Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 04:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But it's a smaller, less populous echo chamber that has less impact on voting.

And I've worked all over the US, big cities and small cities.  Conservative values and politics were not worn on the sleeve in podunk towns....But in the "liberal meccas" the BS can't be avoided.

IMO, the liberals are far more aggressive about imposing their views.  And I'd say it's a much bigger, much more powerful echo chamber.  I've seen it - and you see it on message boards - the liberal game right now is identity politics, and you see people reluctant to express conservative views because liberals come along to shout them down as racist, sexist, whatever.  "If I can't get you to agree with me, at least I can use vilify your position to get you to shutting up"

I don't want either extreme choosing the direction of the country.  The left wing view IS overrepresented, it IS taking over the Democratic party, and it IS dangerous and reckless

I'm a little puzzled at these comments. We have a Republican president who lost the popular vote. Republicans control the House and Senate, but represent fewer citizens.  How is the out-of-power party representing the most voters over represented in this scenario? Or do you mean there is a left wing over represented within the Democratic party? The Democratic party is centrist with an emerging "left"?

When both sides fight over issues like gay marriage, it seems they are equally trying to "impose their views."  Whenever Americans collide on political issues, it seems "both sides" do a lot of shouting. But to speak as if this is somehow the defining characteristic of one--I couldn't be more surprised if you had said Trump is a polished, civil public speaker while Obama is a public boor and master of the personal attack.

 No doubt Democrats address more issues favorable to some groups than others, like women and African Americans, but it's not clear why representing underrepresented groups in a democracy is suddenly a "game" rather than what politicians are supposed to do.  It is not a game to represent whites or evangelicals or some such?  No "identity politics" in a Muslims ban or the wall?  I cannot discern the metric(s) behind claims like "the liberal game right now is identity politics."  Is the metric applied to only one side? (just asking.) You say I "have seen it" but I am not sure what you are referring to. Is it something "everyone knows" in a specific media audience?

Speaking of which, I listen to Hannity a couple times of week on the radio. He frequently says "leftists" shout everyone down and call conservatives racist and sexist "just for expressing their views."  He never seems to talk specific cases though. Who does this? Where?  I'd like to know more about views which are "just being expressed" before I decide people are shouted down and unfairly labeled.  And then he suddenly shifts ground, calling those shouting leftists snowflakes" because they don't like hate speech. You say you do not want either extreme directing the country, but you seem to be defending one of those extremes, adopting their language, concerns and talking points.


Finally, I am quite baffled by the assumption that "reckless endangerment" is the consequence of "leftist" over representation somewhere in the polity. 

We have a president who is trying to blow up the current Iran deal and Obamacare at the same time, while pushing us towards war with North Korea. He cannot seem to get his policy pronouncements straight from one day to the next. He insults his own cabinet members and leaders of his party, then blames them for policy/legislative failures in one breath while expanding promises of what he will accomplish next (a much better health care policy. The best).  One "extreme" is directing the country right now.

Mightn't there be more pressing dangers than "LEFTISTS" at the moment?