Chauncey Devega is not a character in a new Disney action movie but rather a Democrat apparatchik of the worst variety. Here’s what he/she/they/it recently wrote:
Despite how the mainstream news media and political class are committed to a belief in a “folk theory of democracy” and a “responsible electorate” and “normal politics”, most Americans are not politically sophisticated or ideological. They can be reasonably described as being inconsistent in their political thinking. The average American voter is also ignorant of factual matters about politics and policy. They instead rely upon intuitions and cues from elites and other opinion leaders and influentials to make their political decisions.
Styx has thoughts.
he/she/they/it ain’t necessarily wrong, but he/she/they/it didn’t do much good for he/she/they/its Party by saying it.
We don’t have to be politically sophisticated or ideological.
Political systems don’t need to be complicated or nuanced. They work best when they are built around basic decency and principles.
Anything that the vast majority of people cannot agree on is best left to the marketplace and individuals.
Principles require sophisticated thinking and intellect, which is why conservatives have none.
The article starts off semi-reasonable, but then goes off the rails, like this:
Well I’m a big believer in doing research, but DeVega’s going to have to show his work on that one. And then there’s this:
Given how much retribution the Democrats have carried out against Republicans in the last four years — especially the extraordinarily series of convictions against Jan 6 protestors — this is a bit rich. In truth, I see Democrats pushing the myth that Republicans will carry out retribution more than I see Republicans seeking it. Should Trump win this November, I think he will be too busy carrying out his political agenda than worrying about punishing his perceived enemies.
If your going to say research as outrageous as it shows voters will support a dictatorship, you need to show your research, that it is not based off some odd question from 100 random phone calls which had a an average age of 70.
Otherwise you can assume he is just trying to scare voters.
The reality is people know that USA has too many laws and that on average you will break a law a day. Evidence of a crime is simply proof that they investigated you, not that you are more or less a criminal.
Okay here’s the research for you and KM and any others ‘sea-lioning’: “A startling 39 percent of Americans, including 74 percent of Republicans, think it’s a decent idea for Donald Trump to act as a dictator for a day to begin his prospective second term, according to a University of Massachusetts Amherst survey released Wednesday. ”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-dictator-poll-americans-1234962755/
So they now have a disparaging term for insisting that someone making an outrageous statement produce evidence, do they? I suppose it’s easier to call names than actually back up one’s statements.
But this Rolling Stone story has a lot of problems. First, it’s Rolling Stone Magazine, whose articles are seemingly written by freshmen majoring in social justice. Second, asking someone if they wish Trump could be dictator for a day is not a serious question, and is not likely to generate serious responses. Third, Democrats often openly wished that Obama had carte blanche to implement any policy he wished, so being “authoritarian curious” seems to be rather common. I didn’t take those Obama statements seriously, and I don’t take the RSM poll seriously.
1) Do you think RS ran the poll? Because they didn’t. They just reported on it.
2) It’s a perfectly serious question and the fact that you think it isn’t deadly serious perfectly illustrates the la-la land that you not only inhabit but angrily demand others live in too.
3) ‘BUT OBAMA’ is tedious. Obama, for all his evil, did not attempt to steal an election like Trump did.
Watching these two fight is a “not enough popcorn in the world” moment.
I love the smell of muskrat in the morning.
examples please …..? …. I thought so …..
I try to bully reporters almost every single day. I was unceremoniously kicked off Twitter years ago so I just email the cretins now. Bullied two just within the last hour. A NYMag reporter and a NBC reporter as well.
Who cares what he/she/it thinks about anything? This is nothing more than a masturbation fantasy by a deranged Socialist about the things it/she/he would like to have done to Donald Trump. Projecting much, sunshine?
Also this is Salon magazine. So psychotic socialism is to be expected.
Right. Never smell the roses and dare to support the “other” party. I’ve been telling leftists for years that occasionally you have to plug your nose and vote for the other guy. Corruption is all that results from one party rule.
There is literally not one single thing wrong with that paragraph. Straight facts. The problem is that the writer of it is also unsophisticated and generally ignorant.
Didn’t realize you wrote professionally
They can be reasonably described as being inconsistent in their political thinking.
____________________________________________
This is an amusing sentence. I don’t disagree with it (or anything in the paragraph you sampled…but I didn’t bother reading the rest). The amusing item about this sentence is that it tells quite a bit about the author. It’s long been the advantage of the Left that they vote in tandem and not based on individual beliefs. So when the author references “inconsistency” in political thought he means it as a negative…in a critical fashion. To the author, one must stay in line and be consistently left on all issues. You cannot be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal or vice versa. You cannot lean significantly left, then claim that abortion is murder. You can’t support civil rights but refuse to give advantages to people based on melanin skin content.
Of course, the last part of the paragraph is true…but, also, hypocritical since it is the political ideologues of the left who employ that procedure so as to assure all vote a certain way (including the author).
The political and intellectual progressive elites have always felt this way about the masses that don’t agree with them. Throughout history, whether they’re complaining about the Catholics and Jews, or the Irish and Italians, or the Blacks and Hispanics, or the deplorables and bitter clingers, the elites are interested in telling everybody else what they should think and do, and they will use any means necessary to get their way. If you don’t agree with them, then you must be destroyed. This is their religion.