Two more questions for partisans

[yiostheoy]

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?
.

Obviously the two sides continue to play their power games.

The GOP is desperately trying to consolidate their power, while the DEMs are holding their own until November 2018.

So far the GOP looks like a herd of idiots while the DEMs look like fools.

 

[iceberg]

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.

.NOT being a smartass, but do you include yourself in this?

 

[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.

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

Draw attention to the rampant racism and open hostility of LIberals to whites.





I can't change minds. Lefties betraying their supporters can.

 

[Geaux4it]

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?
.

Would it be safe to say that you're no longer interested in changing the minds of the other side?
A- Nope, the divide is to great. 8 previous years of division are unrepairable

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?
A- The 2016 Election plus the complete implosion of the Republican party

-Geaux

 

[Iceweasel]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion
.

....which you just did. LOL. I'm not a party member, many are not. You can only see parties. This is the one thousandths time it's been pointed out to you but yet you continue with your personal attacks.

 

[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.

.NOT being a smartass, but do you include yourself in this?

I've changed my mind on several issues over the course of my adult life, due either to new information or a well crafted argument.

 

[Mac1958]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion
.

....which you just did. LOL. I'm not a party member, many are not. You can only see parties. This is the one thousandths time it's been pointed out to you but yet you continue with your personal attacks.

I didn't say "parties", I said "sides".

And I'd love to see where the personal attack is.
.

 

[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?
A- The 2016 Election plus the complete implosion of the Republican party

I'm not sure what this means. What would the victory look like, on the other side of the implosion?

What would make the other "side" so small as to be irrelevant?
.

 

[Care4all]

the love of money, is the root of evil

Bloggers, right wing sites, left wing sites, talk radio, cable 24/7 news stations, congress critters, book writers.....ETC.

All SELLING hatred for the almighty dollar...there's good money in divisiveness... good money in 'taking sides'...thus, they promote it!

and we are buying in to it... hook, line and sinker....

 

[martybegan]

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) Changing most people's minds just via discussion is a wasted effort most of the time. To me a radical change form the current split will require a massive event that disproves certain concepts held by either side. Be it a city getting flooded out from global warming, or a state/city going insolvent from the pension bomb (an example for each side).

2) If by "beat" you mean get policies I like implemented despite their protests? Yes, but only via proper constitutional avenues. I don't want to see them removed from politics or society, they can continue to call for their failed concepts all they want, I just want them to be out of power, but out of power through the process, not through intimidation, threats or violence.

 

[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.

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.
.

and obama forced some/many things on people cause the left THOUGHT their ideals were morally superior. he gained in popularity for whatever reason but as human nature dictates in the end, you can only push so many so far.

i understand the right side better so even when i disagree i don't say as much cause i understand where they're coming from. but even then sooner or later the 10% on my side is going to get on my nerves and i'll say so. Political Chic and i had some fun yesterday and now i'm sure i'm on her shitlist.

but i don't agree you can SLAY the other side into changing how they feel they will, like you and i, and even her, will simply dig in harder for the fight til the time one side or the other simply tires of pushing a 10,000,000lb boulder around with their clever conversation.

those are the people on either side i simply ignore and people such as yourself who wants to talk and get past all this shit will start speaking up more, and tuning out the rhetoric better as we move on - are the ones i really enjoy talking to.

in the end i think i've put 15+ people on ignore. likely more. not because of a right or wrong answer or scenario but just because i've seen their style of arguing long enough to know it will never work.

if you refuse to be forced into another position i don't see how you think you can force someone else into yours i guess i'm saying. not you, but how the 10% seems to think on both sides.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

do you really wonder that, or do you really just want to pontificate about how much smarter you are.

Victory for either side is how much of their agenda they can enact.

I know what I would like to see as policy.

Single Payer Health Care

Fair and equitable wealth distribution. No one should work 40 hours a week and still have a hard time putting food on the table.

Reasonable protections for workers and consumers against corporate greed.

The problem with discussions with the right is that they don't really know what they want. I again, use my example of my friend who is City of Chicago garbageman. He makes $70K a year and has good benefits. Yet because he listens to Hate Radio every day in his truck, he thinks that's normal. If the people he supported ever got their way, he'd be replaced with a private contractor making $18.00 an hour with no pension. And they probably wouldn't consider his 50+ fat ass for that kind of position.

But the GOP has managed to pluck his strings hating the blacks and the gays, who are really in the same boat he's in.

 

[Geaux4it]

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?
A- The 2016 Election plus the complete implosion of the Republican party

I'm not sure what this means. What would the victory look like, on the other side of the implosion?

What would make the other "side" so small as to be irrelevant?
.

What would the victory look like, on the other side of the implosion?
A- Again, the rise Of President Trump eliminating all other comers during the primaries

What would make the other "side" so small as to be irrelevant?
A- Their leadership

-Geaux

 

[iceberg]

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.

.NOT being a smartass, but do you include yourself in this?

I've changed my mind on several issues over the course of my adult life, due either to new information or a well crafted argument.

i have as well. i can't be so "secure" that my opinions will always be correct. i have to keep an open mind constantly and question why i feel the way i do.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

I wont argue sometimes they still vote duopoly.
Maybe the independents should focus on nominating decent people as well. In 2016 we had a borderline retard and a left wing fanatic that destroys private property.
LOL we are so fucked if something doesnt happen..

 

[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

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.
.

and obama forced some/many things on people cause the left THOUGHT their ideals were morally superior. he gained in popularity for whatever reason but as human nature dictates in the end, you can only push so many so far.

i understand the right side better so even when i disagree i don't say as much cause i understand where they're coming from. but even then sooner or later the 10% on my side is going to get on my nerves and i'll say so. Political Chic and i had some fun yesterday and now i'm sure i'm on her shitlist.

but i don't agree you can SLAY the other side into changing how they feel they will, like you and i, and even her, will simply dig in harder for the fight til the time one side or the other simply tires of pushing a 10,000,000lb boulder around with their clever conversation.

those are the people on either side i simply ignore and people such as yourself who wants to talk and get past all this shit will start speaking up more, and tuning out the rhetoric better as we move on.

in the end i think i've put 15+ people on ignore. likely more. not because of a right or wrong answer or scenario but just because i've seen their style of arguing long enough to know it will never work.

if you refuse to be forced into another position i don't see how you think you can force someone else into yours i guess i'm saying. not you, but how the 10% seems to think on both sides.

PC is a HUGE hack. If you actually prove her wrong, you get put on ignore. Trust me, I know lol

 

[Mac1958]

the love of money, is the root of evil

Bloggers, right wing sites, left wing sites, talk radio, cable 24/7 news stations, congress critters, book writers.....ETC.

All SELLING hatred for the almighty dollar...there's good money in divisiveness... good money in 'taking sides'...thus, they promote it!

and we are buying in to it... hook, line and sinker....

Yes, absolutely, and they're a key part in this.
.

 

[iceberg]

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.

do you really wonder that, or do you really just want to pontificate about how much smarter you are.

Victory for either side is how much of their agenda they can enact.

I know what I would like to see as policy.

Single Payer Health Care

Fair and equitable wealth distribution. No one should work 40 hours a week and still have a hard time putting food on the table.

Reasonable protections for workers and consumers against corporate greed.

The problem with discussions with the right is that they don't really know what they want. I again, use my example of my friend who is City of Chicago garbageman. He makes $70K a year and has good benefits. Yet because he listens to Hate Radio every day in his truck, he thinks that's normal. If the people he supported ever got their way, he'd be replaced with a private contractor making $18.00 an hour with no pension. And they probably wouldn't consider his 50+ fat ass for that kind of position.

But the GOP has managed to pluck his strings hating the blacks and the gays, who are really in the same boat he's in.

by the same token, the Dems and arguably CNN and other news media gives the left ammo to hate with. to say only the other side exhibits the behavior you're citing is foolish and up there with your "agenda" mentality.

there are times we sure do agree but i can tell you as a conservative the things i want - and no, they're not likely what you want but to devalue them on others and expect them to value your ... wisdom ... is just as foolish.

1) better educational system. stop coddling kids and blaming the concrete for being there if they fall.
2) responsible and accountable government. if we had this most of our other issues would be very easy to manage. but we get complacent in our "victories" and look for new ones and sometimes along the way we make up a need to fight to win something we didn't understand. the drive was only the hate for the other side, not the goal of the work.
3) take insurance out of healthcare. look at regulations also. we can't ask a 3rd party system to make money off taking care of people or we lose total control of costs. to me we don't have a healthcare problem we have a payment / insurance problem. not even close to the same thing. to get where you are advocating would be to change everything about our insurance / medical professions. good luck with that.
4) take care of this planet. but this isn't lip service. this is enacting methodical ways to move away from old energy and find new. that only makes sense. but take the hype and death out of it cause it doesn't belong in these conversations. if something needs to be done it needs to be global or it's pointless.
5) common ground. we need to find it and fast.

 

[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.

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.
.

and obama forced some/many things on people cause the left THOUGHT their ideals were morally superior. he gained in popularity for whatever reason but as human nature dictates in the end, you can only push so many so far.

i understand the right side better so even when i disagree i don't say as much cause i understand where they're coming from. but even then sooner or later the 10% on my side is going to get on my nerves and i'll say so. Political Chic and i had some fun yesterday and now i'm sure i'm on her shitlist.

but i don't agree you can SLAY the other side into changing how they feel they will, like you and i, and even her, will simply dig in harder for the fight til the time one side or the other simply tires of pushing a 10,000,000lb boulder around with their clever conversation.

those are the people on either side i simply ignore and people such as yourself who wants to talk and get past all this shit will start speaking up more, and tuning out the rhetoric better as we move on.

in the end i think i've put 15+ people on ignore. likely more. not because of a right or wrong answer or scenario but just because i've seen their style of arguing long enough to know it will never work.

if you refuse to be forced into another position i don't see how you think you can force someone else into yours i guess i'm saying. not you, but how the 10% seems to think on both sides.

PC is a HUGE hack. If you actually prove her wrong, you get put on ignore. Trust me, I know lol

well like i was saying, sooner or later the 10% on "my side" is going to annoy the shit out of me too and she did. everything is a battle to her and if you don't play you're insulted and ridiculed. very liberal of her.

 

[Iceweasel]

Now that political "discourse" in this country has devolved to little more than personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion
.

....which you just did. LOL. I'm not a party member, many are not. You can only see parties. This is the one thousandths time it's been pointed out to you but yet you continue with your personal attacks.

I didn't say "parties", I said "sides".

And I'd love to see where the personal attack is.
.

"Two more questions for partisans"

HINT.

I posted the insult. That's why I posted it. You think your shit doesn't stink.