No, they aren’t getting their way on anything substantial. They have, however, managed to pull this country further to the left. Think about it. Only a few short years ago Republicans and conservatives were horrified at the thought of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker and having power. She was considered a far left loon. I don’t think she’s changed her political opinions about anything, and, yet today she has become the moderate voice of reason within the Democratic caucus. The Gang Of Four is being vilified and made fun of and attacked from every angle. They seem to be trying to bring this country to the brink of a civil race war. To that end we all hope they fail miserably. But in the meantime the country has very subtly taken another step or two to the left. So the question becomes: s the Gang of Four winning without anyone realizing it?
Is The Gang Of Four Winning?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Keep them framed as the "new" voice of the d-lib party and it will be a long election cycle. Those 4 out front and getting all the coverage right now is not a good picture and the thing is every time DJT says something the visceral "I hate Trump crowd" can't ignore it so it keeps running numero uno on the news cycle and therefore sucking the oxygen out of all the other messages. The media, Hollywood and political outrage is so one sided almost hard to believe its real......
But I thought the left has been telling us for years that the left had not gone further left, ,it was the right that had changed and gone further right?
Where is @CowboyUp? The democrats finally decided to take on his personality and he won’t even come over to enjoy it.
Probably got his internet privileges taken away when he was googling trump, Ivanka incest memes.
Probably got his internet privileges taken away when he was googling trump, Ivanka incest memes.
Good question. Outrageous behavior or positions don't really disqualify anyone any more. If you subscribe to the theory that politics is backlash.... get ready.
Oh, you'll give us Clinton? Here's dumb, entitled white guy.
Oh really? Then here's a black guy with "Hussein" in his name.
Really? Here's a white, lying, narcissist, born rich, greed head.
Get ready...
He's stuck on Brokeback Mountain watching/servicing sheep.
They've gone from immigration reform efforts of Reagan and the Bushes to what they have now.
For one.
There was a graph from the NYT recently that showed pretty clearly the right hadn't moved much if any to the right, while the left had veered wildly left. Not sure how to find that article, but it was measuring the mean, and it definitely moved way left.
Republicans under Trump have moved closer to the former position of the Democrat Party on immigration.
What would further to the right look like?
Pro 2A? Maybe, if so then the right is making a push. However I think the country has always been pro 2nd amendment.
Pro life? Yes, and the right is definitly making a push to the right.
Besides that, I don't see it.
I think what is being said is mostly rhetoric. Very little real action has been taken.
Nah dawg, I'm not a big fan of binary false dichotomies.
I'm neither "The left" or Trump.
I just find it weird when Trump supporters cite NYT or other fake news organizations to bolster their position and dismiss it as fake news when it suits them.
Here's a weird notion: maybe some things in the NYT ring true in your gut, and other things ring false. Maybe other people are not fans of binary false dichotomies either.
So their rhetoric about their policy positions has gone well right since Reagan.
I think that qualifies as going to the right.
Here's a weird notion. Labeling the entire organization as fake news, an enemy of the state, etc. kinda forecloses the idea that you are evaluating those things on a case by case basis.
That incredibly broad brush you like to paint with has got to get heavy after a while.
That's one hell of a non-sequitur.
Yeah, sure...someone can legitimately have some NYT things ring true and some ring false.
But...
An announcement or proclamation that they are a fake news organization and/or an enemy of the state absolutely is the equivalent of saying nothing they print is true.
You will need to clarify your statement here as Reagans approach was much different than Bush's. Reagan naively trusted Congress to fulfill their promise of securing the border and reform our immigration system, in exchange for providing amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens living in the country at that time. Bush on the other hand was basically an open borders guy.
While I can not speak for others that lean towards the right my position is to follow the damn law and put a stop to those that are exploiting loopholes in the system to come into the country in front of those that are trying to immigrate into the country legally.
The NYT is kinda the default left resource as legitimate news. When a right leaning person points out something from the NYT that makes their point the default response is since you don't trust the NYT you can't use it.
It's like banning a lefty from using Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity words from being used against them. You don't believe anything they say so why are you quoting then.
If someone pronounces NYT a fake news organization and an enemy of the state, they really are saying you don't believe anything they say.
I'm not banning anyone from citing whatever they want. I'm just pointing out the twists in logic (more accurately, illogic) that someone proclaiming NYT a fake news organization and/or enemy of the state has to go through to claim them as a reliable citation source when it suits them.
The FBI used planted articles from the NYT and a few other leftist outlets as evidence to obtain FISA warrants against Trump's campaign, surely we can use articles from those same outlets to make points on a message board.
A blind squirrel eventually finds an acorn. Every now and then the NYT reluctantly publishes something which isn't loony tune leftist propaganda. To wit, their article admitting that much of the Steele Dossier was likely Russian disinformation.
I'm not trying to differentiate between the two of them.
I merely pointing out that "the right" has moved further right on immigration than either of them.
How so? Is having the belief we are a nation of laws and those laws should be followed now considered a far right view? If people have the option of picking and choosing which laws they want to follow, what's the use of having laws?
And it's just coincidence that the particular acorn the blind squirrel finds happens to be the ones you (general, not specific you) agree with.
I would agree that the majority of people, left...right...whatever....consume and evaluate their media sources in that manner.
I always enjoy seeing the atheists on the board quote the Bible, often out of context.
What they have now is New York liberal with Obama's exact immigration policy. Would love to see an argument that Trump is to the right of Ronald Reagan.
That's a strawman argument that I haven't made. I didn't make or comment on your position at all. I haven't made any comment regarding the merits of the rights present position on immigration.
I have merely pointed out that the position of the right on immigration is more to the right than it was in the Reagan and Bush eras.
Let's engage in this thought process.
Would the right "naively" grant amnesty to 3.1 M illegal aliens if Congress promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform?
If not. They have moved further to the right.
If, as you say...the Bushes were basically open borders guys...and leaders of the Republican party at the time as President...sure you can see that they have moved further to the right from then.
Therefore, comparatively to those two eras, there has been a movement to the right.
It's right below your post.
I seem to remember Trump saying no amnesty....and Reagan granting amnesty.
In the NYTs case regarding the Steele Dossier, they shewed the FBI/DOJ/Clapper/Comey/Brennan position for years until they reluctantly had to acknowledge what others had been saying for some time.
Similar threads
