Advice for the Loyal Opposition

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Nov 16, 2016.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    Mark Steyn on the lesson unlearned:

    "The object of Parliament," observed Winston Churchill at election time in 1951, "is to substitute argument for fisticuffs."

    How's that holding up after November 8th? The object of at least a proportion of those on the streets is to substitute fisticuffs for argument, and indeed for Parliament: The less self-aware even chant "This is what democracy looks like!" - by which they mean not the election but the post-election riots and looting and assaults. Some among these self-proclaimed champions of women and immigrants wish to substitute rape for argument, a cause of such broad appeal that the ideological enforcers at the monopoly social-media cartels breezily permitted the hashtag "Rape Melania" to "trend" on Twitter.

    The object of the food-delivery company Grubhub, meanwhile, is to substitute unemployment for argument. The CEO, Matt Maloney, wrote to all his employees advising any Trump voters among them to take a hike:

    Please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here.

    Ha! What a wimp. Why fire your political opponents when you can fire at them? Substituting assassination for argument, Matt Harrington:

    Getting a sniper rife and perching myself where it counts. Find a bedroom in the whitehouse that suits you motherf**ker. I'll find you.

    Who's Matt Harrington? Some unemployable lippy slacktivist with a master's in transgender and colonialism studies? No, he's President and CEO of a cool high-tech cyber-security company called PacketSled. The sled has now decided to move on without its lead dog.

    These are not perhaps the most psychologically healthy reactions to the inevitable pendulum swings of free elections in multi-party societies. Not for nothing did Andrew Sullivan warn a few months back of "the passions of the mob". Oh, no, wait - he was worried about Trump supporters:

    And so, as I chitchatted over cocktails at a Washington office Christmas party in December, and saw, looming above our heads, the pulsating, angry televised face of Donald Trump on Fox News, I couldn't help but feel a little nausea permeate my stomach. And as I watched frenzied Trump rallies on C-SPAN in the spring, and saw him lay waste to far more qualified political peers in the debates by simply calling them names, the nausea turned to dread. And when he seemed to condone physical violence as a response to political disagreement, alarm bells started to ring in my head.

    Obviously, I'd rather be "chitchatting over cocktails at a Washington office Christmas Party" with Andrew Sullivan, but my invite got misplaced. So I wound up viewing Trump's rallies not through the woozy filter of my martini glass but from the fifth row of the stalls, and they were a lot less "angry" and "frenzied" than, say, Matt Harrigan or Matt Maloney. Sometimes it helps to take the pulse of America from outside the cocktail party. Speaking of pulses and pulsating, I couldn't honestly say Donald Trump's face "pulsates" on TV more than Andrew Sullivan's. Perhaps it was the gin and vermouth, or a problem with the vertical hold. To his credit, Mr Sullivan was at least getting it back-to-front six months ago. CNN's Sally Kohn was getting it back-to-front at 9pm on election night:

    My sense is that if Trump wins, Hillary supporters will be sad. If Hillary wins, Trump supporters will be angry. Important difference.

    Hmm. Sally Kohn and Andrew Sullivan appear to be substituting Psychoanalysis for Dummies for argument - and everywhere except where it's needed. When a major political party suffers the scale of defeat the Democrats have (losing the presidency, the Senate, the House, and governor's mansions and state legislatures across the map), a period of private introspection and public circumspection is often helpful - as Churchill recognized after losing the 1945 election, telling his colleagues that the public didn't want to hear a word from the Conservative Party for a long time and he proposed to go somewhere and paint. Instead, if Tuesday night was a rude awakening, by Wednesday morning the smart set had all gone back to sleep, retreating to the soothing, self-flattering bromide "Love Trumps Hate" - even though evidently in swing states it doesn't. Thus telly star John Oliver, after the election:

    While Oliver agreed "in the broadest sense" that it would typically be good to hope for the president's success, this is not a normal situation.

    "Optimism is nice if you can swing it, but you've got to be careful, because it can feed into the normalization of Donald Trump — and he's not normal," Oliver said. "He's abnormal. He's a human 'What Is Wrong with This Picture?' He sticks out like a sore thumb, and frankly he even looks like a sore thumb. So giving him a chance, in the sense of not speaking out immediately against policies that he's proposed, is dangerous. Because some of them are alarming..." It's "the to-do list on Satan's refrigerator, which of course Satan no longer needs now that hell has frozen over," Oliver said.

    John Oliver & Co spent the last 18 months "de-normalizing" Trump, and the upshot was that half the country voted for the to-do list on Satan's refrigerator. But not the half of the country that Oliver et al care about, so why not de-normalize all those Satanist rubes too? Early on election night, tweeter Freddie de Boer anticipated how this was likely to go:

    I am honest to god begging you guys, John Oliver and Lena Dunham are f***ing killing you and you have no goddamn idea, please stop it

    To which his chum Pete replied:

    Really? You think we should have broadened our appeal to racists and misogynists?

    Got it. There are two Americas: John Oliver's America and Satan's America, with one almighty River Styx between them - literally: River Styx is a township in Medina County, Ohio, which went for Trump over Hillary 60/35. Coincidence?

    Just a thought, but, if you keep insisting that half your fellow citizens are haters, maybe you're the hater.


    Read the whole thing
     
  2. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
  3. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #3
    Another "look at those crybabies on the left" thread? Shocked, shocked I tell you.
     
  4. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #4
    You could also characterize it as "look at all those haters on the left!". Or "look at those all those clueless lefties". Or "look at all those hypocrites on the left!". It works on so many levels.
     
  5. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #5
    Considering all such threads posted here on an hourly basis, not really helping your counterpoint there.
     
  6. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #6
    The election repudiated American Liberalism, and left the Democratic party in the worst position it's been in since the 1920s. You have to understand why you guys were so historically trounced or you'll just keep repeating your mistakes.

    (Oh who am I kidding? Lefties don't learn from history or they wouldn't be Lefties.)
     
  7. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #7
    Let's hope we learn from history this time, because we all know what happened at the end of the 1920's...

    I also think it's ironic that you're using the term "historically trounced" when it could very well be that the Democratic party won the popular vote.
     
  8. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #8
    Who cares about the popular vote except people who lost the electoral college? Democrats would love for the situation to be reversed right now.

    Winning the popular vote while losing the electoral college just means your candidate didn't run her campaign properly. Rather than running up the vote in a few populous states, she should have been embracing more voters elsewhere.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    You can hardly say they were historically trounced. 1984 would be an example of that.
     
  10. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #10
    I don't disagree about campaigning. But I stand by my statement that saying she was trounced when she received more votes is just ridiculous. That isn't being trounced.
     
  11. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #11
    Republicans kept control of the Senate and House while regaining control of the White House.

    That's a historic trouncing.

    Meanwhile, "one third of the Democratic Congressional Representatives come from only three states -- California, New York and Massachusetts."

    That's so historic, we haven't fully absorbed its meaning.

    And after this year's election, the GOP is within six state legislative chambers of being able to pass constitutional amendments without any input from Democrats.

    Not historic yet, but well on its way.
     
  12. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #13
    You are defining the amount of trouncing based on the popular vote. That's just wrong, since we're a republic, not a democracy.

    Our system uses an electoral college to prevent populous states from lording it over small states. That's how the system works, so the only way to define success is to compare who got the most votes by states. By that standard, Trump crushed Clinton by 290 to 232.
     
  13. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #14
    Didn't Obama win with over 300 electoral votes both times? So how is 290-232 a historic trouncing?
     
  14. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #15
    I have to admit, I just love these arguments. Right-wing rhetoric before the election: Speak the truth! Political Correctness is for losers! Trump that B****! Take protestors out on a stretcher! The election is rigged! If she wins, the 2nd Amendment folks could do something about it!

    Right-wing rhetoric after the election: Violence is deplorable! The people against us are "haters"! The election results are valid! We need to all come together!

    Amazing how fast the arguments mutate once you're standing in a different position. But yeah, the hypocrisy is rife on both sides, I guess...
     
  15. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #16
    Because Trump won by a healthy margin, plus the GOP retained control of the House and Senate. And the Democrats have been left in the worst situation since the 1920s.

    It's the whole package that makes the trouncing historic, you see.
     
  16. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #17
    If you say so...
     
  17. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #18
    Again, how does this repudiate my point of the plethora of "oh, look at the crybabies on the left" threads on PRSI? Who taught you the fine art of debate, Vinnie Barbarino?
     
  18. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
  19. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #20
    Proof that money doesn't buy intelligence. On EITHER side of the aisle.
     
  20. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #21
    Clearly Liberals and Democrats here are not learning the lessons in spite of all we Conservatives can do to help them. But we'll keep trying you betcha!
     
  21. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #22
    Lessons on how to drag in the temperature of spit in Wichita when we're talking about the price of peanuts in Perth?

    We'll pass, snookums.
     
  22. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #23
    Conservatives are nothing if not compassionate and helpful. In that spirit, allow me to suggest that replacing "spit in Wichita" with "spit in Spokane" would have resulted in killer alliteration.

    You're welcome.
     
  23. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #24
    :rolleyes::D:cool:
     

Share This Page