TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What The Hell Are Us Lefties Doing Wrong
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

What The Hell Are Us Lefties Doing Wrong

I mean seriously. It isn't that I hate you righties.. I just think the Bush administration is trying to force their agenda, and like, only their agenda, down our throats. It's like the other 50% of the divided country doesn't matter for shit. This is where I think that Kerry, if he had been elected, there would have been a major difference in opinion...

The way I feel? It's not like I think that this is the only thing wrong with our party, because it's not.. But a major thing wrong with our party is that we don't have our own damn media star�s� Someone who�s forcing out point of view across�

Look at Fox news... Conservitives have O�Reilly, Hanity, and the other 95% of their network pushing their Right Wing agenda�s across so hard and aggressive.. And you know what? People actually believe them. Who�s helping our cause? Whenever I see Democrat�s on the dial they're never quite �there�.. It's like they're afraid to open their damn mouths.

I�m sure we can pull off the rating's, hell, probably even get better ones if we get the right person on the tv. I mean, sure us lefty�s have progressive talk radio and some other AM stations but seriously, unless someone gets the left wing some balance of the media on the dials, we�re not getting shit. Four year�s, get Hilary Clinton, get Edwards again, I don�t care. We�re not going to win unless something changes.

Four years from now, if there isn�t a change in our party I doubt we�re ever going to get that extra push that is going to give us the kind of clout we need to win an election.

Think about it, If Kerry would have won the 100+ thousand votes (or whatever amount there were) in Ohio that Bush did, he would�ve won. Case closed. Simple as that. 100+ votes� isn�t that much of a push. We�re almost there.

What the hell are democrats doing to make a change?

Kerry had the biggest turnout of voter�s of any challenger ever. So I think that says something.

I'm just venting some fustration.

Rodas

Re: What The Hell Are Us Lefties Doing Wrong

quote:

Originally posted by Rodas I mean seriously. It isn't that I hate you righties.. I just think the Bush administration is trying to force their agenda, and like, only their agenda, down our throats. And the other 50% of the divided country doesn't matter for shit. I think that is where Kerry would have been different.. The way I feel? I don�t think this is the only thing wrong with our party, but a major damn thing wrong is that we don't have our own damn media star�s� Someone who�s forcing out point of view across� Look at Fox news... Conservitives have O�Reilly, Hanity, and the other 90% pushing their Right Wing agenda�s across so hard and aggressive, and you know what? People actually believe them. Who�s helping our cause? Whenever I see Democrat�s on the dial their never quite �there�.. It's like they're afraid to open their damn mouths. I�m sure we can pull off the rating's, if not even get better ones, if we get the right person on the tv. I mean, sure us lefty�s have progressive talk radio and some other AM stations but seriously, unless someone gets the left wing some balance of the media on the dials, we�re not getting shit. Four year�s, get Hilary Clinton, get Edwards again, I don�t care. We�re not going to win unless something changes. Four years from now, if there isn�t a change in our party I doubt we�re ever going to get that extra push that is going to give us the kind of clout we need to win an election. Think about it, If Kerry would have won the 100+ thousand votes (or whatever amount there were) in Ohio that Bush did, he would�ve won. Case closed. Simple as that. 100+ votes� isn�t that much of a push. We�re almost their. What the hell are democrats doing to make a change? Kerry had the biggest turnout of voter�s of any challenger ever. So I think that says something. I'm just venting some fustration. Rodas

Schwarzenegger Calls Democrats 'Losers' Once 'Girlie Men,' Dems May Also Be 'Losers' In Governor's Mind

POSTED: 2:05 pm PST November 4, 2004 UPDATED: 2:26 pm PST November 4, 2004

LOS ANGELES -- Two days after the worst election defeat in decades for Democrats, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to them as "losers" in response to a reporter's question about tax increases.

But even before he concluded his remarks, the Republican governor attempted to recast himself saying any tax increase is a losing idea. The governor's spokeswoman Margita Thompson also offered the same clarification only a few minutes after a Schwarzenegger's press conference ended.

But Schwarzenegger, who degraded Democrats during the budget fight last summer as "girlie men," seemed to understand a question about whether he would consider proposals to raise taxes from Democrats.

"Why would I listen to losers?" the governor asked. "Let's be honest."

Re: What The Hell Are Us Lefties Doing Wrong

quote:

Originally posted by Rodas I mean seriously. It isn't that I hate you righties.. I just think the Bush administration is trying to force their agenda, and like, only their agenda, down our throats. And the other 50% of the divided country doesn't matter for shit. I think that is where Kerry would have been different.. The way I feel? I don�t think this is the only thing wrong with our party, but a major damn thing wrong is that we don't have our own damn media star�s� Someone who�s forcing out point of view across� Look at Fox news... Conservitives have O�Reilly, Hanity, and the other 90% pushing their Right Wing agenda�s across so hard and aggressive, and you know what? People actually believe them. Who�s helping our cause? Whenever I see Democrat�s on the dial their never quite �there�.. It's like they're afraid to open their damn mouths. I�m sure we can pull off the rating's, if not even get better ones, if we get the right person on the tv. I mean, sure us lefty�s have progressive talk radio and some other AM stations but seriously, unless someone gets the left wing some balance of the media on the dials, we�re not getting shit. Four year�s, get Hilary Clinton, get Edwards again, I don�t care. We�re not going to win unless something changes. Four years from now, if there isn�t a change in our party I doubt we�re ever going to get that extra push that is going to give us the kind of clout we need to win an election. Think about it, If Kerry would have won the 100+ thousand votes (or whatever amount there were) in Ohio that Bush did, he would�ve won. Case closed. Simple as that. 100+ votes� isn�t that much of a push. We�re almost their. What the hell are democrats doing to make a change? Kerry had the biggest turnout of voter�s of any challenger ever. So I think that says something. I'm just venting some fustration. Rodas

no kidding. the only interesting sources lefties have are internet blogs and Air America Radio. i wish i could turn on the TV and see a guy as energetic as Oreilly hammering my point of view across, instead of fuckin Colmes

Due to media consolidation, thanks especially to Michael Powell and the FCC, it's not likely media is going to hange that much. But the point about having someone like O'Reilly is dead on. James Carville shoud have been in charge of the Kerry Campaign and he would have beat tricks like the Swiftboat vets at their own game. More people like LBJ are needed too, who were able to gain favors from people and twist arms to get things done, even if they did not agree with him.

What has to happen right now is all the mobilization in place from the past election has to be ready for 2006. It'll be the time when a President traditionally loses some seats (mid-term election during 2nd term) and turn out from the GOP will not be as strong as in a Presidential election year. A more centrist message is needed to show that Democrats have morals too and then once that is expressed, we can differentiate ourselves to red state citizens by going into the issues that we believe in that affect their daily lives, like healthcare and education and deficits.

Certainly in 2008 we do not need Hillary Clinton or else it'll be the same election map as Tuesday was, we need someone like Senator Bayh from Indiana, a moderate from a red state who can draw in some different states. Policy wont move as fast through such an administration,but it'll be better than going backward like we are now and can start rebuilding a broad base. If the GOP wanted to motivate voters by pushing morals,we have to take that away from them.

Well if you Democrats hadn't put Jane Fonda hugging Kerry out there as fodder, you mighta done better. Do a background check the next time around and take that gay rights plank off of your stage. The majority of Nam vets and church women are grinning from ear to ear right about now. Look for a Southern democrat as well if you ever hope to stand a chance in Dixie or with the rural vote.


[[[smoke]]]

it's a little something called "core values". liberals, by nature, don't have them. at least not in way one would define outlining a specific ideology that encompassed the entire group.

if you could, then you would need a leader. thats the second problem. who? who will lead you? who would you give legitamacy to?
no one really.

why? you figure it out. i bet it takes you decades and then the youth of tomorrow will rebel against you too. it's a vicious cycle...that only happens in this way in America.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's a little something called "core values". liberals, by nature, don't have them. at least not in way one would define outlining a specific ideology that encompassed the entire group. if you could, then you would need a leader. thats the second problem. who? who will lead you? who would you give legitamacy to? no one really. why? you figure it out. i bet it takes you decades and then the youth of tomorrow will rebel against you too. it's a vicious cycle...that only happens in this way in America.

you're a very well outspoken man

your posts are intelligent, and all i can do is quote and say "i agree"

i agree.



>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Certainly in 2008 we do not need Hillary Clinton or else it'll be the same election map as Tuesday was

Funny you should mention that as I heard it as well on a media clip yesterday. Now that's a candidate who would surely ensure a Republican stays in office.


[[[smoke]]]

Your post title answers your question. America doesn't want lefties. Moderate democrats, fine. Sen. Bayh of Indiana is a moderate Democrat who won big in a Bush state. Hillary in 2008 is a fading proposition.

The problem is that the liberal wing of the Democrat party is the wing that's in control. They hold the senior positions. So, before the Democrats ever attempt to return to power, they will have to fight an internal war over the direction of their party.

As to why the left does not have an O'Reilly or a Rush, the posts above are correct. Republicans and outspoken independents take stands on the tough issues of the day, while liberals will nuance their way around a position until you can't understand what the hell they're trying to say.

There was a study done by Quinnipiac college, I think after the 2002 election, and they did man-on-the-street interviews around the country. When they asked average people what they thought the Democrat party's strongest position was, "abortion" was the answer that got the most votes by far. If that's what your party's identifying characteristic is, you've got a heap of problems.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Funny you should mention that as I heard it as well on a media clip yesterday. Now that's a candidate who would surely ensure a Republican stays in office. [[[smoke]]]

she's already got a bad rap. her husband, former president cheated on her, and lied about it. he got impeached.

if she can't satisfy her husband, how does she expect to cater to the good of the country? problems in the bedroom would equate to problems in the office. = no go.

oh, don't even have to mention her leftist liberal stance. that alone kills the deal.

>JM<

"Attack of the conservatives" is what's going on in the last few posts here.

speed, you post is totally off topic. Yet, quotes from Arnold using line�s from thirty year�s ago aren�t going to help your claim (whichever one you were trying to bring across).

"Liberals aren't as outspoken as conservatives� claim.. I would have to say I disagree (at least not the one�s I know). Air America seems to be taking over AM Radio as of now..

There isn�t a venue for us on T.V. as of yet.

I still think that the time will come.

Rodas

whatre we doing wrong?

not oversimplifying things for simpletons.

both right/left-conservative/noncons have reality based arguments that hold true in various situations. the right are just better at using vague terminology like 'moral value' to sway voters that either dont know enough about how the international world works - or dont care to and only care about their personal taxes...|

Also, I use "lefties" as a loose term.

I actually like Barack Obama's views and positions (I've seen alot of people throw his name around as a strong candidate for 2008's primaries), and I'm definitely more close to what he believes in. I think he would definitely be a good candidate but that�s me honestly.

Is America ready for a black president? Sure he is half white, but do you actually think that America would go for that? There are still conservatives out there who don't believe that people of color should have the same rights that those who don't do.

Hey you never know.. Even Sharpton was ahead of Kerry in the polls during the primaries.

The other thing is that Obama's now in the senate, thus I believe that his voting will haunt him like it did with Kerry (god forbid). But I don't think that he would "change positions" like Kerry was haunted for. He kind of took a shot at Kerry for doing that in an interview with Holmes (I don't remember exactly what he said but search for the transcript).

If he was to ever win the primaries I would support him 100%.

Rodas

Obama = centrist thats probably why you would support him
Sharpton = separatist

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Obama = centrist thats probably why you would support him Sharpton = separatist

Obama is a great man, I'm so glad he won, but if he is a centrist, then how is Kerry "the most liberal in the Senate"?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Obama is a great man, I'm so glad he won, but if he is a centrist, than how is Kerry "the most liberal in the Senate"?

compared to Sharpton, ideologically, as a black leader, he is a centrist.

i'm not familiar with his voting record

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo compared to Sharpton, ideologically, as a black leader, he is a centrist. i'm not familiar with his voting record

OK, that's quite a fair evaluation. Obama is definately not Sharpton. He's a very religious man and a progressive politician, which is very representative of the constituency he has represented in the state senate.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Obama = centrist thats probably why you would support him Sharpton = separatist

Exactly. And you know what? I think that's o.k.

Hell, even if someone isn't so far left or far right, someone who is at least moderate to both parties and shows it... That is something that I'd really like to see.

Hopefully someone who is honest and a "leader" and not just like "ok, we give up".

Let�s be honest, I know the Republican's would definitely like to see a republican leader obviously, and democrats would like to have a Democratic leader than the other way around. But like spoken earlier, even if someone like Juliani was elected and could be a moderate leader in agreeing with both sides without the arrogance and the other issue's that I believe are a factor in today's democracy, then I definitely think that it is something that most could agree on. Clinton managed to do build something with his two terms, now it just seems as if we�re back at stage one all over again.

It can be done.

Rodas

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's a little something called "core values". liberals, by nature, don't have them. at least not in way one would define outlining a specific ideology that encompassed the entire group. if you could, then you would need a leader. thats the second problem. who? who will lead you? who would you give legitamacy to? no one really. why? you figure it out. i bet it takes you decades and then the youth of tomorrow will rebel against you too. it's a vicious cycle...that only happens in this way in America.

All depends on what you consider core values my friend. If it�s the lessons you live by in order to make you a better person, lessons you learn from your parents, religion, and self-experience, than I assure you liberals do have a set of core values.

If your definition of having core values includes imposing your values on others, such as unwavering opposition to gay marriage and abortion, then you�re right, that�s the conservative agenda and many liberals don�t believe in it
Here�s the dictionary.com definition which I think does it justice explaining the ideology:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Whatwas the rest of your post about? We cant find a leader? Leader for what? Seemed all like just a set up just to get to your irrelevant punchline.

quote:

Originally posted by Rodas "Liberals aren't as outspoken as conservatives� claim.. I would have to say I disagree (at least not the one�s I know). Air America seems to be taking over AM Radio as of now..

Air America is outspoken, but all they preach is hate and arrogance. I listen to the webcast whenever I want a cheap laugh.

There are many things that the dems could have done otherwise (looking in hindsight) to help them win the election. However, the one that stands out most in my mind is that they tried too damn hard to cover every position in the country, and not try to piss anyone off. (And of course, if everyone is happy with your position, something is wrong.)

Simple is what works and essentially what the republicans did. Look at the RNC, every speech was out there hammering about national security, 9/11, defending our country, and etc.

While for an outsider watching it it might sound stubborn and simplistic, it is the message that people remember. Republicans really sent the idea about Bush being the post 9-11 president who will stand up to terrorists, while John Kerry, on the other hand, tried to tackle iraq, healthcare, fiscal deficit, and a whole bunch of other issues that just sounded quite frankly like a typical politician.

You're average joe cant remember every issue Kerry is talking about in this country. Talk smack about the average joe and how dumb he is as much as you want, but in the end you still need his vote. As MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Air America is outspoken, but all they preach is hate and arrogance. I listen to the webcast whenever I want a cheap laugh.

Not any more hateful/arrogant than Limbaugh
if u wanna use those words. Id use conviction, and im glad they realized that's what they need to reach the masses

quote:

Originally posted by NiteKiD Not any more hateful/arrogant than Limbaugh if u wanna use those words. Id use conviction, and im glad they realized that's what they need to reach the masses

I dunno, IMHO, Air America Radio has lacked any substance when I've listened to it. Limbaugh may be loud and outspoken, but he tends to address issues whereas a lot of the people on Air America just spout hate and call people on the right names. Garoffolo and Franken have made a new career out of it.

I'll tell you a winning ticket for the democratic party:






Appealing to the convicts of the democratic party



and Hitlary appeals to all the other scumbags

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.