In another thread, it was noted that politicians (and movements) will deny repeatedly until they cannot and then say, "so what". As another noted there, I do not want to derail that other topic but I would be interested in your examples. My contribution: "Open Borders". I'm guessing the term does not poll well so instead, we have, particularly Democrats, stating they want to make it legal to enter the US in ways currently illegal. Then you get people like this: "No border, no wall, no USA at all" Your contributions are invited.
The same people who claim they don't want open borders call you a racist for being against amnesty for illegal immigrants and/or anchor babies. There's some serious doublespeak going on on that issue. Giving citizenship to foreigners who shouldn't be in your country is the very definition of open borders!
This one goes back some. We had an openly gay Congressman named Barney Frank. Democrat from the People's Republic of Cambridge Massachusetts. There were rumblings that gay marriage was coming. Frank assured everyone that this was not even on anyone's radar. That is the word he used. Radar. Next thing you know, the USSC "discovers" that the framers of the Constitution were pro gay marriage. I support gay marriage. That isn't the issue. The issue is how we went from deny to a USSC DISCOVERY! It's all very anti-representative.
Deny, Deny, Deny Until Denial Fails and They Say, "So What?" That is, word-for-word, the Republican and Trump supporter strategy regarding Trump and Ukraine and impeachment. Why would it be any less valid in this circumstance?
If one uses an anecdotal example to disingenuously paint the entire Dem party as being for "open borders" then why isn't it fair to accuse all Repubs of being ignorant bigots who cheat on their wives and lie pathologically?
Because there is nothing disingenuously about the dems endorsement for open border. That's not anecdotal, it's obvious reality. As to "the entire" term being applicable- while all dems haven't openly endorsed open borders- I've yet to hear a single dem candidate oppose it. Refusing to oppose a motion your party is supporting, either openly or permissively, is only slightly less overt than open support- just avoiding the direct accountability for it. This whole thing is not the game dems think it is. Little kids think denial will work even when proof is all over them, but mature men and women know better. So I ask myself when faced with this denial or evasion of truth if I am dealing with small-child minds in adult people, or people who know better but choose to discard integrity and honor for political advantage is the argument they think is a discussion. It's pretty clear that the answer is - both.
Doh, he beat me to it! He has a point.... Exactly. A Republican may lie. You will find bigots. Some may cheat on their wives, etc. But is that descriptive of an entire message that conflicts with the actual apparent policy? To cheat on one's wife? As opposed to the apparent policy of the dems to bring in millions to support them. Illegal immigrants, when enabled to do so, will do what Americans do not: vote Democrat. Another example: Gun rights. Does the left ultimately want to confiscate guns when they say that is not what their about at all?
Yep. Something readily apparent in the motives of the left is an old trick, widely known as the "Foot in the door" approac to selling something. Break precedent with a small demand, then escalate it. 75 years ago vacuum cleaner salesmen went door-to door, doing exactly that. The focus on the "assault rifle" for example is the foot... the rest of the beast that wants in is attached to. And if we arrested everyone who had ever cheated on their spouse, there would be no group left untouched- not in politics, religions or anything else. Being less than perfect is a human flaw that is universal.
Why? You wouldn't pay any attention to that. Everything you disagree with is "disingenuous". <Mod Edit>
As movement, even the right grudgingly supports laws pushed as "common sense" so that doesn't appear to be the case. But the left calls for better gun control after, for instance mass shootings, suggesting more laws over a ton we already have show yet do not have anything to do with how a particular law would helped in the given situation. I think it makes you wonder about their real motives. I am sure Republicans do ultimately want to do things they say they do not. I'm sure if we brain storm, we can come up with some real issues. Isolationism? Forever Wars (do they talk as though they want out of NATO etc.)
Trump supporters are pretty inept really, when it comes to telling their world what to believe "Democrats want." Their two favorites are "Dems want to confiscate your guns" and "Dems want open boarders to let everyone in." These have both been proven again and again to be demonstrably false yet the recording goes on and on like a demented parrot. Squawk - "Dems want to confiscate your guns!" "Dems want open boarders to let everyone in!" Squawk! I've owned guns since I bought my first .22 at age twelve - that was a lot of years ago. I owned over a dozen guns since. Nobody has knocked on my door yet. The NRA loves it though and so do manufacturers and gun stores, man do they love it! The big NRA scare comes around every other year and guns and ammo sales go through the roof. The suckers never learn. Are there some crazies that want "open borders" whatever that means? Sure just like some on the right belief Trump can do no wrong. There's enough crazies to go around for everybody. There is not an iota of factual data that the Democratic party as a whole wants the holy crap scary open boarders. Scares the pants out Trump's rally goers. Hear them yell! Thing is, illegals crossing the border were at a fifty year low until the great god Trump got on the scene. Then ka-pow! Another new record for Trump and company.
Just a few years ago, gay marriage rights were being debated in various ways. Many people of all political stripes got behind arguments for it. A few years later, after general acceptance and resulting policy changes, we are all the way to disputes over child gender reassignment and the government's place in it. https://www.quora.com/Should-young-...ecide-when-to-get-gender-reassignment-surgery There are so many examples of the OP topic, but see "Overton Window" for one explanation of how public attitudes about policy shift and how political parties frame policy arguments in ways currently acceptable to the public, but not exactly reflective of the whole endgame intent. https://www.mackinac.org/7504 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window I am not an adherent or detractor of this explanation of how policy is shaped and "marketed," it is one possible explanation, but note that the LW recoils against it as "fringe" or even a "conspiracy theory," so there must be something to it
Do you believe this sort of thing ever happens? Lee Atwater in this thread posits some things Republicans could deny but in reality, as a party and a movement wants but I don't think he is genuine but playing devil's advocate, ie, Gun Rights people actually want rocket launchers. If it is ever done on the Repulbican side, (denials but in reality, that is the agenda) what would they be? Or this whole view is misguided?
You appear to be confused so allow me to clarify. Making the claim (without evidence) Dems really want to confiscate all guns because they favor stricter gun control is the rough equivalent of claiming Repubs want to allow people to own rocket launchers because they oppose stricter gun control. Got it?
