Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pattern recognition
One wonders how many Democrat voters are starting to notice a pattern here. Surely some of them are starting to notice that their party’s causes are based on fantasies and make-believe, just like the economic policies of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or the job applications of Elizabeth Warren, or the evidence for the Trump-Russia collusion, or Hillary’s email server, or John Kerry’s military service, or whatever.
How many times can Democrats blatantly lie to their true believers before they create some skepticism among their own voters? There just must be a line somewhere; a line that they cross and even some college professors or parts of the old media starts to wonder if their support for the Democrat party may be misguided. Just a few, at first. But at least a few. Right?
There has to be a line. Somewhere. Right?
Published in General
Forever, and forever, and forever.
If their true believers were capable of logical thought, instead of feeeelz they would not be Democrats.
Can we replace “Democratic Party” with “the press” and say the same thing?
This is what I was talking about a couple of days ago when I wrote Slamming the Overton Window. You can introduce all the wacky ideas you like, but at some point it simply strains the credulity of normal people.
And there are still a lot of normal people out there.
This presupposes that truth is a left wing value.
Don’t get your hopes up.
Yep. It will never end. Stay in the fight dude or we lose.
P.S. Semper Fi!
There are a lot of registered Democrats who are not crazy. Almost half of Democrats, according to Pew, have positive feelings about capitalism, for example.
I know quite a few Democrats. Some of them lean left, some of them are pretty centrist — at least one of them is a gun- and bow-hunting liberal who shrugged off the Trump victory as unfortunate, but not that big a deal.
I’ll agree that there’s a heavily invested core, and you can call them the “true believers,” but I think that’s a distinct minority. Replace “true believers” with “their voters” and I think there’s reason to hope.
Looks like a nearly 50/50 split to me.
I mean HRC was almost our President!!!
That she came that close to being CinC scares the heck out of me.
Oh my freakin’ God – almost half, huh? When that’s the good news about Democrats, we have a problem.
Imagine having a son in the military at the tip of the tip of the spear with her in command. Truly frightening.
Yeah, but she was running against Trump. I mean, come on. Talk about irreproducible results.
Yes. I just heard the stats: socialism is now viewed more favorably than capitalism among Democrats — though by a small margin. Republicans remain firmly the other way around.
(I’d hazard a guess about the relative views of males and females in both parties, but I don’t want to completely forestall any prospects of getting lucky this week.)
Whatever % of true believers (10-25?) is enough derangement for one country to try to manage. Now add 15% mohamaddans into this ‘salad bowl’ and wait until someone strikes a match.
laughing at your ‘get lucky’
What a charmingly tossed metaphor you have attempted to ignite!
You are welcome good sir.
Let me bow out of this thread for a while (maybe longer) before completing another hijacking.
I may be taking conspiracy theory too far, or just over-estimating Dems’ intelligence, but suppose that Omar, AOC and some of the declared candidates are decoys sent out to lull the GOP into believing that the opposition hasn’t a single electable candidate.
Then, maybe, someone waiting in the wings with a modicum of intelligence may be biding his/her/its time to come out, sweep aside the flock of has-beens and never-was’s and develop a real alternative to POTUS.
Hope, dude, you don’t get suspended for this comment.
Love,
ST
One reason to remain pessimistic, is that the leftist will always be exposed to the sensationalist, bias confirming, first headline; but, not to the sobering follow-up, buried, reporting.
Second, how many people admit committing an error ?
This would be entirely plausible had the Democrats run anyone other than Mrs. Clinton in 2016. I don’t think deep strategic thinking is on the menu, left or right.
Don’t bet against outlandish when it comes to people. The neophyte 0bama never could have won against such a seasoned professional with a big, well-oiled machine such as Hillary. Hillary couldn’t do so many outlandish things such as Benghazi, the server, Uranium 1 and the blatant pay-for-play Clinton Foundation and get away without at least a censure. No outlandish neophyte crazy, divorcee, conspiracy theorist Trump could ever beat even a terrible candidate like Clinton.
When it comes to people and certainly Democrats, always bet on the most outlandish outcome.
Something like that was going to be my reaction, but you did it better.
Lying to destroy your enemy will never be punished when you have an entire cottage industry spinning stories to help you or merely omitting them from the discussion if they aren’t convenient to a narrative.
“They’re the bad guys, we have good intentions, therefore our bad behavior at worst is opening a discussion about how bad those people are”
I find most of these people to be unrepentant sociopaths but the point is the rank and file never turn on their leaders because the alternative is…us.
See Virginia.
We are all savage African apes designed to destroy what is good.
It will be interesting to see, from a media/PR standpoint, if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s scuttling of the Amazon deal with New York City is a clarifying moment for many on what the more pure form of socialism means, and the consequences it can have.
Lots of Democrats really don’t want socialism, other than for situational use and as a talking point — what they really want is crony capitalism where they can personally benefit, where any socialist policies are limited to the masses, so that they can’t do them any personal harm. Congress exempting itself from Obamacare is a prime example of this type of thinking. What they don’t want is to go so all-in on socialism that someone like Jeff Bezos takes them at their word, and yanks 25,000 jobs out of New York City. Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio and others are none-too-happy about AOC and her supporters blowing up the deal they had made for Amazon to relocate to Queens, and the majority of the media seems to be taking their side, while trying at the same time to avoid saying that socialism is bad because it does things like chase away capitalist and their investments.
(As for the images above and the media’s repeated gullibility on hate crimes, it’s not quite Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown because at least he had trepidation that the same disaster was going to happen over and over again. The media willingly makes the same mistake over and over again with total enthusiasm because it fits their confirmation biases, and those biases run so far up the organizational charts there’s rarely any punishment from above for getting the story gobsmakingly wrong. You pretty much have to be a high-profile serial offender over decades, like Brian Ross or Dan Rather, before the gaffes become so embarrassing your parent company has to take action. But even after their remove you, they simply pop someone else into place who keeps making the same mistakes, due to the same conformation biases.)
And that’s supposed to be good news? Almost half?
Edit: I see a few people beat me to it.
I know some. They know capitalism makes money, and they know money is needed to fund all these government social programs. Like me, they don’t want government to micromanage peoples’ lives, but they feel government has a big role in helping the poor.
I should point out a lot of them don’t recognize that government help has been largely unsuccessful . . .
Yes, it’s a frightening statistic — particularly when you consider that more than half have a positive view of socialism.
My point in bringing it up was to point out that not all Democrats should be considered hopeless lost causes: 40+ percent of them still think capitalism is better than socialism. In that narrow sense, it’s good news.
You have a couple of things mixed in there and are conflating them. AOC’s GND is not the same as Elizabeth Warren’s narrative. They are different in type. The Green New Deal is aspirational. Elizabeth Warren’s narrative is factually not true. They aren’t the same.
Why do you think it’s only Democrats as far as the aspirational? Remember “we’re going to repeal Obamacare”? Or how about “we’re going to cut off government funding for Planned Parenthood”? Or “we’re going to eliminate the Department of Education”? Or “we’re going to get term limits”? . . . . . . .
Politics is the art of the possible. It’s also about aspirations. Aspirations and possible don’t necessarily align. But aspirations can move the possible. Which can be frightening in the case of the GND.
Electorally, Republicans have collapses every so often as a result of their mistakes. There was one with the Depression and that got us almost a decade of New Deal. There was one in 1964 and that got us the Great Society. There was one in 2006 with the Iraq War and that got us Obama and Obamacare.
When Democrats collapse, they never do it as thoroughly as when Republicans do and it never results in legislative onslaughts the way it occurs with Democrats. Why? Part of it is structural – division of powers makes it virtually impossible to reverse the administrative state. In other words, a conservative institution (our Constitution) makes it virtually impossible to reverse or improve upon bad ideas.