Psaki, Democrats, and "Kitchen Table Issues"

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As I watch the undeniable rise of the GQP, while watching Jen Psaki and the Dems saying we "should concentrate on kitchen table issues", my simple desire for a viable third party only grows stronger.

Agreed

Hey Jen, let me point a couple of things out. Whether you're willing to admit to them or not:

1. Hearing things like "defund the police" is "a kitchen table issue".
2. Not getting a job because the other person's skin color is preferred is "a kitchen table issue".
3. Watching your neighbor's business being destroyed because they don't want to bake a cake, and wondering if you're next, is "a kitchen table issue".
4. The thought of a man in a dress going into a public restroom while your five-year old daughter is in there is "a kitchen table issue".
5. Worrying that you'll get fired because someone at work somehow decided you had "offended" them is "a kitchen table issue".
6. Being verbally assaulted in public because someone decided you had attacked their chosen Certified Victim Group is "a kitchen table issue".
7. Finding out that your elementary school child is taught things about sexuality that aggressively contradict your beliefs is "a kitchen table issue".

I agree.

Welcome back.

I hope someday you and I can put aside our differences re: Trump because we generally agree on a lot of things.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There's a difference between whether Democrats think these should be kitchen-table issues, and whether they are.

That's something I think the party doesn't understand. And plenty of Independents think they are important issues, too.

Different people have different life experiences and perspectives. That they differ from yours doesn't make them "wrong".

Not coincidentally, I say the same thing to Trumpsters.

See, Mac that is the problem that you and I both seem to understand.

I can disagree with someone who is truly interested in preserving individual liberty, and still have a healthy discussion, because we still have the same goals. dblack comes to mind.

It seems like half of America has a different goal. I have my theories about what that goal is (don't say the "C" word), but I KNOW they have a completely different global agenda that does NOT include individual liberty.

Do you and I have a similar understanding on the point above?

 

[Mac1958]

See, Mac that is the problem that you and I both seem to understand.

I can disagree with someone who is truly interested in preserving individual liberty, and still have a healthy discussion, because we still have the same goals. dblack comes to mind.

It seems like half of America has a different goal. I have my theories about what that goal is (don't say the "C" word), but I KNOW they have a completely different global agenda that does NOT include individual liberty.

Do you and I have a similar understanding on the point above?

Like most things, "individual liberty" exists on a continuum.

You and I give up certain freedoms as part of living in a civilized society. While I may be a freedom of expression advocate/maniac, I am willing to give up the freedom to scream FIRE in a crowded theater, for example. There are many laws that I think could be different, but I still follow them unless and until they are changed. So "liberty" is not an absolute.

I don't think that someone is against individual liberty simply because they're a few degrees from me on the spectrum. Their perceptions and priorities are different, i.e., the willingness to sacrifice or decrease an individual liberty in exchange for more personal safety.

Overall, I lean towards the libertarian side of liberty, see below. But I don't for a moment look at this as an either/or question.

 

[JoeB131]

You and macs fervent dreams of frolicking in a field with public servants who want to serve the people is a laugher. We're moving quickly towards a one world government.

Yeah, when you guys talk about one world government, that's when you come off as a little cray-cray...

 

[FA_Q2]

As I watch the undeniable rise of the GQP, while watching Jen Psaki and the Dems saying we "should concentrate on kitchen table issues", my simple desire for a viable third party only grows stronger.

Hey Jen, let me point a couple of things out. Whether you're willing to admit to them or not:

1. Hearing things like "defund the police" is "a kitchen table issue".
2. Not getting a job because the other person's skin color is preferred is "a kitchen table issue".
3. Watching your neighbor's business being destroyed because they don't want to bake a cake, and wondering if you're next, is "a kitchen table issue".
4. The thought of a man in a dress going into a public restroom while your five-year old daughter is in there is "a kitchen table issue".
5. Worrying that you'll get fired because someone at work somehow decided you had "offended" them is "a kitchen table issue".
6. Being verbally assaulted in public because someone decided you had attacked their chosen Certified Victim Group is "a kitchen table issue".
7. Finding out that your elementary school child is taught things about sexuality that aggressively contradict your beliefs is "a kitchen table issue".

I've been saying since I've been on this board that the hardcore Left's relentless push on cultural issues was hurting them. Whether you'll admit it or not, it played a huge role in the 2016 elections. Whether you admit it or not, it makes the Left an easy target for your opponents, right now, today. And now, at this critical moment in this country's history, it's all coming home to roost.

Great timing, Jen. Really great. And you'll deny all of the above, or you'll dismiss it as not being relevant.

Not a 'Kitchen Table Issue,' Jen Psaki?

Actually, Our Kids Are All We're Thinking About

abigailshrier.substack.com

The problem is that pushing the culture is the PURPOSE of the left.

They always take it to far but then again, that is the nature of change.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Like most things, "individual liberty" exists on a continuum.

You and I give up certain freedoms as part of living in a civilized society. While I may be a freedom of expression advocate/maniac, I am willing to give up the freedom to scream FIRE in a crowded theater, for example. There are many laws that I think could be different, but I still follow them unless and until they are changed. So "liberty" is not an absolute.

I don't think that someone is against individual liberty simply because they're a few degrees from me on the spectrum. Their perceptions and priorities are different, i.e., the willingness to sacrifice or decrease an individual liberty in exchange for more personal safety.

Overall, I lean towards the libertarian side of liberty, see below. But I don't for a moment look at this as an either/or question.

that x should be 3-4 more squares over....

 

[22lcidw]

Yeah, when you guys talk about one world government, that's when you come off as a little cray-cray...

And at the same time you do not believe in borders. We are being blended into a larger entity by the elites and having a second language that dominates like Spanish is important to it. Thus the immense amount of immigration that was changed in the 1960's and contains a high percentage of illegals. We also have rid ourselves of much of our manufacturing capacity of the big ticket items along with the smaller ones.

 

[j-mac]

As I watch the undeniable rise of the GQP, while watching Jen Psaki and the Dems saying we "should concentrate on kitchen table issues", my simple desire for a viable third party only grows stronger.

Hey Jen, let me point a couple of things out. Whether you're willing to admit to them or not:

1. Hearing things like "defund the police" is "a kitchen table issue".
2. Not getting a job because the other person's skin color is preferred is "a kitchen table issue".
3. Watching your neighbor's business being destroyed because they don't want to bake a cake, and wondering if you're next, is "a kitchen table issue".
4. The thought of a man in a dress going into a public restroom while your five-year old daughter is in there is "a kitchen table issue".
5. Worrying that you'll get fired because someone at work somehow decided you had "offended" them is "a kitchen table issue".
6. Being verbally assaulted in public because someone decided you had attacked their chosen Certified Victim Group is "a kitchen table issue".
7. Finding out that your elementary school child is taught things about sexuality that aggressively contradict your beliefs is "a kitchen table issue".

I've been saying since I've been on this board that the hardcore Left's relentless push on cultural issues was hurting them. Whether you'll admit it or not, it played a huge role in the 2016 elections. Whether you admit it or not, it makes the Left an easy target for your opponents, right now, today. And now, at this critical moment in this country's history, it's all coming home to roost.

Great timing, Jen. Really great. And you'll deny all of the above, or you'll dismiss it as not being relevant.

Not a 'Kitchen Table Issue,' Jen Psaki?

Actually, Our Kids Are All We're Thinking About

abigailshrier.substack.com

Who are you and what have you done with Mac1958? Or is this just you trying to signal to your preferred party that they are shitting the bed?

 

[WelfareQueen]

There's a difference between whether Democrats think these should be kitchen-table issues, and whether they are.

That's something I think the party doesn't understand. And plenty of Independents think they are important issues, too.

Different people have different life experiences and perspectives. That they differ from yours doesn't make them "wrong".

Not coincidentally, I say the same thing to Trumpsters.

The Dim Party is where the GOP was in the late 1980's and 90's. Pushing a divisive and nutty social agenda that only the fringe agree with. The GOP eventually learned their lesson. I do not think the Dims are self-aware enough to make a course correction anytime soon.

 

[JoeB131]

Who are you and what have you done with Mac1958? Or is this just you trying to signal to your preferred party that they are shitting the bed?

Naw, this is always who Mac has been, a big old ball of white fragility that pays lip service to liberal ideals because he wants people to like him. So he'll keep repeating his 'Democrats should worry more bout white people" schtick when the GOP has been getting the same percentage of the GOP vote

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Like most things, "individual liberty" exists on a continuum.

You and I give up certain freedoms as part of living in a civilized society. While I may be a freedom of expression advocate/maniac, I am willing to give up the freedom to scream FIRE in a crowded theater, for example. There are many laws that I think could be different, but I still follow them unless and until they are changed. So "liberty" is not an absolute.

I don't think that someone is against individual liberty simply because they're a few degrees from me on the spectrum. Their perceptions and priorities are different, i.e., the willingness to sacrifice or decrease an individual liberty in exchange for more personal safety.

Overall, I lean towards the libertarian side of liberty, see below. But I don't for a moment look at this as an either/or question.

And, I can respect that. We're talking about the balance between liberty and the needs of a secure/safe society and what that should be. Both of us are interested in striking the right balance. We will probably disagree, but I believe you have the same ultimate goal of maximizing liberty when possible.

Many on BOTH "sides" do not share that goal. They want their own liberty but have no respect for the liberties valued by others.

Many times, it seems that the duopoly demands that we conform to Maoism or we confirm to Christian Fascism. No in between. No room for decent.

We really do need a viable third-party option.

 

[JoeB131]

The Dim Party is where the GOP was in the late 1980's and 90's. Pushing a divisive and nutty social agenda that only the fringe agree with. The GOP eventually learned their lesson. I do not think the Dims are self-aware enough to make a course correction anytime soon.

Are they, though?

The GOP hasn't given up on banning abortions or any of the other crazy stuff. They just aren't on the stage right now reminding us they are crazy.

Obviously, if you pass your anti-gay law as an "anti-grooming" law, you are going to get support for it.

The real problem the Democrats have is their messaging. The GOP is very good at keeping white people angry at the wrong people. The Democrats are very bad at getting them angry at the right people.

 

[imawhosure]

Like most things, "individual liberty" exists on a continuum.

You and I give up certain freedoms as part of living in a civilized society. While I may be a freedom of expression advocate/maniac, I am willing to give up the freedom to scream FIRE in a crowded theater, for example. There are many laws that I think could be different, but I still follow them unless and until they are changed. So "liberty" is not an absolute.

I don't think that someone is against individual liberty simply because they're a few degrees from me on the spectrum. Their perceptions and priorities are different, i.e., the willingness to sacrifice or decrease an individual liberty in exchange for more personal safety.

Overall, I lean towards the libertarian side of liberty, see below. But I don't for a moment look at this as an either/or question.

Most people are moderate, I know that surprises some people. They don't subscribe to far Right or Left. Mac has brought up issues that most moderate people are concerned about.

How many people think the number 1 or 2 issue in America right now is NOT energy prices and food? If you don't think it is, then you are either wealthy, or very poor, and you are actually in the vast MINORITY.

People born in the 70s, either dealt with, or seen their parents deal with the inflation problems that happened then. They don't want any part of this, period, end of story. We can blame whoever/whomever we wish, and we will. But, the reaction to it by the politicians is what separates them, at least as far as how their message comes across.

Now someone can post that this person said this from the GOP, and this person said that from the DNC. You don't have to convince me of anything. It is the American people as a whole that have garnered their perception of where the fault lies, or at least most of it.

Democrats MUST understand if thinking with any logic at all, that it is NOT what has happened, but rather what the Democrats said they WANTED TO HAPPEN if they took power. If what you professed you wanted to happen as far as energy and the border happened, why would you even remotely think that Americans would believe you were the party to reverse it? Not a one of them had the foresight to add descriptors to their speeches about how far, was to far to go. So, if the American people see them as the party who will not push back against what has happened, how can you possibly blame them!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Most people are moderate

I believe most people are more libertarian than authoritarian. "Moderate" is a left vs. right concept. The more distinguishing measure is up or down see Mac's image:

As long as two people are down in the lower quadrants, they can reason and compromise on left/right issues.

ALL politicians are in the upper right quadrant.....ALL of them (except Ron Paul and Rand and other decidedly libertarian politicians).

 

[imawhosure]

I believe most people are more libertarian than authoritarian. "Moderate" is a left vs. right concept. The more distinguishing measure is up or down see Mac's image:

As long as two people are down in the lower quadrants, they can reason and compromise on left/right issues.

ALL politicians are in the upper right quadrant.....ALL of them.

Well, you have made a very good point, and I have no opinion on the up or down part of the chart, because I believe the top of the chart is possibly mislabeled. I tried to look it up, and it gives many opposites of Libertarian, although one of them was authoritarian.

And so, it is much easier to measure Left, or Right. Most people fall closer on that scale to the middle, and as you move further in either direction, the numbers fall off dramatically.

It is also why the most important spectrum of the 4, is left or right.

Why?

Because if the most important axis was up or down, then we would be arguing issues of not left or right, but rather Libertarian issues against whatever somebody wanted to put at the top of the chart.

Still, your point was well made.

 

[sealybobo]

See, Mac that is the problem that you and I both seem to understand.

I can disagree with someone who is truly interested in preserving individual liberty, and still have a healthy discussion, because we still have the same goals. dblack comes to mind.

It seems like half of America has a different goal. I have my theories about what that goal is (don't say the "C" word), but I KNOW they have a completely different global agenda that does NOT include individual liberty.

Do you and I have a similar understanding on the point above?

Huh? Are you really anti "globalist"? You really think you can fight that? It's funny. The rich have divided us with bullshit social wedge issues, meanwhile, we both agree the "globalist" will ruin things for middle class America but look on the bright side, Bill Gates will improve things for the rest of the world.

What is your agenda?

Funny thing is, I was once the anti globalist. Back when Bush invented NAFTA and you Republicans suckered Clinton into signing NAFTA. Remember? You guys were happy about all the cheap shit we were going to get from China. We warned you about China, Walmart and Dollar Stores.

Now you want to be America first? Bring jobs back home? You mean lower than they paid before jobs? Of course you do. So American corporations making in America, only not paying so much to employees. And now they don't pay any taxes? This is your America?

And now that you have made it a global economy, you will screw more Americans like me who work from Michigan, but for a German company? Actually, they have a HQ in America so my company is cool. But you know what I mean.

I was just outside thinking about how you guys have flip flopped from the 80's and 2000's to now. Suddenly you guys are anti globalist.

Americans could have been protected from these dangers of industrial fracking, but Dick Cheney – being a loyal corporate globalist – put in an exemption for the fracking industry in 2004 that keeps the EPA from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Globalism Is Killing Us All

After surviving smallpox and malaria the American people, along with the rest of the world, must now face a new national epidemic: globalization.

truthout.org

So were us liberals back in 2012.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, you have made a very good point, and I have no opinion on the up or down part of the chart, because I believe the top of the chart is possibly mislabeled. I tried to look it up, and it gives many opposites of Libertarian, although one of them was authoritarian.

And so, it is much easier to measure Left, or Right. Most people fall closer on that scale to the middle, and as you move further in either direction, the numbers fall off dramatically.

It is also why the most important spectrum of the 4, is left or right.

Why?

Because if the most important axis was up or down, then we would be arguing issues of not left or right, but rather Libertarian issues against whatever somebody wanted to put at the top of the chart.

Still, your point was well made.

The top is labeled correctly, the bottom is not though it is rather normal to see it displayed in that manner. The bottom should be Anarchy.

Opposing Authoritarianism, complete control by government, would be anarchy which is no control by government. Libertarian does include anarchy but it is a more expansive word.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Op isn't reasonable..............He is a fraud..............and this is the try and get people to waste their vote by voting for someone who can't possibly win.

While the 2 party system sucks.............You have to vote for the one who will do the less damage........

Clinton won back in the day because of this guy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As I watch the undeniable rise of the GQP, while watching Jen Psaki and the Dems saying we "should concentrate on kitchen table issues", my simple desire for a viable third party only grows stronger.

Hey Jen, let me point a couple of things out. Whether you're willing to admit to them or not:

1. Hearing things like "defund the police" is "a kitchen table issue".
2. Not getting a job because the other person's skin color is preferred is "a kitchen table issue".
3. Watching your neighbor's business being destroyed because they don't want to bake a cake, and wondering if you're next, is "a kitchen table issue".
4. The thought of a man in a dress going into a public restroom while your five-year old daughter is in there is "a kitchen table issue".
5. Worrying that you'll get fired because someone at work somehow decided you had "offended" them is "a kitchen table issue".
6. Being verbally assaulted in public because someone decided you had attacked their chosen Certified Victim Group is "a kitchen table issue".
7. Finding out that your elementary school child is taught things about sexuality that aggressively contradict your beliefs is "a kitchen table issue".

I've been saying since I've been on this board that the hardcore Left's relentless push on cultural issues was hurting them. Whether you'll admit it or not, it played a huge role in the 2016 elections. Whether you admit it or not, it makes the Left an easy target for your opponents, right now, today. And now, at this critical moment in this country's history, it's all coming home to roost.

Great timing, Jen. Really great. And you'll deny all of the above, or you'll dismiss it as not being relevant.

Not a 'Kitchen Table Issue,' Jen Psaki?

Actually, Our Kids Are All We're Thinking About

abigailshrier.substack.com

As you say, regressive liberalism.

If I may... and even if I mayn't...

"The left" is pretty much broken. "Leftism" used to mean something, and it wasn't microaggression or ostracization. It was fighting for the middle and lowers classes and for a better overall standard of living and working. Inclusion. Power of the people, not power of the few to cancel or to be the loudest Twitter asshole..

Now the last (?) real leftists are left fighting for things that are standard fare in every other first world country: socialized health insurance, higher education, family leave, daycare, higher wages, unions, etc. These are the liberal hurdles we should have cleared by now, as a modern, liberal country. Watching the few trying hardest to fight for these things be drowned out by the noise is sad. And telling.

You see and hear Bernie do this, and he gets labeled a Socialist and a Commie. Pfft... he is barely a "Lite" version of either of those things. Bernie is basically in the bipartisan center, in the First World overall, if you consider just his 3 or 4 core issues. If he had run against Trump, he would have been MURDERED by the "S" word.

Anyway, leftism has been defeated in this country. What hope does ANYONE have of ANY of that (socialized health insurance, higher education, family leave, daycare, higher wages) happening, say, within 20 years? The left has given up.

So the left is fractured.... what was once education and compassion, empathy and sympathy that lead to leftism has turned into a hammer looking for a nail. Let's all be more offended than the victim. In fact, fuck the victim, who cares if they asked me to shut up. Rinse, repeat.

Take half of that laser-focused SJW energy and organize (pussy hats and all, all are welcome) for federally funded daycare -- the ONE thing we could do that would IMMEDIATELY improve our entire country overnight, in nearly every way, including helping every single mother of young children in the country directly, AND helping their children) -- and, hey, MAYBE we could get something done.

for faakkking once

 

[FA_Q2]

The Op isn't reasonable..............He is a fraud..............and this is the try and get people to waste their vote by voting for someone who can't possibly win.

While the 2 party system sucks.............You have to vote for the one who will do the less damage........

Clinton won back in the day because of this guy.

That seems to be the general claim that is applied to modern elections, the Libertarian cost so and so the election.

That is flatly incorrect though, third party candidates in elections as far back as Bush but every exit poll I see shows that the libertarian draws from both parties about equally. Your assertion also assumes that one candidate is owed a vote or not. They are not, if you cant earn it and that vote goes to a third party then that is on the shit campaign that politician ran.

Earn my vote or do not get it. As long as you keep demanding that I vote for your guy because the other guy is so bad, you sill not get it and whining when you lose is just the price you will continue to pay for that hubris.