Is this why Dem’s Approval Rating Polls are so bad?

Mulberry Heel said:
Maybe that's what he meant, but it would have been nice if he was more specific in his later comment. And as you said those are all rather vague goals and to pretend that Democrats aren't interested in those qualities and Republicans are is utterly absurd, if that's what he was getting at. Certainly honesty and reliability have not been GOP hallmarks, and they're now tearing down the ability of poor people to achieve the good health he praises. Brooks can have some good points sometimes, but he also seems to go out of his way to justify maintaining his "a pox on both your houses" attitude, even when it requires some disingenuous arguments.
Click to expand...

David Brooks can eat a million dicks. He's another bullshitter about bourgeois values. The guy has the audacity to write a book called The Road to Character at the same time that he starts nailing his research assistant despite already being married.
 
breepf said:
David Brooks can eat a million dicks. He's another bullshitter about bourgeois values. The guy has the audacity to write a book called The Road to Character at the same time that he starts nailing his research assistant despite already being married.
Click to expand...
Didn't know that about the research assistant, but I can't say that I'm surprised at all. Conservatives love practicing what they preach to others not to do - like Bill Bennett preaching traditional virtues in his bestselling The Book of Virtues while at the same time running up millions in gambling debts at casinos around the country (and he condemned gambling in public), or Mark Robinson attacking abortion while having paid for his future wife to get one or former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert defending traditional values while he had sexually abused teen boys as a high school wrestling coach (and served prison time for it). The list of GOP hypocrisy is endless, and gets longer every single week.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Didn't know that about the research assistant, but I can't say that I'm surprised at all. Conservatives love practicing what they preach to others not to do - like Bill Bennett preaching traditional virtues in his bestselling The Book of Virtues while at the same time running up millions in gambling debts at casinos around the country (and he condemned gambling in public), or Mark Robinson attacking abortion while having paid for his future wife to get one or former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert defending traditional values while he had sexually abused teen boys as a high school wrestling coach (and served prison time for it). The list of GOP hypocrisy is endless, and gets longer every single week.
Click to expand...
As the great Rachel Maddow says, " Don't pay attention to what they say; Focus on what they do "
 
breepf said:
David Brooks can eat a million dicks. He's another bullshitter about bourgeois values. The guy has the audacity to write a book called The Road to Character at the same time that he starts nailing his research assistant despite already being married.
Click to expand...
This. This. This. Brooks can eat shit, same as Andrew Sullivan.
 
breepf said:
The guy has the audacity to write a book called The Road to Character at the same time that he starts nailing his research assistant despite already being married.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't give a fuck about this. If he has something good to say, the fact that he can't keep it in his pants isn't all that relevant.

To me, the problem is what he wrote. And not even everything he wrote. He made some good points. It's just that the piece should have been titled, "Why I Am A Liberal And Not Progressive."
 
superrific said:
Honestly, I don't give a fuck about this. If he has something good to say, the fact that he can't keep it in his pants isn't all that relevant.

To me, the problem is what he wrote. And not even everything he wrote. He made some good points. It's just that the piece should have been titled, "Why I Am A Liberal And Not Progressive."
Click to expand...

I think it's relevant because Brooks uses these tired arguments about culture and merit to blame poor people for their own failures to self-actualize.
 
breepf said:
I think it's relevant because Brooks uses these tired arguments about culture and merit to blame poor people for their own failures to self-actualize.
Click to expand...
Fine, but if it's true that poor people need better character, what does it matter than Brooks doesn't have better character? Just because he's personally a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong.

This is a bad habit on the left: impugning the messenger because of personal failings is a way of dismissing a critique without engaging it. On the right it's standard fare because they have no substance.

Now, if you want to say that what Brooks says won't work, that's entirely fair. And if in the course of that critique -- let's say that one point is that having great character is much easier said than done -- one might bring up the fact that Brooks also seems to have struggled with great character and thus maybe his "solution" is not practicable.

I just don't think his personal failings are relevant unless they tie into his work somehow.
 
superrific said:
Fine, but if it's true that poor people need better character, what does it matter than Brooks doesn't have better character? Just because he's personally a hypocrite doesn't make him wrong.

[snip]

I just don't think his personal failings are relevant unless they tie into his work somehow.
Click to expand...
If Brooks is considered “successful” despite having shitty character, then that directly undercuts his claim that the way out of poverty is by developing character…because he’s a living example that character & financial success aren’t necessarily positively correlated.

A lot of what liberals point out about conservatives’ moral failings aren’t about shooting the messenger, it’s about pointing out hypocrisy that proves that many conservatives don’t believe with their actions what they claim with their mouths.
 
Batt Boy said:
outstanding take by Brooks
www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Why I Am Not a Liberal

I don’t think the left grasps reality in all its fullness.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
I'm so sick of paywalls, I really just don't have the time or resources to pay for every damn article I try to read.

I already pay for 2 strictly new subscriptions, how many more do these people expect.

Additionally, those who really need to read good articles to ever have a chance to get out of the cult will never be able to see them as most refuse to pay for anything like news.
 
UNCatTech said:
I'm so sick of paywalls, I really just don't have the time or resources to pay for every damn article I try to read.

I already pay for 2 strictly new subscriptions, how many more do these people expect.

Additionally, those who really need to read good articles to ever have a chance to get out of the cult will never be able to see them as most refuse to pay for anything like news.
Click to expand...
 
I did listen to this the other day. Patrick Deneen, was once a democrat but has moved more right. It seems that he moved right for the social issues, he seems too put his religion above all and is part of the "Traditional Family" right. So while he avoided most of the questions in that area, I'd suspect that he is anti-LBGTQ.



Anyway it was an interesting listen.
 
SnoopRob said:
If Brooks is considered “successful” despite having shitty character, then that directly undercuts his claim that the way out of poverty is by developing character…because he’s a living example that character & financial success aren’t necessarily positively correlated.
Click to expand...
Not really. First, there are different types of character. Second, my guess is that Brooks was born with a lot of advantages. Character could still be relevant to building out of poverty.

I would just rather pay attention to the substance of the piece. As I said, people should focus on the fact that Brooks' own "I'm not a liberal" marks him as a liberal in today's world, because sanity -- like facts and numbers before them -- is liberal.
 
superrific said:
Not really. First, there are different types of character. Second, my guess is that Brooks was born with a lot of advantages. Character could still be relevant to building out of poverty.

I would just rather pay attention to the substance of the piece. As I said, people should focus on the fact that Brooks' own "I'm not a liberal" marks him as a liberal in today's world, because sanity -- like facts and numbers before them -- is liberal.
Click to expand...
If Brooks’ inherent advantages overcome shitty character, then that shows that the other advantages are a stronger input into economic success than character and that Brooks is incorrect with his strict focus on character.
 
SnoopRob said:
If Brooks’ inherent advantages overcome shitty character, then that shows that the other advantages are a stronger input into economic success than character and that Brooks is incorrect with his strict focus on character.
Click to expand...
Was there any doubt that he was incorrect with his strict focus on character? Even to state the argument is to refute it -- to the point where I have my doubts that he ever "strictly" focused on character (not that this point matters). Regardless, I don't think his affair changes the equation. It's a stupid idea no matter what he does with his dick
 
altmin said:
Ali Velshi had Stuart Stephens and Jen Rubin on today, two firmly anti-Trump neocons. The topic was essentially that the Democrats need to hit back on Trump harder and don't be afraid to go after his base for being anti-American.

The basic gist was, they can't sit back and wait to return to normalcy and good government. There was that with Biden and it didn't matter. You can't bribe your way to Trump base's heart either. Factory jobs increased under Biden, red states benefited from Infrastructure and other programs more than blue states under Biden etc etc and it didn't matter.

They argued that Trump and his base are fundamentally un-American and there are a lot more people out there that feel disgust for them than the MAGA hordes, but they need someone to organize and lead them and the Democrats are largely not doing that. You can't be afraid of calling Trump out on the harm he is doing, you certainly can't wait for people to realize it on their own, and you have to be willing to say to the Trump base "we hear you are angry, but what you want doesn't work in America."
Click to expand...
When it comes to the MAGAs they are the descendants, of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Jesse Helms. They do not care that left of center Democrats have improved their lives; They are drawn to and support Trump because he validates their bigotry and fear of the other. Stop wasting time trying to mollify them. That is the 35% of Trump voters you will never convert.

The challenge for Dems is to craft a message that reaches those 15% of Trump voters who are wondering whether Trump lied to them when he promised to lower the price of eggs and worry that maybe his policies will put the health of their children in jeopardy.
 
heelinhell said:
When it comes to the MAGAs they are the descendants, of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Jesse Helms. They do not care that left of center Democrats have improved their lives; They are drawn to and support Trump because he validates their bigotry and fear of the other. Stop wasting time trying to mollify them. That is the 35% of Trump voters you will never convert.
Click to expand...
Who, in turn, were the descendants of Zebulon Vance, Wade Hampton, Ben Tillman, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and other vocal and prominent Redeemers. It's a long and unbroken line that has sought to consolidate power among the few in order to exercise supremacy over the many.

This is why Schmitt's recent speech is so provocative to me. Other than in the 4chan fever swamps, it's been a while since we've heard someone channel so clearly the language of the Redeemers. Those guys ALWAYS disagreed with Lincoln's "proposition" that all men are created equal. They ALWAYS viewed absolute control of America as the birthright of the descendants of white European Christians. They just haven't said it as clearly in recent years as Schmitt did the other day.
 
lawtig02 said:
Who, in turn, were the descendants of Zebulon Vance, Wade Hampton, Ben Tillman, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and other vocal and prominent Redeemers. It's a long and unbroken line that has sought to consolidate power among the few in order to exercise supremacy over the many.

This is why Schmitt's recent speech is so provocative to me. Other than in the 4chan fever swamps, it's been a while since we've heard someone channel so clearly the language of the Redeemers. Those guys ALWAYS disagreed with Lincoln's "proposition" that all men are created equal. They ALWAYS viewed absolute control of America as the birthright of the descendants of white European Christians. They just haven't said it as clearly in recent years as Schmitt did the other day.
Click to expand...
Mostly agree.

“…….white European Christians…..” is too broad and inclusive.

For much U.S. history, Catholics weren’t considered “Christians” by many Americans. Signs declaring “No Irish” were common in parts of the U.S. Italians, Greeks, Poles, Slavs, Scandinavians, and more weren’t considered “white” by nativist Americans.

Nativist Americans in the 19th and 20th century weren’t including the Irish or Eastern Europeans or Southern Europeans as part of “Western” or “American” culture or heritage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top