What do liberals think of Hillary’s email problems?
Here’s DaTechGuy:
…[M]any political scandals involve complicated rules and laws that the American people either do not understand or have no interest in understanding that’s why a clever pol with the media behind them can usually get away with things.
This scandal however involves things that most Americans work with every day. They don’t need it explained to them, which is why when the American people see Hillary lawyering up or try to explain away this scandal, they understand she is lying to their faces.
That makes sense. But if my small sample of four (the number of liberals I’ve discussed this issue with so far) is any indication, although he may be right that this is something with which Americans are familiar, I think he’s wrong in his conclusions if he thinks this matters to most liberals. Unfortunately.
First let me set the scene. I’ve said many times that I try not to talk politics any more with the many liberals I know, because it tends to be extremely counter-productive. However, there are a few exceptions. There are some people with whom I do have political discussions on a fairly regular basis, although not very often. One of the four was in this category. The other three were involved in a political discussion about something else, and I happened to be there and got involved in it. Then to change the subject (and because I was curious) I asked what they thought about Clinton’s emails.
One of those three stated at the outset that Hillary was way too moderate for her and she was a Sanders supporter anyway. Another shrugged and said that Hillary was being framed by Republicans who were always making stuff up about her and were out to get her. I asked her what she would think, however, if the charges turned out to be true, and she answered that everybody does it and it’s no big deal. When I asked her if she worried about national security considerations, she didn’t seem to think that was any big deal or anything unusual. She then explained that she herself has two email addresses, one for work and one for personal use, and sometimes she makes an error and sends something official on her personal email. She was likening Hillary’s actions to her own—just a careless, understandable error. When I pointed out that Hillary had a much higher level of responsibility, she didn’t seem to think so, or if so it just didn’t concern her.
That’s when the third person spoke up. She said the emails did bother her. She works in a highly responsible job that involves a certain amount of confidentiality as well, and she said she is not allowed to make such an error and knows that it is a very serious one. She further said that until now she’s always considered Hillary Clinton to be a very intelligent woman, and therefore she’s having trouble explaining this as a mere lapse. She said that this means that either Hillary actually isn’t all that intelligent after all, or if she is then this was done purposely through arrogance or for some other unacceptable reason.
I’m not sure how much that last person’s viewpoint matters in terms of the election, because she was also nodding when the others were praising Bernie Sanders. So my guess is that she’d happily vote for him instead of Hillary both in a primary and in the general. But that’s just a guess, because I was already so exhausted from the conversation that I couldn’t bear to press them on what they liked so much about Sanders.
The fourth person was someone with whom I had a separate conversation. He stated that he did not care about it, that he would vote for Hillary because he believed that whatever she would do as president would be better than any Republican (he cannot stand Republicans for a number of reasons, and has for years).
So we have one out of four who even seems to care about the emails or find them the least bit alarming. Not a great record, and I bet it’s representative.
[NOTE: And please don’t start telling me to shun these people. Several of them are not such very good friends and they are people I rarely see, so that’s not a problem. But several of them are people extremely close and dear to me and I would never break those bonds.]
[ADDENDUM: Of course, there’s always the possibility that Hillary will be charged with a felony:
By transmitting the server’s contents to a third-party (Platte River), she may well have committed a felony. As of now, Clinton’s best defense is that she only passively received classified e-mails ”” as opposed to having sent, forwarded, or deleted them ”” and that she is thus not in violation of USC 18 793(f). But if she handed over a server full of classified information and then actively copied that information onto computers owned by a commercial provider ”” a clear violation of both the “communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated” and “fails to deliver” clauses in USC 18 793(e) ”” that defense becomes horribly moot.
However, I don’t think that Hillary will ever be charged as long as Democrats control the executive branch.]
[ADDENDUM II: And then there’s the fact that Hillary as president would be highly susceptible to blackmail.]
Sad, but I’m sure you’re right.
Heck, if getting her own Ambassador killed and then blatantly lying about it as she stood over his body didn’t convince people she is unfit for the presidency, then an email scandal certainly won’t.
Understood, neo. I can talk politics with anyone but my closest friends. That’s what twenty years in the arts will do.
The key part of this was your one friend with a highly responsible job. This isn’t the end of something – I think it’s the beginning of something else. Not sure what it is, but I can see cracks in the plaster. What’s the source and direction of the shift? Not sure yet.
I hope your liberal friends are among the hard core 30% or so of the population that would never vote Republican. If they are part of the 30% or so “swing” voters, then we are in trouble.
Sister-in-law last weekend: “The next president will be a woman!”
Wife (God bless her): “Not Hillary!”
I mentioned Carly. Sister-in-law: “Who?”
Brother-in-law: “I don’t see what the fuss is about Hillary’s emails.”
Me: “National security?”
Brother in law: “Hmm…”
They’re both true blue-staters, but something may be getting through.
“I think he’s wrong in his conclusions if he thinks this matters to most liberals. Unfortunately.”
I think he said; most people could understand how it was a crime. Not that liberals would care if their person committed crimes. re: everyone does it mindset.
Everyday people get that having a private email server, now / at this point in time, was probably to avoid federal record retention law. A felony.
Liberals avoid a lot of scandals by just ignoring them… It often works for them. But the feds are investigating. Might not fly this time…
Pingback:Da Tech Guy Blog » Blog Archive » Hillary Emails: What the American People Understand
To me, it doesn’t matter if the liberals don’t care or think it is no big deal (like one person you mentioned). Because I know it’s a big deal (having had a TS/SCI clearance myself many years ago) and because the government itself does not seem to be ignoring this issue.
Hillary clearly violated several laws when she created her own server, used it for government email and retained classified material on it. Plus, she lied about it and then tried to wipe it clean. These violations of law will not be avoidable. She won’t just be able to shrug her shoulders and walk away. This will follow her into 2016 and beyond.
Eventually, the Democrat party will have to step away from her because she will be too toxic. It would not look good to have your presidential candidate being hauled in front of a court while campaigning…despite what the shoulder-shruggers think.
They are more than welcome to vote for Bernie Sanders…the aging, white socialist. LOL. I’d love to see it. Wouldn’t it be a hoot to see Bernie paired up with Dr. Carson? It would be like the world was flip-flopped for most minority voters…
we do get to eavesdrop on the conversations of the left! Being in such close proximity! Heh — I totally get it of course about some of them being dear friends. It is also a sign of maturity I think, to agree to disagree. Although that doesn’t always carry over to the other side but when it does, it is an important and good quality.
I agree with mezzrow that there are cracks, the one woman who gets it due to her own position. However, the rest are pretty blase about it so… it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I imagine that if more people like your friend with intense responsibilities understand the gravity of Clinton’s breach, that things may change. However, it is disappointing to see how so many don’t want to see or don’t care. The partisan veil is that thick…
I also get from this post that Sanders is gaining traction big time and that any injury to Hillary will benefit him. Maybe he will end up the nominee. Strange days ahead!
As a general rule, most self-identifying Democrats will vote for the Democrat candidate no matter what. But all that matters is moving 1 to 2% of people that voted Democrat (both Democrats and Independents) on an issue. You get a couple of issues like that and you have tilted the election.
Jackdaddy63:
I can’t imagine that any of them would ever vote for a Republican without having experienced a major political change/upheaval.
“I can’t imagine that any of them would ever vote for a Republican unless without experiencing a major political change/upheaval”
This continues to astound me. How far left even run-of-the-mill Democrats have become. They would vote for a avowed socialist?? But then they certainly are not upset with Obama’s socialism/marxism.
I know I keep saying it, but I just cannot wrap my mind around these people.
If just one in four rank-and-file Democrats who vote in every election were persuaded by this latest example of her corruption to either vote against Clinton or not bother voting at all, I’d be ecstatic. Just so long as enough GOP supporters wised up enough to throw Trump to the sharks.
This 456th clinton scandal is being investigated and gaining a tiny amount of traction with the msm because bho wants to out hrc. I think warren will allow herself to be persuaded to run. What a dream ticket for the left, warren-sanders marching to victory in 2016.
OlderandWheezier:
But if that one in four votes for Sanders (or Warren/Sanders, as parker indicates) I don’t really see this as a plus. Do you?
I’m trying to put myself in neo’s friends’ place, but it’s hard to do. The nearest I can get to relating to their POV is my own reaction to that shrieking chant about Bush and WMD’s: “Bush lied! People died!” I’ve always seen it as mere agitprop; I know he didn’t lie and wouldn’t lie. Maybe neo’s lefty friends feel the same way about Hillary Clinton.
Only difference is, Bush really didn’t lie and Hillary really did!
Yes, Mezzrow, I agree that there are cracks in the plaster. Here’s another one: friends of mine (also in the arts) who are proud leftists and also Jewish will mutter privately about the treatment of Israel, even though they pointedly avoid mentioning Obama in connection to it. You can feel the cognitive dissonance and the suppressed bitterness.
carl in atlanta Says:
“Only difference is, Bush really didn’t lie and Hillary really did!”
yeah; a variation on their fight fire with fire mindset… when we didn’t use fire; that was their imagination again… but then they do.
The Kool-Aid, it is STRONG is these ones.
I’m troubled by the fact that among my liberal friends, the Republican brand is so badly tarnished that they would rather vote D than ever vote for the evil/corrupt/stupid R (that is no different than the D, as they remind me).
I know we’ll have to change the media to rid us of it’s pernicious influence, but I wonder if we’d help ourselves if we could ditch the establishment GOP?
My hope is that Trump, Cruz, and even Scott Walker signal that the electorate is ready to drive a wedge through the GOP and send the establishment gang over to the D where they belong. If the R brand was more consistently conservative and willing to fight for divided government as intended in the Constitution I believe we’d have an opportunity to re-brand the R.
Jackdaddy63:
The liberals I know would not only never vote for a Republican (and think they’re bigots, etc.), but to them conservative Republicans are the most pernicious of all.
Most of them manage to compartmentalize their attitude towards me because they knew me back when I wasn’t a pernicious conservative.
Jackdaddy63 Says:
“I know we’ll have to change the media to rid us of it’s pernicious influence, but I wonder if we’d help ourselves if we could ditch the establishment GOP?”
But is it really the GOP or just their own propaganda / cool aid? re: if we ditch the GOP won’t they just convince themselves their next opponent is the same?
example: libertarians become right wing to the left message machine whenever they are a threat.
I know what you mean. My dad reads the New York Times and Huffington Post, and as a consequence he is almost impossible to talk to about politics. I think he still realizes that believing in small government and low taxes are legitimate points of view, but any mention of the Tea Party has him scoffing about how uneducated and even dumb they are. This is especially troubling to me because we live in Texas and his current retired comfort results almost entirely from the hard work he did in his career. However, he bathes in MSM propaganda and I think fancies himself as part of the “smart” set for what he reads. Just goes to show how effective the media is.
It is a shame the beauty of the Founding Father’s arguments against big government are lost to the libs. It’s as if the Federalist Papers are some sort of graffiti scrawled on the walls of the Pompeii – an amusing trivia for those that can read it and meaningless scratches for the rest.
Isn’t it fascinating that only Conservatives can’t talk to leftists because leftists are so intolerant, violent and hostile. It never occurs that leftists have to restrain their comments when talking to conservatives.
Isn’t it fascinating that leftists almost never know what the facts are with these issues. They all can recite the party line without thinking, but no facts.
The hardcore leftists will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. What matters are two things: What will swing voters do? This is probably the most important of the two things since this is about 1/3 of the voters. The second thing has to do with enthusiasm and base turnout–does anybody really think Hillary inspires? I don’t, not to the level Obama did (not to me, but to lots of people).
The ONLY thing that will take Hillary out of this election will be a conviction. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Harold:
I know a few liberals and/or leftists who can recite tons of facts, and are extremely well-informed. They are in the minority of the liberals or leftists I know, but they definitely exist.
I don’t mean this in a sexist way. Hillary and her inner circle are liberal women with no experience with the military. To them, classified information is no big deal. As someone who had a TS clearance I would see classified materials as radio active. In the old days when paper was used, materials were kept in a safe with a red flag hanging down when the safe was not locked. It was serious stuff during the cold war.
Change stories involving couples where one went conservative while the other stayed hard left would be appreciated. We mostly choose not to talk about it. It’s awkward sometimes.
Most of the progressives I know are not enthusiastic about Hillary at all and are just waiting to be politically activated for the Korrect Kandidate, whoever that may be. They didn’t care about Benghazi not because it reflected poorly on Hillary but because it reflected poorly on Obama.
It’s not fascinating, Harold. It’s depressing. And thanks to all the lefties who put their more vivid fantasies on pause when talking to conservatives. Gracias.
They would vote for Obama a third time if he ran, if he abolished the Constitution, and if he threw you into a concentration camp for having insufficient feelings of social solidarity.
This is very fundamental life-way and values stuff, and “the law” as such counts for nothing when it clashes with “the world they dream”.
Your existence is incidental at best; expendable set decoration to be discarded when it has served its purpose of enabling and functioning as a seedbed or scaffolding for humankind’s evolutionary vanguard: them.
Jackdaddy63:
I’m troubled by the fact that among my liberal friends, the Republican brand is so badly tarnished that they would rather vote D than ever vote for the evil/corrupt/stupid R (that is no different than the D, as they remind me).
I’m not sure it’s just your liberal friends. There’s been so much devaluation of the Republican party “brand”, much of it self-inflicted, that I don’t believe it can ever recover. Even though I’m a strongly libertarian-leaning conservative, I de-registered to an independent in my state a few years ago, simply out of frustration and a form of (impotent) protest. (In my state, I can still vote in a primary as an independent.)
I’d like to think that an alternative-party option (or options) can grow out of this. I’d like to think that enough traditional liberals would be as frightened by the surveillance state as I am so as to look for outside-of-party options. I’m not optimistic, however, unless something truly ugly happens to shake people out of their stupor as to how truly incompetent their “leadership” really is.
As for the media, I don’t think we’ll ever actively change it, but I do see signs that it’s creating it’s own irrelevance with the rise of new media. If we want to do something to undermine it, it would be to reinforce that irrelevance.
As I enter my 81st year, I am befuddled. I know that ignorance has plagued our Republic in the past. I know that very bad things have happened over the course of our history because malevolence often depends on ignorance. After all, I grew up in the South, and was a product of my culture.
Still, I thought that we were making progress. We have technology that makes information readily available to every level of society. We can readily see, in many ways, the ultimate results of various attitudes and policies; not only in our own society, but in others that have been on the leading edge.. And yet, we are more divided than ever because of ignorance. Willful ignorance. Intentional ignorance.
Right now the scuttlebutt *out there* is that Huma
(weiner’s wife) *scrubbed* the Top Secret designation from the emails. As un tech savvy I am sure Huma & Hillary think this action worked & also allows Hillary to
travel about blabbing that “I am sure that at no time
did I send nor receive classified emails, designated as such, on my server”.
(that ‘s the current equivalent of *At this point what difference does it make! ) so their current made up defense is that these documents were made Top Secret after the fact ! I have even heard a Dem operative, that they send out to be fair & balanced on Fox news, say the exact same thing.
However Cyber facts being what they are, I am sure you may think you have *scrubbed things*
but I would bet it is impossible to do. Isn t the internet set up where *packets* of data travel through various pathways & end up in one piece at their destination. In a humorous vein somebody said Hillary was asking somebody to pick up a book
“Erasing emails for dummies”
There’s really no pint in trying to discuss politics with lefties. They want the Soma. They love the Soma. They’re addicted to the Soma. A few, like Neo and David Mamet will wake up. Why that happens, I don’t know — maybe the Soma occasionally wears off. We can’t count on those rare events.. The only thing we can do to win is to keep the Pajama Boys and Girls and the minority voters home in their usual numbers by running a Carly or a Carson, not necessarily at the top of the ticket but at least on the ticket.
“And please don’t start telling me to shun these people.”
Amen, Neo. I’m afraid that I am in the midst of a solid blue county in a northeast state. If I were to shun all those who held such “blue” ideas I would end up with very few people to talk to.
And, yes, Harold, it never occurs to many on the left that their opinion is NOT universally held; nor does it occur to them that a differing opinion might actually have some merit and not be “stupid.”
Good Lord, Richard Saunders, I wish I had some Soma or something like that 2 weeks ago. I went hiking with a group, as I have done before, most of whom keep their political or other such opinions to themselves as the idea is to get out into the mountains and enjoy a great day of hiking.
Well, we had two new folks join us. Both were guests that other long-time members brought. We don’t have a policy of who can join or not join – just come to enjoy the hike.
Well, I so wish that I could have slipped them both a heavy dose of Soma as they wouldn’t shut up the whole time about politics. It started out innocently enough about Trump, which soon turned into the “clown car of Rethuglicans” and kept going for the several hours as we went up the mountain, then continued the whole time we were all trying to enjoy the mountain top scenery and lunch. And, of course, it continued during the hike back down. It would have been okay if it were some sort of serious debate or exchange of ideas. Nope, it was nothing like that – just talk of Rethuglicans, teabaggers, union busters, bigots, greedy pigs, etc. for 8 hours straight. Man, It was exhausting – those two motor-mouths just never stopped; each trying to out do the other it seemed in bashing Republicans.
The one fellow, from what I gathered, is actually a teacher. Shame on him! He kept making jokes about “what are you, a special ed. student?” whenever someone would slip or otherwise loose their footing. Really? That’s what you think of some of students in your school? They deserve to be mocked in that manner. Yea, someone slips on the rocky slope so they must be a special ed. student. yuck, yuck, yuck, that is sooo funny!
Normally, at the end of a long day hiking we all head out to a local restaurant for dinner. This group has never not done that. It is one of the most enjoyable part of our hikes – talk about the day, pass around cell phones of those who took pictures, talk about which parts of the mountain were challenging, complain about how sore our legs are, where would we like to go next?
Hmm, for some reason no one wanted to go out to eat at the end of that hike. We all just headed home.
BTW, I think you got one thing wrong, specifically that hrc will not face consequences as long as democrats hold the executive office. The boychild loathes the clintonistas as triangulatures instead of extreme hard core leftists. Hrc is a hard core leftist, but slick willy is not and he would be the hand at the tiller in a hrc oval office. I believe bho has decided to jettison the clintonistas in favor of others, because post presidency, he (and soros) can control with a not so velvet glove any democrat that follows him.
The obligatory Untergang video:
Klintonerdé¤mmerung
parker:
Yes, that’s occurred to me, too. But I meant legal consequences, as in being charged with a felony. I agree that Obama may want to jettison her campaign (and I think I’ve written about that before), but I think he just wants to damage her rather than have her be sent to prison.
charles:
I understand the sort of thing you’re talking about. But here’s my question: if the whole group doesn’t usually talk politics, and they were so incessant about it, why did no one explain to them that as a rule, political talk is ruled out on these hikes in order to make a more pleasant and relaxing atmosphere for everyone?
Loretta the Lynch is AG; FBI is part of DOJ. All ot this is being run by the White House, which told Loretta to get the Fibbies to bird-dog Hillary.
This resembles Keystone, except WH did NOT want that to happen (for whatever reason), so the matter has been “under consideration” by DOS(Hillary/Kerry) for 4 years. Dragged out at WH command.
Here the WH has clearly loosed the dogs on Hillary. A deal may have been struck between Hussein and Ol’ Joe Biden. Biden is as much of a junkyard dog as Hussein. Both are vicious, neither is stupid.
why did no one explain to them that as a rule, political talk is ruled out on these hikes in order to make a more pleasant and relaxing atmosphere for everyone?
Because they were all afraid that if they did so, the rest of the group might begin to believe that they were closet conservatives? 🙂
Agree with you Neo, these 2 newbies should have never been permitted to abuse the other hikers & Charles needed to find his inner *cop* & put a stop to it ! often it only takes a well placed *remark *.
The actress Britanny Morgan, ( or possibly), Morgan
Britanny….lol. Mentions that she was in a play with notorious Lefty Ed Asner @ Bush Gore dispute time &
obnoxious Ed kept giving nearly continual *updates* on the *latest*. All she said was “ed not everyone here cares about how Al Gore is faring!”
Old ed clammed up & never spoke another word to her that was not stage dialogue ! LOL
What better revenge against ” A few years ago, this guy would be getting us coffee.” Than hrc facing felony charges? Never underestimate the bitterness that fuels the hard core left soul. They harvest the organs of their own children for financial gain. Is there something more depraved and evil?
True Parker & LOL how much sweeter when we realize how that fool Bubba was running himself to the point of exhaustion at the tail end of that 2012 campaign when it was too close to call, & bubba was in NH & another swing state BOTH in ONE DAY helping
Obummer across the finish line, not a shred of gratitude from the Prince & Bubba was played better that Monica Lewinsky ever did. LOL
I have cousins, a late sister, a brother in law, and at least one niece who’ve been absorbed by the Borg Collective.
But I have gotten to the point that their corrupt value system sickens me just like it would if they were National Socialists or old school Bolshies. I just can’t chit-chat and hang out with people who’d regretfully inform on me to the STASI at some point down the road.
Because it always comes to that, sooner or later.
Not to say that I don’t speak to them at all, but we are much less close than we would be otherwise. Just add that estrangement to the huge toll Leftism, in all its loathesome forms, has taken of us all.
If that 25 per cent of your sample, Neo, just stays home for the 2016 election and the Republicans vote in their usual numbers, the Dems are toast.
“Here the WH has clearly loosed the dogs on Hillary. A deal may have been struck between Hussein and Ol’ Joe Biden. Biden is as much of a junkyard dog as Hussein. Both are vicious, neither is stupid.”
Of course Obama is behind this – Lynch is doing his bidding. The real question is why (now)?
My answer is: if Hillary! is dumped in the next few months, there is still time to get Michelle! lined up for coronation. Sorry, “election”.
Yeah, maybe ignorance. Ignorance of a kind anyway.
But no one has ever quite figured out since the days of Socrates whether “virtue” is “knowledge” or not. The more knowledge the more “virtue”? Apparently not really.
Sure, not quite realizing the implications of what you are doing, is a kind of ignorance; one which a type of knowledge can – granting certain more basic presumptions – cure.
On the other hand, if you read enough leftist moral theorizing you recognize that what they are generally doing is deploying “knowledge” in order to “sensitize” and to thus encourage “identification”; not to inform per se.
There is nothing quite so pathetic as discussing “morals” or ethics with one of these half-educated high school or state university instructors. They know a routine. They know some dogma sufficient to entertain an introductory social studies class for a semester.
But the sons of bitches don’t in general really know anything about reasoning, at all. And why should they? From their perspective it is all about evolving urges (theirs presumptively being the most “advanced” whatever that is supposed to tautologically imply) , and rhetoric.
That’s all. That’s really all. There is no more to it.
You are just looking in the face of an urge. One that can make pro-social noises when it wishes to shape its environment.The rest is your projection of your idea and sense of humanity onto an entity which has proudly “evolved” itself beyond freedom, dignity, absolutes, and “objective truths”.
Having done so to itself semi-consciously, if not wholly consciously, what is left within such a locus of activity by which it may judge and arbitrate? Nothing but habit, “feelings”, and more fundamental, inchoate, and barely recognized, urges. That’s all.
Neo,
Your friends rationalize their way elastically to political correctness in order to conform with the Narrative. They self-police their alignment with the prevailing zeitgeist. The prevailing zeitgeist is an activist product and competitive prize of the activist game.
Win the activist game and reform the zeitgeist: your friends, at least a critical mass of them, will adjust their social political alignment accordingly.
Your discussion with your Democratic friends who excuse Secretary Clinton brings to mind the FredHJr comment you quoted in the previous post and my explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which responds to the Dems/Left’s false narrative of OIF.
Their strategic application of the false narrative of OIF has been patient zero, the foundational cornerstone for the current political turn (and, as you’ve replied, carried forward their successful strategy from the anti-Vietnam War-based counter-cultural campaign):
FredHJr’s observation in the same vein:
With FredHJr’s observation in mind, try this exercise with specifically your Clinton-supporting friends: Have them review my explanation of the law and policy, fact basis of President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it critically to the prevailing anti-Bush (false) narrative of OIF.
As you know, my explanation of Bush’s decision is really an explanation of President Clinton’s Iraq policy and that it was faithfully carried forward by President Bush. The primary sources show that Bush’s decision for OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy that were largely developed under the Clinton administration.
My explanation is a narrative reframe aimed at the patient zero also identified by FredHJr. If that cornerstone piece can be reprogrammed and turned around in the zeitgeist, the rest of their narrative can be unraveled.
With the zeitgeist as is, would the interpersonal exercise by itself detach your friends from the politically correct hivemind? No, because the bond is social and the zeitgeist needs to be reformed in order for them to change. And it’s a premise piece that is prerequisite more than course syllabus.
It’s an experiment to develop a tactic that can be scaled up by activists.
Your friends’ reflexive reaction to my explanation will be a hivemind defense against an alien threat, which will be threatening because it upholds Clinton. They’ll first seek to disqualify then dismiss the explanation out of hand without serious consideration. (When they point out that an anonymous blog post is not a credible source, respond that it’s a careful explanation drawn from primary sources, not a source in and of itself, and refer to the primary sources that are cited, particularly the basic essentials linked in the further reading section.)
Then, when they seek to grab onto any gray area to reject the whole thing, focus them on the blatant contradictions between the prevailing false narrative of OIF and the legal factual record.
Your Sanders-supporting friend is probably a lost cause. However, your Clinton-supporting friends and the cornerstone role of the false narrative of OIF make them more susceptible to a Clinton-upholding explanation of Bush’s decision for OIF.
If you’re dogged enough to carry out this narrative-reframing exercise with your Clinton-supporting friends, I’d be interested in the results from your experiment.
Eric.
You’re asking neo to get her friends to put their fingers in their ears and go LALALA, I can’t hear you……..”
Facts are not the issue. Identifying oneself as a Good Person is the issue and there is only one way to be a Good Person, and that is to buy left/prog/obama wholesale.
Facts which might disassociate the individual from the Good Person identity would be a catastrophe. Moreover, it is a catastrophe which is easily avoided. Fingers, ears.
“Shunning”
I’ve spoken about cutting these people out. Doing it or witnessing it is another thing altogether for most people. My sensitive, feeling, and empathetic self, included.
Some people though, you don’t have to advise.
Visited the local Premier Midwest University Liberal Land the other day to dine with my sister in her new (to them) house. The remodeling is coming along nicely, though it remains an outrage what a 1920s sack of brick and clapboards will bring at the base of a government run cash funnel, when elsewhere it would not be worth a third or quarter of that.
In any event I had been there about an hour and a half, and the sun was low on the horizon when we figured to make use of one of the redeeming features of this relic by sitting on the front porch. Her husband and I took drinks out, and the red headed boy toddled after.
Within two minutes I sensed someone to the west crossing lawns. The owner of the house next door is absent, but there, up-lawn and squeezing themselves between the cars and SUVs parked bumper to bumper in the drive, appeared the local organic vegan 60 something neighborhood greeters and gadflies from 4 doors down.
Seemingly almost out of breath, the husband paused and adjusting his belly bag or hip purse or whatever it is that these types wear along with shorts and sandals and rumpled shirts, he addressed my brother-in-law in an amiable way, but directly and without amenities. (She chimed in too, but what she said didn’t even register with me)
[All following dialog as near as I can reconstruct]
“Do you think that when you have visitors you could advise them not to park in the driveway so as to obstruct the sidewalk? It’s one of our community customs not to block the walk way.”
The “local customs” remark might have been meant as a lame ameliorating joke.
Of course, instead of hustling across lawns and between parked vehicles in the first place, he and she could have simply walked down the sidewalk, diverted around my trunk, and then said something equally lame like ” Hey neighbor: Probably should give you a heads up that the cops will cite you for an ordinance violation if they see it.”
But maybe the cops wouldn’t. I don’t know. Instead, he wished my brother in law to instruct his visitors as to proper community parking etiquette.
They never looked at or spoke to me, but I got up and said, “I’ll move my car”. Their response was “oh good”.
I went in the house and grabbed my keys.
This is where the shunning part comes in. My sister says, “You are not leaving already are you?”
No I’m just going to move my car.
Why?
It’s blocking the sidewalk and pedestrians have to use the apron to walk by.
So what?
The neighbors’ asked ….”
I should not have made that last remark, since if I had not, she might not have looked out, and might not have seen who it was, and might not have reacted like the granddaughter of a Wyoming ranch born grandmother, that she is.
She flared up, “What?!”
It’s ok. Never mind.
“No, it’s not ok. Who is it?”
I went out, and I guess she followed a few moments later. I didn’t hear what was said, as I was putting my car in the street and then some way down the block because of the one way parking.
When I got back, my brother-in-law was standing on the front porch kicking his shoe at the boards, and my nephew and sister were not to be seen. The Nature’s Life hall monitors were standing on the walkway by the porch, looking up at him and talking almost sotto voce. As I got there he excused himself and went in the house. They stood at the base of the porch, and looking at me cheerily said, “thanks for moving the car”.
I responded with, “Goodnight” in what I meant to be a civil manner, but which sounded flat and husky even to me.
It was by now pretty deep into dusk, and they ambled off east toward downtown.
When I got in, it was not a pretty scene. My brother-in-law was holding the sniveling boy and saying, “Well we need to get along, we don’t want little X to be ostracized.
My sister said, “I don’t want to get along. I don’t need these people. I don’t like these people, and they can take their heirloom organic plum tomatoes and shove them. I don’t want these hypocrites making nice with my kid when they are being such assholes.”
He said, “Well you need friends and neighbors” And she said, “I have tons of friends (at the University med dept) and I don’t need these obnoxious busybodies in my life.”
“Busybodies” I never heard her say that word in all my life, and never figured it would even be part of her vocabulary; youngest of all the family, including cousins, that she is.
The Bro-in-law is from Virginia, and so I said to him, I guess you didn’t know what you were getting into when you married her did you. Might as well have married an Auburn coed.
Fortunately, they both laughed.
Funny thing is, the busybodies with the man-purses and the organic plum tomatoes were the only people to greet them when they moved in. Other than the gay professor of Iberian literature; who introduced himself by moaning about how he wished he lived in Minneapolis with his current receptacle.
What a world, eh?
Ok. 1 pm and the mail still hasn’t arrived. Outta here. Have a good weekend.
WRT Hillary!’s emails: It will be the usual as with the Clintons. First, the supporters insist they didn’t do it. It’s all a plot. Then, when the evidence is beyond overwhelming and the Clintons own up to it, it’s fine. No problem.
A lot of hatred in Neo’s friends. People who hate Republicans more than they hate lies, crimes, and treason really, really hate. Deeply.
stan
I think you missed the point. If the dems do them, they are not lies, crimes and treason. Those all refer to one or another objective reality. Logic, law, truth, so forth.
The progs’ objective reality is who said/did it. This has the power of the philosopher’s stone. It transforms lies into truth, or vice versa, crimes into legal actions, or vice versa….
Therefore, there is no hate directed at them, depending on who said/did them.
Neo: “why did no one explain to them that as a rule, political talk is ruled out on these hikes in order to make a more pleasant and relaxing atmosphere for everyone?”
Good question! Although, truth be told, I’m not sure about myself, let alone others as to why I didn’t speak up. Here’s a couple of my reasons, I think:
I guess it was because I didn’t think it would continue for the entire day as it did. I also didn’t want to be dragged into a “discussion.” Also, as OlderandWheezier said, I didn’t want to be seen as the closet Republican; No, not really; it was more like I didn’t want to be seen as someone contributing to the unpleasantness.
Mostly though, I felt that it wasn’t really my place to correct them. I was not the organizer for this hike; Nor was I a member who invited either of these two guests. It really should have been up to the organizer or the members who invited them to say something. And, who knows? Maybe one of them did afterwards?!
As for a “rule” that we don’t discuss politics; that isn’t exactly true. The one thing I like about this particular hiking club is we really do not have any rules! Everyone usually takes care of him/herself and acts like an adult; an adult respectful of others. Someone needs help (like maybe struggling to get a back pack strap on after we take a rest), you just reach over to help. Drivers never have to ask for money for gas – riders just pitch in without being prompted. And my favorite – dinner, there is no fussing about the bill; just pass the bill around and everyone puts in enough to cover what they ordered and enough for a tip. We always have a generous tip for the wait staff. I think that says a lot about the usual folks in this hiking club.
Seriously, other clubs that I have joined ask you to sign a waiver before joining the group. Other groups list all sort of rules; as if we are all elementary school children going on a field trip. That is one reason I particularly like this group – mutual respect (except for this one time) because we are all adults who act like adults. I really didn’t want to be seen as someone who they would much rather not join in – go along to get along, I suppose. I’ve enjoyed hiking with this group so much; not that the others groups are bad; but, I would really miss it if I didn’t join them any more. I’ve been hiking with them for several years; and considering that time frame it is great that this is the first time we had something like this happen.
I did have a golden opportunity at the end of the hike – and am rather glad that I didn’t say the first thought that popped into my head. At the end, after everyone made excuses for not going to dinner; I asked the one guy (the teacher who was making “special ed. student” jokes all day) how did he like our outing. He responded by saying that he was kind of apprehensive when invited to come along as he was afraid that there might be an a$$hole or two; but, was pleasantly surprised that everyone was so nice. I smiled and said “that’s nice; glad to hear it.” The thought that popped into my head was: “Well, we’ve never had a$$holes on the hikes before; until now.” But, I behaved myself.
Next time though; if either of them return, or someone else, starts with the same kind of nonsense, I will try to say something early on. Something like, “hey you know some of us hike to get away from politics; let’s just enjoy the beautiful scenery.” Or something to that effect; easier said then done though.
DNW – yea, it is quite a world!
I do not understand keeping as friends those who think and talk as Neo’s do.
Relatives, yes. We tacitly have agreed it ain’t worth it to rile one another. But as friends?
I was quail hunting this Jan when a friend of my hunting companion whom I’d met on this hunt sat down with his first cocktail, and to get acquainted asked aggressively, “So do you believe in global warning or do you listen to and believe Fox News”?
I said the jury was out. Turned my attention elsewhere. Refused the later choice of hunting with him one day.
Goes to show you even upland bird hunters are not automatic right wingers! They are all nasty people with guns and dogs that kill poor leetle birdies, though!
Frog:
It’s really rather simple.
First of all, some ARE relatives.
Second of all, some are mere acquaintances or rather distant friends and I seldom see them, and then only in group situations. Plus, politics comes up only a very small percentage of the time. So that hardly matters.
Others are good friends of long, long standing, somewhat like relatives really. We don’t ordinarily talk politics, either. What’s more, don’t forget my age—I don’t like to emphasize this overly, but I am rather ancient and making new friends and replacing the old is almost literally impossible. If I were to jettison my liberal friends I would have virtually no friends and be nearly a complete isolate. That’s no good.
neo:
WRT lib friends and relations:
I have some. A problem for me is that when something awful happens, the kind of thing liberalism causes, I immediately think, ‘It’s their fault. It’s their idea. They wanted it.”
The last may not be true, but when the Thing, whatever it was, was predicted to them, they balked. They denied, they pretended up was down, that the people whose behavior in trying to dodge the Thing was absolutely predictable were “greedy”….
It becomes progressively–sorry–more difficult to deal with them, or to contemplate dealing with them on other matters.
physicsguy
They are faithful members of the Democrat Team. Whatever the head coach says to do, they cheerfully comply.
An acquaintance of mine is a Yellow Dog Democrat. For years he and I had Friday night drinks at a local bar. We freely discussed politics. I tired of his ignorant partisanship, his ad hominem attacks on those he disagreed with, and his calling me a “hater” when I brought up facts that did not support his points of view.[Rather ironic to call someone a “hater” when you engage in ad hominem attacks.] With the emphasis on ignorant: whatever the MSM states is the talking theme of the week, he is sure to repeat.
He calls himself a Blue Dog Democrat. To a degree that is correct- he celebrated the death of Bin Laden- but I cannot think of a time when he has disagreed with what the head coach of the Democrats has pushed. Thus a Blue Dog Democrat gets turned into a Prog.
In reflecting on his ignorance, I have thought to myself that he applies the same thought to supporting the Democrat Team as he does to supporting his alma mater’s sports teams. Yay, team.
gringo.
If your friend’s alma mater were Penn State, I suspect he’d agree Sandusky was a jerk who should be in jail for a thousand years, along with the people who knew about it.
To make a comparison with his political choices, it would be as if, having once decried rape of children, he finds out about Sandusky and starts talking NAMBLA talking points.
Pingback:Da Tech Guy Blog » Blog Archive » DaTechGuy at the Donald Trump Event Pt 2: Da People