The Dems have ruined the left with their obessesion of identity politics... (Al Franken, Congress)

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Both sides play identity politics.

Only because, one side plays the card and the other side is left to defend themselves, from the card being played.

One side never throws a card, they wish to treat everyone equally, not make everyone equal(which is unrealistic)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Clinton was for the idea of TPP at a time when it had not been negotiated( she was for a frame work of a trade deal between the US and Asia Pacific countries). I have yet to meet a single politician who was against the idea of that kind of trade deal. Clinton was never in support of TPP as it stands now.

Mind you, when Clinton was in congress, she also voted down trade deals. Again you are arguing a narrative rather than reality. The same way you say Democrats used to be anti globalization even though there are far more Dems in congress who fit that description than Republicans.

If you want to argue that Democrats need to change there perception, I agree, But if you are talking about policy, then we have a problem.

So which is it ????

Which is why this is all weird. The only Republicans arguing against globalization were the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP and none were in office. Trump brought the issue to the forefront and forced it down a reluctant Republican establishment who was very pro free trade, pro globalization.

The Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party, dubbed the New Democrats, like New Labour in the U.K., made once left wing parties more palatable for corporations and Wall St to support.

The Clintons were never progrsssive. I think in that regard they should change policies from being a pro corporate party to back to being the truly progressive party they claim to be. They had the chance with Bernie but blew it.

[Frogburn]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

H.W. Bush negotiated NAFTA and a majority of Democrats in congress voted against it.

I knew it as something the Republicans always wanted to get passed but I didn't realize H.W. Bush negotiated the deal. Bill Clinton is actually the one who got NAFTA approved. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair had what they termed a "Third Way" policy vision in which they leaned toward the center-right.

But the Democrats no longer are a party of the working families. They are a party of Indentity Politics. They hold disdain for newborn children and the family and working class men.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Only because, one side plays the card and the other side is left to defend themselves, from the card being played.

One side never throws a card, they wish to treat everyone equally, not make everyone equal(which is unrealistic)

The Republican Party platform still states that it only supports "traditional marriage"

I get that you dont like Democrats, and that you think the conservative way works, but lets not pretend that your party believes everyone should be equal.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Frogburn

I knew it as something the Republicans always wanted to get passed but I didn't realize H.W. Bush negotiated the deal. Bill Clinton is actually the one who got NAFTA approved. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair had what they termed a "Third Way" policy vision in which they leaned toward the center-right.

But the Democrats no longer are a party of the working families. They are a party of Indentity Politics. They hold disdain for newborn children and the family and working class men.

Exactly. Remember that it was Al Gore who went on the news circuit promoting NAFTA while it was Ross Perot the billionaire conservative who was campaigned against it. Perot being a precursor to the Trump politics we see today.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Frogburn

I knew it as something the Republicans always wanted to get passed but I didn't realize H.W. Bush negotiated the deal. Bill Clinton is actually the one who got NAFTA approved. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair had what they termed a "Third Way" policy vision in which they leaned toward the center-right.

But the Democrats no longer are a party of the working families. They are a party of Indentity Politics. They hold disdain for newborn children and the family and working class men.

Your main argument was NAFTA, Democrats voted against NAFTA, heck Democrats voted against trade authority for TPP.

Your argument is based on lopsided perception, and not reality.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your main argument was NAFTA, Democrats voted against NAFTA, heck Democrats voted against trade authority for TPP.

Your argument is based on lopsided perception, and not reality.

Right, the non Clintonian Denocratic half. There are Democrats like Ind. Bernie. The point I'm making is that under Hillary Clinton the Democrats put aside the populism of Bernie in favor of identity politics because Hillary was corporate friendly and tactically in favor of free trade deals.

Look we don't have to make this so much a GOP vs Dem issue but the question remains why the Dems dropped the economy, at least in the eyes of the media in favor of more identity politics? My theory is because Hillary and the Dem establishment isn't populist or cares about that because they're as much tied to corporate interests as the GOP

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Which is why this is all weird. The only Republicans arguing against globalization were the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP and none were in office. Trump brought the issue to the forefront and forced it down a reluctant Republican establishment who was very pro free trade, pro globalization.

The Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party, dubbed the New Democrats, like New Labour in the U.K., made once left wing parties more palatable for corporations and Wall St to support.

The Clintons were never progrsssive. I think in that regard they should change policies from being a pro corporate party to back to being the truly progressive party they claim to be. They had the chance with Bernie but blew it.

You are still arguing perception rather than reality. "New Democrats" voted down the trade deals you speak about.

The Democratic Party didnt change, perception of it did.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Right, the non Clintonian Denocratic half. There are Democrats like Ind. Bernie. The point I'm making is that under Hillary Clinton the Democrats put aside the populism of Bernie in favor of identity politics because Hillary was corporate friendly and tactically in favor of free trade deals.

157 out of 188 ????? Those arent just the none Clinton ones, and as I said, Clinton herself voted down those trade deals when she was a member of the Senate.

by your own definition. Hillary Clinton is a non clintonian Democrat LOL

Look we don't have to make this so much a GOP vs Dem issue but the question remains why the Dems dropped the economy, at least in the eyes of the media in favor of more identity politics? My theory is because Hillary and the Dem establishment isn't populist or cares about that because they're as much tied to corporate interests as the GOP

What you are actually asking is why did the media only cover that and not the economic stuff ? And that is a question for the media, not me.

[Jimbo302]

Celebrate Diversity

There'll be a lot more of this in the future:

French Gay Soccer Team Snubbed By Muslim Team

The gay team has accused the Muslims of homophobia. But isn't accusing Muslims of homophobia a bit Islamophobic?

I'm afraid that the gay soccer team is in for a rude awakening if they expect outrage on the political left for their plight....

The gay soccer team's dilemma should make you wonder how the leftist elites determine which of their special victims' groups will prevail when there is a conflict between them?

I wrote about the socialist food chain here, and I update that post below, because it remains relevant.

This article by Johann Hari along with Steyn's post above give us a hint as to how the left's "victimhood food chain" is constructed:
Do you believe in the rights of women, or do you believe in multiculturalism? A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both. You have to choose....

In Germany today, Muslim women have been reduced to third-class citizens stripped of core legal protections - because of the doctrine of multiculturalism, which says a society should be divided into separate cultures with different norms according to ethnic origin....

Indeed, in the name of this warm, welcoming multiculturalism, the German courts have explicitly compared Muslim women to the brain-damaged. The highest administrative court in North Rhine-Westphalia has agreed that Muslim parents have the "right" to forbid their daughter from going on a school trip unless she was accompanied by a male family member at all times. The judges said the girl was like "a partially mentally impaired person who, because of her disability, can only travel with a companion".As the Iranian author Azar Nafisi puts it: "I very much resent it when people - maybe with good intentions or from a progressive point of view - keep telling me, 'It's their culture' ... It's like saying the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches." She is horrified by the moves in Canada to introduce shariah courts to enforce family law for Muslims.

This 21st century application of one of the left's favorite canards, "social justice", has been seen quite a bit since the socialist remnants from the last century began to stage their comeback from a well-deserved near-extinction.

This socialist revival and the strategies now being used to once again foist Marxist/socialist/communist policies in democratic and free countries has many important implications --not the least of which is described in the above article.

To understand the left's logic, we must examine what I call the socialist victimhood "food chain."

While there are always quite a few "victim" groups (i.e., "oppressed peoples") on the Socialist Animal Farms of the world, some groups are far more important than others.

As the examples above demonstrate, a theoretically "oppressed" culture or religion's status as "victimized" allows (nay, it demands) the consequent suppression of any uppity victim classes subsumed within it (e.g., Women or Gays) who try to rise above their assigned place in the utopia to come.

From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay rights, are the rights of the designated "oppressed culture." The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the lesser dogmas of feminism or gay pride. This is probably because for the socialist utopian, might makes right and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few--and the few better remember that fact, or else.

In the socialist utopia, there is no room for individuality or personal preference; or tolerance for differences. You always must subsume yourself to the collective; and the bigger the collective, then the more power victimization can be exploited.

For example, we know from our experience of watching the compassionate people of the left, that blacks, women and gays lose their cherished victim status if they dare to become Republicans (shocking, I know); and, to a lesser extent, if they choose to be Christian (except for most those radical dominations, who have seen the secular light--or, who preach against American imperialism, and the evils of capitalism, of course).

Being black trumps being a woman or gay (i.e., there is more "social justice" mileage to be squeezed out of the oppression of blacks, i.e., racism, than there is from the oppression of women (sexism) or even gays (homophobia). Just ask President Obama and his supporters.

The oppression of Jews is completely ignored because of the animus the "enlightened" have toward Israel; and anti-semitism, which in past times would have had a victimhood ranking up close to the level of dark-skinned people (probably because those who founded the Jewish state were dedicated socialists--unfortunately, they soon realized that in real life, Marxist ideology doesn't work too well); but anti-semitism no longer is a compelling issue for the socialists. In fact, they are among its worse practitioners as socialism has spread throughout the Middle East.

So far, we have established that the culture (except for Western culture, which is uniquely evil and oppressive) is very high up on the food chain, and can eat and kill with impunity. Is there any group that trumps the culture?

Again, there are hints of how socialist logic deals with this. The needs of the nation will trump a protected/victim culture for the same reason that being an independent woman, black or gay person loses their victim status: they act independently of the socialist gestalt (i.e., they refuse to stay in their pre-determined place in the food chain and dare to be different).

Thus, Saddam the socialist Ba'athist could rightly gas the Kurds and no one payed much attention to it. Darfur shows that even genocide is acceptable to the socialist logician, who must always take into account the following factors:
1) which group is larger (oppressed nations or religions > cultures > sub-cultures > small groups, e.g., "Democrats", > individuals, e.g., blacks, women, and gays;
2) When there is a conflict among groups at the same level of the chain, then precedence is given to the "purer" victim--i.e., those who know their place in the chain, are willing to remain victims for all eternity, and take no actions to stop being victims--even celebrating their status as victims.

Thus, for example, the Palestinians' as a group (considered an oppressed nation for reasons that elude me) have such a high 'victimization quotient', they can freely and "justly" oppress or kill any members of their own society that are not considered "good" Palestinians, as well as anyone outside their society with impunity (i.e., Israelis). Because the Israelis have such a low quotient, they are not even permitted to kill in self-defense.

The same dynamic occurs when Muslim extremists (the extremely oppressed variety of Muslim) kill other Muslims (just ordinary oppressed Muslims) ; or when they kill Christians; or when they kill just about anyone in their usual indiscriminant manner. But Americans who take extraordinary precautions in war as in peace not to kill innocent people are damned to hell when they attack even the extremist Muslims who repeatedly try to kill them and state their intent at regular intervals.

Are you with me, so far? I realize it's pretty convoluted, but when you subscribe to postmodern logic, it makes a kind of perfect irrational sense.

Islamic fanatics can behead and mutilate non-combatant men and women at will. Americans are prohibited from humiliating Islamic fanatics or even frightening the poor dears (it is called "torture") ; Moderate Islamics can prohibit Westerners living in Islamic societies from owning a Bible; and punish them severely if they do; but Americans are not permitted to show any disrespect, let alone spit on a Koran even in America.

Clearly, if you are NOT one of the designated victimized or oppressed cultures, nations, or groups, then you and your non-victim-designated members are at the bottom of the socialist food chain and anything bad that is done to you by those above you in the food chain must be your own damn fault. This includes those who are Western, American/Israeli, Caucasian, Republican, conservatives, Rich, Capitalist, Christian, male, heterosexual and so on down the chain.

Hence, you can clearly see the intellectual origins of the many slogans that epitomize modern-day socialists and the left in general:

IMPERIALIST AMERICA IS HUMANITIES NUMBER ONE ENEMY

DEATH THE THE WORLD'S NUMBER 1 TERRORIST: BUSH & HIS SHEEP

KILL TERRORISTS: BOMB BUSH IN HIS F****ING HOUSE

WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS

IMPEACH THE GRINGOS

CONDI: I'M FIGHTING FOR WHITEY

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

ZIONIST PIGS

I LOVE NY EVEN MORE WITHOUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

NAZI KIKES OUT OF LEBANON

**** MIDDLE AMERICA

SMASH THE JEWISH STATE

And so on, ad infinitum, in the wonderfully peaceful and loving socialist manner we came to know so well in the last century.

Clearly, when all of humanity is at stake; when the socialist utopia is at-hand; lines must be drawn and the masses must be kept in their appropriate places in order to achieve social justice, peace, and universal brotherhood.

Got it?

Dr. Sanity: THE VICTIMHOOD HEIRARCHY; or, THE LEFTIST FOOD CHAIN