The reason democrats use identity politics.

[impuretrash]

^ Identity politics.

Reality.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Another traditional liberal:
.

Can you provide an example of an oppressed group oppressing another less oppressed group?

Well, that's easy.

Oppressor from Oppressed Group/Oppressed, Acceptable to Oppress the Oppressor
Ann Coulter/Any Oppressed group she criticizes
Milo/Any Oppressed group he criticizes
Clarence Thomas/Any Oppressed group he criticizes
Any minority Christian/Muslim
Any female Christian/Muslim
Any poor Christian/Muslim

That'll do, since I know I'm wasting my time anyway. Rubin merely pointing out that there is a pecking order within the various grievance groups, and it is situational. That part of his argument isn't a high priority for me, but I do agree with it.
.

Let me extrapolate on Macs point----------. identity politics is ANGER politics, which is all regressives are always angry! The left has nothing to run on, so they create anger AGAINST a boogeyman. But, as everyone here knows, anger dissipates. Doubt me? Think of when you were in high school, college, or some other point in your life where there was someone you could not stand, and in fact probably hated. Now today, when you think of that person, do you still hate/despise them?

For most people, the answer is a resounding no! You may not like them still in your minds eye, but despise or hate; not likely. This is why the regressives always have to gin up a reason for groups to hate Republicans, to keep the anger going, always bubbling. The reason they give for voting is NOT their policies, but because they despise/hate the other side, because as regressives put it, "republicans hate all of you!" Now I don't know about all of my republican/conservative bretheren, but most people I know believe that Democrats are good people with bad ideas.

Not so for the leftists. They have been conditioned to believe we are evil people who just want to screw all of them. We are raaaaaaaaciiiiist. Just look at some of their posts on here-) We are homophobic, we are anti everything, and why?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Because according to their programming, we HATE them, therefore, they should hate us!

But then, were it NOT for their identity politics of hate, what would they run on? For the sake of debate, let us REMOVE the politics of anger from their platform, and create the REAL platform they are running on, shall we!

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM-------->

1. more taxes

2. open borders

3. keeping kids on the plantation of their public schools.

4. telling you what kind of healthcare you can LEGALLY buy.

5. massive transfer of wealth

6. raising your utility bills

7. centralized government control of virtually all aspects of your life.

8. allowing men in the womens bathrooms, and vice versa

9 denying states rights

10 rewriting as much of the constitution as soon as possible, so as they can do the previous 9 as soon as they get back in power

Now you know why the leftists MUST use the politics of hate to INFURIATE their constituents to vote. If they put out what they actually stand for, they would be laughed out of existence.

You seem angry and I believe it is interfering with your ability to reason. It must be because you identify as a conservative.

I am not angry at all, I think you people are hysterical. To be honest, I hope you keep going down this path as it has served us.......errr I mean all of you, so well-)

This is a great example of your CONvoluted logic. You see the "identity politics" of the Dems as a boon to those who don't identify with those causes which of course is also an identity and therefore identity politics as well.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

^ Identity politics.

Reality.

Nonetheless identity politics.

 

[easyt65]

'The reason democrats use identity politics.'

...because the Russians paid / pay them to do so, as has been proven...

Russian-bought Black Lives Matter ad on Facebook targeted Baltimore and Ferguson

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Diversity is a Weakness, Not a Strength

It's all about the Mexicans and Muslims.

The identity of white nationalism.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course the vilification of racial, religious and ethnic groups is not a type of identity politics at all.

As I said earlier:

You can always tell when partisan ideologues are stung by a word or phrase: They either deny its existence or try to use it against the other side. Both ends do this, of course. Right now, the list of terms the Regressives obviously try to avoid includes "snowflake", "political correctness" and "identity politics". But those particular terms, behaviors and tactics belong to the Left, regardless.

Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'll let a Trump voter respond...
It was all about Mexicans and Muslims.

By the way, would you like me to create a form letter to send to your leftist representatives and senators to demand they put forth bills to change existing law? I will do it for you if you would like, as long as you DEMAND they start the process BEFORE the 18 midterms.

Your positions in this country are so POPULAR, I want to help YOU, your friends, and the leftist coalition in congress along. Just say the word, and I will do it because; I just want to heeeeeeeelpppppp you-)

I'm not a leftist, retard. I'm a conservative Republican. That's why I hate bigots like Trump who exploit the bigots who have soiled my party.

It was all about Mexicans and Muslims.

You're about as conservative as Pol Pot. You never fail to bash Republicans. With Republicans like you, who needs Democrats to destroy the country?

I never fail to bash bigots and retards and liars and hypocrites. ESPECIALLY if they are Republicans.

If a guest shits in your neighbors house, you don't like them much.

If a guest shits in MY house, then I start kicking some ass. And you are shitting in MY house, you bigoted, hypocritical, retarded fuck.

Apparently you believe Republicans are all bigots because you are always bashing them, and you never bash Democrats.

How am I shitting in your house, moron?

In the first place, it's my house as well.

In the second place, Mexican immigrants are shitting in our house.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

I only have problems with Mexicans who live in Mexico and want to come here. They fucked up their country, so why

Apparently you believe Republicans are all bigots because you are always bashing them, and you never bash Democrats.

How am I shitting in your house, moron?

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They literally have nothing else. Nothing. It is all they know.

Makes me actually pretty happy that they have not, cause they CANNOT learn their lesson.

It is really not that complicated. They literally know no other way and it really pisses them off that it is no longer working.

Really pisses them off.

Lol

Trump's entire campaign was based on identity politics. That's why you tards voted for him. It was all about Mexicans and Muslims.

That is YOUR narrative........here is the REAL narrative that YOU like to bastardize------------> it was about the LAW, our borders, and terrorism! And just think, to change it to what YOU want, all you have to do is CHANGE the law. So tell us, where are all your heroes in congress bills to change the laws? Not there? Know why? Because they are LOSER POSITIONS, and your heroes know it! Their asses would be thrown out unceremoniously at the next election, or recalled if possible before that.

So you sit there and do all the pretending you want, but what has happened, much to your chagrin is-----------> people are being educated daily on what YOUR side stands for, and Americans no lika dat sh**!

See? The tards scoff!

It was all about Mexicans and Muslims.

You know how you can tell? Because the tards are letting Trump get away with going back on every promise he made to them about health care and tax reform and all the other shit. They let him spit right in their faces!

But watch what happens if he goes back on his promises about Mexicans and Muslims.

There's the Formula at work, right there.

Don't like policies of the other side?

Find a way to make it racist, homophobic, or xenophobic, and ridicule, ridicule, ridicule.

Sal Alinsky 101, right there.

And we need more tax expenditures.

Which is exactly what you do when you excoriate Dems for engaging in "identity politics" except it's not racist, it's pedophiles or perverts, muslim lovers or terrorist sympethizers and supporters of illegal invaders to get votes.

 

[impuretrash]

^ Identity politics.

Reality.

Nonetheless identity politics.

By excluding us from any benefit to helping them winning elections, by actively targeting us for abuse, the democrat left has created the necessity of white male identity politics.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course the vilification of racial, religious and ethnic groups is not a type of identity politics at all.

As I said earlier:

You can always tell when partisan ideologues are stung by a word or phrase: They either deny its existence or try to use it against the other side. Both ends do this, of course. Right now, the list of terms the Regressives obviously try to avoid includes "snowflake", "political correctness" and "identity politics". But those particular terms, behaviors and tactics belong to the Left, regardless.

Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

 

[Mac1958]

Of course the vilification of racial, religious and ethnic groups is not a type of identity politics at all.

As I said earlier:

You can always tell when partisan ideologues are stung by a word or phrase: They either deny its existence or try to use it against the other side. Both ends do this, of course. Right now, the list of terms the Regressives obviously try to avoid includes "snowflake", "political correctness" and "identity politics". But those particular terms, behaviors and tactics belong to the Left, regardless.

Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

^ Identity politics.

Reality.

Nonetheless identity politics.

By excluding us from any benefit to helping them winning elections, by actively targeting us for abuse, the democrat left has created the necessity of white male identity politics.

Hmm...sort of like the Dems supporting groups who are adversely affected by policies of conservative cuntery.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course the vilification of racial, religious and ethnic groups is not a type of identity politics at all.

As I said earlier:

You can always tell when partisan ideologues are stung by a word or phrase: They either deny its existence or try to use it against the other side. Both ends do this, of course. Right now, the list of terms the Regressives obviously try to avoid includes "snowflake", "political correctness" and "identity politics". But those particular terms, behaviors and tactics belong to the Left, regardless.

Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

So....Mexicans. I see.
Why do you imagine he had to state that publicly?
Not identity politics?

 

[Mac1958]

Of course the vilification of racial, religious and ethnic groups is not a type of identity politics at all.

As I said earlier:

You can always tell when partisan ideologues are stung by a word or phrase: They either deny its existence or try to use it against the other side. Both ends do this, of course. Right now, the list of terms the Regressives obviously try to avoid includes "snowflake", "political correctness" and "identity politics". But those particular terms, behaviors and tactics belong to the Left, regardless.

Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

So....Mexicans. I see.

Not identity politics?

Nope. Nationalism. At least in Trump's unstable mind.

And my point remains. How many times are you going to illustrate it for me?
.

 

[impuretrash]

Hmm...sort of like the Dems supporting groups who are adversely affected by policies of conservative cuntery.

Except that the groups supposedly adversely affected by "conservative cuntery" don't have mainstream news articles written daily about how they need to be destroyed. There arent entire college courses dedicated to "dismantling" these groups. They're not the targets of late night comedians' scorn and derision. I could go on and on. There's literally only one group is considered OK to discriminate against in America and that's white males.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course the vilification of racial, religious and ethnic groups is not a type of identity politics at all.

As I said earlier:

You can always tell when partisan ideologues are stung by a word or phrase: They either deny its existence or try to use it against the other side. Both ends do this, of course. Right now, the list of terms the Regressives obviously try to avoid includes "snowflake", "political correctness" and "identity politics". But those particular terms, behaviors and tactics belong to the Left, regardless.

Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

So....Mexicans. I see.

Not identity politics?

Nope. Nationalism. At least in Trump's unstable mind.

And my point remains. How many times are you going to illustrate it for me?
.

Really?
You're illustrating mine beautifully.

So, a nationalistic policy isn't catering to those who identify with that thinking?

 

[Mac1958]

As I said earlier:
Play this game all you want, I expect it.
.

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

So....Mexicans. I see.

Not identity politics?

Nope. Nationalism. At least in Trump's unstable mind.

And my point remains. How many times are you going to illustrate it for me?
.

Really?
You're illustrating mine beautifully.

So, a nationalistic policy isn't catering to those who identify with that thinking?

Good grief. Call it Identity Politics all you want.

There. You have my permission.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That in no way addresses my point.

Remind us why a judge of Mexican descent was not able to fairly adjudicate a case concerning Trump.

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

So....Mexicans. I see.

Not identity politics?

Nope. Nationalism. At least in Trump's unstable mind.

And my point remains. How many times are you going to illustrate it for me?
.

Really?
You're illustrating mine beautifully.

So, a nationalistic policy isn't catering to those who identify with that thinking?

Good grief. Call it Identity Politics all you want.

There. You have my permission.
.

Ok.
So what was your point?
Conservatism itself is an identity. There are many sub groups within.

All politics is identity driven.

 

[Mac1958]

Because, at least in Trump's mind, the judge may have had loyalties to Mexico above and beyond doing his job properly, and those loyalties may have been triggered due to the fact that Trump wants to build his wall.

So it was essentially a question of national loyalty.

Obviously.

And my point remains.
.

So....Mexicans. I see.

Not identity politics?

Nope. Nationalism. At least in Trump's unstable mind.

And my point remains. How many times are you going to illustrate it for me?
.

Really?
You're illustrating mine beautifully.

So, a nationalistic policy isn't catering to those who identify with that thinking?

Good grief. Call it Identity Politics all you want.

There. You have my permission.
.

Ok.
So what was your point?
Conservatism itself is an identity. There are many sub groups within.

All politics is identity driven.

If you're actually curious, please refer to posts 4 and 13, in which honest liberals discuss this with great specificity.

If you're actually curious.
.

 

[oldsoul]

Assuming a Zero sum.... I'll go with it though. If I exercise my right to free speech, for example, someone else has, by definition, been denied their right. Is that how it works?

Of course not
Why do conservatives suck at analogies?

Then maybe you can clear things up a bit. I said that if you fight for everyone's rights, everyone wins. You said it doesn't work that way. How have I gotten this wrong?

Our rights are established in the Constitution and our laws
Everything else is public policy....taxes, expenditures on schools, military, healthcare, infrastructure, subsidies
All help some more than others

If we build more schools....it helps those who are raising children more than those without kids

What you call identity politics

Our rights are established in the Constitution and our laws

I see it differently. Let me reword to demonstrate the difference:

Our rights are guaranteed by the constitution, which is the basis for our laws.

I trust you see the difference. It may seem trivial to some, but it is an important distinction to make. Your statement would lead one to believe that our rights come from government. My statement would lead one to believe that our rights come from somewhere else (ie. a higher authority, or God to some), and are only upheld (guaranteed) by the constitution. Furthermore, our rights are not established by any law, only clarified (at most) by them.

Interesting

You got free speech
Got all the guns you like?
Got protection against unreasonable searches?

What is your gripe?

My "gripe" as you put it, at this point, is that every time I question your stance and show how you see things differently, attempt to reframe the discussion. So, can we get back to "identity politics" again?

Ask yourself, who gains by dividing us into ever smaller groups? Who has the most to gain by fostering a divided US? Do you know? I'll give you a hint. It is a country that's run by a "former" KGB guy. Do you like what they have done with their own country? Do you wish for them to come and do the same here?