Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

[Fogdog]

I'm not talking about "self interest", I'm talking about objectively best interest. What is good for someone who votes against their self interest

I agree

In what regard? Election results serve a completely different purpose than opinion polls. Both "matter" in their own light. This is another attempt at discrediting opinion polls outright when the results don't suit your narrative. You're actively denying the results of highly respected and established polling practices that have been used to direct public policy because you disagree with their results. Do you think Gallup and PEW are "fake news"?

Where in the world did you dig up that nonsense? Where did I ever say anyone wasn't a "worthy person" because they vote differently than me? It seems like it'd be your ilk doing that seeing as you call Trump supporters and actual progressives you disagree with 'deplorables' among many other pejoratives, constantly. Not a post goes by where you/they don't resort to personal attacks.

Why would a conservative voter vote for a conservative Democrat when they can just vote for the much more conservative Republican?

No, I'm demanding the politicians we elect actually represent us and not special interests. It's very unusual you would call that "authoritarian". It's become clear you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Demanding fair and equal representation from elected representatives is "authoritarian" now, is it?

Please explain your reasoning, cite examples and show your work

Fogdog: What they bring into the voting booth as their values is up to them. You don't get to decide.
Pad: I agree

I don't understand what is the value of "objective interest". What difference does it make if a voter does or does not choose to vote in a manner that YOU would call against their objective interest? They vote according to their own set of values, which is what I mean by their own self interest. It's up to the candidates and campaign to convince the voter that voting for that candidate is in their self interest. This idea of objective interest is theoretical and not nearly as important as what voters see as their own self interest when they vote.

"Objective interest" assumes it is possible to know what the effects of a vote will be. When voting for a representative, one can't know for certain what that person will do. This is why I say self interest. At the time of the vote, the voter can't objectively know the outcome of their vote and so must make up their mind about what seems best at the moment.

All that matters is the vote. If you are so right about the objective result then convince the voter. Or disenfranchise them, which is what Republicans are doing. I oppose doing that and suppose you would too.

Do you think people can be moderate conservatives who don't support hard right wing ideology? I do. I'd like them to have a better choice than what today's Republicans give them. I see them as an opportunity for Democrats to pick up a few seats in red states. We have a lot of areas for agreement with moderate conservatives, such as public schools, unions, health care and environment. I'm not talking about rewriting the platform for the party, I'm just saying that an enemy of my enemy is my friend and I'd like to be able to partner with them rather than reject them because we differ on a few issues. Not bargaining the core values of the party but willing to work with people who don't always agree.

I also support the Justice Democrats effort to sign up liberal candidates who will take the pledge to forego legal donations from large donors and corporations. I'm all for letting as many ideas and people as possible compete for votes in the primary. The primaries are the time to test ideas. Winning the primary is a test for strength of ideas ahead of the main election, when the stakes are much higher. Let's test ideas before taking them to the main election. This is what I propose.

From what I can tell, Sandernistas would impose their values on the primary process by demanding up front that no Democratic candidates can accept legal big donations and corporate donations throughout the election cycle. Also one or two other litmus tests. That sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

What are you afraid of? If your idea is so great, candidates who take the pledge will win regardless if it's mandated tops down or not. Right?

Regarding opinion polls. Some are badly designed and purposely so. When discussing poll results, it's simple to throw out a number or a graph but a reasoned mind needs to ask which poll, and understand more about it. And then, we need to ask what does it mean? You throw out poll numbers as if they infer what a population of voters will do. From comparing voting results with pre-election polls, this is not reliably true. Because the numbers you throw out are not objectively reliable and because I don't think you are a total idiot and know this, I can only think that you are using those numbers to browbeat or conceal and not because they actually prove your claim. Maybe you are an idiot and believe they do prove your claim in spite of evidence to the contrary. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've observed the same as you when talking with conservatives -- we often agree on what we want for the people of this country. Yet, we disagree on the solutions or leaders to enact our solutions. This is confusing and irritating when we just want a problem fixed. Sorry about that.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Fogdog: What they bring into the voting booth as their values is up to them. You don't get to decide.
Pad: I agree

I don't understand what is the value of "objective interest". What difference does it make if a voter does or does not choose to vote in a manner that YOU would call against their objective interest? They vote according to their own set of values, which is what I mean by their own self interest. It's up to the candidates and campaign to convince the voter that voting for that candidate is in their self interest. This idea of objective interest is theoretical and not nearly as important as what voters see as their own self interest when they vote.

"Objective interest" assumes it is possible to know what the effects of a vote will be. When voting for a representative, one can't know for certain what that person will do. This is why I say self interest. At the time of the vote, the voter can't objectively know the outcome of their vote and so must make up their mind about what seems best at the moment.

All that matters is the vote. If you are so right about the objective result then convince the voter. Or disenfranchise them, which is what Republicans are doing. I oppose doing that and suppose you would too.

Do you think people can be moderate conservatives who don't support hard right wing ideology? I do. I'd like them to have a better choice than what today's Republicans give them. I see them as an opportunity for Democrats to pick up a few seats in red states. We have a lot of areas for agreement with moderate conservatives, such as public schools, unions, health care and environment. I'm not talking about rewriting the platform for the party, I'm just saying that an enemy of my enemy is my friend and I'd like to be able to partner with them rather than reject them because we differ on a few issues. Not bargaining the core values of the party but willing to work with people who don't always agree.

I also support the Justice Democrats effort to sign up liberal candidates who will take the pledge to forego legal donations from large donors and corporations. I'm all for letting as many ideas and people as possible compete for votes in the primary. The primaries are the time to test ideas. Winning the primary is a test for strength of ideas ahead of the main election, when the stakes are much higher. Let's test ideas before taking them to the main election. This is what I propose.

From what I can tell, Sandernistas would impose their values on the primary process by demanding up front that no Democratic candidates can accept legal big donations and corporate donations throughout the election cycle. Also one or two other litmus tests. That sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

What are you afraid of? If your idea is so great, candidates who take the pledge will win regardless if it's mandated tops down or not. Right?

Regarding opinion polls. Some are badly designed and purposely so. When discussing poll results, it's simple to throw out a number or a graph but a reasoned mind needs to ask which poll, and understand more about it. And then, we need to ask what does it mean? You throw out poll numbers as if they infer what a population of voters will do. From comparing voting results with pre-election polls, this is not reliably true. Because the numbers you throw out are not objectively reliable and because I don't think you are a total idiot and know this, I can only think that you are using those numbers to browbeat or conceal and not because they actually prove your claim. Maybe you are an idiot and believe they do prove your claim in spite of evidence to the contrary. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've observed the same as you when talking with conservatives -- we often agree on what we want for the people of this country. Yet, we disagree on the solutions or leaders to enact our solutions. This is confusing and irritating when we just want a problem fixed. Sorry about that.

Opinion poll example:

Q. Would you vote for Donald Duck?
A. Sure, he's American as fuck...

But noone is gonna write him in or waste a real vote on him.

 

[Fogdog]

So everyone who's ever quoted Hitler agreed with him?

GTFO

If anybody copied and pasted quotes from Hitler to back up their argument about Jews being the cause of all world problems, wouldn't that be endorsing what he said?

Pad posted an article that was critical about sjw to bolster his claim that objecting to hate speech was the cause of Trump's win. He can refute his post. I don't care all that much. I'm just saying he posted an article critical of defending social justice and attributed it as cause of Clinton's loss in the presidential elections. The conclusion of that article was we should kick sjw to the curb.

In case there is any complaint that I'm putting up another straw man argument, this is exactly what I'm referring to:

I just read your diatribe. Alt right is all over it. "kick social justice warriors to the curb". As if not objecting to hate speech is the solution to Trump? Fuck that, what you suggest is desensitizing to hate speech. I'll wear the SJW label proudly and since you gave me that I'll repay you with the alt right left label.

Also your argument we should stop objecting to racist and sexist actions because it annoys working class whites in Ohio. Umm. racism and sexism should be confronted. I think you said it but you don't seem to believe it.

Then keep losing. At least you'll still be atop that high horse

 

[UncleBuck]

If anybody copied and pasted quotes from Hitler to back up their argument about Jews being the cause of all world problems, wouldn't that be endorsing what he said?

yes it would.

just like when some racist sock said black people have a "herd like mentality" and he said "an educated response. i am impressed!".

he can't endorse an idea and claim he never said it or endorsed it.

he's such a simpering coward.

 

[Fogdog]

yes it would.

just like when some racist sock said black people have a "herd like mentality" and he said "an educated response. i am impressed!".

he can't endorse an idea and claim he never said it or endorsed it.

he's such a simpering coward.

Simpering coward. 'bout right.

Own up to mistakes and move on. To act as though he never said it is product of herd like behavior.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't understand what is the value of "objective interest". What difference does it make if a voter does or does not choose to vote in a manner that YOU would call against their objective interest?

It has nothing to do with me. Objective interest, by definition, means what is objectively better for them, regardless of their belief. I'm sure you would agree a diet consisting of sugar and fat is objectively worse for someone than fruits and vegetables. You wouldn't argue someone living in rural Mississippi earning below the poverty line who voted for Trump voted in their objective economic interest because it wouldn't be true. Our job is not to cater to what these people think is best for them, because what they think is best for them is diametrically opposed to Democratic values. Our job is to convince these people why our positions are better for them in real ways that affect their lives and to explain how Republican values only support big business and the wealthy. Bernie Sanders has been campaigning across the country since the election doing exactly this with expected results: conservatives support his policies, progressives support his policies. He has political appeal across the spectrum. It would benefit you to understand why.

They vote according to their own set of values, which is what I mean by their own self interest. It's up to the candidates and campaign to convince the voter that voting for that candidate is in their self interest. This idea of objective interest is theoretical and not nearly as important as what voters see as their own self interest when they vote.

I don't believe the Democratic party should cater to non democratic values just to win elections. There is no point to winning the election if the representative isn't going to support Democratic values.

"Objective interest" assumes it is possible to know what the effects of a vote will be.

Objective interest is knowing what is objectively best for the voter.

All that matters is the vote. If you are so right about the objective result then convince the voter.

That's what we're working on. That's why public perception has shifted towards single payer in the last few years, especially in light of the Republican option.

Do you think people can be moderate conservatives who don't support hard right wing ideology?

Yes, but they don't vote Democratic, regardless of the candidate. If they did, election results would show that. The Democratic party has been running such candidates since Clinton was president and it has resulted in extremely poor results. You can't deny the record. Look at Alison Lundergan Grimes campaign in Kentucky against one of the most unpopular Senators in the US. She campaigned catering to the right, lost. Ossoff, campaigned as a moderate, lost...

Not bargaining the core values of the party but willing to work with people who don't always agree.

How would you go about working with a moderate Democrat who opposed abortion rights on a vote in a Republican majority congress seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade?

What are you afraid of? If your idea is so great, candidates who take the pledge will win regardless if it's mandated tops down or not. Right?

That's exactly what I've been saying, and the establishment wing of the Democratic party has complained by saying it's dividing the party. Manchin even urged his colleagues in the Senate to take a pledge not to primary any sitting incumbents after he took heat for not endorsing single payer. They're scared because they know the gravity of it. McCaskill did the same thing, begging Sanders supporters not to primary her. They know they're in trouble.

Regarding opinion polls. Some are badly designed and purposely so.

Seemingly only when they disagree with your narrative though..

 

[UncleBuck]

waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Padawanbater2]

If anybody copied and pasted quotes from Hitler to back up their argument about Jews being the cause of all world problems, wouldn't that be endorsing what he said?

Pad posted an article that was critical about sjw to bolster his claim that objecting to hate speech was the cause of Trump's win. He can refute his post. I don't care all that much. I'm just saying he posted an article critical of defending social justice and attributed it as cause of Clinton's loss in the presidential elections. The conclusion of that article was we should kick sjw to the curb.

In case there is any complaint that I'm putting up another straw man argument, this is exactly what I'm referring to:

It's not about what I may have endorsed or agreed with. You said I said it. That was a lie you continue to repeat.

Own up to mistakes and move on.

 

[Fogdog]

It's not about what I may have endorsed or agreed with. You said I said it. That was a lie you continue to repeat.

WTF man,

I agreed you endorsed it and said you owned it. Are you going to continue to run away from that? The idea of telling black and brown people their issues with social justice must take a back seat to your issues is what I'm objecting to. Whether you typed in the exact words "kick sjw to the curb" or you copied them is irrelevant. It's the meaning of your post and policy you endorse that I'm objecting to..

As long as we are on topics you cowardly run away from without denying you meant, can you explain the difference to me between men's rights and women's rights?

 

[UncleBuck]

It's not about what I may have endorsed or agreed with. You said I said it. That was a lie you continue to repeat.

do you think black people have a 'herd like mentality' or not?

and do you think we should "kick social justice to the curb' or not?

it's pretty simple. anyone who has read why you wrote would say you do.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The idea of telling black and brown people their issues with social justice must take a back seat to your issues is what I'm objecting to.

No you're not, because that's not what was stated in the OP. You're objecting to the words "kick SJWs to the curb" cited in the article I quoted because it adds to your narrative that progressives, somehow, for some reason, oppose minority rights. It adds to the narrative that you constantly push without evidence that Sanders supporters are somehow racist, always without evidence.

You try to paint us as racist when all the evidence shows we're not. You do this to poison the well. If we're racist, our arguments must be racist, too, because you can't defeat them with logic or reason without pulling the 'racism' card.

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."

can you explain the difference to me between men's rights and women's rights?

Why would I bother when your intellectual dishonesty has been proven multiple times?

I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone who has to resort to logical fallacies to make their points.

You understand.

 

[Padawanbater2]

it's pretty simple. anyone who has read why you wrote would say you do.

Then quote it

 

[Fogdog]

It has nothing to do with me. Objective interest, by definition, means what is objectively better for them, regardless of their belief. I'm sure you would agree a diet consisting of sugar and fat is objectively worse for someone than fruits and vegetables. You wouldn't argue someone living in rural Mississippi earning below the poverty line who voted for Trump voted in their objective economic interest because it wouldn't be true. Our job is not to cater to what these people think is best for them, because what they think is best for them is diametrically opposed to Democratic values. Our job is to convince these people why our positions are better for them in real ways that affect their lives and to explain how Republican values only support big business and the wealthy. Bernie Sanders has been campaigning across the country since the election doing exactly this with expected results: conservatives support his policies, progressives support his policies. He has political appeal across the spectrum. It would benefit you to understand why.

I don't believe the Democratic party should cater to non democratic values just to win elections. There is no point to winning the election if the representative isn't going to support Democratic values.

Objective interest is knowing what is objectively best for the voter.

That's what we're working on. That's why public perception has shifted towards single payer in the last few years, especially in light of the Republican option.

Yes, but they don't vote Democratic, regardless of the candidate. If they did, election results would show that. The Democratic party has been running such candidates since Clinton was president and it has resulted in extremely poor results. You can't deny the record. Look at Alison Lundergan Grimes campaign in Kentucky against one of the most unpopular Senators in the US. She campaigned catering to the right, lost. Ossoff, campaigned as a moderate, lost...

How would you go about working with a moderate Democrat who opposed abortion rights on a vote in a Republican majority congress seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade?

That's exactly what I've been saying, and the establishment wing of the Democratic party has complained by saying it's dividing the party. Manchin even urged his colleagues in the Senate to take a pledge not to primary any sitting incumbents after he took heat for not endorsing single payer. They're scared because they know the gravity of it. McCaskill did the same thing, begging Sanders supporters not to primary her. They know they're in trouble.

Seemingly only when they disagree with your narrative though..

What a wall of text.

When we go to the polls in November 2018, we won't be deciding sugar in food. God what a dumb argument that is. Even so, is the nanny state you imagine going to take high sugar foods away from people without their consent?

We will be choosing who to represent us in Congress in 2018. When a voter votes, they vote in their self interest. Always. Your objective-subjective idea of what's best for them is irrelevant. The campaigns are about convincing voters to vote for them.

You don't even subscribe to what Bernie is preaching today anyway. He's preaching that we should come together and you preach your way or the highway. I'm beginning to laugh when you talk about some imagined Bernie and tell me that I should listen to him. I am. He's been saying we should come together ever since Clinton won the nomination. Some say that if Sanders' faction had listened at the time of the election we wouldn't have Trump for prez. But you know what? I'm ok with people not voting for Clinton on principle or whatever reason. Just don't deny that the people who chose not to vote or threw their vote away brought us Trump. Admit to consequences.

When you vote, that's your time to express what you think. The rest of the time, let's talk about ideas and leave your beliefs out of it. Your idea that Democrats should exclude people is what I'm objecting to. If they can win the Democratic nomination over a more liberal candidate and then displace a Republican who is far right, what's wrong with that? As you say, this hasn't happened very much lately and I agree. Does that mean we should preclude that from happening? I'm for all ideas competing for the vote, not just your party line or a more moderate party line. Everybody who pony's up the filing fee has the right to try to convince people to vote for them. That's the idea I support.

Manchin sucks. If he were my congressman, I'd hate him. He's not though, he's W VA's man. Sometimes he votes with Republicans, sometimes Democrats but he's their guy, not mine. What you refer to regarding Manchin was his attempt get his Senatorial colleagues to agree to not endorse campaigns against each other, basically collude with each other. His was an undemocratic act. I don't support that position any more than I support your idea of a tops down mandate of policies that a candidate must sign on to before running as a Democrat. I think that's undemocratic too. If somebody wants to run as a Democrat, pays the filing fee and convinces enough voters to vote for him and wins, that's democracy. If a pledge to not take legal corporate or big donor money is a winning one, then it will win in the election.

 

[tampee]

waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You do a lot of that we know.

 

[Fogdog]

No you're not, because that's not what was stated in the OP. You're objecting to the words "kick SJWs to the curb" cited in the article I quoted because it adds to your narrative that progressives, somehow, for some reason, oppose minority rights. It adds to the narrative that you constantly push without evidence that Sanders supporters are somehow racist, always without evidence.

You try to paint us as racist when all the evidence shows we're not. You do this to poison the well. If we're racist, our arguments must be racist, too, because you can't defeat them with logic or reason without pulling the 'racism' card.

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."

Why would I bother when your intellectual dishonesty has been proven multiple times?

I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone who has to resort to logical fallacies to make their points.

You understand.

So you don't endorse the ideas in this post OF YOURS? Especially point four:
from: https://www.rollitup.org/t/make-liberalism-great-again.927211/
Main points:

• to too many of today's liberals, protecting 'feelings' has become more important than preserving rights
• If liberals want to win back the white house, there are some very important things that must be done;
• In 2018 and 2020, liberals need a 'progressive TEA-Party' that runs populist candidates modeled after Bernie Sanders that can steal primaries from establishment democrats. We have to get them out of there! This political party cannot survive if it's loaded up with corporatist shills. The democrats are supposed to be an alternative to that and right now they're not. The democratic party must become a super-organism that survives on the support of everyday people and eshoo's money from major business interests. Liberals must create and sell a bold vision of America... built around specific policies like making higher education a right to those with the academic acumen to earn it. Like making sure people are employed and that they're being fairly compensated for their work. Like protecting the interests of everyday people above the interests of mega rich multinational corporations. Like fixing our roads and bridges. Like building a national high speed rail system. Like ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Like working on ways to reduce or reverse the CO2 saturation that is harming our environment.
• Kick SJWs to the curb. When ordinary people see liberals wasting our time arguing about pronouns, and turning racial and sexual differences into a grievance culture victim badge for every shitty little cry bully to polish with their own tears, Americans correctly reject the notion that that's what America needs. Liberals need to stop with this culture of coddling weakness and get real. We don't need a bunch of emotionally fragile screeching morons. They're an absolute drain on the liberal platform described earlier. Because according to them, creating a good economy and making sure everyone has healthcare and education is not as important as making sure no one is ever offended by anything that anyone ever says at any time.
• If we want to win, we need tough liberals who are self assured and put forth good ideas with confidence and who are smart enough to defend those ideas in both a pragmatic and a philosophical way. Our current liberal climate of "there there, have a shoulder to cry on" needs to die, needs to go away.
• If someone is so emotionally fragile that they psychologically implode when someone disagrees with them, they don't need a political movement to unite them all under one banner, they need mental health care to teach them how to be tolerant of people who are different.

 

[Fogdog]

I still stand by what I said about @Padawanbater2 's "make liberalism great again" post:

I just read your diatribe. Alt right is all over it. "kick social justice warriors to the curb". As if not objecting to hate speech is the solution to Trump? Fuck that, what you suggest is desensitizing to hate speech. I'll wear the SJW label proudly and since you gave me that I'll repay you with the alt right label.

Also your argument we should stop objecting to racist and sexist actions because it annoys working class whites in Ohio. Umm. racism and sexism should be confronted. I think you said it but you don't seem to believe it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Even so, is the nanny state you imagine

"The nanny state"

I've never heard a progressive use that line of argument before. I have heard conservatives use it, though. Implying we want the state to provide everything for us so we can just be lazy and live off the government forever. Even though we pay taxes.. Not so much as 'free' as paid for by our tax dollars like everyone else. The difference being we want our money to go towards public services instead of foreign interventions or Wall Street bailouts.

We will be choosing who to represent us in Congress in 2018. When a voter votes, they vote in their self interest. Always. Your objective-subjective idea of what's best for them is irrelevant. The campaigns are about convincing voters to vote for them.

What does it matter if a moderate Democrat wins if they don't support Democratic values?

He's preaching that we should come together and you preach your way or the highway.

The left has already come together. We're waiting on you to unite behind us..

Your idea that Democrats should exclude people is what I'm objecting to.

Then should we include southern racists who vote Democratic? Southern sexists who vote Democratic? Voters who oppose LGBT rights but vote Democratic because the right wing counterpart is just too extreme?

Where is the line? Should we invite anyone into our party, regardless of their beliefs, so long as they vote for the Democrat?

 

[Fogdog]

"The nanny state"

I've never heard a progressive use that line of argument before. I have heard conservatives use it, though. Implying we want the state to provide everything for us so we can just be lazy and live off the government forever. Even though we pay taxes.. Not so much as 'free' as paid for by our tax dollars like everyone else. The difference being we want our money to go towards public services instead of foreign interventions or Wall Street bailouts.

Your nanny state would tell people they can no longer choose what to eat or drink for their own good. Sounds pretty much like an authoritarian to me. I don't even think that's liberal ideology.

The rest of the stuff you added was deflection.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Your nanny state would tell people they can no longer choose what to eat or drink for their own good. Sounds pretty much like an authoritarian to me. I don't even think that's liberal ideology.

The rest of the stuff you added was deflection.

Well it's clear at this point you're not interested in honest dialogue. So this is the end of our conversation.

 

[Fogdog]

Well it's clear at this point you're not interested in honest dialogue. So this is the end of our conversation.

Come back later after you've cooled off and explain why you would post this shit if you didn't believe it
:

Main points:

• to too many of today's liberals, protecting 'feelings' has become more important than preserving rights
• If liberals want to win back the white house, there are some very important things that must be done;
• In 2018 and 2020, liberals need a 'progressive TEA-Party' that runs populist candidates modeled after Bernie Sanders that can steal primaries from establishment democrats. We have to get them out of there! This political party cannot survive if it's loaded up with corporatist shills. The democrats are supposed to be an alternative to that and right now they're not. The democratic party must become a super-organism that survives on the support of everyday people and eshoo's money from major business interests. Liberals must create and sell a bold vision of America... built around specific policies like making higher education a right to those with the academic acumen to earn it. Like making sure people are employed and that they're being fairly compensated for their work. Like protecting the interests of everyday people above the interests of mega rich multinational corporations. Like fixing our roads and bridges. Like building a national high speed rail system. Like ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Like working on ways to reduce or reverse the CO2 saturation that is harming our environment.
• Kick SJWs to the curb. When ordinary people see liberals wasting our time arguing about pronouns, and turning racial and sexual differences into a grievance culture victim badge for every shitty little cry bully to polish with their own tears, Americans correctly reject the notion that that's what America needs. Liberals need to stop with this culture of coddling weakness and get real. We don't need a bunch of emotionally fragile screeching morons. They're an absolute drain on the liberal platform described earlier. Because according to them, creating a good economy and making sure everyone has healthcare and education is not as important as making sure no one is ever offended by anything that anyone ever says at any time.
• If we want to win, we need tough liberals who are self assured and put forth good ideas with confidence and who are smart enough to defend those ideas in both a pragmatic and a philosophical way. Our current liberal climate of "there there, have a shoulder to cry on" needs to die, needs to go away.
• If someone is so emotionally fragile that they psychologically implode when someone disagrees with them, they don't need a political movement to unite them all under one banner, they need mental health care to teach them how to be tolerant of people who are different.