It’s Dumb and Dangerous for Liberals to Conflate All Conservatives With MAGA

[scruffy]

There is a difference between Republicans and Trumplicans,

Really?

What is it?

Be specific.

that is why I try to use the term “Trumplican”….but that difference is in danger of becoming blurred the more Republicans get labeled RINO’s and drummed out of the party.

The party defines itself. If they don't want libtards in their midst, who am I to argue?

 

[Coyote]

Can you give us the list of RINOS who all made borders, national security, energy independence and financial stability top priorities? And if they did, what happened to it?

Look at voting records.

Kinzinger

Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump

FiveThirtyEight is tracking which senators and representatives agree and disagree most with Donald Trump.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Coyote]

Really?

What is it?

Be specific.

Sanity.

The party defines itself. If they don't want libtards in their midst, who am I to argue?

Which Republicans are “libtards” and what in their voting record makes them that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“A majority of Republicans would still vote for former President Donald Trump in 2024 even if he is indicted for crimes related to possessing classified documents, according to a new poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist.

Approximately 61 percent of Republicans said they'd support the former president if he were indicted, compared to 20 percent of independents and 8 percent of Democrats. The survey of 1,236 adults was conducted between August 29 and September 1 with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 points.”

Republicans Want Donald Trump for 2024, Even if He's Indicted: Poll

Trump's "core support remains intact regardless of the results of the investigation," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

www.newsweek.com

To vote for Trump is to support ‘MAGA.’

 

[Correll]

“A majority of Republicans would still vote for former President Donald Trump in 2024 even if he is indicted for crimes related to possessing classified documents, according to a new poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist.

Approximately 61 percent of Republicans said they'd support the former president if he were indicted, compared to 20 percent of independents and 8 percent of Democrats. The survey of 1,236 adults was conducted between August 29 and September 1 with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 points.”

Republicans Want Donald Trump for 2024, Even if He's Indicted: Poll

Trump's "core support remains intact regardless of the results of the investigation," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

www.newsweek.com

To vote for Trump is to support ‘MAGA.’

Good.

 

[toobfreak]

Look at voting records. Kinzinger

Is that your list? One man? If Kinzinger was for all the issues you say he was, then maybe he should have supported the one person who brought all those issues front and center for the GOP to finally start really DOING something about then!

Joe Biden is proof positive that no one elects anyone based on PERSONALITY.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I would agree with you if non-MAGA Republicans did not support stolen election fantasies, did not protect Trump, did not look the other way

That makes them complicit

Complicit in what?

The word is defined as: Helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way.

Last I looked, simply agreeing with or supporting an idea, narrative or political stance is not a crime.

 

[Coyote]

Is that your list? One man? If Kinzinger was for all the issues you say he was, then maybe he should have supported the one person who brought all those issues front and center for the GOP to finally start really DOING something about then!

Joe Biden is proof positive that no one elects anyone based on PERSONALITY.

There are more, I just listed one. Cheney is another. Rusty Bowers. Etc.

 

[beagle9]

I totally agree with this.....those on the left who demonize all Republicans and conservatives with the MAGA crowd are making a mistake..and alienating those whose support is crucial in getting rid of the MAGA/Trump/Q crowd.

MSN

More and more, liberals are attempting to cast all conservatives as enemies of democracy while simultaneously casting all of their political policies as pro-democracy. The consequences of this could be disastrous.
The most blatant example occurred during Joe Biden’s prime-time “Soul of America” speech earlier this month—a speech advertised as addressing conspiracy theories, political violence, and attempts to overthrow democracy.
In this context, Biden talked about how “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards,” before hastening to add, “Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose…” In one fell swoop, Biden conflated “MAGA Republicans” who deny elections and participate in insurrections with Reagan Republicans who care about the right to life of unborn babies. There is no comparison.
But it’s not just social issues that get you written out of polite society. Fiscal conservatives are also suspect. In a tweet sent on Friday, Biden wrote that “Republicans have pushed an ultra-MAGA agenda to: Threaten Social Security and Medicare…Raise taxes on working families [and] Give big corporations and billionaires tax breaks.” Axios’s Josh Kraushaar called this “Defining down ‘ultra MAGA’ and noted that “Under this standard, Liz Cheney would qualify.”
And Biden isn’t the only one guilty of this. This past week, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait took to Twitter to remind us that during the Tea Party era, then-Rep. Ron Desantis wrote a book that Chait sees as a Rosetta Stone for decoding conservatism’s illiberal tendencies. After reading the book, Chait surmises that: “The Constitution’s role, as DeSantis sees it, is to prevent popular majorities from enacting the economic policies they want.”

Conservatives have long worried that “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury”—a line sometimes apocryphally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. This is very similar to what DeSantis was saying. Indeed, most of the lines that trouble Chait are standard boilerplate conservative rhetoric.

This attitude is counterproductive on multiple levels. First, of course, it’s terrible (morally and politically) to dismiss approximately half the country.
Second, instead of rising to the occasion and giving America at least one responsible, normal, or decent party, Democrats are taking political advantage of what could be considered a perilous moment.
Rather than acknowledging that reasonable people can have honest disagreements about public policy questions such as abortion (which you should ostensibly do in a democracy), Democrats are attempting to baptize and sanctify their political preferences in the holy waters of American democracy, which is (to extend the religious metaphor) unseemly and sacrilegious.
Third, this practice will likely lead to more, not less, MAGA extremists (an outcome which ought not to shock members of a party that has spent tens of millions of dollars helping to boost MAGA candidates in Republican primaries).
People who feel threatened are more likely to retreat to their tribe for protection. By creating a scenario where even “normal” non-Trump Republicans feel victimized and shamed, liberals risk making the radicalization of conservatism a self-fulfilling prophecy
I’m not sure they even see that as a problem.

Looking for some Republican traders are you ? You'll find some, but it won't be enough.

 

[skews13]

I totally agree with this.....those on the left who demonize all Republicans and conservatives with the MAGA crowd are making a mistake..and alienating those whose support is crucial in getting rid of the MAGA/Trump/Q crowd.

MSN

More and more, liberals are attempting to cast all conservatives as enemies of democracy while simultaneously casting all of their political policies as pro-democracy. The consequences of this could be disastrous.
The most blatant example occurred during Joe Biden’s prime-time “Soul of America” speech earlier this month—a speech advertised as addressing conspiracy theories, political violence, and attempts to overthrow democracy.
In this context, Biden talked about how “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards,” before hastening to add, “Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose…” In one fell swoop, Biden conflated “MAGA Republicans” who deny elections and participate in insurrections with Reagan Republicans who care about the right to life of unborn babies. There is no comparison.
But it’s not just social issues that get you written out of polite society. Fiscal conservatives are also suspect. In a tweet sent on Friday, Biden wrote that “Republicans have pushed an ultra-MAGA agenda to: Threaten Social Security and Medicare…Raise taxes on working families [and] Give big corporations and billionaires tax breaks.” Axios’s Josh Kraushaar called this “Defining down ‘ultra MAGA’ and noted that “Under this standard, Liz Cheney would qualify.”
And Biden isn’t the only one guilty of this. This past week, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait took to Twitter to remind us that during the Tea Party era, then-Rep. Ron Desantis wrote a book that Chait sees as a Rosetta Stone for decoding conservatism’s illiberal tendencies. After reading the book, Chait surmises that: “The Constitution’s role, as DeSantis sees it, is to prevent popular majorities from enacting the economic policies they want.”

Conservatives have long worried that “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury”—a line sometimes apocryphally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. This is very similar to what DeSantis was saying. Indeed, most of the lines that trouble Chait are standard boilerplate conservative rhetoric.

This attitude is counterproductive on multiple levels. First, of course, it’s terrible (morally and politically) to dismiss approximately half the country.
Second, instead of rising to the occasion and giving America at least one responsible, normal, or decent party, Democrats are taking political advantage of what could be considered a perilous moment.
Rather than acknowledging that reasonable people can have honest disagreements about public policy questions such as abortion (which you should ostensibly do in a democracy), Democrats are attempting to baptize and sanctify their political preferences in the holy waters of American democracy, which is (to extend the religious metaphor) unseemly and sacrilegious.
Third, this practice will likely lead to more, not less, MAGA extremists (an outcome which ought not to shock members of a party that has spent tens of millions of dollars helping to boost MAGA candidates in Republican primaries).
People who feel threatened are more likely to retreat to their tribe for protection. By creating a scenario where even “normal” non-Trump Republicans feel victimized and shamed, liberals risk making the radicalization of conservatism a self-fulfilling prophecy
I’m not sure they even see that as a problem.

That's not happening. The MAGA's have been singled out, and are being rejected by more and more conservative Republicans.

Liberals just aren't going to let conservative Republicans come back into the good graces of everyone else after 8 solid years of kissing Trumps ass. You don't get a pass for that.

And if conservative Republicans think we are going to accept the radical activist Supreme Courts decisions, they are sadly mistaken on the front also.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

I totally agree with this.....those on the left who demonize all Republicans and conservatives with the MAGA crowd are making a mistake..and alienating those whose support is crucial in getting rid of the MAGA/Trump/Q crowd.

MSN

More and more, liberals are attempting to cast all conservatives as enemies of democracy while simultaneously casting all of their political policies as pro-democracy. The consequences of this could be disastrous.
The most blatant example occurred during Joe Biden’s prime-time “Soul of America” speech earlier this month—a speech advertised as addressing conspiracy theories, political violence, and attempts to overthrow democracy.
In this context, Biden talked about how “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards,” before hastening to add, “Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose…” In one fell swoop, Biden conflated “MAGA Republicans” who deny elections and participate in insurrections with Reagan Republicans who care about the right to life of unborn babies. There is no comparison.
But it’s not just social issues that get you written out of polite society. Fiscal conservatives are also suspect. In a tweet sent on Friday, Biden wrote that “Republicans have pushed an ultra-MAGA agenda to: Threaten Social Security and Medicare…Raise taxes on working families [and] Give big corporations and billionaires tax breaks.” Axios’s Josh Kraushaar called this “Defining down ‘ultra MAGA’ and noted that “Under this standard, Liz Cheney would qualify.”
And Biden isn’t the only one guilty of this. This past week, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait took to Twitter to remind us that during the Tea Party era, then-Rep. Ron Desantis wrote a book that Chait sees as a Rosetta Stone for decoding conservatism’s illiberal tendencies. After reading the book, Chait surmises that: “The Constitution’s role, as DeSantis sees it, is to prevent popular majorities from enacting the economic policies they want.”

Conservatives have long worried that “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury”—a line sometimes apocryphally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. This is very similar to what DeSantis was saying. Indeed, most of the lines that trouble Chait are standard boilerplate conservative rhetoric.

This attitude is counterproductive on multiple levels. First, of course, it’s terrible (morally and politically) to dismiss approximately half the country.
Second, instead of rising to the occasion and giving America at least one responsible, normal, or decent party, Democrats are taking political advantage of what could be considered a perilous moment.
Rather than acknowledging that reasonable people can have honest disagreements about public policy questions such as abortion (which you should ostensibly do in a democracy), Democrats are attempting to baptize and sanctify their political preferences in the holy waters of American democracy, which is (to extend the religious metaphor) unseemly and sacrilegious.
Third, this practice will likely lead to more, not less, MAGA extremists (an outcome which ought not to shock members of a party that has spent tens of millions of dollars helping to boost MAGA candidates in Republican primaries).
People who feel threatened are more likely to retreat to their tribe for protection. By creating a scenario where even “normal” non-Trump Republicans feel victimized and shamed, liberals risk making the radicalization of conservatism a self-fulfilling prophecy
I’m not sure they even see that as a problem.

The problem with this line of thinking is that when you drill down into the individuals, almost everyone on the right hand side of the aisle has been co-opted in some fashion by the Alt-Right and their views. People have fashioned to call a large segment that supports Trump, "Ultra MAGA", but it is, in the end..alt-right. In the beginning, before Obama was elected, the alt-right was the fringe white supremacist element. After Obama, it expanded to incorporate and overrun the Tea Party (which did have some legitimate gripes, but were quickly tamped down by the extreme element). Then came the slow rise of the bile that crept into the Republican party and eventually into the most ideological of conservatives. The hatred of Obama and anything that didn't fit the vision of a white America was reviled. By the time Trump stepped off the golden escalator, a large portion of the country were like desert crossers dying of thirst, and seeing an oasis in an incompetent fraud of a huckster....who was...just..like..them. He got them. He spoke to them. And....now, we're here. There's no going back. You can't talk to these people. No matter how reasonable you try to be with them. The only outcome possible at the moment, is that one side or the other gains enough of a majority to send the other into the minority long enough to enact policies that can't be undone for a generation. We've already seen that with Supreme Court nominees.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s Dumb and Dangerous for Liberals to Conflate All Conservatives With MAGA

Don't know about it being 'dumb' or 'dangerous'; it would be a hasty generalization fallacy.

To avoid the fallacy liberals should use a rhetorical device such as ‘for the most part conservatives support ‘MAGA’; or ‘a considerable majority of conservatives support ‘MAGA.’

So, no, not all conservatives support ‘MAGA’ – but conservatives who don’t support ‘MAGA’ constitute such a tiny minority that the fundamental premise remains valid: that conservatism is dominated by ‘MAGA’ dogma.

 

[beagle9]

Sanity.



Which Republicans are “libtards” and what in their voting record makes them that?

Trump drove them into libtardia, but that was a good thing. lol

 

[cnm]

It’s Dumb and Dangerous for Liberals to Conflate All Conservatives With MAGA

Even when they voted for it. I mean, they did actually vote for it, didn't they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a difference between Republicans and Trumplicans

A distinction without a difference, perhaps.

Conservatives vote overwhelmingly Republican; nearly two-thirds of Republicans (conservatives) would vote for Trump in 2024.

To support and vote for Trump is to support and approve of ‘MAGA.’

 

[Correll]

The problem with this line of thinking is that when you drill down into the individuals, almost everyone on the right hand side of the aisle has been co-opted in some fashion by the Alt-Right and their views. People have fashioned to call a large segment that supports Trump, "Ultra MAGA", but it is, in the end..alt-right. In the beginning, before Obama was elected, the alt-right was the fringe white supremacist element. After Obama, it expanded to incorporate and overrun the Tea Party (which did have some legitimate gripes, but were quickly tamped down by the extreme element). Then came the slow rise of the bile that crept into the Republican party and eventually into the most ideological of conservatives. The hatred of Obama and anything that didn't fit the vision of a white America was reviled. By the time Trump stepped off the golden escalator, a large portion of the country were like desert crossers dying of thirst, and seeing an oasis in an incompetent fraud of a huckster....who was...just..like..them. He got them. He spoke to them. And....now, we're here. There's no going back. You can't talk to these people. No matter how reasonable you try to be with them. The only outcome possible at the moment, is that one side or the other gains enough of a majority to send the other into the minority long enough to enact policies that can't be undone for a generation. We've already seen that with Supreme Court nominees.

Alt right? A meaningless term, abused to the point that it can mean anything, and thus means nothing.

 

[scruffy]

Sanity.

You're a licensed MD?

It's illegal to practice psychiatry without a license.

Diagnosing sanity is attempting to practice psychiatry

By remote, no less

Which Republicans are “libtards” and what in their voting record makes them that?

Neo-Cons, for example, were and are libtards.

All that nation building crap is libtard from start to finish.

As you can see because Victoria Nuland now carries on the proud tradition.

And SHE is married to Robert Kagan, mister Neo-Con himself

 

[rightwinger]

Complicit in what?

The word is defined as: Helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way.

Last I looked, simply agreeing with or supporting an idea, narrative or political stance is not a crime.

That, my friend, makes you complicit

 

[occupied]

Do you think the right thing to do, is to make sure that Trump Supporters are silenced from now on, never to have a voice in the democratic process again?

Nothing wrong with supporting politicians who have legitimate and lawful goals. When they step over the line it's time for conscientious Americans to shout down the crazies with everything they have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even when they voted for it. I mean, they did actually vote for it, didn't they?

They did.

And the notion that to support and vote for Trump is not to support ‘MAGA’ is the most insane manifestation of self-delusion.