Reply to Fear and anger. Fuels Trump’s base

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Fear and anger. Fuels Trump’s base"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Charles manson, nra tea baggers, fox news, hitler, etc... all use fear to fuel anger. They cultivate it and use it to dupe the ignorant into becoming willing pawns n thier desperate game. True evil walks among us.[/quote]
Yes, and that's why the left keeps making comparisons to Hitler. It's insulting to the memory of the murdered and the nightmares of the survivors. And all it is is a Democratic campaign strategy - to scare the crap out of minorities so they'll go to the polls. Turnout is key to a Democratic win, and fear is a great motivator. And it's basically all they have.

So yes, OP...I agree with fear and anger, but it's the fear being generated from the left. And as far as anger, have you read this forum? The hateful accusations against anyone who dared not vote for Hillary is on a level I've never seen before (and I'm 60). [/quote]

Your memory must be failing you.[/quote]

DP, but seriously?  Nothing of substance to add to the PP’s very well-articulated argument?  S/he is absolutely right.  Fear mongering is the left’s stock and trade.  The constant outrage and hyperbole?  It’s all designed to whip the base (liberals) into a frenzy of fear and manipulate minorities into feeling some unnamed fear - all in the hopes of getting poor people out to the polls to vote for the Democrats.  And if you dare have a mind of your own and vote for a Republican?  According to these morons, you’re Hitler incarnate.  It sounds like something out of a Mel Brooks satire... until you realize this is actually happening.[/quote]

DP, but seriously? Nothing of substance to add to the PP’s very well-articulated argument? S/he is absolutely right. Fear mongering is the right's stock and trade. The constant outrage and hyperbole? It’s all designed to whip the base (conservatives) into a frenzy of fear and manipulate lower-middle-class whites into feeling some unnamed fear - all in the hopes of getting people named (or who know someone named) Wayne out to the polls to vote for the Republicans. And if you dare have a mind of your own and vote for a Democrat? According to these morons, you’re, gasp, "a liberal" incarnate. It sounds like something out of The Handmaid's Tale... until you realize this is actually happening.[/quote]

I see not only do you have difficulty formatting, but you’re not original or creative enough to come up with your own words (or thoughts).   :lol:  No worries!  You so beautifully illustrated the liberal mindset:  follow like sheep.  [/quote]

But seriously? Nothing of substance to add to my very well-articulated argument? I am absolutely right.

Fear mongering is the right's stock and trade. The constant outrage and hyperbole? It’s all designed to whip the base (conservatives) into a frenzy of fear and manipulate lower-middle-class whites into feeling some unnamed fear - [b]all in the hopes of getting people named (or who know someone named) Wayne [/b]out to the polls to vote for the Republicans. And if you dare have a mind of your own and vote for a Democrat? According to these morons, you’re, gasp, "a liberal" incarnate. It sounds like something out of The Handmaid's Tale... until you realize this is actually happening.[/quote]

The party of peace and tolerance is above using fear to motivate its base.

Hence the left has never declared that the GOP was waging a war on women, used crises to advocate for gun control, or used fear of racist whites to rile up its base.

Nor have leftists ever marched in the streets to protest against any of these fears, despite my lying eyes.

Never, ever.

Not once.

Ever.[/quote]

Slow-witted Republican,

[quote]used crises to advocate for gun control[/quote]

Um, yes, we have done that. It hasn't worked, because "gun control" died (with all those little kids) at Sandy Hook.  The new term is "massacre reduction" -- laws that reduce open access to semi-automatics/extended magazines/bump stocks/silencers in ways that result in a) fewer massacres and b) when they happen (there's too many guns for them not to) maybe fewer dead people.  Seems, y'know, like kind of a nice thing...

[quote] or used fear of racist whites to rile up its base. [/quote]

I think you mean:  used [b]the fears of [/b]racist whites to rile up its base.  That's straight outta the Republican playbook.  And it works![/quote]

This entire post can be condensed into a single, eternal truism.

Whatever a liberal/progressive says, they mean the opposite. Period.

There are only fifty-eight bazillion examples.

“Trump colluded with Russians”
Translation: “Hilary colluded with Russians”.

“The alt-right are fascists”.
Translation: “We are fascists”.

“Trump isn’t mentally healthy enough to be President”.
Translation: “Hilary’s seizure disorder, Parkinson’s disease, alcoholism, and inability to competently handle classified material makes her unfit for the Presidency”.

“Trump is a vulgar pussy-grabber”.
Translation: ” Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein,and Bill Clinton are vulgar pussy grabbers”.

And….ad infinitum.

We can pity our liberal friends, neighbors, and co-workers. That level of prevarication and cognitive dissonance must take a terrible psychological toll.

But just because we pity them doesn’t mean we can’t crush them, mercilessly, under our boots.[/quote]

I agree. Writ-large, liberals are hypocritical in ways and on levels that conservatives aren't.  Liberals (as a monolith) pretend to be, and think of themselves as, altruistic, enlightened and high-minded when, in fact, in their heart of hearts, most are just as greedy, small and petty as the Republicans they detest.  Moreover, Republicans, in general, don't [i]pretend [/i]to be "the good guys."  Look at someone like Mick Mulvaney -- he's an evil, mendacious little pig - and he knows it, and knows you know it, and he doesn't care.  It's almost sort of admirable.

But here's the funny part (re: your post above) your translation gotcha is undercut by the fact that the things you put in quotes are TRUE.  :-)

“Trump colluded with Russians”  [i]He did. [/i]  (Yes, I know, we're still sifting through the evidence.  But you watch where this goes.)

“The alt-right are fascists”.  [i]They are.[/i]  [i]Just ask them.[/i]

“Trump isn’t mentally healthy enough to be President”.  [i]Actually, it's matter of character, not mental health. Trump has terrible character. And (like, say, Mulvaney) he owns it.  Character is for suckers. [/i]

“Trump is a vulgar pussy-grabber”.  [i]He is. He'll tell you so himself.[/i]

So don't argue and fret and try to wheedle concessions.  Just own your mendacious piggery.  Besides, Democrats aren't much better.  They just aren't Republicans.  It's a game of inches, you know.
[/quote]

Actually, lets be real about who is hypocritical.  Conservatives run on traditional family values, responsible fiscal policy, free markets, and smaller govt.  Trump Admin violates all of those "key" values.

Democrats try to practice what they preach.  Witness Franken, Weinstein, and even Bill Clinton.  [b]No Democrat defended Bill's behavior.  The argument was simply that lying to the FBI about what was sex did not rise to an impeachable action.  No one defended his behavior.[/b]  Now, I have heard very few Republicans call out Trump for his behavior, which is far worse and continued to occur decades after Clinton's behavior.  
[/quote]

OH, PLEASE.  You must be joking.  "No Democrat defended Bill's behavior"???  Bahahahahaha!
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/27/16678584/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-liberals

"For many Democrats, preserving a veneer of “sophistication” or “worldliness” — a Europeanized, blasé approach to sex and sexuality — was central to their defense of Clinton. 
In the 1990s, the left closed ranks around Clinton over Lewinsky.
As Matt Yglesias recently wrote for Vox, the left’s defense of Clinton revolved around glossing over other accusations, centering the Lewinsky scandal, characterizing it as consensual, and blaming the prurience and puritanism of the American media. Clinton characterized the affair as a private indiscretion, saying, "I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It’s nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.”
Central to Clinton and his defenders’ argument was the implication that anyone who judged him was guilty of puritanism and outrage, a quintessentially American obsession with sex that belied an inability to greet sexual misconduct with a Gallic shrug. In a New York Times op-ed, feminist writer Gloria Steinem reserved most of her ire for “the media's obsession with sex qua sex,” which she considered “offensive to some, titillating to many and beside the point to almost everybody.” Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes dismissed the accusations against Clinton as “sex, puritanism and trivialization,” implying in a Spanish-language op-ed that the media fascination with Clinton could be traced back to the sexual morality of Puritan settlers.
The Lewinsky affair made up the greatest part of the Clinton sexual narrative. Other allegations against Clinton were often sidelined as consensual “passes” or dismissed as falsehoods altogether. For many of Clinton’s defenders, that Lewinsky affair was about American prudishness, nothing more. A 1998 Vanity Fair article described the reaction among supposedly liberal, feminist women as similarly “enlightened.” Clinton was desirable, his peccadillos part and parcel of his worldly sophistication."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics