Sally Kohn on Trump Supporters: ‘No One Is Just Who They Voted for’

[jimnyc]

Interesting what happens when one thinks the worst, but doesn't get just that. And I'm sorry, if as a conservative, I went into a die-hard liberal place, I would NOT get the same treatment. Working for Berkeley somehow? Yeah, sure. With one of the liberal media outlets that froth? Yeah, sure. You would be a pawn only, IF that much. I've seen with my own eyes how a conservative is treated if found simply wearing a certain hat, for bejeebeleezies sake!

Now, is it possible that I'm thinking just like she did, and would have expectations like her, and would be pleasantly surprised like her? I suppose anything is possible, but the stuff that I'm speaking of is kinda publicly available... and mean while, she expected differently, but it's not like conservative were out there attacking liberals that were simply wearing a Hillary hat. I've found that more republican/conservative type tend to be like Clint spoke about, a little more held closer to the vest. Of course not HERE, we are online. But out there, Cons tend to not be as outspoken. That's why you'll see less boycotts and demands and marches and riots and what not from the right.

I don't care for this woman and what she supports - but I appreciate much her honesty and openness, even if she is peppering in her stuff along the way, that's cool with me.

---

Sally Kohn on Trump Supporters: ‘No One Is Just Who They Voted for’

WASHINGTON – CNN commentator Sally Kohn explained how her experience working at Fox News turned out to be the opposite of what she had expected and how it influenced her new book, The Opposite of Hate: A Field Guide to Repairing Our Humanity.

“I thought of myself as a pretty kind, decent person and was reared to think of myself that way. And my early years as a community organizer, that was my idea of myself. And then I went to go work at Fox News as a lefty lesbian – by the way, I'm a lesbian; I hope that didn't shock anyone, you've also read the Internet, you know – so when I showed up at Fox News, listen, I thought they had some hateful ideas, supported some hateful policies, right, but also I expected everyone on air, off air, people watching at home, I expected them to be like totalistically and completely a hundred percent hateful monsters, I just did,” Kohn said during a recent discussion with former CNN anchor Candy Crowley at Georgetown University.

“And that sounds horrible to say but it's just what I expected. I thought they'd just be mean to me, they wouldn't care about me, they'd be homophobic, right, I expected all hate – and when I went to go actually spend time at Fox News, two things happened,” she added. “I found out that these people – who I still think, by the way, believe and support a lot of hateful things in the world – were quite nice to me as a person, just interpersonally they weren't what I expected and cared about my career and cared about my family and sometimes we could even find things to agree on. And we’re complex people who were more than just those political views and I realized I hated them.”

She continued, “Here I was thinking I was this like holier-than-thou champion of kindness and fighter of hate and I realized how much hate I walked in there with – all the stereotypes and preconceived notions and judgments, and that led me to want to understand how and why we hate because I wanted to fix it in myself. I didn't like that part of myself.”

Kohn detailed the rationale behind her decision to continue going on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show.

“I’m pretty super aware that I'm white, pretty super aware that I have a media platform. I'm pretty super aware that I can talk to conservatives in a way that a lot of people don't feel safe and comfortable and, you know, I'm pretty aware of my economic privilege and right. And I realize that I can have these conversations, in a way, because of who I am and the spaces I occupy in the world, in a way that feels, that I feel safe doing so and I feel like that's something that those of us who can should take, should shoulder that burden. Sometimes we'll do it imperfectly … I know a lot of people who aren't going to go on Sean Hannity's radio show, like I do, still,” she said.

“I don't go on Sean Hannity’s radio show because I think I'm ever going to change Sean's mind – I know I'm not – but because I want to talk to the people who are listening to him who are not monoliths, who are not just one thing, who are not just the person they voted for in 2016,” she added. “And also, by the way, does anyone remember in 2012 when Sean Hannity said he was going to support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and started talking about how these are hardworking people who are part of this country? So I'd rather him do that than keep spewing hate, and I am going to take it on as part of my piece of the puzzle, my work to try to have those conversations.”

Kohn described the way her feelings toward hate changed after the 2016 election.

“All the stuff I thought I'd gotten better with in terms of hating, in particular sort of a partisan version of it started coming back for me in the 2016 election and the immediate aftermath, thinking some pretty horrible things about half the country and some pretty endemic things about half the country. And in spite of the fact, by the way, that like I'm one of the people who said, like, this was the natural conclusion of our politics for the last 50 years and the way that the Democratic Party but particularly the Republican Party has relied on a politics of fear and dog-whistle racism and fomented racial resentment and hatred, and that this was going to happen,” she said.

“I still was like, those are some hateful people, like they are nothing but hateful, never will be anything but hateful. And I would go to dinner parties in my little liberal bubble, because I live in a liberal bubble, and my liberal bubble friends would sit around outraged and say things like, ‘oh, those Trump voters, they are so Islamophobia and anti-immigrant and racist and they're so hateful and I hate them.’ I realized, first of all, these are some people I knew and who were not just that – no one is just who they voted for in 2016, just like no one is just who they voted for in 2008,” she added.

Kohn continued, “I also realized that I want them to vote differently next time and I want them to change. I don't want them to always be Islamophobic. I don't want them to always be anti-immigrant and I know if I tell people that they are hateful and if I hate them, guess what? They will dig in their heels, they will never listen to me and that's what they will always be.”

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/sally-kohn-on-trump-supporters-no-one-is-just-who-they-voted-for/

[revelarts]

I've worked a a liberal mid-size town newspaper as a conservative. several others as well.
left -wing people there were just as complex Jim. just as kind. Some where scum bags but most were cool.
often just as ignorant as the woman describes herself, but pretty cool.
just sayin'

[jimnyc]

I've worked a a liberal mid-size town newspaper as a conservative. several others as well.
leeft -wing people there were just as complex Jim. just as kind. Some where scum bags but most were cool.
often just as ignorant as the woman describes herself, but pretty cool.
just sayin'

As I said, it's quite possible I would be pleasantly surprised as well - but their leaders and the majority of supporters out there, make that seem like an impossibility.

[revelarts]

I'd say both sides fringes have become more "intolerant" and harsh and those mindsets have leaked into the more moderate folks. but I think the media of both sides tend to paint the other with the WORSE brushes and both sides are more and more tending to assume that any deviation from the party line, or agreement with the "other side" means they are a deluded HARD CORE enemy. When it's not the case most of the time IMO.

I see it as, generally speaking, divide and conquer.
but i'm a stupid crazy America-hating liberal nasty anti-gov't racist conspiracy theorist victim idealist rule breaker, so i must be wrong.

[jimnyc]

I'd say both sides fringes have become more "intolerant" and harsh and those mindsets have leaked into the more moderate folks. but I think the media of both sides tend to paint the other with the WORSE brushes and both sides are more and more tending to assume that any deviation from the party line, or agreement with the "other side" means they are a deluded HARD CORE enemy. When it's not the case most of the time IMO.

I see it as, generally speaking, divide and conquer.
but i'm a stupid crazy America-hating liberal nasty anti-gov't racist conspiracy theorist victim idealist rule breaker, so i must be wrong.

Call me jaded or one sided, but I simply don't see the same types of actions from your everyday conservative or republican, than you do from the everyday liberal or democrat. Like I said, the violence, the marches, the level of intolerance, the boycotting, the internet uprisings, demands.... While the right is far from perfect, I don't see as much of that crap from them. And the amount of intolerance has been so incredible since Trump was elected. That's why I quoted the "when they go low, we go high" tolerance crap they ranted left and right when Hillary still was in things. But right after the election? Folks went nuts. Lookup how many times I must have used that quote.

Now, of course this doesn't mean that I go out and get a job, and every liberal there will step on me like a bug - but I'm speaking about being a conservative, and walking into a new job working at a place that is ALL liberal banded together as one. Again, call me jaded, but I have a difficult time picturing myself being treated like Sally was.

This isn't me saying that all liberals are bad, because they don't need to be bad people to not be as tolerant. But based on my short 50 years on this earth, I wouldn't lay a bet of over a nickel if the bet was a beehive of liberals treating me like family, as a conservative.

[Gunny]

Alan Colmes cried his little bitch ass off on the way out too.

[Drummond]

Call me jaded or one sided, but I simply don't see the same types of actions from your everyday conservative or republican, than you do from the everyday liberal or democrat. Like I said, the violence, the marches, the level of intolerance, the boycotting, the internet uprisings, demands.... While the right is far from perfect, I don't see as much of that crap from them. And the amount of intolerance has been so incredible since Trump was elected. That's why I quoted the "when they go low, we go high" tolerance crap they ranted left and right when Hillary still was in things. But right after the election? Folks went nuts. Lookup how many times I must have used that quote.

Now, of course this doesn't mean that I go out and get a job, and every liberal there will step on me like a bug - but I'm speaking about being a conservative, and walking into a new job working at a place that is ALL liberal banded together as one. Again, call me jaded, but I have a difficult time picturing myself being treated like Sally was.

This isn't me saying that all liberals are bad, because they don't need to be bad people to not be as tolerant. But based on my short 50 years on this earth, I wouldn't lay a bet of over a nickel if the bet was a beehive of liberals treating me like family, as a conservative.

You'll get intolerance on both sides. But the nature of it, from one end of he political spectrum to the other, differs. From the Left -- it's altogether more rooted in dogmatism, and any intolerance shown to the presumptions it leads to. Power Is All. From the Right -- we deal in realities, and argue on the basis of them.

The Left hate Trump because - if we're going to be honest about it ! - they hate his success, and how the public took to him as they did, culminating in his Presidential victory. Trump, to them, is an abomination Not To Be Tolerated. Trump could deliver world peace on a platter, and still, the Left would hate him, because he has thought processes, beliefs, attitudes, which violate their dogma.

Forget reality, in all its intricacies and non-stagnant evolution over time. To a Leftie, their beliefs and largely fossilised worldview must be believed in, whether right OR wrong. Trump is a successful opponent of them all. Why ... How Dare He Be.

The Left consider that their 'family' will be people all thinking in lockstep. End of story.

Many years ago (at least ten) I was a member of a Left-wing discussion site here in the UK. I lasted all of six weeks, before being booted off. I'd done nothing wrong, other than offer incessant disagreements. This is something the Left cannot abide. The quality of discussion is irrelevant .. the FACT of CONTINUING disagreement, IS.

[revelarts]

You'll get intolerance on both sides. But the nature of it, from one end of he political spectrum to the other, differs. From the Left -- it's altogether more rooted in dogmatism, and any intolerance shown to the presumptions it leads to. Power Is All. From the Right -- we deal in realities, and argue on the basis of them.

The Left hate Trump because - if we're going to be honest about it ! - they hate his success, and how the public took to him as they did, culminating in his Presidential victory. Trump, to them, is an abomination Not To Be Tolerated. Trump could deliver world peace on a platter, and still, the Left would hate him, because he has thought processes, beliefs, attitudes, which violate their dogma.

Forget reality, in all its intricacies and non-stagnant evolution over time. To a Leftie, their beliefs and largely fossilised worldview must be believed in, whether right OR wrong. Trump is a successful opponent of them all. Why ... How Dare He Be.

The Left consider that their 'family' will be people all thinking in lockstep. End of story.

Many years ago (at least ten) I was a member of a Left-wing discussion site here in the UK. I lasted all of six weeks, before being booted off. I'd done nothing wrong, other than offer incessant disagreements. This is something the Left cannot abide. The quality of discussion is irrelevant .. the FACT of CONTINUING disagreement, IS.

Drummond in your paragraph about Trump, couldn't you replace his name with Clinton or Obama and say the same?

Your comment about the liberal board is interesting
" I'd done nothing wrong, other than offer incessant disagreements. This is something the Left cannot abide. The quality of discussion is irrelevant .. the FACT of CONTINUING disagreement, IS."
I feel ya.
Same here, i joined left-wing board years ago and was asked to leave in short order. Drummond, funny thing is, I was offering the EXACT same type of commentary i post here, where you call me a liberal leftie and others call me an America hater and more.

My Christian, constitution and issue-based POV was automatically labeled as unacceptably Right wing.
It's very interesting to me that I'm conveniently and CONFIDENTLY mislabled by those of the left and right.
And partially banned and block by both sides. Often considered a stealth enemy with a hidden "real" agenda and secretly "hate-filled" mindset that fits each imagined stereotype of "the enemy".

But the left wing board didn't get into a lot of name calling though. They told me very strait forwardly that they did not want to discuss the issues with those of different opinions. They frankly wanted a place to vent, an echo chamber or reassurance. a hang out for like minds.
Today it might be called a "safe space".

The odd thing is with some conservative-leaning forums there's less tolerance for disagreement in what they consider "reality" than before as well. Over the past years the playing field has moved further right and narrowed concerning what and who are allowed to be questioned... without being viewed as a heritic to the new darker less Christian conservativism, or an outright enemy, a fool or a troll.

[Gunny]

Drummond in your paragraph about Trump, couldn't you replace his name with Clinton or Obama and say the same?

Your comment about the liberal board is interesting
" I'd done nothing wrong, other than offer incessant disagreements. This is something the Left cannot abide. The quality of discussion is irrelevant .. the FACT of CONTINUING disagreement, IS."
I feel ya.
Same here, i joined left-wing board years ago and was asked to leave in short order. Drummond, funny thing is, I was offering the EXACT same type of commentary i post here, where you call me a liberal leftie and others call me an America hater and more.

My Christian, constitution and issue-based POV was automatically labeled as unacceptably Right wing.
It's very interesting to me that I'm conveniently and CONFIDENTLY mislabled by those of the left and right.
And partially banned and block by both sides. Often considered a stealth enemy with a "real" agenda and mindset that fits each imagined stereotype of "the enemy".

But the left wing board didn't get into a lot of name calling though. They told me very strait forwardly that they did not want to discuss the issues with those of different opinions. They frankly wanted a place to vent, an echo chamber or reassurance. a hang out for like minds.
Today it might be called a "safe space".

The odd thing is with some conservative-leaning forums there's less tolerance for disagreement in what they consider "reality" than before as well. Over the past years the playing field has moved further right and narrowed concerning what and who are allowed to be questioned... without being viewed as a heritic to conservativism, or an outright enemy, a fool or a troll.Both sides think you're wrong. Might want to take a look at that ....:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Both sides think you're wrong. Might want to take a look at that ....:rolleyes:

folks on The left think i'm wrong on abortion, family, human sexuality, gun rights, state rights, freedom of religion and Religion in general, education, Small C capitalism, the corruption size and control of gov't over Americans,

folks on The right think i'm wrong on War, presidential powers, law enforcement, foreign policy, torture, detention without trial, corruption of major corps. and the corruption size and control of gov't over Americans.

BOth have some areas they consider "conspiracy" that they don't like but it varies.
Vince Foster being killed, and the Clinton's covering it up is OK for the right but Red Neck stupid CRAZY talk to the left.
Bush Lying is stupid Conspiracy Foolishness to the right but sane reality to the left.
My question on all is "what do the facts say". my respect/love/hate/distrust for the people or the office, and my incredulity, I try not to make a deciding factor.

they both SAY they agree with me on opposition to gov't spying on citizens, (unless their fav politician is doing it at the moment then for some it's just distasteful but "necessary".)

they BOTH say i'm wrong when i say BOTH Bush and Obama (not to mention the Clintons) should be in jail and don't believe i really mean it. They think I really don't want one or the other in jail.
Because for some reason saying that BOTH broke the law so both should go to jail does not compute to many.
While the opposite doesn't compute for me.




SaveSave

[SassyLady]

Both sides think you're wrong. Might want to take a look at that ....:rolleyes:

Yeah ... I get blasted by both sides as well. Means I'm not a "group think" type of person. I would never fit into a cult.

[Kathianne]

Yeah ... I get blasted by both sides as well. Means I'm not a "group think" type of person. I would never fit into a cult.

It is a good thing. Cults are not good for anyone.

[Drummond]

Drummond in your paragraph about Trump, couldn't you replace his name with Clinton or Obama and say the same?

Not really. Unless you can tell me that the extent of rioting, for example, was also seen when Clinton and Obama reached the Presidency ?

Can you tell me that the concentrated attempt to mire Clinton and Obama in sleazy scandal, unprovable when it needed to be through sheer 'convenience of timing' just WEEKS before their elections to power, presented itself for all to see in either case of Presidential candidacy ?

I think not .....


Your comment about the liberal board is interesting
" I'd done nothing wrong, other than offer incessant disagreements. This is something the Left cannot abide. The quality of discussion is irrelevant .. the FACT of CONTINUING disagreement, IS."
I feel ya.
Same here, i joined left-wing board years ago and was asked to leave in short order. Drummond, funny thing is, I was offering the EXACT same type of commentary i post here, where you call me a liberal leftie and others call me an America hater and more.

In my case, I was forced off of the forum I was posting to, and within weeks. Revelarts, has anyone forced you off of here ?? In weeks ? Months ? EVER ??

Perhaps you offer a viewpoint that's far from popular. But there are those prepared to take you on in debate (I am one). The Right is not afraid of debate. The Left, all too often, IS.

There's only so far a person can go to threaten their dogma before intolerance to challenge becomes absolute.


My Christian, constitution and issue-based POV was automatically labeled as unacceptably Right wing.
It's very interesting to me that I'm conveniently and CONFIDENTLY mislabled by those of the left and right.
And partially banned and block by both sides. Often considered a stealth enemy with a hidden "real" agenda and secretly "hate-filled" mindset that fits each imagined stereotype of "the enemy".

WHEN were you 'blocked and banned' .. ?

If you fit a stereotype, you can surely expect to be called out on it. OR, prove that you don't fit it !


But the left wing board didn't get into a lot of name calling though. They told me very strait forwardly that they did not want to discuss the issues with those of different opinions. They frankly wanted a place to vent, an echo chamber or reassurance. a hang out for like minds.
Today it might be called a "safe space".

Quite. I've found the same. Go beyond a certain point, and THEIR response is to stifle opposition. Not to test themselves against it, but close it down altogether.


The odd thing is with some conservative-leaning forums there's less tolerance for disagreement in what they consider "reality" than before as well. Over the past years the playing field has moved further right and narrowed concerning what and who are allowed to be questioned... without being viewed as a heritic to the new darker less Christian conservativism, or an outright enemy, a fool or a troll.

Reality is reality.

A decent Conservative will view the efforts made by opposition to chip away at decent standards with dismay, then anger. This is to be expected. A 'liberal' will exist to undermine status quos. Conservatives want them preserved where it's realistic to do so.

It's a Conservatives' nature to conserve what is good and decent. It's in a liberal's nature to question, ultimately to corrupt and destroy, all that THEY don't approve of.

[aboutime]

folks on The left think i'm wrong on abortion, family, human sexuality, gun rights, state rights, freedom of religion and Religion in general, education, Small C capitalism, the corruption size and control of gov't over Americans,

folks on The right think i'm wrong on War, presidential powers, law enforcement, foreign policy, torture, detention without trial, corruption of major corps. and the corruption size and control of gov't over Americans.

BOth have some areas they consider "conspiracy" that they don't like but it varies.
Vince Foster being killed, and the Clinton's covering it up is OK for the right but Red Neck stupid CRAZY talk to the left.
Bush Lying is stupid Conspiracy Foolishness to the right but sane reality to the left.
My question on all is "what do the facts say". my respect/love/hate/distrust for the people or the office, and my incredulity, I try not to make a deciding factor.

they both SAY they agree with me on opposition to gov't spying on citizens, (unless their fav politician is doing it at the moment then for some it's just distasteful but "necessary".)

they BOTH say i'm wrong when i say BOTH Bush and Obama (not to mention the Clintons) should be in jail and don't believe i really mean it. They think I really don't want one or the other in jail.
Because for some reason saying that BOTH broke the law so both should go to jail does not compute to many.
While the opposite doesn't compute for me.




SaveSave

Wrong again Rev... We don't THINK you are wrong. We can PROVE you are wrong in most cases. You allow your stubborn opinions to prevent you from learning how the TRUTH can really set you free.

[Abbey Marie]

Rev, I think you are wrong about the TSA.

:coffee:

[revelarts]

Not really. Unless you can tell me that the extent of rioting, for example, was also seen when Clinton and Obama reached the Presidency ?
now your putting me in a position to play devil's advocate. sigh... well Ok. just don't Assume i supportted either Clinton or Obama.

But you're right their were No big outright protest, other than the Tea party in general. But there were many "end of the world" laments in both Clinton and Obamas cases. the Protest and "riots" against Trump weren't even major. But the BLM protest took place during Obama admin and were larger and more disruptive (to often counter productive).

but , for example, one couldn't go to a right wing board or listen to right wing radio without reading some chatter about "revolution if..." xyz wasn't to their liking. Maybe it was all just blowing smoke but it was in the air. And the secret service reports there were more death threats against Obama than any other president. And at least one right wing celebrity talked about shooting and hanging Obama and Hillary. Bill was hated by the right in way i hadn't seen to that point.
Were most complaints as flamboyantly expressed as they were against Trump, not really, but the left usually has more drama queen reactions. Whereas the right will huff and gripe more stoically for example burning jerseys, name calling, displaying confederate flags "because heritage", and the like.



Can you tell me that the concentrated attempt to mire Clinton and Obama in sleazy scandal, unprovable when it needed to be through sheer 'convenience of timing' just WEEKS before their elections to power, presented itself for all to see in either case of Presidential candidacy ?
I think not .....
well, Trump and others claimed that Obama was not an American which would undo his run for the presidency. claimed That he was Muslim, part of the Muslim brotherhood even, (and at the same time a devout "racist' baptist:rolleyes:) Bill Clinton's many female issues were investigated to the nth degree and the cause of his impeachment, and thought bad enough to deny/remove from the office which he'd "soiled". Even though Trump's female issues are denied and/or are thought to be complete non-issues. there are more. But yeah both side play dirty 2faced politics.



In my case, I was forced off of the forum I was posting to, and within weeks. Revelarts, has anyone forced you off of here ?? In weeks ? Months ? EVER ??
If you read ALL of my post above you'll see i said the right has moved so that it's not AS "tolerant" as before.


Perhaps you offer a viewpoint that's far from popular. But there are those prepared to take you on in debate (I am one).
not as many as there used to be Drummond. and not as... fact based. more angry knee-jerk denials and name calling rather than real solid evidence. the right's never been very open to ALL info available though, like the left, they often will only believe sources that they "trust" and they trust them becasue they tell a narrative they agree with. Circular "truth"/"reality". Any info outside of the Canonical POV is suspect and often denied outright without any serious consideration.



The Right is not afraid of debate. The Left, all too often, IS.
the younger left has gone way down the road. But many on the the right have descended FAR from the William Buckley type of debate to too often a reliance on pinning labels and angry shout downs at comments that question the CURRENT so-called "reality".



There's only so far a person can go to threaten their dogma before intolerance to challenge becomes absolute.
For the left that's true,
for the right instead, they'll often bark at folks incessantly and name call, start personal attacks until folks leave. creating air filled with toxic fumes. (on other Right forums ...cough)
After folks depart the right will assume it's because it's the power of the "reason" or the "debating skills" and their "manly manhood" that's made folks leave.
The left might do the same on forum but not as many are as delusional on the reason why folks left, they revel in the fact that they simply drove off the right wing infidel.



WHEN were you 'blocked and banned' .. ?
not often at all, but it's happened. no need for details.



If you fit a stereotype, you can surely expect to be called out on it. OR, prove that you don't fit it !
when someone on the right (or left) wants to paint someone in a stereotype, there's not much others can do to "prove" they don't belong. The problem is with the person trying to stereotype others Drummond. Using one or 2 points to place others in a box they've created. rather than looking at each person as individual with a spectrum of views.



Reality is reality.
yes it is and the only person that knows it absolutely is GOD.
Not you or me or anyone else. and people on the right extreme are just as crazy as those on the left.
and politically speaking there is no ONE way to do things. democracy, republics, socialist capitalism monarchy, anarchy, have all worked and have all failed. there are various ways to approach some problems no one "truth" in some areas. Often the question is which is LIKELY to work better.
Some areas of course are fixed in hard reality but even there. folks often have to convince people.
Heck, you won't even say that some Muslims are HUMAN BEINGS. a reality that's absolutely self evident.



A decent Conservative will view the efforts made by opposition to chip away at decent standards with dismay, then anger. This is to be expected. A 'liberal' will exist to undermine status quos. Conservatives want them preserved where it's realistic to do so. It's a Conservatives' nature to conserve what is good and decent.
not to go off on too far of a tangent here Drummond but...
the Old standard for Just War is not what the U.S. and the west are using today. The new "Bush doctrine" of PREEMPTIVE war has CHIPPED AWAY at the OLD conservative decent standards. The OLD standard of not spying or arresting citizens without warrants and probable cause is what I stand for. I can list more... but the OLD constitutional standards are what I'm for.
It seems like I'm the conservative and you and some others are the liberals by your own definition.
And yes I'm dismayed and angered about it.
Sad to say you and others have chipped away at our old decent standards but have somehow re-branded it as conservative.
In the social areas many on the right may agree with the older standards but not the OLDEST .. they've been chipped away or used/emphasized selectively by Conservatives as well. which has allowed the left to go so far. As i mentioned the playing field for "conservatives" has moved.
And as you say "...conservatives.. want them preserved where 'it's realistic' to do so...". The so called pragmatism of some conservatives leads them to "chip away" at many of the older good things. Just in different areas or just not as fast as the left in other areas.

(not to mention following piped piper "conservative" politicians that espouse SOME so-called conservative ideals but toss other ideals under the bus for "pragmatic" political reasons)



It's in a liberal's nature to question, ultimately to corrupt and destroy, all that THEY don't approve of.
Hopefully it's in everyone's "NATURE" to question. IMO the problem is to many people think if something is OLD that's it by default Broken or wrong and needs fixin' or throwing out. On social issues the left leads the way in tossing out the OLD standards
On gov't and military issues the right leads the way in tossing out the OLD constitutional standards and liberty. Pushing for more and NEW authoritative gov't controls and intrusions in some areas. While the left pushes for more gov't and control intrusions in other areas.
Leaving folks like myself in an odd place.

[CSM]

now your putting me in a position to play devil's advocate. sigh... well Ok. just don't Assume i supportted either Clinton or Obama.

But you're right their were No big outright protest, other than the Tea party in general. But there were many "end of the world" laments in both Clinton and Obamas cases. the Protest and "riots" against Trump weren't even major. But the BLM protest took place during Obama admin and were larger and more disruptive (to often counter productive).

but , for example, one couldn't go to a right wing board or listen to right wing radio without reading some chatter about "revolution if..." xyz wasn't to their liking. Maybe it was all just blowing smoke but it was in the air. And the secret service reports there were more death threats against Obama than any other president. And at least one right wing celebrity talked about shooting and hanging Obama and Hillary. Bill was hated by the right in way i hadn't seen to that point.
Were most complaints as flamboyantly expressed as they were against Trump, not really, but the left usually has more drama queen reactions. Whereas the right will huff and gripe more stoically for example burning jerseys, name calling, displaying confederate flags "because heritage", and the like.

well, Trump and others claimed that Obama was not an American which would undo his run for the presidency. claimed That he was Muslim, part of the Muslim brotherhood even, (and at the same time a devout "racist' baptist:rolleyes:) Bill Clinton's many female issues were investigated to the nth degree and the cause of his impeachment, and thought bad enough to deny/remove from the office which he'd "soiled". Even though Trump's female issues are denied and/or are thought to be complete non-issues. there are more. But yeah both side play dirty 2faced politics.


If you read ALL of my post above you'll see i said the right has moved so that it's not AS "tolerant" as before.

not as many as there used to be Drummond. and not as... fact based. more angry knee-jerk denials and name calling rather than real solid evidence. the right's never been very open to ALL info available though, like the left, they often will only believe sources that they "trust" and they trust them becasue they tell a narrative they agree with. Circular "truth"/"reality". Any info outside of the Canonical POV is suspect and often denied outright without any serious consideration.


the younger left has gone way down the road. But many on the the right have descended FAR from the William Buckley type of debate to too often a reliance on pinning labels and angry shout downs at comments that question the CURRENT so-called "reality".


For the left that's true,
for the right instead, they'll often bark at folks incessantly and name call, start personal attacks until folks leave. creating air filled with toxic fumes. (on other Right forums ...cough)
After folks depart the right will assume it's because it's the power of the "reason" or the "debating skills" and their "manly manhood" that's made folks leave.
The left might do the same on forum but not as many are as delusional on the reason why folks left, they revel in the fact that they simply drove off the right wing infidel.


not often at all, but it's happened. no need for details.

when someone on the right (or left) wants to paint someone in a stereotype, there's not much others can do to "prove" they don't belong. The problem is with the person trying to stereotype others Drummond. Using one or 2 points to place others in a box they've created. rather than looking at each person as individual with a spectrum of views.


yes it is and the only person that knows it absolutely is GOD.
Not you or me or anyone else. and people on the right extreme are just as crazy as those on the left.
and politically speaking there is no ONE way to do things. democracy, republics, socialist capitalism monarchy, anarchy, have all worked and have all failed. there are various ways to approach some problems no one "truth" in some areas. Often the question is which is LIKELY to work better.
Some areas of course are fixed in hard reality but even there. folks often have to convince people.
Heck, you won't even say that some Muslims are HUMAN BEINGS. a reality that's absolutely self evident.


not to go off on too far of a tangent here Drummond but...
the Old standard for Just War is not what the U.S. and the west are using today. The new "Bush doctrine" of PREEMPTIVE war has CHIPPED AWAY at the OLD conservative decent standards. The OLD standard of not spying or arresting citizens without warrants and probable cause is what I stand for. I can list more... but the OLD constitutional standards are what I'm for.
It seems like I'm the conservative and you and some others are the liberals by your own definition.
And yes I'm dismayed and angered about it.
Sad to say you and others have chipped away at our old decent standards but have somehow re-branded it as conservative.
In the social areas many on the right may agree with the older standards but not the OLDEST .. they've been chipped away or used/emphasized selectively by Conservatives as well. which has allowed the left to go so far. As i mentioned the playing field for "conservatives" has moved.
And as you say "...conservatives.. want them preserved where 'it's realistic' to do so...". The so called pragmatism of some conservatives leads them to "chip away" at many of the older good things. Just in different areas or just not as fast as the left in other areas.

(not to mention following piped piper "conservative" politicians that espouse SOME so-called conservative ideals but toss other ideals under the bus for "pragmatic" political reasons)


Hopefully it's in everyone's "NATURE" to question. IMO the problem is to many people think if something is OLD that's it by default Broken or wrong and needs fixin' or throwing out. On social issues the left leads the way in tossing out the OLD standards
On gov't and military issues the right leads the way in tossing out the OLD constitutional standards and liberty. Pushing for more and NEW authoritative gov't controls and intrusions in some areas. While the left pushes for more gov't and control intrusions in other areas.
Leaving folks like myself in an odd place.

Rev, kudos to you an a very reasonable response... I don't necessarily agree with all of it but you do make some very good points.

[Drummond]

An interesting, detailed response. Thank you.


now your putting me in a position to play devil's advocate. sigh... well Ok. just don't Assume i supportted either Clinton or Obama.

But you're right their were No big outright protest, other than the Tea party in general. But there were many "end of the world" laments in both Clinton and Obamas cases. the Protest and "riots" against Trump weren't even major. But the BLM protest took place during Obama admin and were larger and more disruptive (to often counter productive).

I suggest this: you're making light of the timing. What lamentations (the major ones) there were against Clinton and Obama chiefly surfaced as a response to their actions and behaviours resulting from what they did, during their terms in Office. But, compare that to Trump. Trump was at the receiving-end of a monumental onslaught even BEFORE he won the Presidency. Efforts were made to discredit him under a mountain of sleaze, weeks before the Presidency was won ... AND ... timed in such a way as to ensure that no proper assessment of what was alleged could be reached, before the date of the election.

This is disreputability taken to such a pitch that ONLY the Left would've launched it.


but , for example, one couldn't go to a right wing board or listen to right wing radio without reading some chatter about "revolution if..." xyz wasn't to their liking. Maybe it was all just blowing smoke but it was in the air. And the secret service reports there were more death threats against Obama than any other president. And at least one right wing celebrity talked about shooting and hanging Obama and Hillary. Bill was hated by the right in way i hadn't seen to that point.
Were most complaints as flamboyantly expressed as they were against Trump, not really, but the left usually has more drama queen reactions. Whereas the right will huff and gripe more stoically for example burning jerseys, name calling, displaying confederate flags "because heritage", and the like.

There's a difference between people who are patriots, willing to fight for the future of their country .. and, sleaze operations launched to bury a Presidential-HOPEFUL. Maybe some are taken to extremes, both from the Left and the Right. But, from the Right, there's a greater consideration of ongoing reality than from the Left. From the Left, it'll be about opposition to someone who dares to defy dogma. The PROVEN rights or wrongs, in real-time, are what those of the Right concentrate on. Pragmatism versus sheer dogmatism.


If you read ALL of my post above you'll see i said the right has moved so that it's not AS "tolerant" as before.

Could it be that under Obama, a lesson was learned as to where tolerance would lead ? Could it be that a real taste of Leftieism was a little too hard a pill to swallow ?

I want to end this reply without getting too bogged down in detail, and authoring a post that seemingly goes on for ever. Fact is that the Right have certain beliefs, as do the Left. The difference is one of pragmatism v dogmatism, throughout. The Left want 'their way' ... so that what happens, happens according to their chosen diktat. The Right have their cherished standards, but, these address the events of the day. If, for example, more has to be done to ensure a nation's security than before, then it gets done ... on the watch of a governing Right. The Left's approach would be different. They won't move with events, or adapt to them, if it means moving past the strictures of their dogma. The Left have their worldview, and their total focus is on making sure that it wins out. And, if need be, reality be damned.

It's reasonable for people to question, if or when it's seen to be appropriate. But ... for the sake of it, to ensure that a preferred dogma wins out as the product of successful questioning ? Or, for the sake of decency and justice ?