Democrats Making a Shift

[Carborendum]

I am observing a phenomenon that I think that we, as conservatives, ought to applaud, not mock.  I'm seeing way too much gloating (I did some myself. And I should apologize).  Many of the people on the left are admitting that those in power on the left no longer represent their values or interests.  While they still have disagreements with the right, they feel like they will be heard by the right more than the left.

We, of course, saw many who were center left (e.g. Elon) who didn't really change positions.  But they simply found that the lines had shifted right under their feet.  Now they found themselves in Republican territory.  We slowly saw them making public announcements over the past four years or more.  And many more in the past year.

Of the further left leaning individuals whom no one ever saw coming over to the right, among the most notable was Ana Kasparian.  She decided to leave the left, when she was assaulted by homeless people.  And all of her friends told her to shut up because that was shaming the homeless.  They had no desire to help her through the ordeal.  When it finally became personal, that was when she had her awakening.  While she still had left-leaning values and moved to the left as the party moved further left, she realized that she had been in a daze.  When she stopped to re-assess, she realized that she had moved from where she was and decided to re-assess.  She had spent so much time hating on the right, that she never realized how far left she had moved due to mob mentality -- in just a few years.

The further left individuals being disillusioned by the Democrat rhetoric started to look at the Republican party as an alternative.  They didn't like the right.  They say that they still identify as left on many issues.  But they felt that the Left simply abandoned them.  We're now seeing a lot of people who consider themselves politically homeless.

Am I, Stephen A. Smith, becoming a Republican? (He's a registered independent).

We're also hearing from many who only stayed with the left because they felt safety in numbers.  But when the election results came in, they were freely declaring how much they really wanted to say something before, but were afraid of backlash -- not in so many words.  But we clearly hear a HUGE difference between what they were saying just a few months ago vs. today.

Charlamagne tha God is an interesting character.  He was, like many black men, already conservative on most of the common political talking points.  But he was only a Democrat by the default mentality (Black = Democrat).  Once he started realizing how much he already disagreed with the left and how much he agreed with the right, he's seriously considering a change -- maybe not.

Lindy Li, a Democrat political strategist and commentator (and finance committee member) is now coming out and admitting that the Democrat party is both broke and broken.  They spent over $1B from standard fundraising + $1B from superPACs.  Yet they ended in debt.  Lots of money was spent on parties.  Nearly half $million putting Kamala's face on a giant balloon that most people never even saw.  (compare: Trump total = $1.4B).  There was obviously something seriously wrong with the party elites (for some reason, she doesn't consider herself one of them).  Because of this, she has decided to leave the party because she admitted that there were problems with the party and got ostracized in a MAJOR way on social media. 

Quote

My donors are p***d…it's my responsibility to ask what the hell happened with their money…these are legitimate questions, but no, in the cult, you can't ask questions. And leaving the Democratic Party or even questioning the Democratic Party is like leaving a cult. It's terrifying. I don't want to be a part of this craziness anymore. They're accelerating my rightward shift.

Her own party called her a communist spy and some much worse things that I can't repeat here.

THEY'RE SICK OF IT.  They gave their all to the party.  They gave their all to the "she's not Trump" candidate.  And they got nothing for it but egg on their face.

As a result, they don't identify with either party and will be open to possibly voting Republican next time around.

The knockout blow was delivered. The bell has rung.  The match is over.  No need to fight anymore.  We're now just fellow Americans.  Let's give our fellow Americans a warm welcome to a brighter future.

Edited December 23, 2024 by Carborendum

[zil2]

#WalkAway originally meant "walk away from the Democrat party" - for all the reasons you state.  There was no suggested "to", just walk away and find wherever else works for you.  There's another one, but I can't remember what its - Unity party, maybe?  A movement of people who want you to vote for the candidate that will do the best for America (or the more local area), rather than the party.  What a notion, right?   

It occurred to me this last election that there might be some logic to voting for the candidate the best represents you in executive, legislative, and judicial positions, but for the opposite party in positions like auditors that police the government formed by your representatives (since opposite party auditors might be less likely to be co-opted into corruption).

Anywho, now that the mainstream media have lost their hold, and folks are questioning the sincerity of the Democrat party (at least at the national level), we're going to see a fair amount of this sort of thing - and chaos and tribalism.  But don't think for a minute that those behind the Democrat party are going to give up - they have an endless supply of money and countless unseen allies.  They're strategizing as we speak.

[Traveler]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Republican overestimate themselves and underestimate the Democrats.  Once again demonstrating that the more things change the more they will remain the same.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It never ceases to amaze me how much Republican overestimate themselves and underestimate the Democrats.  Once again demonstrating that the more things change the more they will remain the same.

 

The Traveler

That’s all true, and democrats are just as guilty. They’ve been thinking they would turn Texas blue since 2014. 
 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-43994

 

 

[Traveler]

51 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That’s all true, and democrats are just as guilty. They’ve been thinking they would turn Texas blue since 2014. 
 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-43994

 

 

We need a wink wink emoji  😎

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We need a wink wink emoji  😎

 

The Traveler

Semi-colon ; followed by closing parethesis ) with no spaces:

[Traveler]

20 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Semi-colon ; followed by closing parethesis ) with no spaces:

That is only one wink but thank just the same 😎

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

That is only one wink but thank just the same 😎

[LDSGator]

Merry Christmas @Traveler. You are awesome bro. 

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Merry Christmas @Traveler. You are awesome bro. 

I got to show this to my wife -  Boy do you deserve a thanks (I don't do hugs - its an engineering thing.)  

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I got to show this to my wife -  Boy do you deserve a thanks (I don't do hugs - its an engineering thing.)  

 

The Traveler

@mirkwood can’t do hugs either. Part of his parole conditions.  

[Phoenix_person]

I earnestly believe that the DNC has somehow alienated a majority of their base. Leftists have been cynical since '16 or earlier. It's interesting to see the various directions liberals are going. Some of them are truly showing their true colors, because I don't see a way that anyone left of center can support the current incarnation of the GOP (especially after today's release of the ethics commission report for Trump's first AG pick). Historically, the Republicans that liberal/center Dems have had some level of respect for are John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Colin Powell. I don't think McCain and Powell would be welcome in today's GOP. I don't think Romney could currently win an election in most red states, except maybe Utah. 

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

@mirkwood can’t do hugs either. Part of his parole conditions.  

 

First thing I am doing when I get off paper.

 

 

 

 

[LDSGator]

55 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

First thing I am doing when I get off paper.

 

 

 

 

Does your parole officer work Christmas Eve? Hold on, I have him on speed dial. 
 

and don’t take off the ankle monitor this time. 

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't think McCain and Powell would be welcome in today's GOP. I don't think Romney could currently win an election in most red states, except maybe Utah

Ronald Reagan would be called woke because he dared to sit sown with Tip O’Neil and discuss issues. 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Leftists have been cynical since '16 or earlier.

Yeah...no. In 2016, the whole noise from the entire left was a coronation of Queen Hillary as The Woman Who Shattered The Glass Ceiling. Delusional? You bet. Cynical? Not at all. They most sincerely wished to lecture all who didn't vote for Hillary as to their ignorance. Much the same as in 2020 and, especially, 2024, except that their hatred and bile were completely undisguised this time around. Their cynicism arises exactly and only from the fact that they lost.

And don't pretend that it was losing to Trump that did it. Trump is by far the Left's favorite whipping boy, but had any other Republican won in Trump's place, the reaction would have been identical. Remember Bush's and Romney's treatment at the hands of the Left. The Left is cynical because it is not being allowed the powers of kingship that it desires above all else.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Historically, the Republicans that liberal/center Dems have had some level of respect for are John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Colin Powell. 

Another false rewriting of history. Romney was savaged by the Left almost as badly as Trump, often with untrue statements or misrepresentations and always with undiluted bile. And Powell? Does the phrase "Uncle Tom" ring any bells? For the Left to look back on history and claim with a straight face that they respected either Romney or Powell is a lie so transparent as to be simply laughable.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't think McCain and Powell would be welcome in today's GOP. I don't think Romney could currently win an election in most red states, except maybe Utah. 

An overstatement regarding all three, though I concede that Romney's mealy-mouthedness has cost him the respect of many conservatives and Republicans in general. Would Romney have beaten Kamala Harris in a general election? I think possibly so, even with the press solidly against him, but only because Harris was such an absurdly flawed candidate. Romney's two-facedness, whether real or perceived (or more likely some combination of the two), has not done him any favors in his national perception.

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Would Romney have beaten Kamala Harris in a general election? I think possibly so,

I’m not sure about that. I think enough conservatives (MAGA or old school) would have stayed home if a “moderate” like him was nominated.  

[Phoenix_person]

 

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

And don't pretend that it was losing to Trump that did it. Trump is by far the Left's favorite whipping boy, but had any other Republican won in Trump's place, the reaction would have been identical. Remember Bush's and Romney's treatment at the hands of the Left. The Left is cynical because it is not being allowed the powers of kingship that it desires above all else.

Another false rewriting of history. Romney was savaged by the Left almost as badly as Trump, often with untrue statements or misrepresentations and always with undiluted bile.

Bush deserves the hate he gets and more, and I know plenty of conservatives who agree. I still consider him, not Trump, the worst president in my lifetime.

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

And Powell? Does the phrase "Uncle Tom" ring any bells?

Sure. But generally not from moderate* Dems. A lot of liberals and leftists (myself included) hated him because of his ties to the Iraq War. And again, I think a strong case can be made. Plenty of us were capable of loathing him without being racist about it. I won't deny that there's some truth in your accusation, but you paint with some very broad brushes. For instance, I think you'd protest in the strongest possible terms if I were to insinuate that ALL Republicans/conservatives hated Obama because they were racists. But guess what? Quite a few of them did. Maybe not a majority, and certainly not anyone in this forum. But if you think the racism hurled at Powell was in any way on the same level of what was thrown at Obama, then I don't think I'm the one with a fuzzy memory here. I would hope that we can agree that racism is bad regardless of where you are on the political spectrum and that neither polarity is racist-free. 

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

For the Left to look back on history and claim with a straight face that they respected either Romney or Powell is a lie so transparent as to be simply laughable.

I'm not saying that Romney ever had a chance to win liberal votes, but moderate* Dems generally have no beef with him. He got cooked by farther left liberals and leftists in 2012 because of his "binders full of women" faux pas and the fact that he chose Paul Ryan as his VP.

*I'll admit it was a mistake to lump liberals in with moderates. I think you and I both tend to operate under the false assumption that Dem = Left always. The fact that this isn't always the case is why this thread exists. I'm not disputing that some Dems are flipping, just that it might be a mistake to assume that they were ever liberal in any meaningful way. I have plenty of beef with liberals, but I maintain that I can't see a significant number of them flipping to the GOP. Most of the defectors are likely more libertarian than liberal. And I KNOW there aren't any leftists swinging right. Not when they may have finally succeeded at doing what Bernie couldn't: burning down the Democratic Party.

Mudslinging in politics is older than our nation. Whether deliberately or not, Trump energized some of the worst fringe extremists on the right and made them feel safe in proximity to power. That did quite a bit to reset how my side views yours. "Binders full of women" seems like child's play compared to "grab 'em by the 🐱". And it seems there's at least one mistake our worst president made that Trump didn't learn from.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm not saying that Romney ever had a chance to win liberal votes, but moderate* Dems generally have no beef with him. He got cooked by farther left liberals and leftists in 2012 because of his "binders full of women" faux pas and the fact that he chose Paul Ryan as his VP.

What on earth could possibly be considered offensive about saying "binders full of women"? That was manufactured outrage, pure and simple. That wasn't even an example of condeming a man for a word. That was literally making up an offense as an excuse to criticize, perhaps the single most dishonest criticism I have ever heard made of a politician. "Binders full of women" moving people to outrage is positively unhinged—or cold, calculated cynicism. Insanity or evil, take your pick. I vote the latter.

17 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

*I'll admit it was a mistake to lump liberals in with moderates. I think you and I both tend to operate under the false assumption that Dem = Left always. The fact that this isn't always the case is why this thread exists. I'm not disputing that some Dems are flipping, just that it might be a mistake to assume that they were ever liberal in any meaningful way. I have plenty of beef with liberals, but I maintain that I can't see a significant number of them flipping to the GOP. Most of the defectors are likely more libertarian than liberal. And I KNOW there aren't any leftists swinging right. Not when they may have finally succeeded at doing what Bernie couldn't: burning down the Democratic Party.

Modern "liberals" are not liberal at all, in any real sense. They call themselves "progressive", another shading of truth. In reality, there is nothing "progressive" about them. They seek to undermine institutions. Some institutions deserve to be undermined, but many are absolutely vital for a healthy and functioning society. Example: Heterosexual nuclear families. We should be going to any length to protect, defend, and encourage the heterosexual nuclear family. Those who call themselves "progressive" are dead set against such heterenormativity, to the point that they consider the word "heteronormal" to be an insult.

{Fact: Heteronormativity is the key to human survival from generation to generation.}

17 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Mudslinging in politics is older than our nation. Whether deliberately or not, Trump energized some of the worst fringe extremists on the right and made them feel safe in proximity to power. That did quite a bit to reset how my side views yours. "Binders full of women" seems like child's play compared to "grab 'em by the 🐱". And it seems there's at least one mistake our worst president made that Trump didn't learn from.

So you hate, loath, and detest George W. Bush because...he enacted steel tariffs?

That's unbalanced.

[Phoenix_person]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

What on earth could possibly be considered offensive about saying "binders full of women"? That was manufactured outrage, pure and simple. That wasn't even an example of condeming a man for a word. That was literally making up an offense as an excuse to criticize, perhaps the single most dishonest criticism I have ever heard made of a politician. "Binders full of women" moving people to outrage is positively unhinged—or cold, calculated cynicism. Insanity or evil, take your pick. I vote the latter.

I remember conservatives having a cow over a toy potato becoming too gender ambiguous as if it was Joe Biden's fault and not the act of a private company. Manufactured outrage is part of politics. It's an ugly part, but don't act like both parties aren't guilty of it. 

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Modern "liberals" are not liberal at all, in any real sense. They call themselves "progressive", another shading of truth. In reality, there is nothing "progressive" about them. They seek to undermine institutions. Some institutions deserve to be undermined, but many are absolutely vital for a healthy and functioning society. Example: Heterosexual nuclear families. We should be going to any length to protect, defend, and encourage the heterosexual nuclear family. Those who call themselves "progressive" are dead set against such heterenormativity, to the point that they consider the word "heteronormal" to be an insult.

Supporting non-heteronormative relationships is not oppression of hetero people any more than the civil rights movement was oppressive of white people. More respect and acceptance for one lifestyle doesn't mean less for another. Are you wanting a Straight Pride parade or something?

As I am never resistant to acknowledge, there are jerks on my side just as there are on yours. But you're going to have a very hard time convincing me, a cishet white dude, that my own political clan hates me because I had a kid in a heteronormative relationship, and that said kid is so far showing every sign of being cishet like his dad. I don't know if you're watching too much Fox News or MSNBC to think that, but it's a flat-out lie. And once again I find myself begging conservatives to try actually talking to someone with a viewpoint different from theirs. Learn about what's important to them and why, and try to listen with an open mind. I do it all the time. It's why I'm still on this website despite feeling less and less welcome in recent years. I'm here because I care where your side of the political fence is coming from on issues I care about. Trust me, I would have been gone a LONG time ago if that weren't the case. 

I've been here long enough to remember a time when you acknowledged that the rot in politics is bipartisan. You even acknowledged that our world being profit-driven is a major cause of that rot, and that fact alone is 90% of the reason I'm a leftist. Now, it seems like every discussion with you is a contest to see which side is more problematic. Lots of "I know you are but what am I" energy, and it's exhausting. I miss the old Volt that would discuss the merits of what I had to say rather than attack, insult, and/or deflect.

6 hours ago, Vort said:

{Fact: Heteronormativity is the key to human survival from generation to generation.}

Yes. And I don't see any imminent threats to human survival caused by lack of procreation. I can, however, point to several existential threats directly linked to overpopulation and wealth disparity, especially the latter. People on this forum have correctly reminded me in the past there there is no shortage of resources on this planet. We have enough food and wealth for the whole planet to prosper, right? But our world is designed to concentrate wealth, not share it. People say anyone can "make it" and that's true in most of the developed world, especially the US. But there isn't a nation on Earth where everyone who wants prosperity and is willing to work for it can get it, and the countries that have come close to that are heavily (but far from fully) socialist. We'll never have that reality until we ask ourselves whether it's ethical for a person to accumulate billions of dollars of wealth from the full-time labor of people on food stamps.

6 hours ago, Vort said:

So you hate, loath, and detest George W. Bush because...he enacted steel tariffs?

That's unbalanced

I agree, so it's a good thing I never said that. I said that our worst president raised tariffs, with a balanced citation explaining why it failed. It was a flawed ecomomic policy that Trump seems determined to repeat, but it was hardly what defined the Bush presidency. Quite the contrary. Credit where it's due, he was actually pretty quick to abandon tariffs when it became clear they were doing more harm than good.

I hate Bush, Cheney, Powell, and the rest of that cursed administration for lying to the American people to start a needless war that cost me multiple friends and a sizeable chunk of my mental well-being, not to mention the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. And no, I haven't forgiven Biden, Schumer, or HRC either for their roles in facilitating it. It truly brought me no pleasure to vote for two of them over Trump. I vote for the party, deeply flawed as it is, because our government is always bigger than one person, and that includes POTUS. And while Dems frustrate leftists to no end, they're still our most viable path to advancing our influence in American politics.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

11 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Leftists have been cynical since '16 or earlier.

Yeah...no. In 2016, the whole noise from the entire left was a coronation of Queen Hillary as The Woman Who Shattered The Glass Ceiling.

I can only contribute an anecdote.   So to make sure the 3 of us are talking the same language: The bell curve of non-right political thought looked like this in 2016: At the top of the bell curve are the center left folks and democrats.  Moving down the bell curve are the liberals.  The remaining 20% are mostly progressives.  The far far left end of things, the tail of the bell curve, the last 1-2% are leftists, marxists, communists.  Yeah?  I mean here in 2024 that bell curve has been flattening out on the left end of things, and that extreme far end has maybe grown to 5-15%.  But in 2016 that's what I was seeing.  And yes, those first 3 standard deviations of left-leaning folks were all singing Hillary's praises.  But the tail of the bell curve existed, and you could find anti-Hillary voices in their small numbers.

Anyway, my anarchist buddy from high school and I were facebook arguing buddies in '16.  Dude and PP have a lot in common, with the interest in community organizing, and when both of 'em walk down the street, from their perspective the entire world walks to the right of them. My buddy co-authored the anarchist.faq back in high school.  You can still find it online.

Dude was expressing loathing for Hillary and the establishment democrats since before her campaign for president.  And when I'd go into his facebook areas, his fellow 1-2% hard-core lefties were all expressing the same hatred.  It was revolutionary talk, absolutely in the minority of left-of-center politics, but it was there.  

Fast forward 8 years, and it's increasingly common to find leftists hating on democrats. But it's been a thing that has been growing for a while.

 

(As a fun last thing, Facebook told me that both Vort and my anarchist buddy lived in the same city for a while.  For years I've been entertained with the thought that they pass each other on the street daily, or might even be vaguely acquainted with each other in a way that has them never knowing anything about the other's politics.) 

Edited December 24, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Phoenix_person]

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I can only contribute an anecdote.   So to make sure the 3 of us are talking the same language: The bell curve of non-right political thought looked like this in 2016: At the top of the bell curve are the center left folks and democrats.  Moving down the bell curve are the liberals.  The remaining 20% are mostly progressives.  The far far left end of things, the tail of the bell curve, the last 1-2% are leftists, marxists, communists.  Yeah? 

An important detail to remember is that while the progressives and communists have different views on methods of change, we generally agree on what needs to be changed even if there are differences as to the how of it all. The truly dangerous ones are the ones we call "tankies" (derogatory), and they're vilified even in most leftist circles the way people like Richard Spencer are (still, I hope) vilified in most right wing circles.

There's a ton of overlap between tankies and modern Marxist communists. Which is unfortunate, because Marx had some pretty great ideas. I think it's erroneous to conclude that Marxism always leads to violent authoritarianism and oppression simply because its earliest attempts did. The leftist black community has always been heavily Marxist while being predominantly non-violent. The Black Panthers had guns for self-defense because police forces were (validly, in many cases) viewed as being enforcers of white supremacy. And yes, a few members probably got too trigger-happy. They also had libraries, classrooms, clothing workshops, and food pantries available for anyone in the community to take advantage of. The vilification of people like MLK, Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton stemmed from anti-Marxism almost as much as it did from anti-blackness. Can't have 10% of the US population thinking they can survive outside of capitalist structures. That doesn't make the stonks go brrrrr, to use a modern catchphrase.

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I mean here in 2024 that bell curve has been flattening out on the left end of things, and that extreme far end has maybe grown to 5-15%.  But in 2016 that's what I was seeing.  And yes, those first 3 standard deviations of left-leaning folks were all singing Hillary's praises.  

I think the group that you're calling "progressives" (which, based on the parameters/percentages here, is where I fit) was more torn on Hillary than you admit. Remember, 43% of Democrats voted for a socialist non-Democrat (and Bernie truly is the least Democrat "Democrat" we've put on a presidential primary ticket in my memory) in the '16 primary. A lot of us kept our mouths shut and voted for Hillary anyway after she beat Bernie in the primary, just as a lot of us tried to do the same when Biden and Kamala were at the top of their respective tickets. But just like last month, we weren't shy about airing our grievances (including against Jill Stein-voting Bernie Bros™️) after the full damage had been done. And fwiw, I'm not convinced that Biden would have won 4 years ago if it hadn't been for COVID. I'm not going to waste tin foil and try to argue that it's connected, like I've seen several Republicans do, but I know I wasn't alone in thinking in 2020 that it would take an actual miracle for Biden to win reelection THIS year. Far from it, in fact.

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anyway, my anarchist buddy from high school and I were facebook arguing buddies in '16.  Dude and PP have a lot in common, with the interest in community organizing, and when both of 'em walk down the street, from their perspective the entire world walks to the right of them. My buddy co-authored the anarchist.faq back in high school.  You can still find it online.

When I was in high school, I co-wrote a debate-style opinion piece in the school newspaper about whether or not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance should be compulsory, with another student offering a counterargument to mine. You can probably guess which side I took. My co-author and I are still friends, and I think he's come around to my side of things a bit in the last 20+ years (to be clear, I never would have called him a conservative, so it wasn't that much of a leap).

Edited December 24, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't know if you're watching too much Fox News or MSNBC to think that, but it's a flat-out lie. And once again I find myself begging conservatives to try actually talking to someone with a viewpoint different from theirs.

One of us has never lived in Seattle. And I disbelieve that Seattle is far outside the norm for urban/lefty places.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

One of us has never lived in Seattle. And I disbelieve that Seattle is far outside the norm for urban/lefty places.

I’ll still never understand why you live in one of the most liberal cities in the country. Not a pejorative- I don’t understand why leftists live in rural Florida either.    

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I've been here long enough to remember a time when you acknowledged that the rot in politics is bipartisan. You even acknowledged that our world being profit-driven is a major cause of that rot

Have I written anything to suggest I don't still hold that view?

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Now, it seems like every discussion with you is a contest to see which side is more problematic. Lots of "I know you are but what am I" energy, and it's exhausting.

You are looking in a mirror. PP. That is almost exactly the entire content, top to bottom, of pretty much everything you post. For example, take a look at the post I'm quoting you from. "I hate Democrats, but they're a far sight better than Republicans."

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I miss the old Volt

I'm not really a Chevy guy.

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

that would discuss the merits of what I had to say rather than attack, insult, and/or deflect.

You're saying I don't discuss the merits of positions? Hmmmm. Methinks you need to read a bit more carefully.

And your example of my supposed "insult" is laughable. Are you or are you not leftist? Do your posts reflect the functioning of your mind or do they not? I thought your post was a very typical example of how leftists think. How could any reasonable person consider that insulting? Or are you proclaiming that leftists such as yourself are not reasonable, and that it's insulting to point that fact out? I somehow don't think that was your meaning, but that's the only way I can figure out how highlighting your post as a typical example of the functioning of the leftist mind could be construed as insulting per se.

My behavior toward you through the years and especially the last several months has often been less than above reproach, which I have admitted and even apologized to you for. To put it in leftspeak, something about your arguments and presentation triggers me, and I can only sit quietly for so long before I feel the burning need to point out inconsistencies and prevarications. That's my fault, not yours. But your condemnation of me and pretense to being offended because I'm so nasty to you is tissue-paper thin. Your previous post (the one to which I'm responding) really speaks for itself in this regard.