The Dems & the GOP - Peas in a pod, again

[Mac1958]

Intellectual myopia. One of the behaviors on my list..

Both sides do it .... but you do it yourself way, way more. That's what makes you so ironically funny.

You are an interesting psychological case study. What emotional need drives you to pretend that you're above it all, even though observation shows you to be below it all?

My guess it that it's standard special snowflakism. You want to feel special and superior to everyone else, so you create a reality where the only pure and perfect ones are members of your "tribe of the sacred center".

I do love the way you get defensive and pissy, and I don't even have to mention you personally.

Just as we've seen on this very thread from the Trumpsters. Holy crap, how perfect is that!

There's more of me than there are of you. Please allow me to illustrate this graphically.

 

[Mac1958]

I remember back in 2010, when I (ignorantly) had Fox News controlling my thoughts, I'd watch a few hours and then bitch about Obama playing too much golf. 2017 hits and Democrats are bitching about Trump golfing too much after a few hours of CNN. Couldn't be more similar.

Yep. And look how both wings are behaving on this thread. They HAVE to jump in to illustrate my point for me.

It's almost TOO easy.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I got this.

Intellectual myopia. One of the behaviors on my list..

Both sides do it .... but you do it yourself way, way more. That's what makes you so ironically funny.

You are an interesting psychological case study. What emotional need drives you to pretend that you're above it all, even though observation shows you to be below it all?

My guess it that it's standard special snowflakism. You want to feel special and superior to everyone else, so you create a reality where the only pure and perfect ones are members of your "tribe of the sacred center".

Thanks for proving his point yet again

Hey, I just toss the softballs up in the air, and they whack 'em over the fence for me.

Ding!


.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[mamooth]

Just as we've seen on this very thread from the Trumpsters. Holy crap, how perfect is that!

If everyone thinks you're a hypocrite, then that means you're almost certainly a hypocrite. Someone not consumed with tribal fanaticism could figure that out. You can't. In your tribal mind, the TribeOfThePerfectMiddle is infallible, so you can't even imagine that your own behavior could be faulty. And since I'm pointing that out, your tribal mind automatically defines me as an EnemyOfTheTribe.

The ironic thing is how neither the right or left are pretending to be virtuous and above it all. That makes both the right and left morally superior to the TribeOfThePerfectMiddle.

Let's summarize your thread. You started screaming about the "whacked out base" of the Democrats was threatening to primary a few establishment Dems, which supposedly made them just as crazy as the right.

First, being how that's perfectly normal politics, why did you make the hilariously stupid claim that a primary challenge means the Democrat base is crazy?

That's the sum total of your evidence that the Democratic base is "whacked out" and just like the Republicans, a primary challenge. You have zilch to back up your idiot claims. And wow, do you get triggered when people point that out.

I'll give you another chance to turn tail and run, being how that's so fun to watch. What specifically makes the Democratic base "whacked out", as you keep asserting without evidence? Make sure you explain how those actions differ from the normal politics of the past 50 years, otherwise everyone will assume you're just making stupid stories up.

 

[Mac1958]

Just as we've seen on this very thread from the Trumpsters. Holy crap, how perfect is that!

If everyone thinks you're a hypocrite, then that means you're almost certainly a hypocrite. Someone not consumed with tribal fanaticism could figure that out. You can't. In your tribal mind, the TribeOfThePerfectMiddle is infallible, so you can't even imagine that your own behavior could be faulty. And since I'm pointing that out, your tribal mind automatically defines me as an EnemyOfTheTribe.

The ironic thing is how neither the right or left are pretending to be virtuous and above it all. That makes both the right and left morally superior to the TribeOfThePerfectMiddle.

Let's summarize your thread. You started screaming about the "whacked out base" of the Democrats was threatening to primary a few establishment Dems, which supposedly made them just as crazy as the right.

First, being how that's perfectly normal politics, why did you make the hilariously stupid claim that a primary challenge means the Democrat base is crazy?

That's the sum total of your evidence that the Democratic base is "whacked out" and just like the Republicans, a primary challenge. You have zilch to back up your idiot claims. And wow, do you get triggered when people point that out.

I'll give you another chance to turn tail and run, being how that's so fun to watch. What specifically makes the Democratic base "whacked out", as you keep asserting without evidence? Make sure you explain how those actions differ from the normal politics of the past 50 years, otherwise everyone will assume you're just making stupid stories up.

Yikes. Look at all that. All about little ol' me.

It was never my intention to get this far up in your head, but I must admit it's satisfying.

Thank you for continuing to illustrate my point for me.
.

 

[mamooth]

Yikes. Look at all that. All about little ol' me.

Don't worry. You're not the first one to switch to pouting about how mean I am after I deliver an asswhupping. You got to that point pretty much on schedule.

You were challenged to back up your BS. You chose to pout and run instead. So my point is proven, that you're a cowardly TribeOfThePerfectMiddle herd creature. Thanks for playing.

 

[Mac1958]

Yikes. Look at all that. All about little ol' me.

Don't worry. You're not the first one to switch to pouting about how mean I am after I deliver an asswhupping. You got to that point pretty much on schedule.

You were challenged to back up your BS. You chose to pout and run instead. So my point is proven, that you're a cowardly TribeOfThePerfectMiddle herd creature. Thanks for playing.

Okay thanks!
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You keep repeating that, and even assert it's a fact. Perot should give you pause.

Correct, because it is. And no, Perot does not give me pause. In fact, the fact that the closest a 3rd party candidate has come to gaining a plurality in modern history was only 19% ( doubled by both other candidates, and gaining zero electoral votes, give or take ZERO) and was larger than any other election by a wide margin only illustrates my point. And the fact that this started a trend in the completely opposte direction is just the final nail in the coffin.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yea,of course "both sides" demonstrate similar behavior. They are all humans playing the same game by the same rules. Pointing out these similarities isn't going to win anyone a merit badge in the Scouts, much less an intellectual prize of any sort.

One side sets a new norm, and the other side adopts it. Moral hazard is an ever present fact. That is why we need strong institutions.

 

[Olde Europe]

You keep repeating that, and even assert it's a fact. Perot should give you pause.

Correct, because it is. And no, Perot does not give me pause. In fact, the fact that the closest a 3rd party candidate has come to gaining a plurality in modern history was only 19% ( doubled by both other candidates, and gaining zero electoral votes, give or take ZERO) and was larger than any other election by a wide margin only illustrates my point. And the fact that this started a trend in the completely opposte direction is just the final nail in the coffin.

Chuckle.

It cannot be a fact since it concerns the future, and, as is commonly known, it hasn't even happened yet.

Secondly, consider Congress removing Trump from office, the GOP running that unbearable Pence, the Democrats running Buttigieg, and Trump running as Independent. Just fantasizing, of course, but I wouldn't bet on your assertion to materialize.

In a three-way race, the lowest portion to achieve a plurality is 34%, and that's just 15% more than that crank, Perot gained, after having ended, and two months later restarted, his campaign. Really, you may think otherwise, but to me that's too close for comfort.

The future is wide open, and with a significant portion of the electorate plainly losing their minds, it's wider open still.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It cannot be a fact since it concerns the future, and, as is commonly known, it hasn't even happened yet.

I am confident enough in it that i will call it a fact. If your only objection is that it can't, technically, be 100% certain, then...thank you for the worthless contribution that doesnt actually lessen the impact of my arguments.

You would do better to actually address my arguments. The only one you seem to have brought to the table concerns the perot election, which supports my point more than it does your contrary point.

In a three-way race, the lowest portion to achieve a plurality is 34%, and that's just 15% more than that crank, Perot gained, after having ended, and two months later restarted, his campaign.

This is stunted, incomplete logic. For 34% to be a plurality, you would also need the unlikely event of a perfectly even split amount the other two candidates. You also have completely ignored the very relevant idea of the margins. Just as getting to that 19% was all perot could muster, it would take an even greater effort per percentage point (and , apparently, some sort of magical fairy, given all the facts at our disposal) to get another 5%. And then another 5% on top of that...all votes which have to be taken from the other candidates. Check the demo stats lately? You could run a rock against a log, and 35%+ are going to vote democrat and 35%+ Republican. These are facts.

In conclusion, unless you plan to change the system in which the candidates have to operate, no third party candidate is going to win. Not ever, and certainly not anytime soon. So, your protest vote on 2020 will, essentially, be a vote for the one of the two major candidates you least prefer.

Yes, It's a fact. You guys need to come to terms with this.

Yes, liberals, you gave Bush the white house in 2000 by voting for Nader. Nice going, dummies.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes, It's a fact. You guys need to come to terms with this.

It still isn't, and even your repeating same doesn't make it so.

Frankly, I also don't quite understand why you are doing this. Had you stated, "Given the system, a successful third party candidate is highly unlikely, and, conversely, a vote for a third party candidate is very likely wasted," we'd be comfortably on the same page. Why, really, go overboard with unwarranted, 100% certainty? There is no such thing in politics, not ever.

 

[justinacolmena]

It's always fun to point out how similar our two "major" parties can be in their behaviors. No, not issues, behaviors (I put that in bold there).

Too much money and power. There is a liberal bent toward pussy-for-money or butt-for-money, depending on preference.

Tea Party Republicans were running around, threatening to "primary" anyone who wasn't pure and obedient? And remember about four years ago, when those same Republicans were shit-canning people like Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan and John Kasich because the party had passed them by?

Tea Party went alt-right Nazi, which in reality is leftist national socialist communist and no different from the Democrats.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

t still isn't, and even your repeating same doesn't make it so.

Of course it is. It's a pragmatic fact of reality. And I will be correct in every single election,until our system is changed.

Had you stated, "Given the system, a successful third party candidate is highly unlikely, and, conversely, a vote for a third party candidate is very likely wasted," we'd be comfortably on the same page.

Because calling it "highly unlikely" is not strong enough a statement. "Never, until the system is changed" is more accurate. I wouldn't want anyone thinking "highly unlikely" meant, "20% chance", when it's closer to 0% than it is to 2%.

But anyhow, it appears that, other than semantic trifling, we are on the same page, there. Until you get to the "wasted" vote part. That is also not accurate, in what I am saying. You aren't just wasting your vote..you are actually tallying a vote for the one of the two major candidates you least prefer.