Two more questions for partisans

[Correll]

double post.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?
.

Victory would be persuading people imho


Of course how to do that when trolls and hyper partisans immediately undermine any effort to do so is something I haven't determined

 

[Correll]

As I has said many times before, I believe it is trade policy.

Thus with better trade policy we could increase our manufacturing jobs, which are generally very good jobs for working class/middle class workers, dramatically.


MORE JOBS = GOOD.

Yeah. But there are black working class people who need those jobs too. You are making no sense.

Your assumption that blacks benefiting from those jobs means that it is not a White Interest is unsupported and is your problem, not mine.


I have explained to you, very slowly and clearly, my point on trade.

Do you have something relevant to say on this subject?

Everyone knows that trade deals can be good for some and bad for others. But they are not primarily responsible for our loss of manufacturing jobs. They have been a net creator of jobs for the US.

That is not rocket science.

Do you believe that Germany has a higher percentage of workers in manufacturing than we do because of trade deals they made or did not make? Or, are there other reasons for the difference?

My ask remains. Why do not trade deals effect white people more than black people? Why do you insist on dividing this nation by race?

1. Primary or not, Germany is a first world nation, with high wages and automation and TWICE our level of manufacturing employment. THat shows that it can be done. Let's do it.

2. Yes, I believe that Germany has a higher level of manufacturing employment because they craft their trade policies based on the interests of GERMANY, and not an Ideological Commitment to Free Trade or some idea of international Fairness.

2b What other reasons are you thinking of, to explain the massive difference?


3. I did not claim that trade deals affect white people more. I said it was a white interest and it is.

4. I did not divide this nation by race. I came to realize over time how greatly we were divided.

2b. Please humor me. What other reasons could there be?

You brought it up. I am asking you.


I think Trade POlicy is the primary difference.

 

[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?
.

Victory would be persuading people imho


Of course how to do that when trolls and hyper partisans immediately undermine any effort to do so is something I haven't determined

The only thing I can think of is to find a way to culturally marginalize them, and the only way I see that happening is for well-known people from all walks of life (politics, business, religion, sports, entertainment, etc.) to create some momentum by saying "okay, I've had enough, it's time to start communicating like adults again."

Not holding my breath, but we may be getting to a point where it could happen.
.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Democrats haven't figured the role of emotion on these issues? Are you freaking serious? The party of emotional arguments?

Take taxes. Emotion is their entire response. "lets get the rich. Lets hurt them. Fight for the little guy" its all emotionally charged bs.

Abortion? "war on women. Why do you hate women? Those evil right wingers are going to take your right to kill your child away!"

It's all emotional.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Ahhhh geee first strawman argument of the day. How cute.

Um, I made that argument two months ago... and you couldn't have refuted it then any more than you can now.

/----/ Refute which idiotic post of yours? There are so many. BTW you're delusional if you think we actually keep track of your rants from yesterday much less than two months ago.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

So you are waiting for your demographic to die off???

 

[Avatar4321]

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.
.

There are some people where cooperation is not possible. But I think the problem people have is those seeking cooperation on the right always manage to sacrifice their values to get cooperation and compromise.

It's frustrating to continually elect people who promise one thing and then turn around and throw it away in the name of compromise. We win and then our leaders give us the same crap we wanted them to drop because they are trying to get along.

It's made the right angry. And I don't blame them for that. But anger leads us to make bad decisions.

It feels like we are stuck in a catch 22. We fight for what we want. We have victory based on those principles and our leaders immediately sell us out. So we get angry. which leads us to horrendous decisions and again we don't get what we want.

 

[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.
.

There are some people where cooperation is not possible. But I think the problem people have is those seeking cooperation on the right always manage to sacrifice their values to get cooperation and compromise.

It's frustrating to continually elect people who promise one thing and then turn around and throw it away in the name of compromise. We win and then our leaders give us the same crap we wanted them to drop because they are trying to get along.

It's made the right angry. And I don't blame them for that. But anger leads us to make bad decisions.

It feels like we are stuck in a catch 22. We fight for what we want. We have victory based on those principles and our leaders immediately sell us out. So we get angry. which leads us to horrendous decisions and again we don't get what we want.

Here's my (completely unsolicited and quite possibly worthless) advice: Look at the culture, which I think we'd both agree is in clear decline. That didn't happen overnight. This has happened piece by piece, issue by issue, year by year, decade by decade. I'd think the GOP would be smarter to do this incrementally.

And yes, I know how much power the party has now, but the party is clearly split and had the advantage of a Democratic party that has made itself repulsive to so many people. It's my guess that this situation is more of a last gasp than a big change.

I'd go after smaller, incremental victories, prove you can govern and improve things, and build on the momentum. There's time.

My two cents, worth every penny.
.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?
.

I think we all have different goals.

My goal is to be free

 

[Avatar4321]

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.
.

There are some people where cooperation is not possible. But I think the problem people have is those seeking cooperation on the right always manage to sacrifice their values to get cooperation and compromise.

It's frustrating to continually elect people who promise one thing and then turn around and throw it away in the name of compromise. We win and then our leaders give us the same crap we wanted them to drop because they are trying to get along.

It's made the right angry. And I don't blame them for that. But anger leads us to make bad decisions.

It feels like we are stuck in a catch 22. We fight for what we want. We have victory based on those principles and our leaders immediately sell us out. So we get angry. which leads us to horrendous decisions and again we don't get what we want.

Here's my (completely unsolicited and quite possibly worthless) advice: Look at the culture, which I think we'd both agree is in clear decline. That didn't happen overnight. This has happened piece by piece, issue by issue, year by year, decade by decade. I'd think the GOP would be smarter to do this incrementally.

And yes, I know how much power the party has now, but the party is clearly split and had the advantage of a Democratic party that has made itself repulsive to so many people. It's my guess that this situation is more of a last gasp than a big change.

I'd go after smaller, incremental victories, prove you can govern and improve things, and build on the momentum. There's time.

My two cents, worth every penny.
.

I know the culture is the issue. It's influencing it rather than being influenced by it that is the struggle.

I'm reading a new book that may help with that though.

 

[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?
.

I think we all have different goals.

My goal is to be free

Well, "freedom" means different things to different people. For some it means freedom from government, for others it means having government handle some shit so they're free to do other stuff.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Take taxes. Emotion is their entire response. "lets get the rich. Lets hurt them. Fight for the little guy" its all emotionally charged bs.

Except that's not usually the argument that is made. Let's tax the rich because they have most of the money. It's not about hurting them or fighting for the little guy. (although the latter isn't a bad thing).

Abortion? "war on women. Why do you hate women? Those evil right wingers are going to take your right to kill your child away!"

Okay, let's look at that. The fact that you equate a fetus the size of a grain of rice as being the same as a "child" is pretty much the ultimate emotional argument. it's not based on science or reason. And, yes, there is an element of misogyny involved, as most "pro-life' arguments seem to boil down to 'Why don't you keep your legs closed, you slut!"

 

[JoeB131]

Well, "freedom" means different things to different people. For some it means freedom from government, for others it means having government handle some shit so they're free to do other stuff.

Mac needs to tell us he's a liberal again... that stuff never gets old.

So you are waiting for your demographic to die off???

To a degree, yes. I look at people in my age group I grew up with. I know one guy who is a sanitation worker in the city of Chicago and likes to brag about how much he loves his life.

And I point out to him that if the REpublicans he supported got his way, he'd lose his union pension, his union benefits, and he'd make half as much working for a private contractor like we have out here in the burbs, if he's lucky enough to have them hire his 50+ year old ass.

I don't think this guy can be fixed.