The Leftists switched to mainstream at some point between those 2 years. Leftists were against war and big corporations. Now they are for both. I am still trying to pin point what happened to cause the change and what event signified the change. It wasn't the 2016 election, but that is when it became obvious.
A lot of people always switch positions on a lot of big issues depending on who is president, so I suspect that was part of it.
I don't think Leftists switched on war and banks because of Trump. Those things switched during the Obama administration. When and why exactly is my question.
Because most of them never really cared about war or banks. They cared about putting a Democrat in the White House. Once that happened, they weren't concerned. That's how Cindy Sheehan went from being a famous mother of a soldier killed in combat to being a nobody. She still protested after Obama won, but nobody gave a **** about her or anything she had to say anymore.
Just as the left used to be all about free speech when those being shouted down were communists. Now that the commies are the ones doing the shouting down of consevatives, free speech is not such a big deal to the left anymore.
I get what you are saying about one case. I am trying to understand why the whole class of LEFTIST went from protesting the Vietnam war, Iraq wars 1 and 2, to speaking against Trump for ending the wars including Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Leftists didn't protest US participation in the Balkan wars. I didn't either as a run of the mill Republican. But now I question US involvement in these wars. I now question them because my ideolgy as has changed. Not sure what happened on the Left. Maybe the Left wasn't really against war. What were they against then, that they are against now that seems different on the surface? Is it that Leftists have been against war that helps the US but for war that hurts the US? I don't think that is the case either. It is more subtle than that.
Phil, I think I understand that. Leftists are for Leftist speech and against Conservative speech. Before the populace was against Leftist speech, so they defended Leftists. Now the populace is for Leftist speech so they attack Conservative speech. I see there a power shift. Not sure when it happened exactly, but Obama definitiely poplularized Leftist speech. Coming out of his administration, Leftism is popular so Leftists now are able to go on the offensive against Conservative speech. But I would like to understand the specifics behind how that happened and when.
I think you're illustrating the point. Though true pacifists exist, most on the Left (and in recent years, many on the Right) support or oppose a war according to the political implications of that war. They aren't going to support Trump withdrawing troops, because of who's issuing the order. They're not going to support anything Trump does. They were ok with the Balkan intervention, because Bill Clinton was doing it. If a President Dole had been doing it, they would have opposed it.
It's hard to specify, because I don't think there was a specific moment in time when it occurred. I think it was a gradual phenomenon. As places where discussion of ideas (institutions of education, political media, etc.) became more monolithically leftist, there were fewer and fewer people to speak up for the right of conservatives to speak and to be heard. As they gain power, that right will get weaker and weaker until it's gone. The ultimate goal and logical extreme of leftism is totalitarianism (economic, cultural, and political). Free speech undermines totalitarianism, so protecting free speech isn't going to be a priority except when it benefits them.
Dont shoot the messenger. New polling -- "Who is the most racist"? Whites, Hispanics and Blacks all agree -- "Blacks" More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics - Rasmussen Reports® "2 of 3 [white guys] voted for Trump ... these are not good people walking towards you ... you should be afraid of them." --Michael Moore 12/23/19
Deez, one of my doubts about Leftists being against whatever Trump is for but for whatever a Democrat President is for, is how the Left has treated Tulsi Gabbard. She is the only anti-military interventionist candidate and her reputation is being destroyed by other Leftists because of it. That makes me think that aggressive war is now fully in the Leftist platform. There is no ability to differ with the platform which means no potential Democrat President is going to be anti aggressive war.
I think there are two factors at play. First, the Democratic Party is a full-blown globalist (and anti-nationalist) party, so it is going to favor global institutions that support its agenda, such as the UN, the EU, WTO, etc. At least on a case by case basis, that'll also mean supporting the US military, since obviously those global institutions depend heavily on the US military for their clout. The populist wing of the party that is more skeptical of global institutions is quickly losing its influence. Gabbard is part of the populist wing, and her opposition to military action (or "aggressive war" as you call it) is part of that populism. Second, Gabbard isn't just a populist. She is a definite skeptic of Trump hatred. She doesn't necessarily praise him, but she has as much criticism of her party as she has for Trump. So they view her as disloyal.
It's down right flipped Deez. Sanders in 2016 was calling for closed borders. Now he is for open borders. The populist wing is dead.
I wouldn't say it's dead, because there are still some significant populist ideas in the Democratic platform and in the candidates' agendas. For example, single payer healthcare, free tuition, and student loan relief (which I wouldn't have as big of a problem with if there was a real effort to rein in costs but there never is) are at least arguably populist ideas. However, they've had to change their priorities to compromise with the pet issues that make the urban, gentry liberals feel good about themselves and promote their economic interests - open borders, free trade, social justice, climate change, etc. After all, they are the ones who bankroll the party and its candidates. I think that has also led to a realignment of who is in the Party's populist wing. It's not working class laborers anymore. It's lower class unskilled workers, bums, ethnic minorities, etc.
I dont see how the writers of country songs will ever be able to keep up Girl becomes Boy Boy meets Girl Girl also becomes Boy Boy I and Boy II marry Boy II gets pregnant from sperm from Wife The brain damaged applaud
I am still trying to understand JF's post on a transgender man having a baby from a transgender female
"Racebending" (changing a literary or historic character's race in a film or stage production) is becoming something the politically correct lunatics celebrate. That's why they liked Hamilton so much. Obviously, if someone did it the other way, I doubt they'd like it as much. For example, if MLK was portrayed by a white guy, I'm sure they'd crap in their pants.
I'm not sure. I've never seen it but have been told by people who have (including non-SJW types) that it was pretty good in its own right even if it was a goofy idea. Having said that, I'm sure that if it had been made with white actors and didn't have some left wing message, it would have been considered pretty unremarkable and not gotten a fraction of the attention or interest.
GP moving. The issue is (or was) whether liberals would have celebrated this play for 2 years en masse had the cast been "historically accurate." Me and Capt O say no way Jose. We would like to add that they would not have even gone to see it in the first place. They probably would have criticized it and maybe even protested it. And, thus, whether it was actually well-written and well-acted is wholly immaterial.
Saw it at Bass Concert Hall and shelled out over $1k for four tickets to do so.....cheaper than seeing it on Broadway by a longshot. My daughter was in love with the soundtrack for a year. We all came away saying it was pretty good, but for all the hype and expense we were all disappointed. I will say she knows more about the formation of our country than probably any other kid in her school as a result of this musical.
