CDZ Where have all the Liberals gone?

[jwoodie]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

 

[oldsoul]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

This is, in essence, my working theory as well. When attempting to defend the indefensible, attempt to disparage your opponent, and change the narrative to how dumb/intolerant/fringe/unfit to debate your adversary is.
How about we try something new. Let's debate, in a civil manner, what has worked, and what has not. I find it highly unlikely this will happen anytime soon on a large scale though.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

They have ran out of lies, and false news and are smart enough lay low and regroup. They most of the time leave a few token Trolls in the area to take up the slack and thats what it looks like on most of the other boards

 

[Wry Catcher]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

My theory is a truth, you haven't offered a political issue for debate. Pick one and I promise not to call you names, I can't promise not to laugh.

 

[Mac1958]

What happened to these people?

There are still real liberals out there - people who are decent, open-minded, tolerant and curious.

Sadly they have essentially been rendered irrelevant - at least for now - by imposters, distortions, deviations. Narcissistic authoritarians who are the kind of people that REAL liberals used to fight AGAINST.

They're entrenched, though, they're in complete control of the Democratic party, so they're not going anywhere soon.
.

 

[Toronado3800]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

Judging by the percentages in the last big election I'm going to say you are hanging out with older people instead of college girls.

My remarks are kind of humorusly stated but I suspect it is a demographical thing.

 

[oldsoul]

It was really quite clear that the message intended is that the OP is finding it increasingly difficult to find anyone willing to debate the liberal platform in a constructive and civil manner. Something I see you are quite proficient at demonstrating.

So you're just as patronizing and evasive as the OP. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Anyone else want to jump in with their own "Those cowardly liberals won't discuss why they're such poopyheads!" story?

Let me clarify, I am finding it equally difficult to find "conservatives" who will engage in a civil debate with me on topics which we disagree on. So, it's not:

"Those cowardly liberals won't discuss why they're such poopyheads!"

It's really that we, as a people have, for whatever reason, lost the ability to have civil discourse. Part of the reason is all of the assumptions that people on ALL sides are increasingly guilty of. The fact that you have made such an assumption only serves to prove my point. I have been guilty of this as well, the difference is that I have started to attempt to effect a change, starting with myself. Are you able to truthfully say the same? I really don't care what your answer is, I just want people to start asking themselves what they are doing to solve the problems, as they see them, instead of whining and complaining about them.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

 

[oldsoul]

What happened to these people?

There are still real liberals out there - people who are decent, open-minded, tolerant and curious.

Sadly they have essentially been rendered irrelevant - at least for now - by imposters, distortions, deviations. Narcissistic authoritarians who are the kind of people that REAL liberals used to fight AGAINST.

They're entrenched, though, they're in complete control of the Democratic party, so they're not going anywhere soon.
.

Not only the DNC, but the GOP as well.

 

[jwoodie]

I am finding it equally difficult to find "conservatives" who will engage in a civil debate with me on topics which we disagree on.

Then you are not looking very hard. Moral equivalency is not a legitimate argument when one party commits 90% of the transgressions.

 

[MACAULAY]

This thread, even on the Polite Board, cannot get a start for the recriminations, the ground rules for a debate can't even be agreed on.

I will try,

We owe $20 trillion.

I m a Conservative. I think that is a bad thing. I also think it was run up mostly by Liberal Democrats whose most reliable constituency are people who like Free Stuff.

Usually, a Liberal comes back with: "Well, I'm tired of buying missiles".

And, I say the the Preamble to the Constitution uses "provide for the common defense" First, because we have to be safe before we can "promote the general welfare"....and I also note that the society known as The Roman Empire...rose to an unmatched pinnacle (until The Great American Civilization) and stayed there for a very long time....following this philosophy:

"The Romans kept peace by a constant preparation for war." Gibbon

But as to the General Welfare, we start with people who really can't work, widows with young children the disabled, and as we grow in wealth, we continue to expand what we do for citizens down on their luck people....and the more we do....the more people there are who get down on their luck (its human nature)...and the less they are responsible for themselves...and the taxes start to get higher to pay for them...until the Working Man, like me, the Productive Citizens.....refuse to pay more....we have our own families to think about.

And so taxes can't be raised any more...and the borrowing commences in earnest...and every time the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised, the Democrats are all for it...and they throw a Granny in a wheel chair off a cliff and the Republicans cave because they are cowards.

This always gets me a "blame the Rich Argument" but that's just Marx coming out of his grave, yet again. There aren't enough rich to pay for all the Porch Sitters we have now in America and all the programs for the Porch Sitters....the Middle Class, the Productive People, like me.....have to carry the load.

Lyndon Baines Johnson crated the first Welfare Queen in about 1965. Affirmative Action, The War on Poverty, The Great Society...destroyed the Black Family. And along the way it created new Welfare Queens like crazy. And why wouldn't it?

A 16 year old unwed mother who has yet another illegitimate baby at 17 years old, sees herself as "getting a raise" financial-wise..and if she puts out four, no man ever to be found...she can qualify for enough benefits to make about what a whole lot of us Productive People make...without the stress of a boss and a job.

What do you expect Human Nature to do? If a Subsistence is assured...a whole lot of people will just sit on the Porch. It has always been so.

The productive people themselves get frustrated, give up...many become Porch Sitters too...a mother load rolls in illegally from Mexico...and now Marx is truly out of his grave.

How Do you Liberals justify loading up our children and grand-children with 20 trillion in debt when you know its unsustainable?

All great societies take care of their people who can't take care of themselves.

Time do get those that DON'T off their Front Porch or out of this country.

___________________

 

[MaryL]

I am a ex liberal. I think a lot of liberals are just growing up and are now just realizing how liberalism has been hijacked by extremists, and are abandoning the cause in droves out of disgust.

 

[Bush92]

Mary L speaks the truth. There is no Democratic Party now. Ben not taken over by the Socialist Party USA.

 

[Bush92]

Mary L speaks the truth. There is no Democratic Party now. Ben not taken over by the Socialist Party USA.

"All the Way With LBJ" has given way to "Resistance Summer" and "wealth redistribution."

 

[oldfart]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

My experience is the reverse. In the 60's and 70's most of the clueless ideologues were on the left. Now they are on the right. Personally, I think that ultimately social media is unsuited for serious discussion of important issues. Civility evaporates with perceived anonymity. Name-calling and repetition of defective logic and false "facts" have replaced any chance of reasonable discussion. Check out just about any thread on this board. Most all of the people, right or left, that I met on this board three or four years ago who had posted in fora in which they had some expertise have left in disgust.

 

[HenryBHough]

Population change is doing in the former Democratic Party.

Generational change, that is.

People in their 20s tend to be liberals. But then they get jobs, have families and assume responsibilities. At least many of them do - fewer, it is true, than as observed in previous generations but it still happens.

Many discover they CAN think for themselves and don't HAVE TO rely on "their betters" to make decisions for them.

So they leave the party.

And today's Democrat Party writes them off as "drop outs".

Let us hope they keep up the good work and we might just make America Great Again.

 

[Bush92]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

My experience is the reverse. In the 60's and 70's most of the clueless ideologues were on the left. Now they are on the right. Personally, I think that ultimately social media is unsuited for serious discussion of important issues. Civility evaporates with perceived anonymity. Name-calling and repetition of defective logic and false "facts" have replaced any chance of reasonable discussion. Check out just about any thread on this board. Most all of the people, right or left, that I met on this board three or four years ago who had posted in fora in which they had some expertise have left in disgust.

Democrats are too PC to recognize their problems with voters. You cannot embrace groups that advocate the murder of police officers and expect to win White working class voters.

 

[Bush92]

Population change is doing in the former Democratic Party.

Generational change, that is.

People in their 20s tend to be liberals. But then they get jobs, have families and assume responsibilities. At least many of them do - fewer, it is true, than as observed in previous generations but it still happens.

Many discover they CAN think for themselves and don't HAVE TO rely on "their betters" to make decisions for them.

So they leave the party.

And today's Democrat Party writes them off as "drop outs".

Let us hope they keep up the good work and we might just make America Great Again.

As the saying goes: "Democrats jumped out to an early lead in the election...then the Republicans got off work and went and voted."

 

[Toronado3800]

This thread, even on the Polite Board, cannot get a start for the recriminations, the ground rules for a debate can't even be agreed on.

I will try,

We owe $20 trillion.

I m a Conservative. I think that is a bad thing. I also think it was run up mostly by Liberal Democrats whose most reliable constituency are people who like Free Stuff.

Usually, a Liberal comes back with: "Well, I'm tired of buying missiles".

And, I say the the Preamble to the Constitution uses "provide for the common defense" First, because we have to be safe before we can "promote the general welfare"....and I also note that the society known as The Roman Empire...rose to an unmatched pinnacle (until The Great American Civilization) and stayed there for a very long time....following this philosophy:

"The Romans kept peace by a constant preparation for war." Gibbon

But as to the General Welfare, we start with people who really can't work, widows with young children the disabled, and as we grow in wealth, we continue to expand what we do for citizens down on their luck people....and the more we do....the more people there are who get down on their luck (its human nature)...and the less they are responsible for themselves...and the taxes start to get higher to pay for them...until the Working Man, like me, the Productive Citizens.....refuse to pay more....we have our own families to think about.

And so taxes can't be raised any more...and the borrowing commences in earnest...and every time the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised, the Democrats are all for it...and they throw a Granny in a wheel chair off a cliff and the Republicans cave because they are cowards.

This always gets me a "blame the Rich Argument" but that's just Marx coming out of his grave, yet again. There aren't enough rich to pay for all the Porch Sitters we have now in America and all the programs for the Porch Sitters....the Middle Class, the Productive People, like me.....have to carry the load.

Lyndon Baines Johnson crated the first Welfare Queen in about 1965. Affirmative Action, The War on Poverty, The Great Society...destroyed the Black Family. And along the way it created new Welfare Queens like crazy. And why wouldn't it?

A 16 year old unwed mother who has yet another illegitimate baby at 17 years old, sees herself as "getting a raise" financial-wise..and if she puts out four, no man ever to be found...she can qualify for enough benefits to make about what a whole lot of us Productive People make...without the stress of a boss and a job.

What do you expect Human Nature to do? If a Subsistence is assured...a whole lot of people will just sit on the Porch. It has always been so.

The productive people themselves get frustrated, give up...many become Porch Sitters too...a mother load rolls in illegally from Mexico...and now Marx is truly out of his grave.

How Do you Liberals justify loading up our children and grand-children with 20 trillion in debt when you know its unsustainable?

All great societies take care of their people who can't take care of themselves.

Time do get those that DON'T off their Front Porch or out of this country.

___________________

Join with me in your hatred of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 and Obama for while Obama inherited probably the 2nd worse mess of modern times he fixed it in a similar way to how Ronald did.

 

[Toronado3800]

Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.

What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.

What is you theory?

Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.

There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.

I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.

If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.

Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.

An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.

Have a good evening.

 

[Bush92]

Liberals are all huggy and fuzzy...Republicans just cut to the point.