Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by Runaway1956

The talk show hosts have blathered about #WalkAway for a few days now. Finally - I looked it up. Definitely interesting!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/03/former_liberal_to_progressives_time_to_walk_away.html

Brandon Straka says that less than a year ago, he was a liberal. He explains why he changed his mind in this "viral video" encouraging other progressives to "walk away" from the remains of the Democratic Party.

"Once upon a time, I was a liberal,” the gay NYC hairdresser begins. "I felt I’d found a tribe.” But, he said, they will do “absolutely nothing for you."

The video is at least a month old, but Straka appeared on FNC's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' on Monday to discuss what he means:

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

Another story from an apparently Black Canadian woman who married an American.

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2018/08/10/heres-chose-walkaway-liberalism/

My father-in-law was a popular local pastor, and also the first black man I’d ever met who called himself a Republican and a conservative. We were fast friends, and often talked politics. He would gently but intelligently challenge a lot of my notions and beliefs. I thought I knew a lot because I read a lot of headlines. He challenged me to read the actual stories. I thought I new a lot because I watched Bill Maher. He challenged me to watch the things going on around me. I thought I knew a lot because…well, I knew a lot! He challenged me to value results over talk. I wasn’t a convert, but I began to think that maybe I didn’t have the full picture when it came to my ideas about Republicans and conservatives. Could it be that I was depending too much on salacious headlines and raging talking heads for my opinions about conservatism?

Back to Brandon: http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/08/brandon-straka-walk-away-campaign-founder-denied-service-camera-store

Straka said the salesperson recognized him from his campaign and said that he couldn't sell anything to him because he did not support the "#WalkAway" campaign.

According to the movement's Facebook page, it's meant to "encourage and support those on the left to walk away from the divisive tenets."

Straka said following his encounter at the electronics store, he started "shaking" because he hadn't experienced negative backlash like that before.

"It took my breath away," he said.

Two videos, each of them very eloquent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pjs7uoOkag&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQXW2Ob1PU&feature=youtu.be

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:19PM (5 children)

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:19PM (#747559) Journal

    Oh go fuck yourself. Your damned Democratic Party is far too right-wing, and you are too far gone in denial about the reasons She Lost.

    I like the sound of #WalkAway, and not just because I'm an honorary alt-right incel. The only thing I don't like is that, because you Democrats cannot get away from right-wing positions such as identity politics, collective and several accountability, the systematic theft of wealth from the working and middle classes, that capitalist wet dream called the ACA¹, the fucking CIA Democrats, the police-surveillance state, massive military spending, etc, you're pushing people to the far, far right!

    Why don't you idiots try moving left for a change… instead of alienating everybody except the CIA, the other four eyes, wealthy Wall Street elites, and petty bourgeois women with durable cisgender privilege² (and their ever desperate to get laid boy toys).

    I won't be moving to the right. The Libertarian Party is left of the Democratic Party these days, and the Green Party is looking pretty good, as cautious as I am of a platform that seems to include identity politics. I would go for the Socialist Equality Party, but I'm not in Niles Niemuth's [niles2018.com] district, alas.

    Oh! One more thing! Why the fuck is it that in Michigan, most of the Democrats this November (except for Stabenow iirc) nearly get failing grades on their NORML report card (Ds), while most of the Republicans get good grades (Bs and As)? Let me guess… NORML is just another Russian astroturf organization….


    ¹ We both know that the Democratic Party will conveniently forget about “Medicare for All” the minute they get power back.
    ² I'm inventing a term: durable cisgender privilege. Deal with it. The definition will require a post the length of a book, so use context clues.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Redundant=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:30PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:30PM (#747597)

    Identity politics isn't a position, it's a rhetorical technique that exploits peer pressure and promotes groupthink.

    It is true that identity politics is more inline with conservative values such as group loyalty/purity and authority, but identity politics has been used by many throughout history on all sides of political issues.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#Political_ideology [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by shortscreen on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:20PM (1 child)

      by shortscreen (2252) on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:20PM (#747623) Journal

      I'd say there's more to the PC/SJW faction than just their rhetorical technique. They have doctrine (diversity, privilege, etc.), chosen people (some minorities but not others), crusaders (antifa), demons ("nazis"), and heretics (anyone who disagrees) to be excommunicated. It's religious conservatism with a new skin on it.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:57PM (#747641)

        It almost sounds like they're a classic example of an Altemeyeran right-wing authoritarian movement.

        I don't think they fit the bill for one of Altemeyer's elusive left-wing authoritarian movements. iirc, the examples he gave were of communist revolutions driven by cults of personality (pseudo-left as the Trotskyists would say). Instead, SJWs seem to approve of the capitalist system overall (they do not support the workers controlling the means of production, but they are ok with limited wealth redistribution within a capitalist framework such as single payer healthcare), and they reject a class-based analysis of the divisions of society (insisting that the fundamental divisions of society are race and sex, i.e. identity politics).

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:37PM (1 child)

    by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:37PM (#747665)

    We both know that the Democratic Party will conveniently forget about “Medicare for All” the minute they get power back.

    I will agree with you, up to the point where Democrats get a filibuster proof majority. At that point I think they will attempt to get something passed, and it will be done without GOP input or support. They will remember back to when the ACA was being worked on.

    Something I found back then that describes that situation:

    From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.

    This bill in particular has basically been a power play between the two big parties if I understand correctly.

    It didn't really pan out brilliantly for either side - the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get Republican support.

    The lead up to why this silly thing got pushed through can basically be summarised as follows (stolen from Digg - it's a great summation):

    Democrats: "We need health care reform"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"
    Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"

    12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States

    Democrats: "We need health care reform"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"
    Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"
    Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"
    Democrats: "Done"
    Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
    Democrats: "Done"
    Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
    Democrats: "Done"
    Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
    Democrats: "Done"
    Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
    Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"
    Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"
    Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"
    Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"
    Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."

    One month later

    Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever."
    Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
    Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster"
    Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!"
    Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal"
    Republicans: "Smaller government"
    Democrats: "That's not very specific"
    Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting"
    Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals"
    Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!"
    Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!"
    Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?"
    Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)"
    Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!"
    Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"
    Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!"
    Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"

    Now do I think the ACA was the greatest? Heck no, I wanted single payer national healthcare (like all other civilized countries do).

    --
    Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:46PM (#747715)

      Anything passed via "reconciliation" ought to be considered to have not passed at all. Our constitution does not support passing bills via that method. Our constitution lays out what procedure we are to use.