General politics

[Mike Sixel]

 

What about dealing with opinions that are fundamentally different.  Reading through here I haven't seen it.  Almost nowhere.  Not all opinions on the right or the left are correct.

 

From what I can tell this board is overwhelmingly liberal. I actually took a "politics test" on my nephews phone during Christmastime because he could not pin me down.  The assessment took about 15 minutes to complete.  The results were displayed on a Cartesian Plane and it showed me to be almost dead center, slightly left.  I didn't vote for Trump (bet you thought I did).

 

For you to reject the idea there is not a "liberal narrative" here is absurd.  Maybe that phrase doesn't work for you.  How about erase that term and say this forum is dominated almost entirely by liberals.  What is the shame in admitting that?

 

I think that those that choose to play in this part of the site are more liberal than most, yes. I know I try to be polite and whatnot to those on the right, but mostly they have chosen not to participate on this part of the site. That's cool, and all, but it can be a bit echo chambery here (though, really, our disagreements on this part are pretty strong on how best to proceed, our goals are largely similar). 

[PseudoSABR]

 

What about dealing with opinions that are fundamentally different.  Reading through here I haven't seen it.  Almost nowhere.  Not all opinions on the right or the left are correct.

 

From what I can tell this board is overwhelmingly liberal. I actually took a "politics test" on my nephews phone during Christmastime because he could not pin me down.  The assessment took about 15 minutes to complete.  The results were displayed on a Cartesian Plane and it showed me to be almost dead center, slightly left.  I didn't vote for Trump (bet you thought I did).

 

For you to reject the idea there is not a "liberal narrative" here is absurd.  Maybe that phrase doesn't work for you.  How about erase that term and say this forum is dominated almost entirely by liberals.  What is the shame in admitting that?

You've already discussed your political test and not voting for Trump, I don't see how that's relevant; in fact, the whole Black conservative trend thing gives me pause about your alleged neutrality.  

 

Narrative implies there's a cohesive story we are trying to tell, and when someone gets off script they are pushed out of the discussion.  That does not happen.   

 

That there are few conservative voices is a shame, and contributes to the notion that there are only liberals here, but that doesn't mean there's some liberal narrative we all stick to.  Whether it is Levi or Brock or Mike, I've had numerous disagreements with each and they have with eachother as well.   

 

Threads don't get this long through agreement and sticking to the narrative.  

 

The reason there are few conservatives is mostly self-selection, which is reasonable, because they don't see their values being affirmed or valued.   But the notion that anyone here has sought to exclude conservative voices is a falsehood.  

 

With a lack of conservatives contributing, of course the board would seem a bit more left, but that's not because we are all sticking to some script/narrative.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Oh please.  Was any of it inaccurate?  How is it possibly unfair to state facts in the light of what Badsmurf allegedly said?  The KKK has an indoctrination process and here is your link on senators with time in the KKK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

Robert Byrd served all he way until 2010.  That is a fact.  Facts don't necessarily prove things, though...

 

Off the strength of that fact should I go around saying "The Democratic Party is the KKK party" because I have the link to back it up?

(I guess I just said it, but that isn't something I earnestly believe)

 

To say, "not all republicans are Nazi" is saying what exactly?  Is that a concession in some way?

Nazi is a very specific term and when someone broadly labels republicans or Trump supporters in that way they should expect to hear it from someone.  It is absurd.  It would be the same if I go around saying "The Democratic Party is the slavery party!  The Democratic Party is the KKK party!"

 

That kind of garbage should be curbed, in my opinion.  That is what chmpuckett was saying and I think he's dead on center.

Nazi was a bad choice of words, not my words, but I think he means fascist, a fair criticism as I noted above, and of course you didn't even address it.  But that doesn't forgive trying to draw a connection between the overtly racist Democrats of seventy years ago to the current party--no one disputes the dems ugly past.   As much as you're allegedly trying to make this place more inclusive, you're guilty of making some incendiary arguments.  

 

Btw, the Nazi statement was made months ago, in specific context to what was happening politically; i think it was fair for LaBombo to ask the question again, but doing so invited Godwin's law back into the coversation.

 

 

[stringer bell]

I don't think everything is left/right or liberal/conservative. We have several members of the TD community that have been moved in their affiliation by the current president. Twins Daily Sports Bar is a tiny, tiny demographic--male dominated baseball fans with ties to the Upper Midwest. I think frequent posters tend to be well-educated, especially those who post about politics and this works against the Trump base. 

 

Personally, I've leaned left, but voted for the occasional Republican, but with the ascendancy of Trump, the embrace of him by the Republican party, and his assault on facts and decency, I doubt I'll support another Republican any time soon.

[Craig Arko]

I imagine it’s tough feeling like a minority.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

I'm sympathetic to many points from both political sides, but what I think doesn't really matter.I can talk about anything you want in private messages if that is what your sincere curiosity is, but putting what I, or anyone else says if it goes against the narrative, is unlikely to result in making people take a step back to think about what was said, instead of reacting to what was said.We are all doing this now, reacting, and no longer thinking, contemplating.Doesn't matter what your opinion is, what side you stand on.If a Republican or a conservative, or any other political ideology you can think of beyond liberal/progressive says something here, the default position will be to oppose it, and that position will be rallied behind.

 

With all due respect, I'm not sure that is a fair characterization.  I don't think there is one narrative here.  LaBombo, Brock, Smerf, and myself are all clear independents.  We have taken issue with all sorts of positions on both ends of things.  I frequently buck the group here.  While I agree there are a couple particular left-wing voices that are pretty unwilling to have dialogue, most are not in that group.  The most common posters like Carole, Pseudo, Mike, etc. are pretty open to it.  (Mostly, I'll admit lately that has teetered)

 

What is asked for here is not necessarily facts as Smerf said, though those are always helpful, but good arguments based on good reasoning.  Much of what we do is speculate and converse and sometimes there are not facts to be had.  I think if you enter the discussion with good reasoning, there is room to have a wide range of conversations.

 

I'd really like to see you pick something you think is counter to the narrative that you are hesitant to post.  I can only speak for me, but I will happily try to engage you in without a harsh reaction but in the spirit of conversation.  

 

Also, I should point out, many times you get a reaction because that's all your entrance to the discussion warranted.  If we're talking the wall on the southern border and I'm a lefty and I enter the conversation wtih "Anyone who wants border security is a racist"....well, there isn't much to understand or converse about there.  Likewise with the flip side.  I think the problem you cite about empathy has happened because we are so polarized that anyone who doesn't pass our purity test is shunned immediately and all discussions devolve into emotional outbursts.

 

The first way to build an understanding and a dialogue sometimes is to stop and let the other person talk first.  So, with that, if you so choose, I leave the floor to you.

[Badsmerf]

Ewen, we can rehash the comments I made about Nazism and the Charlottesville disgrace if you'd like. Or, about what many Nazi sympathizers actually stood for. The term "Nazi" is always referenced with murders, but that isn't the whole story nor why millions were enthusiastic about following Hitler. I think the Republican party lead by Trump is inching closer and closer because of his fascist tendencies, his xenophobia, and his populist appeal. The boarder wall funding is a perfect example as we speak...

 

We can also talk about blackface.... which I think is completely overblown in this country. I'm on Megan Kelly's side, and think she was treated unfairly and attacked relentlessly for being a conservative talk show host.

 

We can do hard things, like disagree politely.

[Mr. Brooks]

Ewen, we can rehash the comments I made about Nazism and the Charlottesville disgrace if you'd like. Or, about what many Nazi sympathizers actually stood for. The term "Nazi" is always referenced with murders, but that isn't the whole story nor why millions were enthusiastic about following Hitler. I think the Republican party lead by Trump is inching closer and closer because of his fascist tendencies, his xenophobia, and his populist appeal. The boarder wall funding is a perfect example as we speak...

 

We can also talk about blackface.... which I think is completely overblown in this country. I'm on Megan Kelly's side, and think she was treated unfairly and attacked relentlessly for being a conservative talk show host.

 

We can do hard things, like disagree politely.

I'd counter that anyone who agrees with Megan Kelly on blackface likely doesn't understand the history of blackface, and what it represents.

[ewen21]

 

I think that those that choose to play in this part of the site are more liberal than most, yes. I know I try to be polite and whatnot to those on the right, but mostly they have chosen not to participate on this part of the site. That's cool, and all, but it can be a bit echo chambery here (though, really, our disagreements on this part are pretty strong on how best to proceed, our goals are largely similar). 

Agree with me or not, Mike.  It's OK because you do follow what you say here.  Thanks for staying true to it and I will try to be more like that.

 

I would like to add that when I try to clarify (something I do upon request) I will do my best to make sure I am clear.   I have been known to say a thing or two for shock value  

I readily admit it

 

[ashbury]

I have been known to say a thing or two for shock value

Do I get to, too?

[ewen21]

 

Do I get to, too?

I think the club is all-inclusive

 

Everyone here probably could write a headline judging from the style/quality of writing I see here. Not a bad thing

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think the club is all-inclusive

 

Everyone here probably could write a headline judging from the style/quality of writing I see here. Not a bad thing

I didn't consider this, but that's also probably a reason why people find it prohibitive to contribute.  And thanks for not discounting everyone else due to my posts. 

[Badsmerf]

I'd counter that anyone who agrees with Megan Kelly on blackface likely doesn't understand the history of blackface, and what it represents.

I disagree. I know the history of it, have read articles and opinions on why it is offensive, and still believe people are overreacting. Being upset because someone paints their skin to look like Michael Jackson is too sensitive. Being upset about a kkk and slave costume is justified.

 

To me it is about intent. If the intent is to paint your face you be the bad guy, or another blatantly racist portrayal... bad idea.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I disagree. I know the history of it, have read articles and opinions on why it is offensive, and still believe people are overreacting. Being upset because someone paints their skin to look like Michael Jackson is too sensitive. Being upset about a kkk and slave costume is justified.

To me it is about intent. If the intent is to paint your face you be the bad guy, or another blatantly racist portrayal... bad idea.

The way you had put it seemed like the kkk/slave thing wasn't so bad. But even painting your skin to look like your hero with black face is willfully blind to the history of the use of black face--that white actors would play black characters for who knows how long, to keep black actors from playing their own people.  Sure there's a distinction between the various incidents, but they show a lot of tone deafness that should be unacceptable in a politician.

[Badsmerf]

I don't think I'll ever agree dressing up on Halloween as a character or person can be equated with the history of blackface (obviously the kkk picture is way crossed the line). They are different on many levels, but most all, intent. In most cases, intent is pretty easy too grasp.

[biggentleben]

I live in a right-wing Facebook meme sharing bubble. Coming in here should strike a lot harder and more obvious if it was such a hard-left lean. Instead, I'm often struck by how intentional the discussions are in finding truth and workable angles for multiple parties rather than pushing one narrative.

 

Heck, there are plenty of great places to get into a true echo chamber. However, when you truly break down items from things like ACA or even Medicare for All and discuss them point-by-point with folks around me, the policy points are strongly supported, and that's what is discussed on this forum. The support or lack thereof of bills containing those policies is really a branding thing, something we've discussed plenty that the Republicans have done well, at times nefariously, and the Democrats have done poorly. Heck, when you break down much of what was in the recent "abortion bill" in New York, staunch right-wingers supported 90% of that bill when broken down, but their Facebook feed labeled it with things that were wholly inaccurate and even added in pieces that simply did not exist to the bill. That leads to a person being against the bill in spite of being for nearly everything contained within that bill.

 

The discussion here, especially the last 20 pages or so of this thread, has been centered around the presentation of the message in large part. While one could say that it ends up sounding left-leaning when discussing things like protecting the environment, providing school, taking care of our elderly and disadvantaged, and ensuring all have adequate healthcare, but those things are not radical positions. In general, they're basic human decency that has been presented in a negative light in many cases (SNAP/EBT being a tremendous example of that).

 

So, while some may see/hear an echo chamber, I'd rather think that there are a significant amount of frequent contributors here that would identify as "independent" but in order to participate in our process in most states, you need to declare a party, so there's various affiliations due to that. Even in evaluating political candidates, the point isn't "can he beat the snot out of so and so"...it's typically "is this the candidate who represents the most of what are good policies at this time?" I'm sure 2020 will have a different flavor because of the Cheeto at 1600 Pennsylvania, but that's a very common perspective around the country when people actually look at what has been done and can remove his misinformation.

[MMMordabito]

Nazi isn't particularly helpful term, but Trump certainly has some fascist leanings, what with his authoritarianism and nationalistic tendencies (that the Republicans largely go along with it

Nazi's may have been nationalists, but I don't think all nationalists have the values of Nazi's. I would probably consider myself a nationalist in some form, but I don't feel the need to start exterminating a certain class of people. Of course, I think many believe in bystander guilt and duty to rescue laws and then in turn equate that to being just as bad as exterminating. I don't hold any of those values, but I still don't consider myself a Nazi.

[Mr. Brooks]

The way you had put it seemed like the kkk/slave thing wasn't so bad. But even painting your skin to look like your hero with black face is willfully blind to the history of the use of black face--that white actors would play black characters for who knows how long, to keep black actors from playing their own people. Sure there's a distinction between the various incidents, but they show a lot of tone deafness that should be unacceptable in a politician.

And that's not even the most offensive part of the history.

Aside from being used to keep black people out of the industry, as you mention, it was also used by traveling comedy troupes who would paint their faces black and "amuse" the crowd by mocking black stereotypes like stupidity and laziness.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think I'll ever agree dressing up on Halloween as a character or person can be equated with the history of blackface (obviously the kkk picture is way crossed the line). They are different on many levels, but most all, intent. In most cases, intent is pretty easy too grasp.

Why can't a person dress like a character for Halloween without using blackface? Isn't the costume alone enough to portray the intended character?

 

Intent matters, yes, it always does. But lack of intent does not excuse all behavior. If it did, we wouldn't punish people who behave recklessly and kill someone. We don't judge them as harshly as someone who plans and intends to kill, but we still assign responsibility for their behavior.

Using blackface without ill intent is reckless behavior.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Nazi's may have been nationalists, but I don't think all nationalists have the values of Nazi's. I would probably consider myself a nationalist in some form, but I don't feel the need to start exterminating a certain class of people. Of course, I think many believe in bystander guilt and duty to rescue laws and then in turn equate that to being just as bad as exterminating. I don't hold any of those values, but I still don't consider myself a Nazi.

Nazi is just a problematic term.  Nationalism can be problematic when the symbols of the state matter more than its values or people.  The irony for Americans is that we are a nation of immigrants, so national purity has always been muddy, drawing the line now seems arbitrary...

[MMMordabito]

 

Nazi is just a problematic term.  Nationalism can be problematic when the symbols of the state matter more than its values or people.  The irony for Americans is that we are a nation of immigrants, so national purity has always been muddy, drawing the line now seems arbitrary...

 

I think I pretty much agree with all of this.  When talking about how we all look, I'm sure I totally agree.

 

As far as drawing the line goes, my biggest hangup (and I have to say I don't have a completely formed opinion, because I have limited data and have experiences interacting with and observing both sides of this) is whether or not many of the immigrants of today are looking for opportunity and the ability to be a part of something greater and contribute to that, or if they are just looking to take advantage of a situation and be taken care of.  I also fear that there are certain political motivations to pipeline mass immigration.  

 

I would actually support not allowing anyone to vote until they have been a citizen for 18 years.  We do it to all our children.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think I pretty much agree with all of this.  When talking about how we all look, I'm sure I totally agree.

 

As far as drawing the line goes, my biggest hangup (and I have to say I don't have a completely formed opinion, because I have limited data and have experiences interacting with and observing both sides of this) is whether or not many of the immigrants of today are looking for opportunity and the ability to be a part of something greater and contribute to that, or if they are just looking to take advantage of a situation and be taken care of.  I also fear that there are certain political motivations to pipeline mass immigration.  

 

I would actually support not allowing anyone to vote until they have been a citizen for 18 years.  We do it to all our children.

 

I don't think, based on actual evidence of how they behave when they get here, that immigrants are looking to be "taken care of" and not work hard. The data is 100% clear, immigrants work harder and commit less crimes than "natives". 

 

If they are looking to be taken care of, they are coming to the least giving of western nations, when it comes to governments.....

[NumberThree]

I don't think, based on actual evidence of how they behave when they get here, that immigrants are looking to be "taken care of" and not work hard. The data is 100% clear, immigrants work harder and commit less crimes than "natives". 

 

If they are looking to be taken care of, they are coming to the least giving of western nations, when it comes to governments.....

I’d have to look up the various articles I’ve read, but I recall reading some things recently which showed that the majority of people receiving government assistance are not immigrants or minorities, but poor, white Americans from the poorest areas of the U.S.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would actually support not allowing anyone to vote until they have been a citizen for 18 years.  We do it to all our children.

 

Right, but you understand that the reasons it's 18 years for a child doesn't apply to a 30 year old right?

 

I can understand some window wherein an immigrant can't vote, but help me make sense of comparing it to why we don't let a 3rd grader vote?

[stringer bell]

Blackface is wrong, demeaning to a whole race of people. That it was acceptable in the south 30 years ago is a black eye for our country.

[NumberThree]

I think I pretty much agree with all of this. When talking about how we all look, I'm sure I totally agree.

 

As far as drawing the line goes, my biggest hangup (and I have to say I don't have a completely formed opinion, because I have limited data and have experiences interacting with and observing both sides of this) is whether or not many of the immigrants of today are looking for opportunity and the ability to be a part of something greater and contribute to that, or if they are just looking to take advantage of a situation and be taken care of. I also fear that there are certain political motivations to pipeline mass immigration.

 

I would actually support not allowing anyone to vote until they have been a citizen for 18 years. We do it to all our children.

Well, I think that 18 yrs old is the standard set because that is where we’ve drawn that line between adulthood and childhood, not because that’s how long someone needs to be in the U.S. before they can vote. I mean ... do you think a 4 yr old should be allowed to vote? I don’t think drawing a comparison to years in this country is a determining factor to voting but rather age and legal citizenship is. That said, it does take years and coursework to obtain citizenship. And it’s not always an easy road for some, especially for those who also have language barrier issues. Given what immigrants go through to obtain citizenship, I’m fine with them having rights to vote upon being sworn in as citizens.

 

As for a pipeline for mass immigration, I’m not exactly sure what you meant by this. Do you think there is a movement to encourage immigration and make it easier to come here? If so, how so?

[MMMordabito]

Right, but you understand that the reasons it's 18 years for a child doesn't apply to a 30 year old right?

 

I can understand some window wherein an immigrant can't vote, but help me make sense of comparing it to why we don't let a 3rd grader vote?

You have a point, and I would listen to a smaller window. However, I don't just think it's just age but also how long you have been indoctrinated under some backwards set of values. Speaking from experience, it's taken me 25 years to mostly embrace a different set of values when it comes to accepting people's sexual preferences. I say mostly, because even now my brain doesn't immediately send a "normal" signal everytime I encounter a situation along those lines. I still have to check myself from time to time. I believe that's true for a lot of people, especially in my age range and older. In fact, I'm guessing the older you are, the harder it is from a majority standpoint. I would than apply that line of thought to someone who grew up and was indoctrinated under Sharia law or some other backwards set of values and come to the conclusion that some deprogramming is probably necessary before allowing someone like that to have an affect on policy. I know it isn't going to be perfect, but I think only age basing is a mistake.

[Champuckett]

 

Champ, I'm discouraged you feel that way about our discussions. I wholeheartedly disagree that the common posters operate in that manner. There have been many discussions with differing viewpoints and civil arguments. I think you'd find many of us sympathetic to select conservatives policies. Many were, and still are, fans of John Kasich. There are not many Trump fans, but we have given him a tip of the cap when deserved.

That said, any argument is met with the expectation of supporting facts. Doesn't really matter what side you're arguing from. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong, sometimes it is subjective and can be interpreted multiple ways. A well reasoned opposing opinion can help educate everyone on a topic, if not change a few minds. I think you'd find your voice welcomed in any discussion. Like machine gun Kelly says, let's talk about it.

Thanks for the response.  Like I said, I'm not too interested in debating political point A vs point B, because we can't even admit to ourselves that we have majority opinions squashing and silencing those with minority opinions.  I don't think anyone here is going out of there way to act vicious or cruel to others.  I think what has happened here is now the norm across the entirety of the internet.  This has little to do with the participants here on a personal level, so I hope you do not take it as such.

 

If someone is willing to talk about this topic, then let's do it.  And the idea that the only form of debate is that liberals have to be opposed to conservatives is outdated and why we are in this mess in the first place.  These are essentially modern day American political ideations that are no longer serving any purpose, except for the people that are running the corporations, running the media, and running our government and is done to ensure we are all locked in permanent political combat within this country.

[Champuckett]

 

I think that those that choose to play in this part of the site are more liberal than most, yes. I know I try to be polite and whatnot to those on the right, but mostly they have chosen not to participate on this part of the site. That's cool, and all, but it can be a bit echo chambery here (though, really, our disagreements on this part are pretty strong on how best to proceed, our goals are largely similar). 

Thank you for reiterating this.  It's not about the manner in which people speak to each other.  I'm sure there are some examples of people behaving disrespectfully, but that has almost nothing to do with the problem.  The problem is you have to have pre-approved opinions or you quickly realize you don't belong here, and that sends 99% of anyone that comes in here with some fresh thoughts, some alternative opinions packing.  This is what has been happening and is still happening.

[MMMordabito]

As for a pipeline for mass immigration, I’m not exactly sure what you meant by this. Do you think there is a movement to encourage immigration and make it easier to come here? If so, how so?

There are plenty of politicians out there that want to abolish ICE and then they also want to create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. To me that sounds like trying to get a mass number of votes coming to support political agendas while hiding behind some humanitarian facade.