zlacker

The scary thing is that this protest is foreshadowed by the WTO protests also orchestrated by 'left-leaning' groups, and now we have a president -- Trump -- who is very much against the WTO, except he's bad now because they've moved beyond that.

The other interesting comparison here is the varied response to this and the Malheur National wildlife refuge occupation.

>>tathou+(OP)
I couldn't agree more; I think part of the appeal of the right is somewhat dogmatic in that most of the sticking points are very fundamental and the messaging is very straightforward; guns, religion, family, low taxes. What does the left stand for? Being a progressive is a moving target, and the inter-messaging is very mixed and often contradictory. Ex. for a long time liberalism was about free speech but now we want to regulate speech with safe-spaces and trigger warnings.

Part of this probably evolves from the fact that Liberals are introspective and willing to challenge their beliefs to their own disadvantage in a way that the GOP never has been; but it's genuinely confusing and the party does not feel unified.

>>nikkwo+c2
>guns "There is no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" - ronald reagan >religion, family There squirming to ignore trump on matters like these show how well in line the party walks that's definitely true >low taxes Lotsa say a, do b there They have been very keen to push up deficits tho the focal points where they like to increase spending are different.

They're not really consistent at all but their messaging and party policing has been more strict

>What does the left stand for >for a long time liberalism was about free speech but now we want to regulate speech with safe-spaces and trigger warnings.

it's funny watching americans sprinkling around left, liberal, etc as political terms whilst defining the weird mix that ends up under the wings of the two parties. Some (self-proclaimed) libertarians & conservatives, protectionists & free market hardliners standing under the same republicans umbrella with radically clashing beliefs. Free market liberals fighting with leftists who are laughing at social progressives under the umbrella of the democrats.

>Part of this probably evolves from the fact that Liberals are introspective and willing to challenge their beliefs to their own disadvantage in a way that the GOP never has been

I'd say with growing inequality and declining social mobility it's hard for the mainstream core of democrats to really push a broader platform that the party fully aligns with, differs from the republicans and rings well with their base. They don't really roll with protectionist stances a la bernie or trump, they don't really align with unions or workers anymore as they've dropped them for an upper middle-class educated focus whilst at the same time still keeping some actual more left wing remnants under their wing that they try to suppress and retain at the same time They have started less invasions but aren't really against global force projection at all. They don't really clash with conservatives on stock buybacks, markets, banking, what have you whilst at the same time still pushing cushioning programs like obamacare to give at least a sense of direction there. So when on a lot of those fronts you're not really united or notably different from the opposition what's left? Social issues. Social equality when it comes to sex, race or what have you. So pushing those makes sense.

>>modo_m+t91
> They have started less invasions but aren't really against global force projection at all

Trump has started the fewest invasions of any president thus far. We've had no regime changes, and no extended battles or fights. Obama (Syria and Libya) and Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan, others) and Clinton (Iraq, Kuwait) all engaged in new wars. Trump hasn't, and has in fact withdrawn America troops.