Two more questions for partisans

[Iceweasel]

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?
.

Victory is implementing the policies you stand for, are you even serious? I'm not going to run down list of things I agree with put in place AGAIN. If you don't know what's going on that's fine but no one owes you an education.

 

[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.
.

"Two more questions for partisans"

HINT.

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

That's funny. Left winger JoeB said the same thing about me. You two are like peas in a pod. I've noticed that before.

And the term "Partisan" is a personal insult? I see.

That's okay. The rest of us are having a pretty interesting conversation here.
.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?
.

/---- Liberalism must be defeated at every opportunity. Nuff said


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Mac1958]

Liberalism must be defeated at every opportunity. Nuff said

What I'm trying to get to is what that would look like. Are you going to convince a vast majority of the country to agree with you?

And if so, what are you doing to reach that goal?
.

 

[Iceweasel]

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....

People sell all kinds of crap. It's up to the shopper to decide what to buy. I haven't watched CNN for two decades but see every now and again what they are still up to. Never did watch MSNBC but see them references enough. I don't go there so I don't put any food on their table.

HOWEVER this much is crystal clear to me. We NEVER hear this kind of rhetoric when the left is in power. Only when they lose do we hear about division, selling of hatred, not coming together, and on and on. It happens every time.

I am unwilling to sacrifice my principles so leftists can continue their journey to micro-manage my life and no amount of shaming will change it. I see the outcries of the left as a litmus test that positive things are happening. The louder the discourse the better for me and the country. I do not understand those that want to sooth the crying babies, they only do it to get their way.

 

[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?
.

/---- Liberalism must be defeated at every opportunity. Nuff said


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

and the odds of that tactic ever working are????

 

[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.

That's funny. Left winger JoeB said the same thing about me. You two are like peas in a pod. I've noticed that before.

And the term "Partisan" is a personal insult? I see.

That's okay. The rest of us are having a pretty interesting conversation here.
.

You don't "see" anything. I can break it down to baby sized pieces and you can't see it. Your thread title is about partisans then you just claimed you said nothing about partisans. I quoted:

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

...which is total bullshit. That proves you are unaware or disinterested in the issues being discussed here and elsewhere. If all you see is personal attacks that's a shortcoming on your part. You insult people whole-cloth then recoil in horror when people don't accept it as gospel. Sorry if your hit job isn't turning out the way you like.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberalism must be defeated at every opportunity. Nuff said

and the odds of that tactic ever working are????

And, bingo.
.

 

[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.
.

"Two more questions for partisans"

HINT.

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

That's funny. Left winger JoeB said the same thing about me. You two are like peas in a pod. I've noticed that before.

And the term "Partisan" is a personal insult? I see.

That's okay. The rest of us are having a pretty interesting conversation here.
.

You don't "see" anything. I can break it down to baby sized pieces and you can't see it. Your thread title is about partisans then you just claimed you said nothing about partisans. I quoted:

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

...which is total bullshit. That proves you are unaware or disinterested in the issues being discussed here and elsewhere. If all you see is personal attacks that's a shortcoming on your part. You insult people whole-cloth then recoil in horror when people don't accept it as gospel. Sorry if your hit job isn't turning out the way you like.

Okie dokie! You sure are sensitive.
.

 

[Correll]

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.

That's funny. Left winger JoeB said the same thing about me. You two are like peas in a pod. I've noticed that before.

And the term "Partisan" is a personal insult? I see.

That's okay. The rest of us are having a pretty interesting conversation here.
.

I've long admitted to be a partisan republican.

THough I admit my partisanship has taken a beating from the actions of the Republican Leadership against Trump.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberalism must be defeated at every opportunity. Nuff said

What I'm trying to get to is what that would look like. Are you going to convince a vast majority of the country to agree with you?

It would look a lot like the last election.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 believe that it's actually quite apparent that the two sides have different goals.

Simply look at the differences in their approach to HC.

The Dems are unanimous on their goals. The Repubs are not. They've been banging the repeal drum for nearly a decade and found themselves wholly unprepared to move it when the opportunity arose.

The Dems are happy to address the issues with HC within reason, as a bipartisan effort should be. They haven't been invited to the discussion as of yet. Maybe the Republicans effort has to fail on it's own before that can happen.

 

[Iceweasel]

....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.

That's funny. Left winger JoeB said the same thing about me. You two are like peas in a pod. I've noticed that before.

And the term "Partisan" is a personal insult? I see.

That's okay. The rest of us are having a pretty interesting conversation here.
.

You don't "see" anything. I can break it down to baby sized pieces and you can't see it. Your thread title is about partisans then you just claimed you said nothing about partisans. I quoted:

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

...which is total bullshit. That proves you are unaware or disinterested in the issues being discussed here and elsewhere. If all you see is personal attacks that's a shortcoming on your part. You insult people whole-cloth then recoil in horror when people don't accept it as gospel. Sorry if your hit job isn't turning out the way you like.

Okie dokie! You sure are sensitive.
.

Transparent projection.

 

[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 believe that it's actually quite apparent that the two sides have different goals.

Simply look at the differences in their approach to HC.

The Dems are unanimous on their goals. The Repubs are not. They've been banging the repeal drum for nearly a decade and found themselves wholly unprepared to move it when the opportunity arose.

The Dems are happy to address the issues with HC within reason, as a bipartisan effort should be. They haven't been invited to the discussion as of yet. Maybe the Republicans effort has to fail on it's own before that can happen.

I agree with you on that issue, but the same could be said overall about the Dems, particularly when it comes to the wide range of topics involving Identity Politics.
.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

KKKorrell, the problem is that white do vote in a block against their own interests.

How do tax cuts for the rich, union busting, free trade (notice Trump isn't talking that smack anymore) benefit you in the least? But that's what you keep voting for.

 

[JoeB131]

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..

But too many people voted for the borderline retard, that was the problem. Again, the problem isn't that there were too many people who would have voted for Trump even if he shot someone in the middle of fifth avenue, as he once proudly announced.

Meanwhile, the reason why Hillary lost was because too many Bernie Bros threw a hissy and didn't support her because she wasn't ready to embrace socialism.

I agree, I had a lot of concerns about Hillary. But you know what, worst case scenario, the Republicans would still control both houses of congress, so what she could have done was probably limited.

The only thing keeping Trump from doing real damage is that the GOP can't get its stuff together.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone notice that anyone who articulately answered Mac's questions didn't get a response from him?

 

[PredFan]

So, two questions:

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

They will not change their minds. And it isn't just the language used. I was on another site before this one that was very heavily moderated and you had to use civil language, you had to stay on topic and absolutely no personal attacks were ever allowed. Still, not one single leftist ever changed their position on anything.

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?
.

No, I always beat them, that's easy. My goal, if I talk to them at all, is to debunk their garbage publically so that any of my conservative colleagues see it, they can see my response. They are the only ones I give a shit about. Then I finish by calling the leftists what they are. Some people call that personal attacks. Whatever.

 

[Mac1958]

So, two questions:

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

They will not change their minds. And it isn't just the language used. I was on another site before this one that was very heavily moderated and you had to use civil language, you had to stay on topic and absolutely no personal attacks were ever allowed. Still, not one single leftist ever changed their position on anything.

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?
.

No, I always beat them, that's easy. My goal, if I talk to them at all, is to debunk their garbage publically so that any of my conservative colleagues see it, they can see my response. They are the only ones I give a shit about. Then I finish by calling the leftists what they are. Some people call that personal attacks. Whatever.

I've wondered about that too, whether some rhetoric is not really directed at the other side.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone notice that anyone who articulately answered Mac's questions didn't get a response from him?

He's just trying to pick another fight with liberals in that weasely style of his.