Two more questions for partisans

[Mac1958]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

 

[iceberg]

my goal is as it always has been - get through these shitty times with as much respect for others as i can continue to muster for all.

everyone's opinions are gold to them. understandable but not a very healthy position in discussions and/or ... life. my opinions can and will change with evidence. if i'm wrong about something i'd like to learn the truth so i can work towards that, not being right so i change reality to fit my perception.

to me - most of those at this point not believing CNN is full of shit are doing it willfully and because they agree with their position. either is fine i suppose but to turn around and say your opinion is the only one that matters? the right does it too. both sides are digging in where there is no choice left but some form of war.

and at times that's about the only way to let off this collective steam and "reboot".

so if you ask me my goal i suppose it's to better understand.

my side.
your side.
the lost 80% in the middle of the (2) 10% sides who are dug in for war out of their own insecurity or stubborn behaviors?

we all lose our patience at times, during these times. but even our own extremes do not define all of us, only our extremes and how far *we* push ourselves to that goal. but during these times, normalizing the extreme has become far too common and it simply can't hold up by definition.

we've not really had a cecil the lion or hambree the gorilla this year, have we? we do seem to have slowed down on finding something - ANYTHING - to declare our rage on and proudly change our FB photo to show we stand with popular opinion.

wheee. will you stand with an unpopular one WITH respect to both sides?

not so much these days.

but those days will come back. they simply have no choice as people as a collective move on eventually to something else.

so my goal in here is again to learn more about as much as i can. better understand my reasoning behind my views, and change them if compelling arguments come along in a factual manner to show me *i can do better*.

and to me - if more people would do that and stop falling into the 10% extreme trap of stupidity where the arguments are pure emotion, it would help speed this along. so i choose to be that part of the solution.

 

[Mac1958]

Good stuff, again. Thanks. A couple o' things:
.

my side. your side. the lost 80% in the middle of the (2) 10% sides who are dug in for war out of their own insecurity or stubborn behaviors?

I think about those figures a lot nowadays, and perhaps my biggest concern is that your 20%/80% figure, while probably accurate as little as ten years ago, is no longer so. These behaviors have metastasized virtually everywhere in our culture at this point. I talk to people now - clients, friends, neighbors, even family members - who just explode into what appears to be a fairly well-rehearsed tirade at the slightest provocation. I am convinced, that is new, that is different.

So while the horrified middle probably still does represent the majority, I think the numbers are (sadly) moving closer.
.

but those days will come back. they simply have no choice as people as a collective move on eventually to something else.

I hope you're right. I truly don't know how we get there from here, but I hope you're right.
.

 

[iceberg]

Good stuff, again. Thanks. A couple o' things:
.

my side. your side. the lost 80% in the middle of the (2) 10% sides who are dug in for war out of their own insecurity or stubborn behaviors?

I think about those figures a lot nowadays, and perhaps my biggest concern is that your 20%/80% figure, while probably accurate as little as ten years ago, is no longer so. These behaviors have metastasized virtually everywhere in our culture at this point. I talk to people now - clients, friends, neighbors, even family members - who just explode into what appears to be a fairly well-rehearsed tirade at the slightest provocation. I am convinced, that is new, that is different.

So while the horrified middle probably still does represent the majority, I think the numbers are (sadly) moving closer.
.

but those days will come back. they simply have no choice as people as a collective move on eventually to something else.

I hope you're right. I truly don't know how we get there from here, but I hope you're right.
.

human nature. of course they will. we all can only take so much. the 80% are human too. i am, you are. old lady and even political chic. (i think anyway) but as humans we can a tendency to react to the greatest events around us and as those events get more tiring and trying our own patience ends and we lash out.

today are those lines blurred? you bet. 60/40? 70/30? hell that likely changes daily. but a long time ago in a land far far away i coined a phrase out of my own smartass nature that proves me almost the prophet at times -

90% of the people only think 10% of the time.

those #'s likely change daily also and these days i'd say 95% only think 5% of the time.

the rest is reaction. pure reaction.

so when someone lashes out it will be reactive in accordance to the times around them.

once we start recognizing this and seeing that the 100,838,477 posts we put out there telling the other side how stupid they are have not yet worked, we'll move onto something else. this takes time and it takes a lot of human nature reactiveness to get there.

we'll get back to 80/10/10 - just gonna be awhile.

 

[TNHarley]

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis
This seems to be the most obvious answer. At least in my opinion.
Neither side cares how they win, just as long as they do it. It is actually admitted now. Maybe it always was, IDK.. It can be through illegal means, violence, loss of rights ANYTHING to WIN

 

[iceberg]

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis
This seems to be the most obvious answer. At least in my opinion.
Neither side cares how they win, just as long as they do it. It is actually admitted now. Maybe it always was, IDK.. It can be through illegal means, violence, loss of rights ANYTHING to WIN

then create a side to put me on who does in fact care *how* we win.

if winning means turning into the very thing we're fighting, we lost regardless of the win.

 

[midcan5]

I don't have a lot of time right now but I do save links so I'll add a few below. Today the republicans have hit on several divisive issues and they work well with a confused base. Taxes, welfare, guns, religion, abortion, education, prayer, immigrants, etc, they use these items to form a base that would not agree otherwise on much. The democrats still haven't figured out the role emotion plays in all these topics. But it works for repubs because behind it are interests that benefit. Dark Money is an amazing read. Links below - and read the quote and book at bottom.

Excellent read on Trump voters: Strangers in Their Own Land

More good stuff: Hillary - Dark Money - Tyranny

The Destruction of Hillary Clinton
Dark Money
On Tyranny

And Trump explained too;

Rebecca Solnit: The Loneliness of Donald Trump
The Making of Donald Trump

And the history of right wing reactionary thought.

The Rhetoric of Reaction

"Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time on long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which comes from abroad). Take responsibility for what you communicate with others." Lesson 11 On Tyranny

 

[JoeB131]

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

I think for the most part, minds can't be changed. Oh, I changed my mind since 2008, when I voted for McCain, when I realized that the GOP was rich people manipulating religious nuts into voting against their own economic interests.

But the fact is, the same 45% who voted for McCain in 2008 were the same 47% who voted for Romney in 2012 because, eek, there was a negro in the White House and the 46% who voted for the Orange Shitgibbon even after he mocked McCain's war service. So the minds to be changed are not the ones that keep voting for the GOP even after they get thousands of people killed in wars or cost millions of people their jobs.

Conversely, the Democratic nominee gets anywhere from 55% of the vote (Obama in 2008) to 48% of the vote (Clinton in 2016). So the place to "change minds" are the 6% or so who voted for Johnson or Stein as a protest vote because Hillary had it "in the bag" and they bought into the narrative that the "emails meant Hillary was just as bad".

So when (not if) Trump crashes the economy, those people will be ready to listen. The 45% who vote republican regardless of what they do, not so much. The GOP has been playing on their racial, religious and sexual fears since 1968, and they've gotten pretty good at it.

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?

On a practical basis.

1) Use the 2018 election to change over as many lower level offices as possible.
2) Use those offices to redistrict, get rid of the onerous voter suppression laws,
3) Tie every Republican in the country to the disgrace that is Trump. His approval is below 40% now, imagine what it's going to look like in a year when we are in a recession.
4) Wait for old, mean white people to die off. Sorry, Demographics are not your friend.

As I've said here, I had an "A-ha" moment, in 2008,when I looked at my busted 401K, my underwater mortgage, and my shitty job that paid me a lot less than I was worth because there was a recession going on and they wouldn't even call me an employee, but a "contractor".

I don't think most of the 45-47% are capable of that, no matter how much they suffer under the policies of the right.

 

[strollingbones]

i blame simple lack of education on much of this.....and i agree the 80 % with only 10 % being on the extremes is outdated...what is happening is the percentage that was hoping for unity has given up on that....tn is right...no one cares how the win is achieved only that they win....i can no longer engage my friends who are or were trump supporters...as soon as they say..he's gonna make america great again...i realize how stupid they are and move on....why try to change the minds of the stupid? why?

NLT just so you dont think i am talking behind your back


it is sad it think most want the same things...safe secure place to have families...good jobs with a good future.....but we not longer can discuss those issues for arguing about which road to take..and no one is taking the high road

 

[Mac1958]

Good stuff, again. Thanks. A couple o' things:
.

my side. your side. the lost 80% in the middle of the (2) 10% sides who are dug in for war out of their own insecurity or stubborn behaviors?

I think about those figures a lot nowadays, and perhaps my biggest concern is that your 20%/80% figure, while probably accurate as little as ten years ago, is no longer so. These behaviors have metastasized virtually everywhere in our culture at this point. I talk to people now - clients, friends, neighbors, even family members - who just explode into what appears to be a fairly well-rehearsed tirade at the slightest provocation. I am convinced, that is new, that is different.

So while the horrified middle probably still does represent the majority, I think the numbers are (sadly) moving closer.
.

but those days will come back. they simply have no choice as people as a collective move on eventually to something else.

I hope you're right. I truly don't know how we get there from here, but I hope you're right.
.

human nature. of course they will. we all can only take so much. the 80% are human too. i am, you are. old lady and even political chic. (i think anyway) but as humans we can a tendency to react to the greatest events around us and as those events get more tiring and trying our own patience ends and we lash out.

today are those lines blurred? you bet. 60/40? 70/30? hell that likely changes daily. but a long time ago in a land far far away i coined a phrase out of my own smartass nature that proves me almost the prophet at times -

90% of the people only think 10% of the time.

those #'s likely change daily also and these days i'd say 95% only think 5% of the time.

the rest is reaction. pure reaction.

so when someone lashes out it will be reactive in accordance to the times around them.

once we start recognizing this and seeing that the 100,838,477 posts we put out there telling the other side how stupid they are have not yet worked, we'll move onto something else. this takes time and it takes a lot of human nature reactiveness to get there.

we'll get back to 80/10/10 - just gonna be awhile.

Yeah, I guess it could be cyclical and exacerbated in large part by the internet, and I sure as hell hope you're right.

I do think the other side of this cycle will necessarily have to include the cultural marginalization, to some degree, of those I call the Division Pimps, those who have a vested professional interest in keeping their "side" angry and the two "sides" separated.
.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

To the first, yes. An impossibility. The Left has slid so far off the American cracker there's no coming back.

To the second, who knows? Too many variables.

 

[Mac1958]

Neither side cares how they win, just as long as they do it. It is actually admitted now. Maybe it always was, IDK.. It can be through illegal means, violence, loss of rights ANYTHING to WIN

Yeah, win at all costs. I just wonder what "winning" would look like. They appear to believe that something permanent can come from this madness.
.

 

[TNHarley]

Thank gawd independent % gets bigger every day.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

Yes and yes. For Asian-Americans like myself, the DNC is the KKK.

 

[Mac1958]

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis
This seems to be the most obvious answer. At least in my opinion.
Neither side cares how they win, just as long as they do it. It is actually admitted now. Maybe it always was, IDK.. It can be through illegal means, violence, loss of rights ANYTHING to WIN

then create a side to put me on who does in fact care *how* we win.

if winning means turning into the very thing we're fighting, we lost regardless of the win.

Thinking this through a bit - I think the coffee just kicked in, maybe, maybe not - it does seem to me that the two sides have a different vision of what "winning" would look like.

The Left is, for the most part, going to wait for demographics to do the job for them. They thought this was over, and that's part of their shock over Trump. And in general, I would think this is the most likely outcome.

The Right seems to think that it really can somehow "beat" the other side. I hear it on conservative talk radio, where people like Limbaugh and Levin constantly preach that cooperation is impossible, moderation is impossible, that victory can be the only goal. Such a goal is good professionally for them, obviously, because it maintains their relevance.

So based on that, I think I can understand the Left's view more than the Right's. But that's just me. That's why I wonder what "victory" would actually look like.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Thank gawd independent % gets bigger every day.

Except there's no evidence for that.

Okay, let's look at percentages since 1996

Democrat - 49, 49, 49, 55, 53, 48

Republican - 43, 49, 51, 45, 47, 46.

Third Party - 8, 2, 0, 0, 2, 6

A lot of people might call themselves 'independent", but the fact is, since the last major third party movement petered out in 1996, the GOP gets between 45-51% and the democrats get between 48-55%. So the window of "persuadable" voters is really only about 10% if you are being really , really generous.

Now, it wasn't always this way. There was a time when a major party shit the bed and nominated a nut, enough people voted for the alternative, even if they thought he was a bit shifty.

Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972. Both well outside the mainstream, for the time, and the voters rejected them.

But in this case, the very same people who voted for McCain in 2008, despite everything Bush did, were the same 45% who voted for Trump, despite Trump being a womanizing, mentally unstable scumbag.

 

[yiostheoy]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

I don't see any new legislation coming out of Congress for the next year at least.

The two sides cannot even agree to work together.

This is a far cry from when Tip O'Neill was the Speaker. He at least gave-in to Reagan even though Reagan's ideas were quite insane.

Trump's ideas are also quite insane. And like a typical corporate CEO Trump just wants superficial accomplishments not anything genuine.

 

[Correll]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

1. I am very interested in changing minds. I just don't believe that it can be done on a significant scale.

2. Get whites to vote in a bloc similar to hispanics if not blacks. That would give us a chance to drive policy in the short term, and play strong defense once the nation goes minority majority.

 

[Mac1958]

The two sides cannot even agree to work together.

Agreed, so back to my question: What is the actual goal here? Or do the two "sides" have different goals?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion aimed at the other "side" -- and I obviously ain't just talking about USMB -- and now that the two "sides" can exist in alternate universes in terms of the "news" they choose to believe, it would be nice to have a template from which the rest of us can view this crippling debacle.

I'm sure we can all agree that the constant use of vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion will not change a person's mind, and instead will almost certainly just serve to strengthen their already-held beliefs. Human nature.

So, two questions:

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?

Would it also be safe to say that your goal now is to beat the other side, and if so, what would that look like on a practical basis?
.

1. I am very interested in changing minds. I just don't believe that it can be done on a significant scale.

2. Get whites to vote in a bloc similar to hispanics if not blacks. That would give us a chance to drive policy in the short term, and play strong defense once the nation goes minority majority.

What would your strategy for #2 be? That's not even close to happening right now.
.