I mostly agree, and Hillary did have a more comprehensive written out platform, but did you watch her speeches? Identity politics was practically all she talked about. It was practically all the left wing media talked about. And maybe it's a stupid reason to vote one way or the other, and maybe it's effects are exaggerated, but I've seen a lot of people claim they left the democratic party specifically because they are sick of the identity politics nonsense. You don't have to agree with them, but I don't see why you're so sure it's not at all hurting their cause. Also, while I'm sure this changes depending on who did the research/polling, but I've seen that republicans listed the economy as their primary concern as well. Generally speaking, it's the #1 issue for both parties.
And let's not forget white nationalists and white supremacists. All politics is identity politics. "Democrat" and "Republican" and "Libertarian" are identities in and of themselves. Whenever people are bitching about "identity politics" taking over all they're doing is bitching about having to include politics that matter to certain identities alongside politics that matters to their own identity, and want to go back to the only politics that matter being the ones that solely includes them. "Identity politics" was just coined because it's not as socially acceptable anymore to come right out and say "I don't give a shit about identities that are female, nonwhite, or nonstraight." And that goes all across the spectrum. And as for Hillary and her book and her gender and whether or not any of that matters, even if you have the most completely cynical take on why she chose to wrote a book, if you consider yourself a capitalist and at least part of why you're pissed that she wrote it and is touring is to make money and quite literally capitalize on being an historic candidate in an historic election, then you're either not a capitalist or the fact that she's making money isn't really why you're pissed.
Again though, what the fuck are you even basing this on? Yeah, we're all obsessed with stopping the gays, the blacks, the women, the blah blahs, but none of us will admit to it. I can barely fathom the arrogance that comes with people who says thing like this. Who the fuck do you think you are that you're in a position to tell people, including people you've never even met, why they say what they say? Who are you to insert your own made up reasons? Seriously, you have to be fucking whacked out of your mind that have that kind of world view. That's why people don't like identity politics.
It's much too broad to narrow down into a simple definition, but simply put - the obsession with race/gender coupled with the obsession of seeing the world's problems as solely based on race/gender.
Here's a good example: Climate Change. In theory climate change should be literally as partisan as a hurricane. But somehow it is one of the most partisan issues in American politics, even more than abortion amazingly enough. How did we get to that point? It's not because there's anything ideological about it that would rationally lead to such a split, it's because Republican voters by and large have an identity defined against those "spandex wearing eco-fags," and they are too invested in that identity to do anything that looks like environmental protection.
I voted for Obama the first time, didn't vote on purpose when he ran against R-Money and I also voted for Trump. I have a hard time envisioning a moment in time where I would sign up as a Republican or Democrat. I don't speak for anyone other than my self but with that said, I can tell any believer of putting Race/Gender politics and painting 'the others' as a monolithic group of hate-mongering facists above all else that you are guaranteeing yourselves future losses because people aren't buying it. Truth is that this country needs two functioning parties and Democrats need to wake up, they are being run off the field everywhere they turn.
And I guess I could individually ask each poster who's used the term "identity politics" in the past two years if they were referring to people who opposed climate change due to party alliances and being anti-treehugging nerds but I understand how people use words so that doesn't seem super necessary.
Actually, you've demonstrated you struggle quite a bit with that, but then again who am I to dispute someone who can only think in regurgitated narratives.
There is still an argument about what part of climate change is man-made, with that comes the prescription for climate change. The Paris accord, cap and trade, etc. You can believe climate is changing and not agree with the findings of cause or you can agree with both and still disagree with the prescription to the problem. None of those have anything to do with being Joe Sixpack and hating Jane Yogamat and the eco-fags.
It's so interesting that Joe Sixpack would rather cut off his nose to spite his face than admit that maybe doing things to not pollute our planet isn't an awful thing. I mean. Gee golly. The worst we can have happen is less trash, better air quality, new industry, and better water. I suppose none of those are worth agreeing with hippie ecofags.
That's not a real argument for anything. What new industries are coming to America right now? Which ones believe they can compete in a global market under American EPA regulations? Why would they come here and pay more in regulatory costs when they can go to India, China, Indonesia, Africa......almost anywhere else on the planet and not give a fuck about the environment? Do you think those blooms of plastic in the Pacific were put there by Americans alone? Do you think one country off-shoring their pollution will solve anything? If you do, you are deluding yourself. I can agree with conservation til the end of time but I can assure you that de-industrializing our country won't fix the problem and in the process you will create new ones.
Are you fucking kidding with this? Isn't one of the primary reasons you hate Hillary is because you think her words and promises don't match up to what her previous actions show? What the fuck are you even talking about here since you, personally, have shown again and again that you act in the exact fashion you're criticizing here?
Edit: I'll tone that down a bit. One is about a specific person, based on actual observations, past actions, and statements. The other is a lazy sweeping generalization made toward a large number of people.
If this was someone else I would think you were trolling, but doing something and then immediately pretending you didn't do it has to break some kind of record.