General politics

[MMMordabito]

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.

At least that was 30 years ago, the Netherlands still does Schwartz Pieten at parades around Christmas last I heard. I know people of Dutch decent who still call him a beloved symbol. He's been there all their life, kinda like Chief Wahoo for a lot of lifelong Indians fans. We have a long way to go.

[Champuckett]

 

Thanks for your thoughts, but I think you're being unfair to the reasonable people who've populated this thread (and others).  First, I reject that there's one narrative here; in fact, there's no one preferred candidate, we all differ in terms of priorities, and the discussion is particularly dominated by moderates, beyond myself and a handful others that identify as liberal (and a few conservative lurkers who drop in).  Second, I don't think any one of us would tolerate shutting down a discussion simply because we didn't agree with the premise.  I think if you look at the discussions members have had recently with Nasu1970, disagreeing with him, but encouraging him to participate and to find common ground as evidence for the opposite of that.  Yes, people will demand evidence and facts to support your opinion, and can be pretty harsh when posters don't back up what they say, or rely on obviously faulty evidence. 

 

What you won't get here, is a lot of affirmation.   As a liberal, I get some affirmation here, but mostly even when people agree, they find nuance to point out, and way to distinguish their own point of view.  That's what makes discussion here, I think, pretty rich. 

 

There is one narrative here, like there is almost anywhere you travel around the internet.  We have to be locked into an eternal battle between conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, big government vs small government, high taxes vs low taxes, sanity vs insanity, Trump vs decency.  That's it.  There is no room for anything else.  That's the narrative and every single person follows it.  Every single post, regardless of the side they take, refers to this or assumes this when the keys begin to be punched on the keyboard.  Is it possible there is more to the discussion, more possibilities than this, or should we continue having that ongoing battle play out.  Anyone that says something outside of this narrative will not be getting very far and will likely leave this place, never to return, but to be honest I have not seen more than 1 or 2 comments in over 70 pages that even attempt to do this.  The narrative is the same narrative that makes us believe that Fox News is for conservatives and all of the others, generally speaking, are for liberals.  It's nonsense.  Every single piece of news you get is coming from the same narrative, and convince us that we simply need one political party to obtain power over the other, and that's just how it is, that's life, and that we need to accept that to be a good citizen.

 

What everyone wants me and others to do with alternate viewpoints, is to bring us into that narrative and speak on those terms.  They aren't comfortable going outside of the box this narrative has formed.  That's what they know, it's what they hear everyday on the news they watch or the articles they read.  So that must be what we should be debating.  The reality is it's not, but we all believe that we should, so we do and then you get what we have in this thread and others, endless amounts of ideas and stances that all come from the same source.

[TheLeviathan]

 

everyone wants me and others to do with alternate viewpoints, is to bring us into that narrative and speak on those terms. 

 

I don't think this is at all true of this forum's discussions.

[TheLeviathan]

 

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.

 

That's fine, but I think you undermine your point when you make a comparison that isn't at all fitting.  The art of making good analogies or reasoning is really becoming lost.

 

I can understand wanting a new person to this country to acclimate for X amount of time before voting.  Like many policy positions, the position itself isn't necessarily the problem, it's the reasons behind it that undermine the success.

 

Border security, as an issue, would be a really good example of this.

[Champuckett]

 

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.

Thanks again for the polite response.  I know there are many that believe they are kind of outsiders within the American political framework of discourse.  And these people get labeled "independents".  Where did that term come from and why is it used for anyone that does not follow in the footsteps of a liberal or a conservative.  Does it mean a free thinker.  Do these people tend to vote for a republican or a democrat at the end of the day.   Why is it every election, the losing party always blames independents for costing them the victory, when the margin of victory is less than the number of independent voters.  It's possible we don't have the answer to some of these questions or maybe some have begun to question why this is.  Great.   But the real question is, are any of us actually outsiders or are we sitting inside of a box that was put there so even those that have outsider opinions would still inevitably end up inside.  Why is it not ok for some people to be outside the box, why must our discussions remain inside of it, why do others inside the box demand that those that try to be outside of it get inside of it.

 

The issues I'm pointing out have nothing to do with me on a personal level.  I don't care when someone ignores my post or doesn't agree with me or implies that I am incorrect or that there is something else wrong with me.    What I do care about is the overall direction of the discourse.  There is, however, an implied problem with those that stray too far from the pre-approved discourse. It doesn't feel like discourse.  It feels like pre-orchestrated and arranged opinions that are all derived from the same sources.  It doesn't feel like anything of substance is even being spoken about. 

 

The reaction to this may be to immediately reject and dismiss what I am saying as nonsense, and it's likely that this in fact will happen by a majority of people reading this.  It's likely this will be the fuel for the response that is about to be written.  This is why I said in my initial posts, if you can put aside the reaction, and think about what is being said for just a second.  I'm not putting any of my political views out there, I'm not directly challenging anyone's specific political stances, it's a waste of time unless we confront this issue that has been in front of all of us.  I'm challenging thought and philosophy, which is something that we may not be used to, because we have been taught to fight over trivial matters that will not help us in our lives or our neighbors lives, but to instead fight over what we have already been instructed to fight over since we began our education in elementary school.

 

[MMMordabito]

That's fine, but I think you undermine your point when you make a comparison that isn't at all fitting. The art of making good analogies or reasoning is really becoming lost.

 

I can understand wanting a new person to this country to acclimate for X amount of time before voting. Like many policy positions, the position itself isn't necessarily the problem, it's the reasons behind it that undermine the success.

 

Border security, as an issue, would be a really good example of this.

Not sure why you don't think it's fitting ... I'm basically just saying that I support a longer period of time for someone to be institutionalized into the ways of the United States before having the privilege of affecting the way the country is run. The analogy was just to support how long it can take for someone to accept a new set of values.

[Brock Beauchamp]

What bothers me most about the blackface situation is that the offender won’t just own it and use the opportunity to talk about how it happened long ago, they have learned why it’s wrong, and how they have adjusted their behavior since the situation occurred.

 

It was 35 years ago. Don’t defend it. Talk about how you’re a better person now and use the opportunity to talk about why it’s wrong.

 

Then maybe we can all move the **** on and talk about something that happened this century.

[Champuckett]

 

I don't think this is at all true of this forum's discussions.

I am sorry that you do not see this.  Perhaps we can have further discussions on the topic and you and/or I can both expand our perspectives.

[biggentleben]

This from my brother’s site today: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/11962-do-bankruptcy-figures-show-the-whole-farm-economy-picture?fbclid=IwAR0_cZMz9M0XAMLjCV08BGjNrOuh6CBPNhUP9QtX-ImnZooFxy9tlQIpV6g

 

Scrolling through the entire site is a host of articles showing margins disappearing for farmers, reduced growth in income, and devaluation of land. You want to know why middle America is open to those who show a modicum of interest in their struggles, whether or not they affect a majority of the country, that’s all you need to know. As these bankruptcies mount (fitting thing to be correlated with Trump policies), the POTUS is losing his biggest base from 2016, but the party somehow does not in those same areas.

[ashbury]

Not sure why you don't think it's fitting ... I'm basically just saying that I support a longer period of time for someone to be institutionalized into the ways of the United States before having the privilege of affecting the way the country is run. The analogy was just to support how long it can take for someone to accept a new set of values.

Most of us have probably moved to a new town in our adult lives. I moved 3000 miles east about 3.5 years ago, and at my first election for local constable and the like, I was all "why am I even bothering?" I didn't know one name from another, and the small bit of research on these lightly-contested races didn't clarify a whole lot. I just went with some underlying principles (vote against the nerdy guy who seemed to want a low-level job like constable too, too much) and hope for the best.

 

But I think it would have been silly to limit me to only national races for that first couple of election cycles. The old-time locals I talked to didn't have much of a clue whom to vote for either. And the number of newbies like me was a drop in the bucket compared to the old hands.

 

And that last point is what brings me back to the original question regarding our newly-minted citizens. What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve? Their numbers don't amount to enough to make it worth taking any steps at all.

 

I'm pretty well integrated into my town's self-governance by now, taking part in trail-maintenance committees and so forth. It didn't take me 18 years. We make our newborns wait that long to vote because we're waiting for their brains to finish growing. I got up to speed in our little New England town in under 4 years. IN YOUR FACE, INFANTS! WOOT! WOOT!

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not sure why you don't think it's fitting ... I'm basically just saying that I support a longer period of time for someone to be institutionalized into the ways of the United States before having the privilege of affecting the way the country is run. The analogy was just to support how long it can take for someone to accept a new set of values.

 

But then to support your opinion you used an example that is no where near helpful to the point you were making.  Border security is the same thing.  I think any rational person should support some form of border security, hashing out what makes sense should be relatively easy.

 

But it becomes enormously difficult when one side says "Border Security = racism" and the other side says "We need a Game of Thrones Wall or it's open borders!"

 

Saying immigrants can't vote for the same reason a 4 year old can't doesn't service your position.  It does the opposite.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I am sorry that you do not see this.  Perhaps we can have further discussions on the topic and you and/or I can both expand our perspectives.

 

The problem I'm having is that I agree in a general sense with what you are espousing.  Where you lose me is when you think the general tone of discussions is the same here.  I'm not sure why you think that?

 

Do you think this is a generic right/left discussion taking place?

[Champuckett]

 

The problem I'm having is that I agree in a general sense with what you are espousing.  Where you lose me is when you think the general tone of discussions is the same here.  I'm not sure why you think that?

 

Do you think this is a generic right/left discussion taking place?

Thanks.  I'd be interested to know which part you can agree with me on.  Maybe we can work from there and I can find points I agree with you on based on your response.

 

It's more like a left vs. a slight variation of left thought.  Even if some diehard conservative came in here (which is rare), and he was debating a left point of view, it would be the same end result.  All viewpoints are coming from the same source, the media, so in reality, there is nothing of substance being discussed, just rehashed and reiterated points we have heard 1000 times before. 

 

Should we care about The Covington Boys?  Robert Kraft? AOC? Mueller's latest?  Trump's newest scandal?  The Smollet case? These are the things we are being fed on a daily basis, and we are simply regurgitating what the media is talking about, as if these things are important in the grand scheme of things.  If you enjoy the entertainment aspect of it, and can admit that this is entertainment, then I can be sympathetic to that, but these issues are being discussed as if they mean something and hold value.

[Craig Arko]

Speaks for itself.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opinion/sunday/political-polarization.html

[Mike Sixel]

This from my brother’s site today: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/11962-do-bankruptcy-figures-show-the-whole-farm-economy-picture?fbclid=IwAR0_cZMz9M0XAMLjCV08BGjNrOuh6CBPNhUP9QtX-ImnZooFxy9tlQIpV6g

 

Scrolling through the entire site is a host of articles showing margins disappearing for farmers, reduced growth in income, and devaluation of land. You want to know why middle America is open to those who show a modicum of interest in their struggles, whether or not they affect a majority of the country, that’s all you need to know. As these bankruptcies mount (fitting thing to be correlated with Trump policies), the POTUS is losing his biggest base from 2016, but the party somehow does not in those same areas.

Decades of teachers, churches, friends, politicians, everyone, demonizing Democrats.

[LaBombo]

 

What bothers me most about the blackface situation is that the offender won’t just own it and use the opportunity to talk about how it happened long ago, they have learned why it’s wrong, and how they have adjusted their behavior since the situation occurred.

It was 35 years ago. Don’t defend it. Talk about how you’re a better person now and use the opportunity to talk about why it’s wrong.

Then maybe we can all move the **** on and talk about something that happened this century.

 

Agree with this, and will throw out a couple of additions.

 

The muddled, wildly uneven reaction to the yearbook by Northam and by Democrats in general was mostly a product of two things: the reflexive, defensive response that either party mounts when one of their own is in hot water, and nuclear retaliation by the most strident enforcers of identity politics.

 

As is often the case, the middle ground wasn't represented proportionally. Self-policing is one of the most admirable traits that either party can demonstrate, but it would be nice to see it employed more often than in just the most extreme cases, or with other than the most extreme remedies.

 

But the thing that bothered me the most was not the uneven, two-extremes response to the Northam photo itself. It was the Orwellian/Bradbury-esque followup action taken by many schools across the country: scouring countless old yearbooks for potentially racist or otherwise offensive content, and then either editing the offending portions or simply removing such books entirely from circulation.

 

The removal of public statues created in tribute to those who fought to preserve slavery is one thing. Attempting to rewrite the history of our nation at its most intimate and personal level, and in places as far from involuntary viewing as public literature can possibly be, is entirely another.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Thanks.  I'd be interested to know which part you can agree with me on.  Maybe we can work from there and I can find points I agree with you on based on your response.

 

It's more like a left vs. a slight variation of left thought.  Even if some diehard conservative came in here (which is rare), and he was debating a left point of view, it would be the same end result.  All viewpoints are coming from the same source, the media, so in reality, there is nothing of substance being discussed, just rehashed and reiterated points we have heard 1000 times before. 

 

Should we care about The Covington Boys?  Robert Kraft? AOC? Mueller's latest?  Trump's newest scandal?  The Smollet case? These are the things we are being fed on a daily basis, and we are simply regurgitating what the media is talking about, as if these things are important in the grand scheme of things.  If you enjoy the entertainment aspect of it, and can admit that this is entertainment, then I can be sympathetic to that, but these issues are being discussed as if they mean something and hold value.

 

So it seems it's the topics that bother you most?  Is that correct?  It's not so much how we're discussing, but what we're discussing?

[MMMordabito]

 

Saying immigrants can't vote for the same reason a 4 year old can't doesn't service your position.  It does the opposite.

 

I thought I conceded that you had a point there and that I was open to a smaller window.  

 

Also, I'm arguing that age and brain development is just one factor.  Ideology burned in over a long period of time is a factor as well.

 

I'm sure homosexuals would prefer the current me voting on family issues rather than the 18 yo me who was taught that they were all abominations.  I mean I was still 18 and of legal voting age.

 

I get ashbury's point too that maybe the numbers are just too small. I'm not sure that would be true across all states and their counties though.

 

[ashbury]

I thought I conceded that you had a point there and that I was open to a smaller window. 

I didn't go on to spell out the rest of my point, since I had already said a lot. But, naturalized citizens do not just parachute in (like I did) and then get handed citizenship papers and a ballot. It take years and years while they wait for eligibility, and then they have to take a test that probably makes them better versed on the Constitution than many of their neighbors. They probably remain in the same hometown afterwards, with kids integrated into the school system etc. They're good to go.

 

Proposing a waiting period on top of that implies some level of not-readiness that just doesn't exist. Likening the process to starting from a newborn is, well, infantilizing to them, if not downright dehumanizing. The motivation to make them wait longer seems rooted in their otherness. I mistrust the motives of whoever you heard this 18-year idea from, regardless of whether it gets negotiated down.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I thought I conceded that you had a point there and that I was open to a smaller window.  

 

Also, I'm arguing that age and brain development is just one factor.  Ideology burned in over a long period of time is a factor as well.

 

I'm sure homosexuals would prefer the current me voting on family issues rather than the 18 yo me who was taught that they were all abominations.  I mean I was still 18 and of legal voting age.

 

I get ashbury's point too that maybe the numbers are just too small. I'm not sure that would be true across all states and their counties though.

 

Like I said, your actual position is one worth talking about to some degree.  I just think it's important to make good arguments.  As you've conceded, that first argument was not a good one.  Part of our problem is we have a lot of bad reasons floating around for legitimate stuff.

 

And I think ash pointed out very well just how bad that particular reason was.  It was both non-analogous and insulting at the same time.  We should call out bad reasons and people should back down from them when presented with it.  That's really my only point and you seem to have done that.

[Champuckett]

 

So it seems it's the topics that bother you most?  Is that correct?  It's not so much how we're discussing, but what we're discussing?

 

It's the inability to go off course, and focusing on something other than what the narrative is telling us to talk about and how to think.  The same narrative is being followed by every participant and so the disagreements ring hollow because everyone is at the end of the day agreeing that what they are discussing is relevant and warranting discussion.  There are no topics you are going to find inside modern day American politics that are going to help any of us, because they are no longer being discussed (or were never being discussed in the first place).

 

We are all tuning into the same news sources and connecting to the same narrative, which is resulting in what we are seeing here.  Empty discussions.  When this is challenged in even the most minor way, the group solidifies and the outsider is ultimately rejected so that the narrative remains intact and the focus stays unchanged and the pipeline to the news sources stays strong and undamaged.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's the inability to go off course, and focusing on something other than what the narrative is telling us to talk about and how to think.  The same narrative is being followed by every participant and so the disagreements ring hollow because everyone is at the end of the day agreeing that what they are discussing is relevant and warranting discussion.  There are no topics you are going to find inside modern day American politics that are going to help any of us, because they are no longer being discussed (or were never being discussed in the first place).

 

We are all tuning into the same news sources and connecting to the same narrative, which is resulting in what we are seeing here.  Empty discussions.  When this is challenged in even the most minor way, the group solidifies and the outsider is ultimately rejected so that the narrative remains intact and the focus stays unchanged and the pipeline to the news sources stays strong and undamaged.

 

I struggle with that.  Isn't healthcare, taxes, wages, criminal justice, morality and the myriad of other things we discuss items that are important to people?  We're talking about things that matter to people in their every day life.  Things that matter to us as people.

 

I don't see us as CNN or Fox or MSNBC or NPR driven.  I see us as driven by the things that matter in our lives.  So I'm struggling to understand the criticism?  What should we be talking about that we are not?  I'm going to press politely here a bit, can you be more specific please?  I'm trying to fully grasp your criticism but it seems so general that I can't quite get there.

[ewen21]

 

I don't think this is at all true of this forum's discussions.

For what it's worth, I read this page for a while on and off and never really felt it was OK to make certain observations here.  Discount that if you want.  Doesn't really phase me

[MMMordabito]

 

And I think ash pointed out very well just how bad that particular reason was.  It was both non-analogous and insulting at the same time.  We should call out bad reasons and people should back down from them when presented with it.  That's really my only point and you seem to have done that.

 

 

I didn't go on to spell out the rest of my point, since I had already said a lot. But, naturalized citizens do not just parachute in (like I did) and then get handed citizenship papers and a ballot. It take years and years while they wait for eligibility, and then they have to take a test that probably makes them better versed on the Constitution than many of their neighbors. They probably remain in the same hometown afterwards, with kids integrated into the school system etc. They're good to go.

 

Proposing a waiting period on top of that implies some level of not-readiness that just doesn't exist. Likening the process to starting from a newborn is, well, infantilizing to them, if not downright dehumanizing. The motivation to make them wait longer seems rooted in their otherness. I mistrust the motives of whoever you heard this 18-year idea from, regardless of whether it gets negotiated down.

 

Yes, but this is based on the otherness of ideology which I think takes a lot longer than 5 years (which I believe is the standard waiting period) to fully affect.  

 

Embracing "When in Rome" takes longer, IMO.

 

Some ideologies like sharia law deserve to be insulted and belittled.

 

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

For what it's worth, I read this page for a while on and off and never really felt it was OK to make certain observations here.  Discount that if you want.  Doesn't really phase me

 

Well, that depends what your certain observations are.  I buck people here all the time and I get bucked too.  We all need that.  I enjoy busting up an echo chamber and I'm not afraid to wade into this discussion with any well-reasoned take I have.  

 

If you are, perhaps you aren't confident your reasoning is sound enough?

[Champuckett]

 

I struggle with that.  Isn't healthcare, taxes, wages, criminal justice, morality and the myriad of other things we discuss items that are important to people?  We're talking about things that matter to people in their every day life.  Things that matter to us as people.

 

I don't see us as CNN or Fox or MSNBC or NPR driven.  I see us as driven by the things that matter in our lives.  So I'm struggling to understand the criticism?  What should we be talking about that we are not?  I'm going to press politely here a bit, can you be more specific please?  I'm trying to fully grasp your criticism but it seems so general that I can't quite get there.

 

Yeah, the problem isn't a detail here or a detail there, a stance, or a series of issues.   You are correct on that.  It would make it simple to simply argue against that topic.  We could go back and forth about any of the popular political debates of the day, but in the end that's never going to get you or I anywhere. 

 

I understand you don't see the collective here as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR yet nearly every single topic is based off CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or NPR topics of the day/week/month.  That's not implying that they are being directly linked here (although they sometimes are), I'm saying these news agencies begin to spread the new thing we are supposed to be discussing, and we are each being dutiful citizens talking about the desired discussions in spaces like we have here.  That's a huge part of the problem and I'm not singling this website out or the group of participants we have here.  I've tried to ensure it is clear through multiple posts now that the problem exists across the board on a majority of internet discussion sites.  The problem and scope go beyond our tiny little community here at TD.  You first have to realize that this is happening and funneling of all of your intellectual capacities into a small and limited box, before you can begin to break out.

[ewen21]

 

Well, that depends what your certain observations are.  I buck people here all the time and I get bucked too.  We all need that.  I enjoy busting up an echo chamber and I'm not afraid to wade into this discussion with any well-reasoned take I have.  

 

If you are, perhaps you aren't confident your reasoning is sound enough?

See.  There you go.

 

I think you're very wrong about that and I am pretty sure you know I am not lacking in confidence.  If you do not see that maybe you aren't all that perceptive?

 

 

[Champuckett]

 

Well, that depends what your certain observations are.  I buck people here all the time and I get bucked too.  We all need that.  I enjoy busting up an echo chamber and I'm not afraid to wade into this discussion with any well-reasoned take I have. 

 

Cheers to that.  And I hope you can appreciate when I am talking about what I am seeing here and what I am trying to do to wake a couple of people up based off of that.

 

I've had a lot of life lessons as well where I came out stronger on the other side thanks to someone freeing me from conformity.  It's a healthy practice and I'm sure we all have a lot more of these moments to come.

[ewen21]

I can't say I am suprised no one brought up Ilhan Omar, are Somali immigrants like Hindu cows here?  

[ewen21]

Heaven knows Minnesota has done quite a job going out of its way to give these people a great setup plan for life.  Would be nice to see them make an attempt to assmiliate if they want citizenship.

 

Sorry if this offends anyone