"For all the anger, energy, and money swirling at the grassroots level, Democrats didn’t manage to pick off the first two Republican-held congressional seats they contended for in the Trump era, and the prospects aren’t markedly better in the next few House races coming up: the Montana race at the end of May, and the South Carolina contest on June 20...."
Politico channels Democratic emotion.
I get really tired of Democratic partisan emotion. I'm someone who sometimes votes for Democrats, and I've voted for a lot more Democratic candidates than Republicans over the years, but I have nothing but a negative reaction to all this anger at losing. If they'd won, they'd be exulting and gloating, with no empathy for the other side. Republicans don't act like that. I mean, maybe some Republicans somewhere do, but mostly they're better sports about winning and losing. It makes them look more responsible and more respectful of democracy. Could the Democrats grow up and stop being so offputting... so ossoffputting?
April 19, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
218 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 218 of 218The GOP candidate is the guy who just lost the race for gov, partly because he is a newby to the state (at least he lives in the district).
The GOP guy- Gianforte, has lived in and produced thousands of tech jobs, for over 20 years in Montana. Enough that he sold out to Oracle? maybe for just under $2 billion.
Inga said:'"Michael K, maybe she's "smarter" than you, ever consider that? You don't know that there is no there there. The investigations are ongoing."
I won't comment on who is smarter although that was a big part of my expertise as a business psychologist. That's between Michael and his family.
I am more interested in the "ongoing" investigations that will lead to Trump's impeachment. Try to pretend you are smart, Inga and lay out a scenario about how Trump gets impeached. Does he also get convicted?
Inga should pay more attention to meeting the needs of voters.
The Everleigh sisters of Chicago could teach her a lot, about pleasing voters.
It pleases me greatly that they think they are harming a cause now that they have O'Reilly's head.
It makes [republicans] look more responsible and more respectful of democracy.
Yeah. "Looks". Couldn't possibly be republicans, you know, actually are more responsible and more respectful of democracy.
The Dems allowed all the illegal immigrants he is employing into the country. You guys won't give the Dems credit for anything.
He never used the term illegal, he said "minorities". They may very well be illegal, but you can't just make that assumption.
The saddest thing about the Obama presidency is that our first black president was a light-weight weasel.
I don't think liberals care, for instance, about jobs for blue collar Americans. They only care how you feel about jobs for the working class.
The happiest that I have ever seen liberals was at an anti-war demonstration in DC during the second Gulf War where it appeared that the US military had stalled in its invasion of Iraq and had entered a Vietnam-like quagmire. Unfortunately for them, our forces were regrouping in a sandstorm for the final assault on Baghdad.
The most furious that I have ever seen liberals was a month later at an anti-war demonstration, after the US military had conquered Baghdad. Not what they had expected nor hoped for and they were outraged that America was winning. They lined up by the hundreds in front of the White House screaming curses at Bush, their shirtfronts wet with spit.
@ARM,
"The Dems allowed all the illegal immigrants he is employing into the country. You guys won't give the Dems credit for anything."
I know you're joking (and humor is good), and if demographics mean anything in Califoria, the odds are that some members on my pal's painting crew were/are illegal.
Missing the point, though. My pal now nets 250K/year, employs 10 guys, has 3 or 4 paint jobs at any given moment.
The point is, this is how free market capitalism/ small business works. College kids may scorn him. Our political elites may ignore him. Sure, it may not last forever. But over the past 15 years - he built something. And when he briefly catches the news, he sees elitist liberals yapping about racism, homophobia, the need for more social engineering, more bullshit programs, he just tunes it out and votes R.
Dems offer nothing to, in a normal world, would be a celebrated success story.
heyboom said...
He never used the term illegal, he said "minorities". They may very well be illegal, but you can't just make that assumption.
It is not an assumption, it is a statistical prediction, with a high probability of being correct, if you know anything about how small construction, home maintenance and lawn care businesses work these days.
"Moral victories go back to their girlfriend's house and hope she graduates from med school."
~Rich Galen
Nothing is better for the young, unskilled black men in the inner city that ARM professes sympathy for than the Democrats flooding the labor market with illegal aliens. The real problem for these guys is the NFL.
What?! Now that's a provocative statement.
I won't quibble with the premise that Republicans are more empathic winners and better losers, though I don't think it is correct.
Instead, I want to question your instinct to declare everything but the electoral count irrelevant. The election wasn't a basketball game, where all that matters is the final score. In a free thinking democracy the losers are allowed, within broad limits, to decide for themselves what they make of the outcome, so long as their opposition to the winners is in compliance with law. In thinking about how much deference and trust we Democrats owe the President, on a going forward basis, it's simple common sense, not whining or being a crybaby, to consider how wide the margin was, how that result was achieved, and how the winner behaved both before and after the election. Big winners, truth telling winners, winners who won without the assistance of a foreign dictator, winners who show some respect for our differing views or make some effort to reach out by appointing some people who are not of their own party or intra-party faction, winners who honor basic norms of financial disclosure and conflict of interest, winners who routinely take personal responsibility instead of passing the buck--they are due more respect and deference and trust. Trump, not so much. This seems obvious to me--what part of it do you reject?
Stephen said...
In thinking about how much deference and trust we Democrats owe the President, on a going forward basis, it's simple common sense, not whining or being a crybaby, to consider how wide the margin was, how that result was achieved, and how the winner behaved both before and after the election. Big winners, truth telling winners, winners who won without the assistance of a foreign dictator, winners who show some respect for our differing views or make some effort to reach out by appointing some people who are not of their own party or intra-party faction, winners who honor basic norms of financial disclosure and conflict of interest, winners who routinely take personal responsibility instead of passing the buck--they are due more respect and deference and trust. Trump, not so much. This seems obvious to me--what part of it do you reject?
4/20/17, 9:46 AM
Not saying that there should not be a standard, just asking who was the last Democrat that lived up to it? Jimmy Carter?
Remind me again how many "assassination porn" movies were made about Obama and Clinton? How many Starbucks were burned down by Conservatives cause we lost two elections? How we beat up IRS employees after that scandal? How many streets we blocked and fires we set and Obama supporters we beat up.
So yes, Republicans ARE more respectful of Democracy than Democrats. Just read a paper...
khesanh0802 said...
I wonder at the education level of those who say Trump failed to pass this or that piece of legislation. Trump does not pass legislation, he signs or vetoes it.
So why does Trump keep going on and on and on about "Obamacare"?
Honestly, Trump knows so little about health care, he really has no business being part of any serious negotiations. At the same time, as President, his real job is to go out to the public, be the public face of a plan that he supports (after careful consultation with his own majority in Congress), and to be a cheerleader for passage and the negotiator of some minimal level of cooperation from Democrats to get the thing through the Senate.
The classic Trivium in education comprises grammar, logic and rhetoric. Rhetoric is what goes beyond grammar and logic to move an audience to action. I think that's about all Ann is saying in regard to "emotion" in political argument -- that mere grammar (mechanics of language) and logic (mechanics of thought) do not persuade; what persuades is rhetoric, striking the chord that engages the hearer on the speaker's side. Thinking of it as a mere "resort to emotion" is too reductive; like poetry, effective rhetoric appeals to the mind at levels of association that grammar and logic don't reach by themselves.
The problem I see that the democratic reaction, given things like the leaks and judges making decisions flatly outside of their jurisdiction, has been ANYTHING but 'legal'
Post a Comment