Is There Anything Liberals Won

Are there things some American liberals won't say because of conservative notions of political correctness?

"Political correctness" is, today, simply a conservative talking point without any substantive meaning beyond that it refers to the use of language by people conservatives identify as liberals.  Phrases that conservatives don't like are termed "politically correct", and terms that conservatives use are termed "politically incorrect,"  with the implication that there are liberal "language police" who somehow  persecute people who use the wrong language.  The accusation is that liberals attack conservative's language, while conservatives presumably don't focus on language.  In reality, of course, everyone has ways they like things to be characterized that reflect their views.  Consider the term "pro-life", preferred by conservatives over "anti-abortion"; "Merry Christmas", preferred by conservatives over "Happy Holidays", "Islamic terrorism" preferred by conservatives over "extremist terrorism". So, the answer to this question is, "No."  There is language that liberals prefer, usually connected to the liberal tendency to empathize with different groups (thus, liberals generally seek to describe groups by terms the groups prefer, such as using "African American" instead of "negro"). This isn't about political correctness, which is  just a shibboleth of the right, but is simply about preferred language.  All groups, conservatives included, have their own preferred language.  To claim this is a special attribute of liberals is simply contrary to fact.

Is it possible for a liberal to give Trump credit for anything, or is their prejudice too strong?

To answer this question I just need to preface slightly with some neurological info.People with a dense anterior cingulate cortex are more likely to be liberal, as they are neurally more responsive to positive messages, enjoy new data, value diversity of thought and are far less vulnerable to emotional appeals - particularly those that target, bully or belittle others.People with a dense amygdala respond far more to negative phenomena, are more fearful and angry, and far more vulnerable, and interested in, emotional appeals, particularly those that demonize minorities as a threat and offer some kind of solution for ‘dealing’ with them.So in answer to your question, it is useful to know that liberals are actually hardwired not to be prejudiced, and to want to value opposing views.Trump, however, raises every negative neural, unconscious and conscious response in the mind of a liberal as he is literally assaulting their values in every single way - paralyzing his base with fear, threats, negative imagery…hurting minorities with a racist, exclusionary message, acting in a debasing way to women, using his position as a means of profiteering, and rejecting intellectualism, new data, and the means to question. Worst, he is assaulting honesty itself, lying constantly.The reason your question was so negatively biased against liberals is because Trumps’ discourse is based on coaching all followers to negatively view and talk about ‘the enemy’ as negative stimuli gets amygdala-dominant voters much more excited. You will also get a testosterone and dopamine boost from typing that question that would preclude you from accepting anything that a liberal-minded person would reply as valuable to you in any way - unless it completely supports your thesis. It's a shame because there is a lot that liberals and conservatives could do together to strengthen communities, improve lives and demand more of politicians.

Why won't liberals stop the Trump protests and do something constructive, such as help rebuild the failed democratic party? NOTE: OP has been banned.

These ill-considered leading questions are so cute. Why won’t conservatives stop trolling Quora with idiotic questions and do something constructive? See how that works?Clearly, not all liberals are Democrats, but a sizeable number who are not suddenly decided to sunder their grudging relationship with the party without warning, and without having laid the groundwork for a truly viable alternative. Given the rifts within the Republican Party (evident since 2009), the problem is not specific to the Democratic Party; rather, there appears to be a problem with the two-party system. We might even be facing the fact that a two-party system is the laziest way possible to give the appearance of political freedom.Not all liberals are protesting, and liberals as a group do not bear responsibility for the actions of a few.Why would liberals want to stop action that worked so well for, as a recent example, the TEA Party?It would be illiberal for liberals to stop the legal exercise of constitutional rights. Why, that would be damned near fascist.Protest is often constructive. (Most of the objection to “liberal” protests lately is based on conspiracy theories, the actions of non-liberal participants, selective memory regarding the actions of conservatives in the past, and niggling concerns about “legitimacy”.)Whether protesting or not, a lot of liberals are doing productive things. I hope some of them are setting out to lay the groundwork that should have been undertaken 25 years ago when the independent-candidate iron was hot.