Two more questions for partisans

[task0778]

My 2 cents:

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

First of all, there's a bunch of people who are not on either side. Or they kinda switch back and forth according to the issue and the circumstances. Those are the people that I am interested in offering my thinking of the issue at hand, chances are not many people on the other side are not going to change their position. Some maybe, I've been known to move a little left once in awhile myself. Seems a tad manipulative to talk about changing anyone's mind, makes me think if I can change their mind to my way of thinking then it could be they'll change back the other way when somebody else comes along with the other point of view.

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. But I truly believe the other side has the wrong ideas and solutions, and much of what they want to do is IMHO a bad way to go on more than one level. On a practical basis it does seem like it's us vs them and somebody has to lose, but for me it ain't personal. I'm 69 and it won't be me that has to pay the price for the poor decisions we've made and will make. It would be great to find common ground as often as possible and expand on that, but in so many issues the positions we have are polar opposites and common ground is almost non-existent.

 

[jc456]

My 2 cents:

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

First of all, there's a bunch of people who are not on either side. Or they kinda switch back and forth according to the issue and the circumstances. Those are the people that I am interested in offering my thinking of the issue at hand, chances are not many people on the other side are not going to change their position. Some maybe, I've been known to move a little left once in awhile myself. Seems a tad manipulative to talk about changing anyone's mind, makes me think if I can change their mind to my way of thinking then it could be they'll change back the other way when somebody else comes along with the other point of view.

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. But I truly believe the other side has the wrong ideas and solutions, and much of what they want to do is IMHO a bad way to go on more than one level. On a practical basis it does seem like it's us vs them and somebody has to lose, but for me it ain't personal. I'm 69 and it won't be me that has to pay the price for the poor decisions we've made and will make. It would be great to find common ground as often as possible and expand on that, but in so many issues the positions we have are polar opposites and common ground is almost non-existent.

wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debate? LOL. the libs don't want one.

 

[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?
.

My goal is simply to give my views and opinions and if someone sees them and says hey that is something I have never thought of or considered that's great. What I have no interest in is getting into long drawn out arguments with people who just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

When it comes to USMB, yeah, that's pretty much my approach too. Mostly to observe and belch out my opinion when the urge hits. I'd be nuts to think I was changing anyone's mind on anything.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They have you so agitated and confused that you have no idea which way to go.

agitated? no. I survive without these dumbshits in my life. I find it hilarious watching the libturds in here think they have all the answers when they have zero. I fill my day with this laughter. I include you.

Yes, agitated. You seem completely negative and rail against everything. You don't seem clear headed on anything other than hating liberals.

I merely speak the truth. If you can't handle the truth, well Jack Nicholson can help you.

I'm simply trying to get some background on your thinking within the premise of the thread.

why? what has you mystified?

I'm not mystified at all. If anything, just the opposite. The premise is about partisanship.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So all of the polling agencies are wholly owned by in the tank for the Dems?

Smells like conspiracy.

^^^^^^^^^DING, DING, DING^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The media as well?

definitely. they have them in their fking back pocket. they fund every one of em.

The Intel community and the FBI as well?

you didn't hear comey state so? where were you? How about Jey Johnson? dude, really where have you been?

So to recap. The Dems have quietly taken control of the media, polling organizations, the entire Intel community and the FBI in JC's mind.

Well mac, if you are trying to understand hyper partisanship, here's an interesting case study.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd be curious to know what issues the OP has changed his mind on, since he seems to think that's so important.

 

[Redfish]

There is only so much ignorance & stupidity a person can take.

How do you convince the idiot poster that spews untruths while ignoring responses that correct them?

I do not expect to change the mind of the true dumbasses like Iceweasal. But by refuting his idiocy, a reader might become enlightened & see that lies dipsticks like Iceweasal project crap & party line agendas.

If you are coming on this site & posting crap, expect to get thrown back ion your face. It is that simple.

If you are coming here & posting racial & bigoted comments, be prepared to be called out for it.

Civility ends when the lies begin. It is beyond opinion when you ignore facts.

very true, facts are to liberals as kryptonite was to superman.

Thanks for proving my point. Feel free to point out anything I posted that is a lie.

calling anyone who disagrees with you a dumbass for one thing. You on the left are the most intolerant creatures on earth, except when it comes to muslims who kill gays and treat women like livestock. you are sooooooooooooo tolerant of muslims, but hate and insult americans who may disagree with your social agenda.

Its called hypocrisy, dude.

 

[Redfish]

My 2 cents:

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

First of all, there's a bunch of people who are not on either side. Or they kinda switch back and forth according to the issue and the circumstances. Those are the people that I am interested in offering my thinking of the issue at hand, chances are not many people on the other side are not going to change their position. Some maybe, I've been known to move a little left once in awhile myself. Seems a tad manipulative to talk about changing anyone's mind, makes me think if I can change their mind to my way of thinking then it could be they'll change back the other way when somebody else comes along with the other point of view.

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. But I truly believe the other side has the wrong ideas and solutions, and much of what they want to do is IMHO a bad way to go on more than one level. On a practical basis it does seem like it's us vs them and somebody has to lose, but for me it ain't personal. I'm 69 and it won't be me that has to pay the price for the poor decisions we've made and will make. It would be great to find common ground as often as possible and expand on that, but in so many issues the positions we have are polar opposites and common ground is almost non-existent.

wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debate? LOL. the libs don't want one.

exactly, because even they know that when both sides are given equal time the left always loses because it is based on a failed premise--------------------that socialism works.

 

[task0778]

My 2 cents:

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

First of all, there's a bunch of people who are not on either side. Or they kinda switch back and forth according to the issue and the circumstances. Those are the people that I am interested in offering my thinking of the issue at hand, chances are not many people on the other side are not going to change their position. Some maybe, I've been known to move a little left once in awhile myself. Seems a tad manipulative to talk about changing anyone's mind, makes me think if I can change their mind to my way of thinking then it could be they'll change back the other way when somebody else comes along with the other point of view.

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. But I truly believe the other side has the wrong ideas and solutions, and much of what they want to do is IMHO a bad way to go on more than one level. On a practical basis it does seem like it's us vs them and somebody has to lose, but for me it ain't personal. I'm 69 and it won't be me that has to pay the price for the poor decisions we've made and will make. It would be great to find common ground as often as possible and expand on that, but in so many issues the positions we have are polar opposites and common ground is almost non-existent.

wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debate? LOL. the libs don't want one.

exactly, because even they know that when both sides are given equal time the left always loses because it is based on a failed premise--------------------that socialism works.

I've never been satisfied in saying it's just them and not us too sometimes.

 

[RealDave]

There is only so much ignorance & stupidity a person can take.

How do you convince the idiot poster that spews untruths while ignoring responses that correct them?

I do not expect to change the mind of the true dumbasses like Iceweasal. But by refuting his idiocy, a reader might become enlightened & see that lies dipsticks like Iceweasal project crap & party line agendas.

If you are coming on this site & posting crap, expect to get thrown back ion your face. It is that simple.

If you are coming here & posting racial & bigoted comments, be prepared to be called out for it.

Civility ends when the lies begin. It is beyond opinion when you ignore facts.

very true, facts are to liberals as kryptonite was to superman.

Thanks for proving my point. Feel free to point out anything I posted that is a lie.

calling anyone who disagrees with you a dumbass for one thing. You on the left are the most intolerant creatures on earth, except when it comes to muslims who kill gays and treat women like livestock. you are sooooooooooooo tolerant of muslims, but hate and insult americans who may disagree with your social agenda.

Its called hypocrisy, dude.

Facts. There are no opinions on fact.

Try making making your arguments based of facts & reliable sources.



As for Muslims, the only difference between the Right & Muslims is that it is against the law here to kill gay people. Right wingers & Muslims treat women poorly. You need to look no further than Trump.

 

[RealDave]

My 2 cents:

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

First of all, there's a bunch of people who are not on either side. Or they kinda switch back and forth according to the issue and the circumstances. Those are the people that I am interested in offering my thinking of the issue at hand, chances are not many people on the other side are not going to change their position. Some maybe, I've been known to move a little left once in awhile myself. Seems a tad manipulative to talk about changing anyone's mind, makes me think if I can change their mind to my way of thinking then it could be they'll change back the other way when somebody else comes along with the other point of view.

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. But I truly believe the other side has the wrong ideas and solutions, and much of what they want to do is IMHO a bad way to go on more than one level. On a practical basis it does seem like it's us vs them and somebody has to lose, but for me it ain't personal. I'm 69 and it won't be me that has to pay the price for the poor decisions we've made and will make. It would be great to find common ground as often as possible and expand on that, but in so many issues the positions we have are polar opposites and common ground is almost non-existent.

wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debate? LOL. the libs don't want one.

exactly, because even they know that when both sides are given equal time the left always loses because it is based on a failed premise--------------------that socialism works.

Medicare is a socialistic program & it works great.

 

[RealDave]

My 2 cents:

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

First of all, there's a bunch of people who are not on either side. Or they kinda switch back and forth according to the issue and the circumstances. Those are the people that I am interested in offering my thinking of the issue at hand, chances are not many people on the other side are not going to change their position. Some maybe, I've been known to move a little left once in awhile myself. Seems a tad manipulative to talk about changing anyone's mind, makes me think if I can change their mind to my way of thinking then it could be they'll change back the other way when somebody else comes along with the other point of view.

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. But I truly believe the other side has the wrong ideas and solutions, and much of what they want to do is IMHO a bad way to go on more than one level. On a practical basis it does seem like it's us vs them and somebody has to lose, but for me it ain't personal. I'm 69 and it won't be me that has to pay the price for the poor decisions we've made and will make. It would be great to find common ground as often as possible and expand on that, but in so many issues the positions we have are polar opposites and common ground is almost non-existent.

wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debate? LOL. the libs don't want one.

Can we use facts or do we need to lie like you & your ilk?

 

[Chuz Life]

1. There is still plenty of non committed / indecided people in this country - enough to sway any issue or even a political party one way or the other. So, while it's true most will never change each other's minds in the trenches, there are plenty of minds that haven't committed elsewhere.

2. Arguing with those who are committed and refuse to bend on an issue creates a means for refining arguments , making them easier to communicate, etc.

It's all good.

 

[iceberg]

1. There is still plenty of non committed / indecided people in this country - enough to sway any issue or even a political party one way or the other. So, while it's true most will never change each other's minds in the trenches, there are plenty of minds that haven't committed elsewhere.

2. Arguing with those who are committed and refuse to bend on an issue creates a means for refining arguments , making them easier to communicate, etc.

It's all good.

it's ones who only work/see in stereotypes i have come to completely ignore.

"your ilk" "why do all (insert group name here) think this way" and crap like that - well you're looking for a fight, not a a conversation. and when i see people just bullup and refuse to listen and demand to be heard, fuck 'em.

my life is far less aggravating by not talking to them.

 

[Mac1958]

1. There is still plenty of non committed / indecided people in this country - enough to sway any issue or even a political party one way or the other. So, while it's true most will never change each other's minds in the trenches, there are plenty of minds that haven't committed elsewhere.

2. Arguing with those who are committed and refuse to bend on an issue creates a means for refining arguments , making them easier to communicate, etc.

It's all good.

I agree that there are many independents, undecideds, moderates, etc., but do you feel the attacks are the way to change their mind?

Thinking about it, I would have to admit that negative advertising has always worked in campaigns, at least that's the claim.
.

 

[sartre play]

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.
.

And that's the deal, while we fight, Big money quietly picks our pockets.

 

[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.
.

And that's the deal, while we fight, Big money quietly picks our pockets.

As do all the individual Division Pimps.

They're creating their own job security, and we're helping them.
.

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

I am one that changed. I also voted McCain and Romney not because of the black man but because I always voted party lines. Well after visiting plenty of forums and reading and watching folks post crap from both sides the nastier was on the right and still are, I suppose I used to go right along with them for 40 years. I decided last year to change to independent and held my nose and voted for Johnson. I liked him a lot when he started campaigning but I also liked Kasich and if Kasich would have gotten the nomination he would have had my vote. It takes a lot to change ones thinking but I think something that helps today is social media. I just never knew before 10 years ago that there really much hatred on both sides or maybe I did but didn't pay attention. Twenty or so years ago news was much slower coming to us, today it's immediate. Whether it's right or left I have formed my opinions of certain ones on this forum and not a damn thing will change my mind. There is one I truly despise and if met in person just might shoot him. It is assnine to come on a forum and flaunt your christianity and then hate blacks, gays and just about everyone else in the world that doesn't hate like you while holding a bible in one hand.

 

[debbiedowner]

1. There is still plenty of non committed / indecided people in this country - enough to sway any issue or even a political party one way or the other. So, while it's true most will never change each other's minds in the trenches, there are plenty of minds that haven't committed elsewhere.

2. Arguing with those who are committed and refuse to bend on an issue creates a means for refining arguments , making them easier to communicate, etc.

It's all good.

I agree that there are many independents, undecideds, moderates, etc., but do you feel the attacks are the way to change their mind?

Thinking about it, I would have to admit that negative advertising has always worked in campaigns, at least that's the claim.
.

I must be a rarity, negative advertising has always pushed me to the other side. Now if both sides do equal negative advertising I have to use research to see who may come closest to the truth. Since the field I'm in I know pretty much the truth when a negative comes out against it I go to the other side.

 

[debbiedowner]

1. There is still plenty of non committed / indecided people in this country - enough to sway any issue or even a political party one way or the other. So, while it's true most will never change each other's minds in the trenches, there are plenty of minds that haven't committed elsewhere.

2. Arguing with those who are committed and refuse to bend on an issue creates a means for refining arguments , making them easier to communicate, etc.

It's all good.

I agree that there are many independents, undecideds, moderates, etc., but do you feel the attacks are the way to change their mind?

Thinking about it, I would have to admit that negative advertising has always worked in campaigns, at least that's the claim.
.

Hell, Mac not even facts changes their mind and no attacks certainly won't.