It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Wayfarer
Because there is an overwhelming amount of liberals who are angry at the DNC and are actively campaigning against the very elements that allowed those actions to occur in the first place. Tom Perez was on NPR this morning discussing some of the changes that are precipitating because of the backlash against the DNC for the shady crap they pulled to rob Bernie of the nomination.
Furthermore, ultimately, while we can be angry at the Democratic party for the malfeasance, we sure as hell aren't going to suddenly switch all of our preferences enough to vote Republican. At the end of the day, just as I assume many conservatives don't really like Trump, they still prefer conservatism in any form over liberalism (and that's why they still voted for him).
The problem being, a voter like myself, will never vote Democrat as long as it's shady and will be voting third party. That's why Hillary lost, the far left, didn't vote at all or voted third party. Democrats are going to lose again next time as well unless there are radical changes.
Perhaps. I imagine there are many out there like myself that will stomach a Democratic candidate over an independent I may like more simply because the odds of the independent winning are slimmer. Ultimately I think it probably best to use factual data/evidence (such as the most resent local elections like PA-18) as a weather-vane for how liberal voters are going to coalesce (or not as you suggest).
Mark my words though, that the DNC won't change and they'll just hope for the best. that's not a smart tactic.
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.
With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.
With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?
This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.
With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?
This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?
As for lamenting liberal extremism I would probably go with the fact that liberals were on the side of slavery while conservatives fought for equality. But why nitpick...
Why do Liberals support the Democrat party when they rig their own primaries?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.
With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?
This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?
As for lamenting liberal extremism I would probably go with the fact that liberals were on the side of slavery while conservatives fought for equality. But why nitpick...
I think you are conflating the monikers of Democrat and Republican with Liberal and Conservative. The Republican's who abolished slavery in the US in the 19th century are much closer to the Democrats of today than the Republicans of today.
Furthermore, if we take the terms at face value, Conservatism is for maintaining the status quo (which slavery was at the time), while liberalism is for changing the status quo (what ended up happening).
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?
Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Ron Paul Openly Calls GOP Election Fraud
originally posted by: intrepid
Ask Bernie supporters that question.