The two ends of the political spectrum are killing us

[dblack]

The problem is that we're no longer electing leaders to govern. We're electing culture warriors, tasked with forcing the will of the majority on everyone else.

 

[Billiejeens]

Fine, then fold your cards, go sit in a corner and mope.

Those people really, truly think that makes them somehow superior.

 

[DBA]

You voted for the most radically left-wing administration in American history.

He doesn't seem to have an answer to this other than the standard, low-brow answer we hear from other folks foolish enough to believe the spurious MSM rhetoric. "Orange man bad".

 

[Doug1943]

.

There's a Zone 1-Clean Debate subforum in the US Discussion Section ...
And a Structured Debate subforum in Area 51 Section.

But ... You have been here a while and should know that.
Kind of like Mac knows that too ... And I guess it's not really what he was looking for ...

.​

You know, I have not studied all the rules and regulations here. This site seems a bit more complicated than most forums I've been on.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that we're no longer electing leaders to govern. We're electing culture warriors, tasked with forcing the will of the majority on everyone else.

One of the many things I don't understand about politics -- but maybe the biggest thing -- is what the goal is of the behaviors. Do hyperpartisans not understand that their behaviors and tactics only embolden the other end, causing these wild swings back and forth?

 

[fncceo]

"I'm an extreme moderate. I believe anybody not in favor of moderation and compromise ought to be castrated."

-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[marvin martian]

One of the many things I don't understand about politics -- but maybe the biggest thing -- is what the goal is of the behaviors. Do hyperpartisans not understand that their behaviors and tactics only embolden the other end, causing these wild swings back and forth?

You tell us, since you voted for the hyper-partisan Biden administration. Or, are you too embarrassed?

 

[dblack]

One of the many things I don't understand about politics -- but maybe the biggest thing -- is what the goal is of the behaviors. Do hyperpartisans not understand that their behaviors and tactics only embolden the other end, causing these wild swings back and forth?

I think each side imagines that they'll somehow "win" permanently, and everyone else will just concede to do things their way.

 

[Doug1943]

One of the many things I don't understand about politics -- but maybe the biggest thing -- is what the goal is of the behaviors. Do hyperpartisans not understand that their behaviors and tactics only embolden the other end, causing these wild swings back and forth?

Well, I'm a rightwing "hyper-partisan", and here's my take: We -- Americans, perhaps others as well -- don't see politics as persuading others. We see it as voting every couple of years. Most people have 'political positions', but these are based on their personal experiences, not on, say, reading things. So they know they're right in voting Democratic or Republican, but they can't argue at length to support their choice.

This is not a criticism of them. Everyone has to earn a living, raise a family. How many of us can be experts on the deficit, government fiscal policies, the effect of welfare, whether or not the Red States are net gainers from federal expenditure, whether gun control in Chicago reduced the murder rate, what US foreign aid to Pakistan accomplished, why Black children do so poorly in school ... we rely on our politicians to educate themselves on these things.

But now the internet has changed everything. We can confront other people -- an indefinite number of them -- almost face-to-face, and argue in real time. BUT ... from a positon of anonymity. This means, typically, people who don't have much data to back up their views, are confronting people who disagree with them ... and each side can say insulting things without any fear of reprisal.

AND ... another problem. There are 75 million patriots in the US-- as I define the term, people who love America and don't think it's a cauldron of racism, etc. Most of them are employed, or have some income. So ... they're a target for grifters.

Anyone can start a website, aim it at the patriot market, sell advertising, and start writing utter crap like HILARY EATS THE FLESH OF CHILDREN!!!! There are hundreds of sites like this.

So .. this is a problem my side needs to address. We have to have hard facts. We're in a cold civil war with the Left -- cold at the moment -- and we can't afford fuzzy thinking.

My side needs to act like it's in a war. It needs to think cooly, rationally, without emotion. And do what works, not what makes us feel good.

A third of America are conservative, a third progressive, a third in the middle. My side needs to think about how to win that middle third, to pull them closer to us. We need to think about how to make alliances with non-conservatives on issues where we both agree on something. We have to think like military commanders.

 

[Mac1958]

I think each side imagines that they'll somehow "win" permanently, and everyone else will just concede to do things their way.

Yeah, that's my best guess too. That certainly does demonstrate a lack of understanding of human nature.

Commitment to an ideology does tend to cloud thought processes.

 

[BlackSand]

You know, I have not studied all the rules and regulations here. This site seems a bit more complicated than most forums I've been on.

.

There are 65+ sub=forums ... I usually give people a "heads-up" when they express they are looking for something at USMB.

I am also not really a "rule hound" ... And that's one of the reasons I tell people where to look.
I would rather they use the tools available to them ... Than end up making a fuss about the rules or activities of posters throughout the site.
I was here when they restructured a lot of stuff ... Didn't really like a lot of what they did ...

.​

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I'm a rightwing "hyper-partisan", and here's my take: We -- Americans, perhaps others as well -- don't see politics as persuading others. We see it as voting every couple of years. Most people have 'political positions', but these are based on their personal experiences, not on, say, reading things. So they know they're right in voting Democratic or Republican, but they can't argue at length to support their choice.

This is not a criticism of them. Everyone has to earn a living, raise a family. How many of us can be experts on the deficit, government fiscal policies, the effect of welfare, whether or not the Red States are net gainers from federal expenditure, whether gun control in Chicago reduced the murder rate, what US foreign aid to Pakistan accomplished, why Black children do so poorly in school ... we rely on our politicians to educate themselves on these things.

But now the internet has changed everything. We can confront other people -- an indefinite number of them -- almost face-to-face, and argue in real time. BUT ... from a positon of anonymity. This means, typically, people who don't have much data to back up their views, are confronting people who disagree with them ... and each side can say insulting things without any fear of reprisal.

AND ... another problem. There are 75 million patriots in the US-- as I define the term, people who love America and don't think it's a cauldron of racism, etc. Most of them are employed, or have some income. So ... they're a target for grifters.

Anyone can start a website, aim it at the patriot market, sell advertising, and start writing utter crap like HILARY EATS THE FLESH OF CHILDREN!!!! There are hundreds of sites like this.

So .. this is a problem my side needs to address. We have to have hard facts. We're in a cold civil war with the Left -- cold at the moment -- and we can't afford fuzzy thinking.

My side needs to act like it's in a war. It needs to think cooly, rationally, without emotion. And do what works, not what makes us feel good.

A third of America are conservative, a third progressive, a third in the middle. My side needs to think about how to win that middle third, to pull them closer to us. We need to think about how to make alliances with non-conservatives on issues where we both agree on something. We have to think like military commanders.

Yeah, sorry, but you're one shitty hyperpartisan. And I mean that in a good way. You provided a fair and reasoned response there.

This notion, though, that you have to act like you're in a war: That's one of the troubling things I see from the right. The problem is that acting like you're at war is that the truth dies in war; there is collateral damage in war. Sometimes war only makes things worse. I'm not a fan of either/or, all or nothing.

Look at your last paragraph. You talk about communicating and convincing. THAT'S the key, and the Right seems to be running in exactly the opposite direction. I like your term "alliances", where both "sides" communicate, collaborate, and -- my favorite word -- innovate. Not your way, not my way, a NEW way. Like our Constitution.

I wish there were more "hyper-partisans" like you. I very much appreciate your response and civility.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, that's my best guess too. That certainly does demonstrate a lack of understanding of human nature.

And it's incredibly short sighted. Each side passes laws giving the government more and more power to control society, apparently thinking that only their "side" will be in charge going forward.

Commitment to an ideology does tend to cloud thought processes.

We're not gonna agree on ideology. I think it's a good thing, and has very little to do with the partisan rancor. Look at the "leaders" the parties produce. What would you say Biden's ideology is? I certainly don't have a clue. And Trump? DeSantis? And voters don't give a shit either.

Elections for most people are just about fighting the culture wars, getting one over on the "other side" instead of learning to live with each other. We've given up on "live and let live" and now it's a fight to the death.

 

[Doug1943]

.

There are 65+ sub=forums ... I usually give people a "heads-up" when they express they are looking for something at USMB.

I am also not really a "rule hound" ... And that's one of the reasons I tell people where to look.
I would rather they use the tools available to them ... Than end up making a fuss about the rules or activities of posters throughout the site.

I was here when they restructured a lot of stuff ... Didn't really like a lot of what they did ...

.​

Okay. I know when I come to a forum that's new to me, I should carefully read all the rules, etc. But usually the rules are obvious: don't be hateful, don't use people's real names, etc... things that any decent person would do anyway. And usually the titles of the sub-forums make them obvious: some are about subjects, like 'Europe', or 'non-Political' or 'Hobbies' ... and there may be a No Holds Barred Zone where the crazies can scream at each other. But this site seems a bit more complicated. I got closed down today on one thread, and am not sure why.

 

[Mac1958]

And it's incredibly short sighted. Each side passes laws giving the government more and more power to control society, apparently thinking that only their "side" will be in charge going forward.

We're not gonna agree on ideology. I think it's a good thing, and has very little to do with the partisan rancor. Look at the "leaders" the parties produce. What would you say Biden's ideology is? I certainly don't have a clue. And Trump? DeSantis? And voters don't give a shit either. Elections for most people are just about fighting the culture wars, getting one over on the "other side" instead of learning to live with each other. We've given up on "live and let live" and now it's a fight to the death.

They're politicians. Their core, their soul, is about getting re-elected. Fundraising. Calculating, maneuvering, dancing. That's the way our "system" is set up. That's what our "system" incentivizes and rewards. Biden and De Santis are just politicians, and their motivations are clear.

 

[BlackSand]

where the crazies

.



You'll be okay ... I am one of the miscreants.

.​

 

[Doug1943]

Yeah, sorry, but you're one shitty hyperpartisan. And I mean that in a good way. You provided a fair and reasoned response there.

This notion, though, that you have to act like you're in a war: That's one of the troubling things I see from the right. The problem is that acting like you're at war is that the truth dies in war; there is collateral damage in war. Sometimes war only makes things worse. I'm not a fan of either/or, all or nothing.

Look at your last paragraph. You talk about communicating and convincing. THAT'S the key, and the Right seems to be running in exactly the opposite direction. I like your term "alliances", where both "sides" communicate, collaborate, and -- my favorite word -- innovate. Not your way, not my way, a NEW way. Like our Constitution.

I wish there were more "hyper-partisans" like you. I very much appreciate your response and civility.

Well, we can discuss what's happening to America ... a tragedy in my opinion, and not just for America but for the whole world. At the moment it's a cold civil war.
And not always 'cold'. For example, a fellow from my side was walking down the street in Portland a couple of years ago, and was murdered in cold blood by an AntiFa supporter. When the Anti Fa mob heard about it, they cheered. And leftwing professors wrote approvingly of it on their blogs. So you can see why we're a bit touchy. AND ... we don't think we get a fair shake in the mainstream media.

But ... it's tactically wrong for my side just to shoot insults at people like you. The way for my side to win is to bring more people closer to us, and away from the Left. By making reasoned arguments, being respectful of your opinions, providing evidence for our views.

NOT because we're sweet goody-goodies. It's the right tactic. It's like deciding whether to hit a target with mortar rounds, or call in the A10. You don't base your decision on emotion, or anger. ("Those filthy Taliban ... let's watch them eat some 30mm...") No. You make a judgement based on the circumstances ... including available resources.

On a forum like this, there are intelligent liberals/progressives, etc ... people on the Left. My side needs to convince as many of you as possible that we have important things to say. For example, did you read what I posted about Michaela School?

 

[Doug1943]

.



You'll be okay ... I am one of the miscreants.

.​

Ah. A case of the inmates running the asylum? Not a bad idea, actually. They know it best. And it saves on staff wages.

 

[Doug1943]

And it's incredibly short sighted. Each side passes laws giving the government more and more power to control society, apparently thinking that only their "side" will be in charge going forward.

We're not gonna agree on ideology. I think it's a good thing, and has very little to do with the partisan rancor. Look at the "leaders" the parties produce. What would you say Biden's ideology is? I certainly don't have a clue. And Trump? DeSantis? And voters don't give a shit either.

Elections for most people are just about fighting the culture wars, getting one over on the "other side" instead of learning to live with each other. We've given up on "live and let live" and now it's a fight to the death.

Hmmm... here's the problem. My side wants to be able to send its children to school, and maybe university, without their being influenced by radical Leftists, and/or groomers.
We want to be able to drive through the city without being car-jacked ... or shop without having a mob of looters suddenly invade the store.
Basically, we want to be left alone. But the Left doesn't want that. So it's not a question of "live and let live".
I suspect we would be perfectly happy for liberals to send their children to schools where they were told being white was shameful, and, hey, don't you want to change sex? Just leave our kids alone. Defund your own police. Etc.

On the other hand, you want the right for your women to have an abortion.

But the problem is, we're side-by-side. So we naturally irritate each other.

Now there is a solution: an amicable divorce. For starters, why not return to the original plan for the states, and give every state a huge amount of autonomy on internal matters. Those who don't like it, can move. Liberals can move to 'Blue' states, Conservatives can move to 'Red' states. We each pass the laws we like. Then we can ignore each other.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What is “far right”?
Is that when one is too patriotic?
Too moral?
Too religious?
Too concerned with keeping America the same America we inherited?
Too defensive of attacks on Americas core principles and values?
Too concerned with Americas right to sovereignty?

its someone like you who can only see and like and believe what you believe....no if ands or buts....if you dont like what i like if you dont believe what i believe ...fuck you...does that answer your question?...