"What is The Left willing to give up on?"

[RuneDK]

And once again, the fact that what the usual suspects call ''the left'' is called ''Tories'' in other countries. The illusion that Hillary is a dangerous communist is almost cute, considering she was quite to the right of for instance our most conservative PM since Diefenbaker. What Bernie Sanders said was also quite bog standard European center left.

Yes, I will be very blunt here : what people calls ''Obamacare'' is called ''public healthcare'' and is bog standard normal in Western countries even for the far right Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and co. are not against public healthcare.

I don't think you realize what the problem is with obamacare to begin with. I am all for public healthcare. There is absolutely zero reason why we don't have health insurance as part of what we're being taxed for. The Nordic countries and most if not all of Europe(if Im wrong, could someone in a european country where this isn't the case let me know?) have health insurance and it's part of why they get taxed.

However the problem with obamacare is while it got many people who hadn't previously had health insurance coverage a lot of people lost coverage too. The you can keep your doctor bullshit that obama promised wasn't really the case. The costs of it went through the roof and are continuing to rise. Obamacare was put in place to help people get insurance, but it's still too expensive to get for a lot of people just now instead of not having it without repercussion(if you don't need health care for the year), you're penalized by a fine...so basically it's too expensive to get health insurance for a lot and now the government will take even more money from you for not having it. That's the problem with obamacare. It's an absolutely terrible way to implement "public health care".

[Redhell]

While I agree, you're talking ideals in a world of reality.

The major talking points of Republicans are not "White America needs voices too!" It's "There is higher crime rates in areas with larger Black American populations." It's "There is no such thing as an 'uncurable' gay person." It's "Abortion is never ok." These are not compromisable - After all, it's all we've heard about for the past 8 years under Obama, who luckily had no intention of giving in to such things.

I argued that Republicans need to leave the religion at home which directly correlates with Abortion and Gay Marriage. My point was both sides need to move towards the center, not equally on every single policy, but in general across the board. The Republicans are wrong for wanting to restrict the personal lives of people, as I stated, and the Democrats are wrong for pandering to minority groups and ridiculing straight whites, as I stated.

To move towards the center on these issues is not to compromise - It's to lose. "Toward the center" for higher crime rates would be to prosecute minorities, who already struggle making a start because they feel locked into poverty from the get go. (And we have tried in the past - It accomplished nothing but spending more money and making no headway.)

Crime rates are higher in said areas, but what should be done to help said disenfranchised areas? I'm genuinely curious because I agree that not much has been done with success historically, but it does need to be addressed in some form.

[RuneDK]

My biggest gripe with my country right there...2 party system is what is failing the nation.

Yep, absolutely agree. Imagine this recent election if Bernie and Ted Cruz were in....man...would've been a hell of an election.

[GennGreymane]

I argued that Republicans need to leave the religion at home which directly correlates with Abortion and Gay Marriage. My point was both sides need to move towards the center, not equally on every single policy, but in general across the board. The Republicans are wrong for wanting to restrict the personal lives of people, as I stated, and the Democrats are wrong for pandering to minority groups and ridiculing straight whites, as I stated.



Crime rates are higher in said areas, but what should be done to help said disenfranchised areas? I'm genuinely curious because I agree that not much has been done with success historically, but it does need to be addressed in some form.

I wonder what would happen if we stopped caring about lesser drug crimes. I can imagine crime dropping dramatically.

[Schattenlied]

Gun control.


Honestly, I think if they gave up on gun control they would never lose another election... There are SO MANY people who vote republican just because of gun rights.

[GennGreymane]

Gun control.


Honestly, I think if they gave up on gun control they would never lose another election.

[Powerogue]

It depends on the person. The best we can hope for is both sides ditching the radicals so that they can actually talk to each other. There's plenty of things we could accomplish that could please everybody if we'd just both budge a little. "We need more stable two-parent family units" said republicans, "we want to widen the definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry" said the democrats, and they were both able to be accomplished by the same thing.

[Elba]

- Abortion: No. Free and unrestricted.
- Reproductive rights: No. Unrestricted.
- Gay marriage: No. Equality.
- Gender theory: No. Why give up science?
- Political correctness: No. Nothing wrong with calling assholes assholes.
- Social welfare: No. A society with strong socials security is a productive and save society.
- Cross-sectional feminism: No. Intersectionality is important. Race affects people just as much as gender does.
- Climate change: No. Why deny science?
- Obamacare: No. A healthy society without medical debt is a save society.
- Positive discrimination: You mean affirmative action? Still important given inequalities between groups. So, no.
- Capitalism vs socialism: Why not both? Hi, from Europe.
- Censorship: What censorship?

[Schattenlied]

- Political correctness: No. Nothing wrong with calling assholes assholes.

Nothing wrong with calling idiots idiots either, but the PC crowd will get all up in your shit if you call someone out on being a total moron...

[Dadwen]

Gun control.


Honestly, I think if they gave up on gun control they would never lose another election... There are SO MANY people who vote republican just because of gun rights.

I kinda agree with you.

[Elba]

Nothing wrong with calling idiots idiots either, but the PC crowd will get all up in your shit if you call someone out on being a total moron...

When has that happened?

[Schattenlied]

When has that happened?

Saw it twice in the last week, apparently they think calling anyone stupid means you are implying they have a mental disorder and suddenly you're a "bigot".

[Deleted]

Political correctness serves no purpose, its simply tone policing. Its simply packing shit into a nice wrapper, its still shit regardless of the wrapper or packaging. Its a handicap to the left, because it makes it additionally difficult for them to present their ideas, because they are easily distracted by the tone of the conversation, rather than the contents of it.

The right gave up on religion, at least in the sense that they put it in the backround, because they realised finally that you cannot appeal to liberals or libertarians with Jesus. Hence why they rarely brought it up. The Left has to at least put several things on the back burner, so that it does not cloud the overall message.

[Lumineus]

- Censorship: What censorship?

We live in a world where Ji Firepaw can't tell female Pandaren they're pretty because it makes him a rapey creeper who perpetuates the evil patriarchy, and you seriously have to ask this question?

[unbound]

Normally I post articles for discussion, but today I'm going to do something different: I'm just going to ask a question and see what comes back

The question is:

"What is The Left willing to give up, to compromise on, to change about its internal culture and beliefs?"

By that I mean, what are the negotiable beliefs that can be compromised on to bring the left back towards the middle where democracies will be more willing to trust and vote for Democrats/etc?

Some possible themes and areas:

- Abortion
- Reproductive rights
- Gay marriage
- Gender theory
- Political correctness
- Social welfare
- Cross-sectional feminism
- Climate change
- Obamacare
- Positive discrimination
- Capitalism vs socialism
- Censorship
- etc

A simple statement like "I think Democrats should give up on this area"

Wow...that is some industrial grade arrogance right there. What has the right compromised on in the last 16 years? Nothing at all. Forget giving up on any specific area.

Here is the primary problem. Compromise is not about giving up entire concepts, but being willing to work out a middle ground on the subject that both (or multiple) parties may not be perfectly happy with.

Furthermore, it is based on a realistic discussion with both parties. Your list is composed of 1/2 straw man (e.g. our economy has never been fully composed of capitalism or socialism, and neither side is actually pushing for the true versions of either) and composed of 1/2 things that should be discussions about how, certainly not giving up on the concept. You could literally including "freeing slaves" in that list, and it wouldn't be out of place.

[Kalis]

I dont remember Clinton going crazy on 70+ genders, but I do remember a private company saying fuck it to bathrooms separated by gender because why the fuck not and the shit storm around that. Every trans is a pedo, and every man is going to rape your wife and daughter (according to the right, not the left)

go fucking figure how this world works.

So because Clinton didn't take up a position on something you've just made up, it means the US left wing hasn't aligned themselves with the ideologies brought up in the OP?

[Dadwen]

To be fair Obama was prob the best thing to happen to Gun sales in a long time. (But I think he means in general the DNC had a very anti 2nd amendment vib going for it, and it hurts them greatly).

[GennGreymane]

So because Clinton didn't take up a position on something you've just made up, it means the US left wing hasn't aligned themselves with the ideologies brought up in the OP?

Did Clinton or Bernie give a shit? was it their talking point? Or did these people just so happen to vote left? Tumblirnas have very little political power and all that stupid BS on a website that focuses on fan fiction porn is just blown out of proportion because redditors and 4chan posters need something to distract them form their existences.

[Redhell]

Theres not a goddamn thing ignorant about it. That shit actually happened.

Just like this election, Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. I don't believe I said he didn't lose. I'm saying the "divide" didn't start with that. The divide has existed for decades, but it's only gotten worse post 9/11, not pre.

They all voted for the war because they believed what Bush was saying.

And? How is that Bush's fault? So if you jump off a bridge because someone told you that you would be able to fly, but you hit the ground and die, it's their fault you died? Sound logic.

Obama was not more qualified at all. In fact, that was one of the biggest gripes form the right when he first ran. Community Organizer is what they called him, if you recall.

Obama was absolutely more qualified because McCain represented what Hillary represented: more of the same. I'm not arguing experience, I'm arguing whether or not they could be the President of the United States at that given time in history, and because he represented change from the status quo, he won, just like Trump.

And? You obviously aren;'t understanding my point. The Repubs as whole went further right.

They did not, as a whole, go further right. The original Tea Party was a grass roots movement that focused on upholding the Constitution, mainly. It wasn't until they were voted into Congress seats that the alt-right essentially took over and made the elected officials seem "further right." The voters were deceived which is why most Tea Party members last one term iirc. I'm not even arguing for or against the Tea Party, I'm saying your painting a picture with a brush that doesn't exist.

So what? And btw, he didn't flip flop nearly as much as Trump did and it was pointed out with Trump every single time and the right didn't give a shit.

That's really not true. Trump has flipped during the campaign, but Romney did things as governor that he swore wouldn't happen again during the primaries, and then had new stances during the presidential debates. I still to this day don't know what he believes and doesn't outside of his Mormonism.

We aren't talking about the merits of Obamacare. Jesus pay attention or stop using my posts as launching pads for your rants.

Then how the hell was that bit about Obamacare even relevant to what I said? If you're arguing that the notion Republicans have against universal healthcare is silly, then fine, but I pointed out in my original post that both sides need to come together on economic policy, and I personally believe that universal healthcare, while being historically socialist, is something we should have.

Again, you're missing the point dramatically and I would have helped you but then you went and said this stupid shit about me:

What point did I miss? You mentioned Russia, and I explained why Russia may have helped Trump. You did a piss poor job explaining the point I seemed to have missed.

The problems we're talking about aren't nebulous messes. They have people that caused them. The only way to fix a m,sitake is to first acknowledge what the mistakes are, who did them and why. But cry babies call that GAH FINGER POINTING!!!!!!!!!!

There is a difference between identifying issues while finding solutions and simply calling out the people who caused said issues. You make it seem like you'd rather put Republicans in the streets and shame them for supposedly making this country worse when both sides have contributed quite a bit to the divide that exists. This is exactly why I said both sides need to come together. Does that make sense or do you want me to draw it out with crayons?

[Kalis]

- Cross-sectional feminism: No. Intersectionality is important. Race affects people just as much as gender does.

Why conflate issues though? Fight sexism where sexism exists and racism where racism exists.

But you are not opposed to racism, as demonstrated by...

- Positive discrimination: You mean affirmative action? Still important given inequalities between groups. So, no.

It is racism to discriminate against people based on their race, ergo positive discrimination is racism and you are supporting it.