Article blames Trump's popularity on Political Correctness

hahahahahaha wrote:

libs hate individuals wrote:

Liberals think in groups and classes, just like communists and fascists did. Every group gets certain privileges while a central board of fat cats directs it all.

So these "liberals" you describe. .... are they a group?

Yes, they're the group that adheres to a liberal ideology. Not so difficult, eh?

Gary you're far more entertaining when you're laughably earnest in these rants, rather than trying to be snarky. Always remember: you people can't do funny.

If you really feel that Trump has the best chance of winning the general election then that's a solid reason to support him.

I might like Bernie Sanders on many issues but I know he has no shot in the general election so I wouldn't want him to be the Democrat candidate.

TRUMP 2016 LIBERAL B*tCHES, AND CUCKSERVATIVES!

AMERICANS ARE SICK OF BUSHES, CLINTONS, ILLEGALS, MUSLIM TERRORISTS, AND THE LYING MEDIA!!

TRUMP 2016!!

DiscoGary wrote:

spade detector wrote:

Sure, the article is right about one of the main driving forces behind Trump's popularity.

But DG isn't being attacked for being a vocal conservative - he's being attacked for being aggressively wrong on other tangents that he goes on.

So I'm right but you don't like my style. I can live with that.

The article was right in many respects. You have posted several incorrect statements in this thread. You are correct that I don't like your style, which when combined with incorrect statements, often draws criticism.

libs hate individuals wrote:

hahahahahaha wrote:

So these "liberals" you describe. .... are they a group?

Yes, they're the group that adheres to a liberal ideology. Not so difficult, eh?

What are the explicit requirements to be considered an adherent of this ideology?

It seems like you are trying to place individuals in a group based on these exacting criteria that you will describe.

We need you to show us how the liberals are the only ones doing this though. ok?

DiscoGary wrote:

The next time you are surrounded by liberals, say something nice about old white American Christians and then come back here and report what happened. If you want a really explosive response throw in "Southern", but be sure to take a few steps back first.

Do that, and then we can discuss who the real villains and victims are, where the hatred lies, and we'll have a nice discussion on racism as well.

That sounds absolutely brutal Gary.

You are a survivor... an inspiration. I don't know how you've overcome such brazen hatred.

Truly amazing.

NORWAY: OSLO POLICE — “WE HAVE LOST THE CITY”

“Grønland is more Muslim than Morocco.” And Europe is bringing in millions more.....

http://www.infowars.com/norway-oslo-police-we-have-lost-the-city/

I've been agreeing with DiscoGary a lot recently, but he is dead wrong that all liberals support political correctness. Liberals and progressives are not the same thing.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/ujjal-dosanjh-by-silencing-white-men-canada-cant-have-an-honest-debate-about-equality-race-and-culture

The following article by Ujjal Dosanjh, former Liberal Premier of British Columbia and cabinet member for the federal Liberal Party condemns statements made by fellow liberals Kathleen Wynn and Justin Trudeau. Some liberals clearly do still have a brain in their head. It probably helps that Dosanjh isn't white so he isn't expected to bow his head to white man's guilt like many of the people in his party.

I'm a former Liberal Party voter, but the rise of Trudeau and Wynn, combined with unbelievably incompetent fiscal management and scandals has forced me to move to the right. If I were American I would seriously consider Trump, even though I realize that he is unlikely to beat Clinton, because the traditional Republican Party of the past several decades has proven to be a complete joke when it comes to running a balanced budget and I am not particularly socially conservative.

Do I think that Trump would get much accomplished if he somehow managed to become President? Probably not, due to all of the checks and balances in American democracy, but my hope is that he can help change the narrative in Washington and push the Republican Party in a different direction than its current socially conservative/fiscally liberal agenda.

If nothing else, Trump is proving that there is a large number of anti-establishment voters who hate both the Democrats and the Republicans and might be willing to vote for somebody who doesn't tow the usual party lines.

unpatriotic canadian wrote:

I

Do I think that Trump would get much accomplished if he somehow managed to become President? Probably not, due to all of the checks and balances in American democracy, but my hope is that he can help change the narrative in Washington and push the Republican Party in a different direction than its current socially conservative/fiscally liberal agenda.

l.

Complete opposite of the truth. The establishment candidates are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's what Romney was, but the tea party and Christians fought back saying he wasn't conservative enough. These groups are socially conservative. So is trump. I wouldn't call mocking a disabled guy socially liberal.

Fiscally conservative? They're all calling for a much larger defense budget.

Ebola=Devil wrote:

unpatriotic canadian wrote:

I

Do I think that Trump would get much accomplished if he somehow managed to become President? Probably not, due to all of the checks and balances in American democracy, but my hope is that he can help change the narrative in Washington and push the Republican Party in a different direction than its current socially conservative/fiscally liberal agenda.

l.

Complete opposite of the truth. The establishment candidates are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's what Romney was, but the tea party and Christians fought back saying he wasn't conservative enough. These groups are socially conservative. So is trump. I wouldn't call mocking a disabled guy socially liberal.

When was the last time a Republican president averaged a balanced budget for the length of his term? I don't know the answer, but it's been a while... Saying that they're fiscally conservative doesn't make it so.

As far as social conservatism goes, I'm fairly libertarian, which often clashes with the Republican Party when it comes to things like euthanasia, abortion (yeah, I know Trump now says that he's against it, but I'm skeptical), the war on drugs... etc. Trump is definitely socially conservative on immigration, but I take his side on that debate (to some extent, anyhow) for both fiscal as well as cultural reasons. Trump seems more pragmatic and open to compromise on most of these issues than some of his rivals.

While it would certainly be naive to think that Trump doesn't receive money and influence from special interest groups, the fact that he's extremely wealthy appears to make him less prone to catering to the establishment, whether that be lobbyists, the media... etc. I can see some similarities to Bloomberg in that respect. The best thing that the U.S. (and Canada) could do for democracy would be to outlaw all political donations, as well as personal funding, and give all candidates who receive a specified number of endorsement signatures money from the public purse to run their campaigns as they see fit. Yeah, you'd have to pay a few more dollars in taxes, but the level of government corruption would decrease substantially.

Anyhow, I could be wrong about some of this and, if so, feel free to correct. I'm not an American citizen and likely don't follow U.S. politics as closely as some of you.

1. If you think that society should be moved to a more "progressive" state where it's okay to limit people's freedom of speech so that your sexually immature and frustrated, guilty-white, self-hating feelings aren't hurt, please just drink that cup of bleach sitting in your fridge already.

2. If your argument against trump involves xenophobia, islamophobia, bigotry, or any other feelings based cause, see number 1, and please act immediately.

For those of you interested in objectively looking at Trump's positions, regardless of what "team" he is on... (I've added the SS/Medicare and "self-funded" to the list)...

unpatriotic canadian wrote:

I've been agreeing with DiscoGary a lot recently, but he is dead wrong that all liberals support political correctness. Liberals and progressives are not the same thing.

...

Well I certainly don't want to disappoint my fan base, so let's try to reconcile this.

There are two elements of political correctness:

1. The suppression of ideas which the challenge liberal orthodoxy on political issues.

2. The indiscriminate demonization of politically incorrect villains, old white Christians for example.

Within the context of this thread I have been concentrating on the second aspect of PC. While I agree that there might be many (silent) liberals who might be upset about #1, I am less likely to agree that there are many (silent) liberals who are upset about #2.

If there are any liberals anywhere who disagree with either of those, then they are keeping silent. As one who did NOT keep silent, and therefore suffered left-wing attacks designed to personally destroy me, I can see why they might want to stay silent. The left is very good at silencing people.

So let's assume that just because I can not see one single liberal anywhere in the country trying to stop the PC personal destruction machine for fear of becoming a target themselves, there still is an undercurrent of silent liberals (we call them "cowards" on the right, but who am I to judge a different culture) who will vote against it if given the chance.

Weeeeell, as it turns out, there is evidence that's true. The latest polls show that a large part of Trump's support comes from Democrats. So it appears that a big part of the liberal base IS willing to throw out the PC personal destruction machine after all. They just don't want anyone to know they are doing it.

So those who say there are many liberals who disagree with PC were right, and I was right that NO liberal will publicly challenge the PC culture, which is what matters in the context of the article because we on the right need to know that someone on the left is reasonable and can be dealt with in a civil way which will never happen while the PC axe hangs over our head, but I was wrong to conclude that all liberals agree with the most oppressive forms of PC, but I'll ask for some leeway on this because you have to admit that the fact is well hidden from the public eye.

Still, I say the thesis of the article is correct and the burden of restoring civil discourse falls on the left and that the silent liberals who disagree with the PC culture need to go public and fight it. Until then, we on the right will fight the PC personal destruction machine with outrageously politically in-correct politicians like Trump.

^This.

DiscoGary wrote:

As one who did NOT keep silent, and therefore suffered left-wing attacks designed to personally destroy me, I can see why they might want to stay silent. .

OMG!! I'm so sorry if we offended you. You've overcome so many obstacles in your life. You deserve a finisher medal as consolation!

DiscoGary wrote:

As one who did NOT keep silent, and therefore suffered left-wing attacks designed to personally destroy me, I can see why they might want to stay silent.

Gary,

I've asked on other threads before: please list the ways you have been attacked by liberals. A few specific examples would do wonders for bolstering your case.

Based on your posts, it seems like there have been many attacks, so I'm okay with you not listng every one. But I think we'd all appreciate some background on the injustices you've suffered.

Thanks a bunch.

DiscoGary wrote:

There are two elements of political correctness:

1. The suppression of ideas which the challenge liberal orthodoxy on political issues.

2. The indiscriminate demonization of politically incorrect villains, old white Christians for example.

So, let me try my liberal response to this.

1. The "suppression" of these ideas happens when people show disapproval of speech that they do not like.

Freedom of speech works both ways. You can say what you what, but you could also say that you disagree with what someone said.

When enough people voice their disapproval of certain topics, and those diapprovers become the majority, that topic becomes politically incorrect.

That is to say, it is bad politics because you lose votes voicing those topics.

2. I actually agree that there is too much demonization of politically incorrect villains.

It's when people feel that they are on the right side of an issue and attack those who feel differently.

The irony is that it isn't a liberal view to hate people who are different yet many liberals do just that.

In the end, voters decide what is politically incorrect.

If Trump is truly deemed politically incorrect then he won't get the votes to become President.