What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Do You Believe College Liberals Have Hijacked The Democratic Party? (5/19/22 7:43 PST) (1 Viewer)

rockaction

Footballguy
When a person with a credential comes along and says reassuringly that no, this isn't in schools and isn't being taught to future teachers and isn't being used as the basis for curriculum, you naturally tend to assume that they're telling you the truth because the alternative is difficult to believe.  These folks had a lot of success with that particular play.  It helped them take control of these institutions in the first place.  
I've been reading your posts and I have similar questions about why conservatives bringing these things to light is working now. I think it's this exact reason: somebody is finally finding out the truth, it's being rammed down children's throats (not exclusively adults at college) and they've frankly had enough of it and can't believe it. 

parasaurolophous has a great point about actually taking the books and reading them at meetings. If you ever didn't think that the gambit was that they're coming for children, you sure as hell did after you were told the "experts" had control over the curriculum, they'd decided what's what, you had no say, and then you actually read it out loud to another human being. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Possum

Footballguy
Poll after poll after poll shows that more than 50% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, despite zero evidence.  This really isn't debatable.


how many Democrats do you think believe that Hillary would have won in 2016 if not for Russian propaganda influence? Or that Trump colluded with the Russians while he was president? Or that Al Gore would've been president in 2000 if not for hanging chads and miscounted votes in Florida? Or that Stacey Abrams is actually the rightful governor of Georgia? 

I'm not trying to tell you that the GOP doesn't have a problem with wingnuts gaining too much power, because it does. But you're either blind or willfully deluding yourself if you can't see the same stuff happening in the Democratic party, too.

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
how many Democrats do you think believe that Hillary would have won in 2016 if not for Russian propaganda influence? Or that Trump colluded with the Russians while he was president? Or that Al Gore would've been president in 2000 if not for hanging chads and miscounted votes in Florida? Or that Stacey Abrams is actually the rightful governor of Georgia? 

I'm not trying to tell you that the GOP doesn't have a problem with wingnuts gaining too much power, because it does. But you're either blind or willfully deluding yourself if you can't see the same stuff happening in the Democratic party, too.
Do you really not see the differences here?  For example, you wrote "how many Democrats do you think believe that Hillary would have won in 2016 if not for Russian propaganda influence?"  We know for a fact that Russian spam/bots were pushing anti-Hillary propaganda.  That's not up for debate.  It's entirely a matter of opinion whether it made a difference.*  The voter fraud allegations from 2020 and lack of evidence are not remotely the same.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by Trump colluding with Russia while POTUS.  Gore/Bush?  I don't think any significant number of people believe that miscounted votes changed Bush/Gore.  There are allegations of confusing ballots, but that is again a matter of opinion on whether "voter confusion" made a real difference.

I'm not entirely familiar with the specifics of Abrams' allegations re: the GA election.  Did she allege fraud?  Or did she allege voter suppression tactics?  Again, two entirely different things.

Yes, there are crazies on the left side of the aisle.  But the reality is the party is dominated by the moderates.  It's why the last three POTUS candidates have been Biden, HRC, and Obama and not the progressives.  It's why Nancy Pelosi is SotH and not AOC.

* Personally, I doubt it mattered much.  I also don't really give a #### that Russia tries to influence our elections.  We do the same thing in tons of other countries.  Most countries with sophisticated intelligence capabilities attempt to influence other countries to act in the best interests of the influencing company.

 

rockaction

Footballguy
You notice how he accidentally overlooked this question, right?
Along those same lines, I don't want to say that somehow silence means complicity, but I can say things like "they've come for your children" and nobody on the other side (maybe because they realize how ridiculous a counter-argument seems) raises a peep. 

I mean THEY'VE COME FOR YOUR CHILDREN is pretty incendiary rhetoric that at least deserves rebuttal. 

But they can't rebut it. 

Go ahead. I dare them to. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Desert_Power

Footballguy
Along those same lines, I don't want to say that somehow silence means complicity, but I can say things like "they've come for your children" and nobody on the other side (maybe because they realize how ridiculous a counter-argument seems) raises a peep. 

I mean THEY'VE COME FOR YOUR CHILDREN is pretty incendiary rhetoric that at least deserves rebuttal. 

But they can't rebut it. 

Go ahead. I dare them to. 
When one consistently engages in incendiary rhetoric and exaggerations on a topic, my response is just going to be to tune them out. Congrats on your internet win.

 

Possum

Footballguy
Do you really not see the differences here?  For example, you wrote "how many Democrats do you think believe that Hillary would have won in 2016 if not for Russian propaganda influence?"  We know for a fact that Russian spam/bots were pushing anti-Hillary propaganda.  That's not up for debate.  It's entirely a matter of opinion whether it made a difference.*  The voter fraud allegations from 2020 and lack of evidence are not remotely the same.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by Trump colluding with Russia while POTUS.  Gore/Bush?  I don't think any significant number of people believe that miscounted votes changed Bush/Gore.  There are allegations of confusing ballots, but that is again a matter of opinion on whether "voter confusion" made a real difference.

I'm not entirely familiar with the specifics of Abrams' allegations re: the GA election.  Did she allege fraud?  Or did she allege voter suppression tactics?  Again, two entirely different things.

Yes, there are crazies on the left side of the aisle.  But the reality is the party is dominated by the moderates.  It's why the last three POTUS candidates have been Biden, HRC, and Obama and not the progressives.  It's why Nancy Pelosi is SotH and not AOC.

* Personally, I doubt it mattered much.  I also don't really give a #### that Russia tries to influence our elections.  We do the same thing in tons of other countries.  Most countries with sophisticated intelligence capabilities attempt to influence other countries to act in the best interests of the influencing company.


no, I don't claim allegiance to either party and I don't see any difference beyond semantics, brother - people on both sides of the aisle tend to believe crazy stuff regardless of evidence when their elected officials and the media are telling them it's true, and there's a growing lack of trust in our election results everywhere.

I agree with you that Russian influence is a minor factor, if at all, in our elections, and we do the same thing to other countries too so who are we to cry about it? But you and I both know that for years after the 2016 election, left wing media and Democratic politicians screamed to high heaven that the election results were bogus and Trump was controlled by the Russians. They had no real evidence for any of this, but as a result a majority of their constituents still believe it even after most of the claims were debunked.

Example A: 72% of Democrats still believe Russian interference is the reason Hillary lost in 2016
Example B: Half of Americans still think Trump colluded with Russia even after Mueller's investigation cleared him of it

Obama's candidacy preceded the progressives' ascension which led to the current dysfunction of the Democratic party - the ball really got rolling on that stuff around 2012-13 during his second term, so I don't think he's a good example for what you're trying to show as moderate control.

I agree that Biden and HRC are moderate Democratic establishment types, but I think they're the last, dying gasp of that establishment, Rich. They were both terrible, ancient candidates, and despite their "moderate" status they both pander to the far left just as much as Trump panders to the far right. Hillary's fundamental unlikability and her arrogance in refusing to campaign in traditional blue-collar D states are the reasons she lost to Trump - like you said, Russia wasn't responsible for that.

Biden is almost 80 years old, an awful public speaker, and inspires nobody - despite having the advantages of zealot-level anti-Trump fervor from Democrats and most of the mainstream media, plus the COVID pandemic running rampant across the country, he still almost lost the election. If Trump had done a slightly better job managing the COVID pandemic, the orange man would still be sitting in the White House.

and after those two, what's left for the moderate Democratic establishment? Pete Buttigieg? Kamala Harris? I have zero faith that anyone in the current left wing power structure has the political will and savvy to stand up to the progressives and advance moderate views now that millennials and Gen Z are about to become the largest voting bloc in America.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I think that although you're a very smart guy, you really, really want to see a difference, and so you do. But from where I sit, both parties are equally riddled with hypocrisy, corruption and stupidity - the Republicans with their obsession with conspiracy theories, the culture war, and "owning the libs" instead of substantive policy discusssion, and the Democrats with their progressive abandonment of actual liberal principles like the rights of the individual, freedom of expression and the value of a strong marketplace of ideas in favor of authoritarian ideological purity and conformity of thought, censorship, nihilistic solipsist worldviews and genuine revulsion for the majority of working class Americans.

I stated in another thread that I've voted third party the last two elections, and I can't see that changing any time soon, my friend. 

 

FairWarning

Footballguy
I've been reading your posts and I have similar questions about why conservatives bringing these things to light is working now. I think it's this exact reason: somebody is finally finding out the truth, it's being rammed down children's throats (not exclusively adults at college) and they've frankly had enough of it and can't believe it. 

parasaurolophous has a great point about actually taking the books and reading them at meetings. If you ever didn't think that the gambit was that they're coming for children, you sure as hell did after you were told the "experts" had control over the curriculum, they'd decided what's what, you had no say, and then you actually read it out loud to another human being. 
The home schooling thanks to COVID really woken up parents who were playing teacher.  They read these books along with the kids.

 

FairWarning

Footballguy
Do you really not see the differences here?  For example, you wrote "how many Democrats do you think believe that Hillary would have won in 2016 if not for Russian propaganda influence?"  We know for a fact that Russian spam/bots were pushing anti-Hillary propaganda.  That's not up for debate.  It's entirely a matter of opinion whether it made a difference.*  The voter fraud allegations from 2020 and lack of evidence are not remotely the same.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by Trump colluding with Russia while POTUS.  Gore/Bush?  I don't think any significant number of people believe that miscounted votes changed Bush/Gore.  There are allegations of confusing ballots, but that is again a matter of opinion on whether "voter confusion" made a real difference.

I'm not entirely familiar with the specifics of Abrams' allegations re: the GA election.  Did she allege fraud?  Or did she allege voter suppression tactics?  Again, two entirely different things.

Yes, there are crazies on the left side of the aisle.  But the reality is the party is dominated by the moderates.  It's why the last three POTUS candidates have been Biden, HRC, and Obama and not the progressives.  It's why Nancy Pelosi is SotH and not AOC.

* Personally, I doubt it mattered much.  I also don't really give a #### that Russia tries to influence our elections.  We do the same thing in tons of other countries.  Most countries with sophisticated intelligence capabilities attempt to influence other countries to act in the best interests of the influencing company.
Some of the crazy does come from the far left, like defunding the police, no-cash bail, and equity in schools.

The main difference between the two parties is one tried an insurrection.  

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
The "College Liberal wing" of the Democratic Party is in control.  Their driving issues don't mesh well with the needs and concerns of the Average Joe.  In particular Asian and Hispanic cultures have strands in them that are conservative in nature.  For instance, Catholic values run deep in the Hispanic community, even among non-church goers.  This doesn't align well with the free abortion and LGBTQ+ agendas.  Throw in free things like college debt forgiveness, and it becomes a hard sell to the Catholic influenced Hispanic that works a manual labor job and whose kids are going to have a hard time going to college.  Same with many Asian communities where hard work and family is valued.  That just isn't the Democratic message right now. 



Direct Headline: Op-Ed: Democrats need to stop behaving as if there’s a prize for showing restraint

The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”....The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.

....When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain....Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.....It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.

....They should do what the Republicans would do given a chance: Refuse to compromise and go on the attack.....

By Kurt Bardella May 19, 2022 12:18 PM PT

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-19/democrats-republicans-january-6-politics

******

^

The above is from the LA Times. Notice this about Bardella and his resume

https://www.legistorm.com/person/bio/25990/Kurt_Alfred_Bardella.html

Spent his entire life after college in political/soft media jobs only. Flipped over like many did during the Trump regime because there was just way more money and opportunity to be someone who denounced Trump in the media. Big mistake as that hit a saturation point very quickly and now he's burned all his bridges and can only find work as a zealot.

For someone like Bardella, as a type of example of David Shor is talking about, he actually sees all of the current Biden Administration's actions as "restraint"  Which can only be explained when someone is soaking neck deep in nothing but ideological purity over any kind of real adherence to practical public policy, measured logistical oriented public administration and steady functional governance.

Then he advocates just going out in an all out "attack" against Republicans.

More zealots who have no context as to what every day working class Americans are going through, then condescending to them because he does not realize his little insular woke bubble with people just like him don't represent the majority of American, nor the majority of actual voters and his sub group don't have the raw numbers to take a national election by themselves.

This is the kind of person who demands Conservatives and Republicans be purified from his imagined Dark Blue utopia, but not until they help to pay off his student loans first via their tax dollars.

 

Herb

Footballguy
no, I don't claim allegiance to either party and I don't see any difference beyond semantics, brother - people on both sides of the aisle tend to believe crazy stuff regardless of evidence when their elected officials and the media are telling them it's true, and there's a growing lack of trust in our election results everywhere.

I agree with you that Russian influence is a minor factor, if at all, in our elections, and we do the same thing to other countries too so who are we to cry about it? But you and I both know that for years after the 2016 election, left wing media and Democratic politicians screamed to high heaven that the election results were bogus and Trump was controlled by the Russians. They had no real evidence for any of this, but as a result a majority of their constituents still believe it even after most of the claims were debunked.

Example A: 72% of Democrats still believe Russian interference is the reason Hillary lost in 2016
Example B: Half of Americans still think Trump colluded with Russia even after Mueller's investigation cleared him of it

Obama's candidacy preceded the progressives' ascension which led to the current dysfunction of the Democratic party - the ball really got rolling on that stuff around 2012-13 during his second term, so I don't think he's a good example for what you're trying to show as moderate control.

I agree that Biden and HRC are moderate Democratic establishment types, but I think they're the last, dying gasp of that establishment, Rich. They were both terrible, ancient candidates, and despite their "moderate" status they both pander to the far left just as much as Trump panders to the far right. Hillary's fundamental unlikability and her arrogance in refusing to campaign in traditional blue-collar D states are the reasons she lost to Trump - like you said, Russia wasn't responsible for that.

Biden is almost 80 years old, an awful public speaker, and inspires nobody - despite having the advantages of zealot-level anti-Trump fervor from Democrats and most of the mainstream media, plus the COVID pandemic running rampant across the country, he still almost lost the election. If Trump had done a slightly better job managing the COVID pandemic, the orange man would still be sitting in the White House.

and after those two, what's left for the moderate Democratic establishment? Pete Buttigieg? Kamala Harris? I have zero faith that anyone in the current left wing power structure has the political will and savvy to stand up to the progressives and advance moderate views now that millennials and Gen Z are about to become the largest voting bloc in America.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I think that although you're a very smart guy, you really, really want to see a difference, and so you do. But from where I sit, both parties are equally riddled with hypocrisy, corruption and stupidity - the Republicans with their obsession with conspiracy theories, the culture war, and "owning the libs" instead of substantive policy discusssion, and the Democrats with their progressive abandonment of actual liberal principles like the rights of the individual, freedom of expression and the value of a strong marketplace of ideas in favor of authoritarian ideological purity and conformity of thought, censorship, nihilistic solipsist worldviews and genuine revulsion for the majority of working class Americans.

I stated in another thread that I've voted third party the last two elections, and I can't see that changing any time soon, my friend. 
I don't agree with all of your conclusions here, but despite that this is a hell of a good post.

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
Do you really not see the differences here?  For example, you wrote "how many Democrats do you think believe that Hillary would have won in 2016 if not for Russian propaganda influence?"  We know for a fact that Russian spam/bots were pushing anti-Hillary propaganda.  That's not up for debate.  It's entirely a matter of opinion whether it made a difference.*  The voter fraud allegations from 2020 and lack of evidence are not remotely the same.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by Trump colluding with Russia while POTUS.  Gore/Bush?  I don't think any significant number of people believe that miscounted votes changed Bush/Gore.  There are allegations of confusing ballots, but that is again a matter of opinion on whether "voter confusion" made a real difference.

I'm not entirely familiar with the specifics of Abrams' allegations re: the GA election.  Did she allege fraud?  Or did she allege voter suppression tactics?  Again, two entirely different things.

Yes, there are crazies on the left side of the aisle.  But the reality is the party is dominated by the moderates.  It's why the last three POTUS candidates have been Biden, HRC, and Obama and not the progressives.  It's why Nancy Pelosi is SotH and not AOC.

* Personally, I doubt it mattered much.  I also don't really give a #### that Russia tries to influence our elections.  We do the same thing in tons of other countries.  Most countries with sophisticated intelligence capabilities attempt to influence other countries to act in the best interests of the influencing company.
Add my name to the list of people saying no, I don't really see much of difference here.  I mean yeah sure the MAGA people actually stormed the capital building and are rightly being prosecuted for that, but the fundamental problem is people refusing to concede elections that they lost.  Nixon (!) cleared that bar in 1960, but Gore, Hillary, and Stacey Abrams did not.  And neither did Trump of course.  

A party that was serious about 1/6 being a threat to democracy would not put Stacey Abrams back in the public eye, but we both know that they're going to do exactly that and pretend that it's fine.  It isn't fine.

 

squistion

Footballguy
Serious question.   Do you think a man can get pregnant?


I didn't answer this question earlier because I thought it was frivolous. 

Serious answer, no. And she doesn't believe that either, I am sure. But they were trying to play gotcha with her by trying to give a misleading answer in a game of semantics. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Philo Beddoe

Footballguy
Add my name to the list of people saying no, I don't really see much of difference here.  I mean yeah sure the MAGA people actually stormed the capital building and are rightly being prosecuted for that, but the fundamental problem is people refusing to concede elections that they lost.  Nixon (!) cleared that bar in 1960, but Gore, Hillary, and Stacey Abrams did not.  And neither did Trump of course.  

A party that was serious about 1/6 being a threat to democracy would not put Stacey Abrams back in the public eye, but we both know that they're going to do exactly that and pretend that it's fine.  It isn't fine.
IK the current nominee to head the FEC Dara Lindenbaum, signed on to a federal legal complaint on behalf of Abrams's Fair Fight Action challenging the 2018 election.

“The complaint also lamented the use of "insecure and unreliable" electronic voting machines that "lack a paper trail" and thus "cannot be audited"—those machines even "switched" votes from Abrams to Kemp, according to the complaint.”

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
IK the current nominee to head the FEC Dara Lindenbaum, signed on to a federal legal complaint on behalf of Abrams's Fair Fight Action challenging the 2018 election.

“The complaint also lamented the use of "insecure and unreliable" electronic voting machines that "lack a paper trail" and thus "cannot be audited"—those machines even "switched" votes from Abrams to Kemp, according to the complaint.”
Oh, that one takes me back.  Remember the early 2000s when people thought that Cheney/Halliburton were somehow going to rig Diebolt voting machines?  

And now we're supposed to believe that history started in 2021.

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
Oh, that one takes me back.  Remember the early 2000s when people thought that Cheney/Halliburton were somehow going to rig Diebolt voting machines?  

And now we're supposed to believe that history started in 2021.
You're ignoring the difference in scale.  There's always a few nut jobs on ask conspiracy theories.  This time is different.  It's literally the majority of a political party, to the point that 90%+ of that party's representatives either believe or are scared to say they don't.

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
You're ignoring the difference in scale.  There's always a few nut jobs on ask conspiracy theories.  This time is different.  It's literally the majority of a political party, to the point that 90%+ of that party's representatives either believe or are scared to say they don't.


Your side of the aisle burned American cities, attacked Local/State/Federal buildings, looted businesses, assaulted people, murdered them and took over portions of cities for almost 2 straight years.  And the MSM and YOUR representatives not only condoned it, but came out in support of it.

Give me a ####### break already.  THAT was a scale far worse than 500 unarmed (i.e. guns) people storming the capitol (which was also bad, btw).  If you don't think attacking local/state/federal buildings isn't a form of insurrection, then you only want to see what you want to see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

squistion

Footballguy
Your side of the aisle burned American cities, attacked Local/State/Federal buildings, looted businesses, assaulted people, murdered them and took over portions of cities for almost 2 straight years.  And the MSM and YOUR representatives not only condoned it, but came out in support of it.

Give me a ####### break already.  THAT was a scale far worse than 500 unarmed (i.e. guns) people storming the capitol (which was also bad, btw).  If you don't think attacking local/state/federal buildings isn't a form of insurrection, then you only want to see what you want to see.


No, our side of the aisle did none of that and our MSM and representatives did not condone it or support it either. Jeez.

That would be as irresponsible and false as saying your side of the aisle was responsible for Charlottesville and Jan 6th and your media plus your representatives condoned it and supported it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
You're ignoring the difference in scale.  There's always a few nut jobs on ask conspiracy theories.  This time is different.  It's literally the majority of a political party, to the point that 90%+ of that party's representatives either believe or are scared to say they don't.
No, I get that there's a difference in degree, although I don't think it's really quite as large as you're making it out to be.  The more important thing though is that it's just (arguably) a difference in degree -- it's not a difference in kind.  Both teams have prominent elected officials who won't take a loss gracefully.  Sorry, I know you can see this clear as day when you look across the field at the red team, but the rest of us can see this just as clearly when we look at your team too.

 

KarmaPolice

Footballguy
Are you suggesting they weren’t working 8 hours lol?
LOL.  Even if they were supposed to be "working", no.   Several parents had to take more time off because their kids were at home and didn't have much of an option of work from home.   

I am not discounting the examples provided in the threads, I am just saying that IMO it's still far more likely they encountered something they found upsetting in the classroom from examples on their SM vs something they encountered in the actual classroom.   

 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
No, I get that there's a difference in degree, although I don't think it's really quite as large as you're making it out to be.  The more important thing though is that it's just (arguably) a difference in degree -- it's not a difference in kind.  Both teams have prominent elected officials who won't take a loss gracefully.  Sorry, I know you can see this clear as day when you look across the field at the red team, but the rest of us can see this just as clearly when we look at your team too.
I think you and I are a lot closer on this than you think.  It is purely a difference of degree.  I suspect that the number on the left is on the order of 5% that believe HRC "really" won (plus another 5-10% who say things like that because they're just mad).  I suspect that the actual number on the right is on the order of 40% or so that believe DJT "won", but there's also a large contingent of another 30-40% on the right who have realized they have to say he did and that it turns out there's no penalty for A) saying DJT won, and B) implementing voter suppression policies (or in some cases, even outright methods to discard the will of the voters) that favor their team going forward.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BladeRunner

Footballguy
She may have. It was really close and the election was administered by her opponent. 


Oh, wait.... so NOW we believe in election fraud?   What happened to conceding elections being the right thing to do (she still hasn't, by the way)?

Thanks for at least coming around on the subject.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top