Want more Trump?
Democrats have thought long and hard about why they lost in 2016 and have decided that the answer is that the people who voted against them are...
...Sociopaths.
I'm not an Evangelical, but I think that name-calling is not the way to grow the coalition.
And here is more of that smart strategy.
//“Maybe instead of trying to convince hateful white people, Dems should convince our base—ppl of color, women to turn out. Cater to them,” Tweeted noted far-left feminist and author Jill Filipovic. Filipovic went on to rail against bigoted voters in proceeding tweets. “At what point is this not a failure of Democrats but toxic, vindictive voters willing to elected hateful bigots.”
Herein lies the Democrats’ problem, just as it was a problem when Hillary Clinton bellowed about a basket full of deplorables during the 2016 campaign. The Democrats and their base (Hollywood) think the key to winning elections is to insult voters. “They don’t vote for us because they are bigots” is not a strategy I would employ as a campaign manager but they are welcome to keep trying this, and they are welcome to keep losing.
Another problem with Filipovic’s theory: Trump won educated white women over the first major party female nominee in history. ”
The otherization and dehumanization of large swaths of the voting public is a primary reason operatives like Filipovic have been reduced to tweeting from the havens of their Upper West and East Coast cities. These urban islands are where the party is forced to mine for talent to send into strange flyover districts. As Heat Street reported, Ossoff had nine times as many donors in California, as his home state of Georgia.
The key to winning, according to Filipovic, is to act contemptibly toward voters and put up candidates in districts where they don’t live, while simultaneously marching through their streets and blocking highways. Bold strategy.//
Must feel good, though.
Showing posts with label Liberal Tolerance - 2017. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Tolerance - 2017. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Like any colonized territory, outsiders have to educate the natives.
In this case, that is done at Fresno State University where the primitive locals are not permitted to give voice to their unenlightened throughtcrime.
//A group of group of pro-life students at Fresno State in California learned some rough lessons in free speech and the legal system recently, leading to a court case which will no doubt receive national attention. It seems that the group, Fresno State Students for Life, made plans to write some pro-life messages in chalk on the sidewalks outside the school library and obtained the required permits for a public display from the school. When the time came, they crafted their messages, including one which read, “You CAN be pregnant & successful” on the pavement, but quickly received an unexpected surprise. One of the professors from the school showed up and informed them that their free speech was in “the wrong place” and he would be coming back to clean up the unwelcome display. (CNN)
Shortly before finishing, the lawsuit claims, William Thatcher, an assistant professor of public health, approached the group and said they had to keep their messages to the university’s free speech area.
According to Bernadette Tasy, one of the organizers with the group and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Thatcher then said he would be back to remove the messages. Tasy says he returned with a group of students and they attempted to remove the group’s messages.
Video provided to CNN by the group’s lawyers shows Thatcher starting to erase the messages with his foot.//
Pro-abortion messages were, however, chalked over the other messages.
This is the second incident involving an unhinged leftist professor at Fresno State.
No cries for "safe spaces" for conservatives as yet.
In this case, that is done at Fresno State University where the primitive locals are not permitted to give voice to their unenlightened throughtcrime.
//A group of group of pro-life students at Fresno State in California learned some rough lessons in free speech and the legal system recently, leading to a court case which will no doubt receive national attention. It seems that the group, Fresno State Students for Life, made plans to write some pro-life messages in chalk on the sidewalks outside the school library and obtained the required permits for a public display from the school. When the time came, they crafted their messages, including one which read, “You CAN be pregnant & successful” on the pavement, but quickly received an unexpected surprise. One of the professors from the school showed up and informed them that their free speech was in “the wrong place” and he would be coming back to clean up the unwelcome display. (CNN)
Shortly before finishing, the lawsuit claims, William Thatcher, an assistant professor of public health, approached the group and said they had to keep their messages to the university’s free speech area.
According to Bernadette Tasy, one of the organizers with the group and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Thatcher then said he would be back to remove the messages. Tasy says he returned with a group of students and they attempted to remove the group’s messages.
Video provided to CNN by the group’s lawyers shows Thatcher starting to erase the messages with his foot.//
Pro-abortion messages were, however, chalked over the other messages.
This is the second incident involving an unhinged leftist professor at Fresno State.
No cries for "safe spaces" for conservatives as yet.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
More examples of the open-minded left.
Fragile leftists cancel NYT subscription because a columnist said to listen to all sides on the subject of Global Warming:
"Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU, urged her colleagues to scrap their subscriptions, as well.
“Composing my letter to the editor today and canceling @nytimes,” she tweeted. “‘Balance’ means a VALID alternative opinion, not pseudoscience. I’m so sad.”
Seems like an overreaction.
However, in other news, a recent study of the attitudes of Dartmouth students surprisingly discovers that Democrats are less tolerant of opposing views:
//The left loves embracing the idea of "tolerance," yet the rest of us have long observed that all the Left ever seems tolerant of is itself. A new survey from Dartmouth College provides yet more evidence that the volatile political divide in this country is being caused by the intolerant left:
Yup. The side that is currently breeding violence against speech they disagree with happens to be intolerant of opposing views. They've practically built an entire movement on preaching "tolerance," while those of us who didn't fall for it recognized it as Orwell's "newspeak."
Republicans don't routinely assault people who disagree with them. When is the last time you saw a group of conservatives hold a riot, or threaten a speaker? Tolerance does not mean acceptance. It means upholding the civil society. You do you, I'll do me, and we won't sweat anything else.//
Well, that's surprising.
Given the last 20 years.
And the rioting.
And the suppression of free speech by the left.
And the demand for "safe spaces."
Fragile leftists cancel NYT subscription because a columnist said to listen to all sides on the subject of Global Warming:
"Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU, urged her colleagues to scrap their subscriptions, as well.
“Composing my letter to the editor today and canceling @nytimes,” she tweeted. “‘Balance’ means a VALID alternative opinion, not pseudoscience. I’m so sad.”
Seems like an overreaction.
However, in other news, a recent study of the attitudes of Dartmouth students surprisingly discovers that Democrats are less tolerant of opposing views:
//The left loves embracing the idea of "tolerance," yet the rest of us have long observed that all the Left ever seems tolerant of is itself. A new survey from Dartmouth College provides yet more evidence that the volatile political divide in this country is being caused by the intolerant left:
In the campus-wide field survey, students of all political stripes were asked how comfortable they would be about living with a roommate who holds opposing political views. Of the 432 students surveyed, only 39 percent of students who identified as Democrats said they would feel comfortable living with a Republican, 16 percent said they felt neutral about the proposed arrangement, while 45 percent, a plurality, said they felt uncomfortable.
A majority of students who identified as Republicans (69 percent) said they were comfortable living with someone of opposing political views, 19 percent said they felt neutral about it, and only 12 percent said they felt uncomfortable. Among Independent students, 61 percent said they felt comfortable living with someone with opposite views, 22 percent were neutral about it, and 16 percent were uncomfortable.
Yup. The side that is currently breeding violence against speech they disagree with happens to be intolerant of opposing views. They've practically built an entire movement on preaching "tolerance," while those of us who didn't fall for it recognized it as Orwell's "newspeak."
Republicans don't routinely assault people who disagree with them. When is the last time you saw a group of conservatives hold a riot, or threaten a speaker? Tolerance does not mean acceptance. It means upholding the civil society. You do you, I'll do me, and we won't sweat anything else.//
Well, that's surprising.
Given the last 20 years.
And the rioting.
And the suppression of free speech by the left.
And the demand for "safe spaces."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
