SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:24PM (11 children)
What's funny is how shallow this "#WalkAway" nonsense is. They barely mention any specific policy positions at all, and policy is what makes someone a liberal or not. Did all of their policy positions change too? Did they used to be in favor of gay marriage, and are now no longer in favor of it? Did they used to be in favor of gun control, and now are no longer in favor of it? What substantive policy positions of theirs actually changed? It rarely even comes up.
If you change all of your views because some people who share many of the same positions are 'extreme', then you're just an idiot. If you haven't changed all of your views, then your status as a liberal did not change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Aegis on Friday October 12 2018, @12:56AM
Yes, the gay NY hairdresser is totally opposed to Obama-marriage now!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 12 2018, @01:24AM (9 children)
I think that you are being shallow. Few if any of these people are changing their own positions or policies. What they are saying is that they are tired of being used by the party to beat up the other party. They are tired of being lied to by the party. The party's policy is to accumulate power, and damn the policies.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @05:32AM
Really? Look at the terminology they're using and how they're framing things. They say that they 'used to be' liberals, as if their policy positions themselves changed. If they just meant that they don't like the democratic party, they would not need to frame it in that way. As it is, it's pure propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @02:47AM (7 children)
I have to agree with the other AC. I've long found the Log Cabin Republicans... queer. As in, I don't understand how somebody who is LGBT can be a member of the Republican Party. I completely understand why somebody in that category who lacks a womb would reject the Democratic Party, especially with how they and their supporters are clamping down on that facet of identity politics in a way that would make Janice Raymond proud.
(See White Women, Come Get Your People [nytimes.com] by Alexis Grenell for latest example and response The New York Times’ Alexis Grenell denounces white women for upholding the “patriarchy” [wsws.org] by Genevieve Leigh. Small part of Grenell's rant, granted... and certainly not the only thing wrong with it as WSWS points out.)
There is just something odd about a homosexual man moving to the Republican Party. Isn't he worried that with Kennedy and his libertarian attitude towards LGBT rights being replaced by a far right-wing ass-justice* known for partisanship and nominated by a Republican, his right to marry his life partner may be evaporating soon with no intention on the part of the Republican Party for a legislative remedy? Isn't he worried that sodomy laws may be once again found enforceable?
Why doesn't he join the Libertarian Party?
* couldn't resist
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 13 2018, @04:47AM (6 children)
Please name an instance of the rights of any group being revoked in this country. From the gay community's POV, I expect them to see the D party's past activism on behalf of gays in a good light. And, I expect them to see the R's past in a dim light. But, if any man or woman who is gay, is concerned about ANY OTHER ISSUES happens to agree with the R views on those issues - then they might consider becoming R's. The "rights" which they have fought are now assured, and they are in no danger of losing them. All of that, despite the fact that I disagree (strongly) with "gay marriage".
So, again, the shallowness seems to be on the D side. The R's have the depth to understand that not all people are single issue voters. Any gay, any woman, any black, any illegal alien, any Muslim, any member of any minority, may have joined with the D's based on one, two, or more issues - then broken with the D's based on their positions on any number of other issues.
More and more black people are explaining, pretty clearly, that blackness is not the only issue in their lives. More, they feel that the D's have only lied to them, and exploited them.
It should surprise no one that a ______________ person might have similar thoughts and ideas.
Unless, of course, the D's require registrants to sign with blood, and swear allegiance for life plus eternity. In that case, we might be surprised to see people breaking away from the party.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 13 2018, @04:49AM
Damn - sometimes I manage to build some really ugly sentences. Grammar Nazis - have fun.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13 2018, @09:44PM (4 children)
I named two. The government involvement in the institution of marriage prevented homosexual life partners from having recognition of their status. Sodomy laws are the better example. In that case, governments decided it was in their purview to ban homosexual people from having sexual relationships, which is surely a Ninth Amendment right.
There is also the example of the Japanese concentration camps during World War 2. Now we see that ICE concentration camps are being built, and there are reports of US citizens effectively having their citizenship revoked because they are Latino.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 13 2018, @09:52PM (3 children)
You've almost made a point with your example two. The Japanese had rights temporarily revoked, during a period of crisis. Those rights were restored after the crisis.
As for your gay marriage bullshit - gays never had the "right to marry" in all of human history, until recently. Even ancient Greece didn't have gay marriage. Read my post again - I asked for examples of rights being revoked, after having been granted.
Blacks cannot be returned to the plantation owners.
Women can't lose the right to vote.
Anchor babies cannot be deported.
Gays can't be barred from pretending that they are married.
And, your best example, the Japanese citizens cannot be deported, or mass executed, or kept on reservations, or whatever else you might dream up. Temporary restrictions, born of fear, during a crisis does not constitute a revocation of rights.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 13 2018, @11:50PM
I'm pretty sure everything you listed could happen. It's just incredibly unlikely and would require some fraught/heated amending of the Constitution in some cases.
Support for gay marriage is just too high for it to go away:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ [pewforum.org]
Example: support among "White evangelical Protestants" increased from 13% in 2001 to 35% in 2017. In other words, support among one of the groups most closely associated with anti-LGBT sentiment is now closer to 50% than 0%.
The trend might slow down, but will probably continue as older Americans die off. But what could cause the trend to reverse? Something really bad would have to happen.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @02:51AM (1 child)
Marriage is a bad example then. Heterosexual couples also pretend to be married. They cheat, and they divorce. In fact, marriage is a privilege, not a right. It is a social and legal construct.
I take the libertarian view anyhow: the government has no place in the marriage business. If your faith does not allow for homosexual marriage, that is fine. The Goddess I worship allows for such things. So then we uncover a right that may be involved in gay marriage. Freedom of religion is a right. But perhaps that is moving the goalposts.
You missed sodomy laws. I'll also add miscegenation laws. It is an inherent right of two consenting adults to have sexual relations.
They most certainly do constitute revocation of rights. Yet another example is back during the civil war when Lincoln jailed journalists in flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
(Of course, the Republican and Democratic parties have both changed quite a bit 150 years later, so that must not be interpreted as related to the modern Republican Party, and in fact, I do not think we can stretch what the current head of the Republican Party has said about journalists to imply a repeat of such a thing.)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 14 2018, @04:01AM
You haven't really read my journal entry. All you need do is to watch the two videos. Black folk are figuring out that the two parties have not reversed. The D's want to keep them on the plantation. The D's think they "own" the black vote. Or, just go to Youtube, and do a search for #WalkAway. Watch any number of the videos that pop up. Matter of fact, the D's think they "own" a whole bunch of voting blocks, like the gays. They don't "own" any damned thing - they won't even "own" their responsibility in keeping the black man down.
"Here's some welfare, Nigga, don't forget to vote for us in November!"
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.