities and women go through every day and we'd have plenty of both accounts from posters, as well articles from reports to draw upon. This is what's puzzling, after all you've read on this forum on these subjects you don't find any common ground with the people we're talking about?
They don't have to be in my wheelhouse to understand them. They're not aliens, they're people. And neither are the women or minorities I'm advocating for. Understanding goes both ways.
I may not know of those people personally, but I know of them to sympathies what they're dealing with. What is demoralizing is that many of the rural voters won't do the same for others. America is more than your social circle, or your state. And it's vital to understand what everyone is going through, including those who are a different gender, or a minority. These people shouldn't be that strange to them, they should be friends and family, as well. So, why aren't they a priority? It's disappointing considering the progress we've made the last few years for their causes.
I'm also sorry for ranting at you, as well.
Sure it is. Do you consider the GOP the bigger evil or not? There are only two mainstream parties in the US who get to control the congress and presidency, they belong to the Democrats and the Republicans. Electing either party has massive consequences to America, their lives and the world. I'd consider Trump winning and the Dems losing congress a massively Bad Thing.
It's not really a tangent, we're discussing voters from the other party and coming up with comparisons to how they engage online. Yes, I want a follow up.
That's been your point for multiple posts, what it doesn't answer is my statements about the GOP and how they impact politics. Nor why I'm supposed to represent the party. I can't have a conversation with you if you are unwilling to go into detail about your beliefs and sections to my arguments. You've got plenty of material to build a defense against with my post.
What's one more? I'm curious about why you're pissed about Trump. You've got nothing to hide here. This is something w're supposed to have in common with.
Vent away, really.
How are the right wing doing there in a post-Trump world?
On the surface this a sensible argument, I'll admit. However, it is a wrong idea to place Democrats on pedestals because no party is going to deliver everything you want.
This isn't about arguing, it's finding a connection with the common ground with those voters. Being in your situation, you can offer insight into how to do this. You're not a bystander here. That's where hope lies.
This is informative, thank you. My question to you is - what you think Democrats need to cut through that? How would you do it?
It's true that what you're saying is a common response being under that pressure can screw you up psychologically. The thing here is many, many people do the opposite. This is how Obama and Hillary built their coalitions.
It's also important for when we go through events like that that we analyze ourselves, pick apart what we did right and wrong to avoid those mistakes in the future. It is not an excuse for making bad choices, they're teachable moments when we let ourselves allow them to be.
This isn't new on either side, it's part of the political process. Liberals aren't perfect beings, and neither are conservatives. (That's what I was talking about upthread.) We're allowed to get angry and make mistakes. That's being human.
I disagree.
That said, that beings another question into light - forget Hillary, she wasn't operating in a vacuum. What drove them to consider Trump the better politician? What was he selling that Hillary wasn't? And how were they effected by the media?
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump
The political filter misses the story completely. As usual.
Here’s the real story. You need a business filter to see it clearly. In my corporate life I watched lots of new leaders replace old leaders. And there is one trick the good leaders do that bad leaders don’t: They make some IMMEDIATE improvement that everyone can see. It has to be visible, relatively simple, and fast.
Why?
Because humans are not rational. Our first impressions rule our emotions forever. Trump has a second chance to make a first impression because his performance as President is fresh ground. Trump is attacking the job like a seasoned CEO, not like a politician. He knows that his entire four-year term will be judged by what happens before it even starts. What he does today will determine how much support and political capital he has for his entire term.
So what does a Master Persuader do when he needs to create a good first impression to last for years? He looks around for any opportunity that is visible, memorable, newsworthy, true to his brand, and easy to change.
Enter Ford.
Enter Carrier.
Trump and Pence recognized these openings and took them. Political writers will interpret this situation as routine credit-grabbing and exaggerated claims. But business writers will recognize Trump’s strategy as what I will call the “new CEO Move.” Smart CEOs try to create visible victories within days of taking the job, to set the tone. It’s all about the psychology.
If you are looking at Trump’s claims of success with Ford and Carrier in terms of technical accuracy and impact on the economy, you will be underwhelmed. But if you view it through a business filter and understand that psychology is the point of the exercise, you’re seeing one of the best new CEO moves you will ever see.
I’ll say this again because it’s important. We’re all watching closely to see if President Elect Trump has the skill to be president. And while you watch, Trump and Pence are pulling off one of the most skillfully executed new CEO plays you will ever see. Remember what I taught you in the past year: Facts don’t matter. What matters is how you feel. And when you watch Trump and Pence fight and scratch to keep jobs in this country, it changes how you will feel about them for their entire term. This is a big win for Trump/Pence disguised as a small win.
The political press will dismiss Ford and Carrier with fact-checking. But the stock market will be smarter. Experienced business people recognize the “new CEO” move and they know how powerful and important it is.
If you are worried about Trump’s talent for leadership, this should help set your mind at ease. He hasn’t even started the job and he’s already performing better than any past president in the same phase.
Does he realize Trump isn't the first CEO president? C'mon, Scott, I know you remember Dubya!
edit: And for the love of --- Trump's already pissed off China over Taiwan, and he hasn't been sworn in yet.
The problem with analyzing his performance as a CEO is that inflating the stock price through bullshit and then bailing on a golden parachute before the bubble bursts is not a measure of success for the job as POTUS. Like, personal success for Trump maybe, but not for the rest of us. So no, this does not put my mind at ease.
Yeah, I hope we don't go bankrupt like trumps other ventures.
Honestly I suspect a lot of it is the idea that they felt abandoned, and he was one of the few politicians that directly spoke to their issues. There's an article I've posted a couple of times now where the general feeling of these areas tends to be "I'm poor white trash, nobody cares about me."
Obama reached out to them during the 08 primaries (interestingly enough, Trump and Sanders weren't the first candidates to run on overturning NAFTA). It's a common theme though, Democrats think they're safe, so they campaign there briefly, and then they're not seen again for 4 years.
What the Clinton campaign should have done was get Sanders to do a circuit of these areas given that he was able to speak to their issues too, and was passionate about it. Sending surrogates like Chelsea was a bad idea.
That's a pretty silly example. There is geographical distinction between party ideologies and political pressures as well as differences of opinion on goals/methods that lead to that outcome.
National Republicans (and probably Romney as well), are against government subsidy of health care, full stop. In one of the most liberal states in the country, under intense political pressure to do so, they came up with a way to do it with the goal of minimal interference in market operations. Add to this the margin of people who came up with the plan exaggerating its benefits and opponents exaggerating its costs for political reasons and you get a situation where conservatives are against a plan being rolled out nationally that was come up with by a much smaller subset of more moderate conservatives because it is at least some kind of solution to a goal that is prominently demanded by liberals. It doesn't at all indicate that conservatives are against something just because liberals are for it, and claiming that it does obfuscates the real reason we are losing a lot of battles.