Yeah but the other party are fascists so I’m still gonna vote for them
When democrats go to the right on issues, they don’t attract republican voters. What happens instead is that republicans go even farther right in order to differentiate themselves from democrats.
How about the crack down on the domestic terrorists
Course they are. It won’t net them a single Republican vote, but they get to experience the sheer joy of throwing a vulnerable population under the bus.
Yep and even maintaining this appearance - there’s still a large chance they won’t pull in enough red voters to beat Trump.
The idea that any one is switching tides in an environment this polarized is idiotic.
I know this won’t be a popular comment. But the left has played a huge emotional role in tha polarization. This is a difficult comment to accept, a difficult role to accept - because it’s irrational.
That’s the nature of emotions. They don’t necessarily make rational sense. But Trump and the Republicans aren’t playing by the same sensible and rational politics the left and Democrats have been.
The Republicans have been running an emotionally driven narrative based campaign that’s most successful with men… And the left has ignored this and often fallen into its trals. Played a part, a large part in defining this process.
Obama addressed Black men, accused them of not fully supporting Harris because “they don’t like the idea of a woman being in charge.” He decided what they were thinking as if he knew, spoke down to them in this manner, scolded them emotionally.
This is going to turn a section of those voters off.
Biden, said Trump supporters are “garbage”, echoing Hillary’s “Basket of Deplorables” moment. A section of voters that don’t like that sort of politics, politics that goes after them emotionally, judging them, will be further solidified in an emotional sense to their vote for Trump. Those hearts won’t be softened now. Those votes can’t be won. It’s emotional. It’s further polarizing, and it’s being done by leftists.
The irony is, Kamala herself isn’t doing it. High level supporters are. Frankly lots of leftists are.
When Trump wears a garbage man uniform to express sympathy for his supporters having been told they’re garbage, it wins their loyalty. Their appreciation. It’s emotional for them.
Most leftists call them stupid and wonder why they’re stuck in the MAGA cult - they’ve been driven there. By an emotional narrative that only one side sees or knows how to properly curate and interact with. That narrative has kept them there. Made it an alluring and welcoming emotional home for them to be comforted by, whilst the other side judges them for it.
The left don’t realize this, and it’s really too late to. But this is indeed what’s been happening all along. The left have played a huge part in setting up what might be a huge loss for them, and possibly a huge loss for the future of American democracy.
I understand you don’t want to hear this. It might even make you feel judged. But I needed to tell you, because it’s the truth.
So your argument is that stupid people are falling for really transparently disingenuous PR stunts and that neither those perpetuating those stunts nor the ones falling for it have played a huge role in it.
No, it’s not an argument, and it’s not about blame, it’s about the causation of an emotional narrative that gets constructed, and it’s that emotional narrative that drives irrational levels of political support.
Your criticism of my comment is rational.
Rationally it’s clear that Trump causes Trumpism, his followers are stupid or misfits for going along with it.
But that overlooks my purpose. I’m answering why they do it, I’m telling you the irrational and emotional causes… Not who is rationally “to blame” on a logical level. That’s already known.
Because the thing is - people are often driven by their emotions. For many people, right now on the planet you have to live on, for many of those people - logic and reason are after thoughts… Things they decorated their excuses with after the (emotional) fact. It’s the superficial dressing they put on and over their emotions, and often on their emotional wounds.
…and all this may be what determines the election outcome.
Okay, let’s go down this road. I think you’ve touched on something important, so I genuinely want to get this.
How have the left played a “huge emotional role” in the polarization? I suppose you could argue that “the libs” or progressives have essentially started to shun those who they find don’t agree with them on certain key issues (abortion/birth control, immigration, etc.).
But how does this differ from how political discourse has been for the last few decades? People want to act like cancel culture is this new thing that Millenials invented, but societies have utilized shame in order to shun unwanted or undesirable opinions forever. Really, the only thing that’s changed from my perspective is that people have started drawing lines in the sand, and conservative reactionaries stamp all over the lines, then go Pikachu-face when they’re boycotted.
Blue dogs:
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone’s opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication’s capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
