Two more questions for partisans

[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.
.

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.

It really is counter-intuitive. Whenever I see Person A attack Person B, Person A immediately becomes suspect to me.

But if they didn't work, if they didn't "focus group", we wouldn't see them.
.

 

[imawhosure]

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 would like to reply to this---------->

1. You can't change the minds of people who are consistently lied to, because that is what their people want to hear. Both sides do it. Usually, you can draw a collective conclusion with a few outliers, as long as you are working off the same facts. We aren't working off the same facts, that is the problem! And by the way, USMB doesn't really count for much, because as you can see, MANY of the people are PAID POSTERS who's main job in life, is to LIE so they can get money for nothing!


2. Define the other side from a conservative point of view! Is it Elizabeth Warren, Jerry Brown, or Joe Biden? I would have voted for Joe Biden, even if I think he is to far left for me, but would have been safer than Trump. Pocahontas and Brown are closet socialists along with Bernie.

You see, the Democratic party is controlled by the FAR LEFT, but I personally believe they have a handful of decent people in there still I could support. Problem is------>mostly because of the 17th amendment, the senators almost have to vote in lockstep along party lines. As you see, the Repubs do NOT, and that is a GOOD thing; eventhough Mconnell will try and crack the whip!

And so, I suggest to MANY they look something up, because they would NEVER believe me--------------> forget healthcare altogether for this exercise, and then look up the proposed initiatives of JFK. When you do, think about the initiatives of this administration today, minus healthcare. Amazing, isn't it! It even correlates with the immigration/illegal immigration question!

What this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is---------> how far BOTH parties have moved left; the Repubs to almost EXACTLY where JFK was, and the Democrats totally off the reservation.

This should really be a discussion on this board between people who can speak without personal insults in a closed venue, because many self identifying far right and left, will never accept the fact that Trumps vision is closer to JFK's, then either side wants to admit. People around 60 will know I speak the truth for sure, and the younger people will not believe their eyes if they look it up!

So for the right, when/if they speak about JFK, you are surely speaking badly about the current Trump initiatives. Also, for the left........when you canonize JFK, you are making yourself look silly since his initiatives are almost verbatim to Trump! In fact, I betcha Trump copied them, lol!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It doest work that great. They underpay providers, and then those providers have to increase their prices to make up the losses. Then our insurance has to pay those prices and up goes the premiums. The program gets ripped of by the billions every year and it's going broke to boot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I like Limbaugh's theory on that. You can't change anybody's mind. All you can do is give them the tools to change their own mind.

 

[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.

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.
.

My method / attitude is not a secret.

I generally consider what it takes to change a person's mind, including what it takes to change my own mind. More often than not, any person will hang onto and even defend a belief for as long as they are comfortable doing so.

So, then it comes down to that which makes a person UNCOMFORTABLE with their view. For me, (generally ) facts alone are enough to compel me to do that.

But, arguing against facts while also having your ignorance, denials and hypocrisies constantly pointed out would be even more challenging for me to endure.

So, it seems only logical to me that it takes a combination of all of the above to finally get anyone else to change their views too.

 

[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.

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.
.

My method / attitude is not a secret.

I generally consider what it takes to change a person's mind, including what it takes to change my own mind. More often than not, any person will hang onto and even defend a belief for as long as they are comfortable doing so.

So, then it comes down to that which makes a person UNCOMFORTABLE with their view. For me, (generally ) facts alone are enough to compel me to do that.

But, arguing against facts while also having your ignorance, denials and hypocrisies constantly pointed out would be even more challenging for me to endure.

So, it seems only logical to me that it takes a combination of all of the above to finally get anyone else to change their views too.

No one agrees?

 

[Mac1958]

Some interesting thoughts so far folks, some stuff I hadn't thought of.

 

[Coyote]

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?
.

No to both.

I want both sides to work together for the common good of our country If that is impossible then I want them both to explode and new parties formed.

The only way to stop the constant use of "vicious personal attacks, hyperbole and distortion" is to acknowledge it and condemn it. But I'm not seeing much of that.

 

[Coyote]

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.
.

My method / attitude is not a secret.

I generally consider what it takes to change a person's mind, including what it takes to change my own mind. More often than not, any person will hang onto and even defend a belief for as long as they are comfortable doing so.

So, then it comes down to that which makes a person UNCOMFORTABLE with their view. For me, (generally ) facts alone are enough to compel me to do that.

But, arguing against facts while also having your ignorance, denials and hypocrisies constantly pointed out would be even more challenging for me to endure.

So, it seems only logical to me that it takes a combination of all of the above to finally get anyone else to change their views too.

No one agrees?

I find that the best way to change a person's view is not by personal attacks, insults, or insulting attacks on what they believe because that automatically puts a person on a defensive, and closes minds to anything else you might say. I hate negative advertising because I'm automatically suspicious of hidden agendas -and, they often come off as mean-spirited. I want to hear GOOD things about the other guy and what he will do, not bad things about his opponent.

If I'm engaging in a debate my goal is not to "change minds" necessarily, but to encourage the person to see the other side and make informed choices. They may change their mind or they may not - but at least they know there is another side to consider. By the same token it means that I have to set aside my own preconceptions, beliefs and positions and listen - something that can be quite hard to do when issues are often entertwined with deeply held beliefs or emotions.

I think the only way you can change a person's mind is by giving them the information and giving the the SPACE to think about it and come to their own conclusions.

It's not unlike something I learned in training my dog to work cattle years ago. Everyone is attracted to the "flash" - the tough dog going for the grip on a nose or hock of a steer that doesn't want to move. But real stockmanship is more subtle. The handler directs the dog to let the cow know where he wants the cow to go, the cow balks (often because the presence of the dog is threatening especially if it's too close) - the handler lies the dog down (reduces pressure) - the cow now has some time to think and safe space in which to make a decision - in this case, the decision we want, turning her back on the dog and walking in the desired direction. That's how minds are changed where as a direct assault will often result in a defensive standoff.

 

[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.

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.

bullshit

 

[Mac1958]

I think the only way you can change a person's mind is by giving them the information and giving the the SPACE to think about it and come to their own conclusions.

My guess is that most adults know this instinctively, and it's why I'm not so sure many partisans, pundits and politicos are really trying to change anyone's mind, or (and this would be my preference) even just engage in constructive conversation with the goal of finding common ground and proceeding from there.

I now believe that much of the rhetoric is either ego/self esteem-based, or just an attempt to fire up those who agree with them even more. This isn't civil, mature, constructive conversation, and I can't believe that an adult thinks it is.
.

 

[Coyote]

I think the only way you can change a person's mind is by giving them the information and giving the the SPACE to think about it and come to their own conclusions.

My guess is that most adults know this instinctively, and it's why I'm not so sure many partisans, pundits and politicos are really trying to change anyone's mind, or (and this would be my preference) even just engage in constructive conversation with the goal of finding common ground and proceeding from there.

I now believe that much of the rhetoric is either ego/self esteem-based, or just an attempt to fire up those who agree with them even more. This isn't civil, mature, constructive conversation, and I can't believe that an adult thinks it is.
.

I agree...plus, the two camps are so entrenched now. I don't understand how we got there simply because people of my generation at least - and the political figures whom I may not have liked but respected - didn't talk like that or support that. Too much has been going too far and no one seems to mind as long as it's against the other guy.

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the only way you can change a person's mind is by giving them the information and giving the the SPACE to think about it and come to their own conclusions.

My guess is that most adults know this instinctively, and it's why I'm not so sure many partisans, pundits and politicos are really trying to change anyone's mind, or (and this would be my preference) even just engage in constructive conversation with the goal of finding common ground and proceeding from there.

I now believe that much of the rhetoric is either ego/self esteem-based, or just an attempt to fire up those who agree with them even more. This isn't civil, mature, constructive conversation, and I can't believe that an adult thinks it is.
.

I agree...plus, the two camps are so entrenched now. I don't understand how we got there simply because people of my generation at least - and the political figures whom I may not have liked but respected - didn't talk like that or support that. Too much has been going too far and no one seems to mind as long as it's against the other guy.

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

Yeah. My guess is that it's media-driven. From talk radio to cable news to the proliferation of "news" sites that cater to and exacerbate binary thought processes.

We've lost our intellectual curiosity and our humility. That's a bad combo right there.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have tried every technique imaginable and every variation and combination I can think of. The bottom line is that we never know what it takes to change a persons mind. Every mind is different.

I am fortunate to have had a few people who have publically givien me credit for changing some of their views (on other sites) and each time it came as a surprise to me, because they were not the person I was arguing with. They were lurking and following along.

I expect the same happens here too. . . Whether or not any lurkers decide to say so publically.

 

[Coyote]

I think the only way you can change a person's mind is by giving them the information and giving the the SPACE to think about it and come to their own conclusions.

My guess is that most adults know this instinctively, and it's why I'm not so sure many partisans, pundits and politicos are really trying to change anyone's mind, or (and this would be my preference) even just engage in constructive conversation with the goal of finding common ground and proceeding from there.

I now believe that much of the rhetoric is either ego/self esteem-based, or just an attempt to fire up those who agree with them even more. This isn't civil, mature, constructive conversation, and I can't believe that an adult thinks it is.
.

I agree...plus, the two camps are so entrenched now. I don't understand how we got there simply because people of my generation at least - and the political figures whom I may not have liked but respected - didn't talk like that or support that. Too much has been going too far and no one seems to mind as long as it's against the other guy.

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

Yeah. My guess is that it's media-driven. From talk radio to cable news to the proliferation of "news" sites that cater to and exacerbate binary thought processes.

We've lost our intellectual curiosity and our humility. That's a bad combo right there.
.

I think we've moved into an age where "just because I CAN say it I SHOULD" rather than "just because I CAN say it I SHOULDN'T" - internal and societal regulators that maintained a civil society. We've trashed those those who exibit impulse control and elevated those who "say it like is".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

It's more the left than the right.

Kate's law was passed mostly by a Republican Congress. Now it goes to the Senate. Take note on how many Democrats vote against it.

Kate's law is pretty much common sense. It's extra penalties for felons who return to this country after deportation. Now who could possible be against that? I'll tell you who, the Democrats.

So where is the middle ground or "having a conversation" with people who think that way? Americans who are placing political power over safety of the people in their country?

 

[Coyote]

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

It's more the left than the right.

Kate's law was passed mostly by a Republican Congress. Now it goes to the Senate. Take note on how many Democrats vote against it.

Kate's law is pretty much common sense. It's extra penalties for felons who return to this country after deportation. Now who could possible be against that? I'll tell you who, the Democrats.

So where is the middle ground or "having a conversation" with people who think that way? Americans who are placing political power over safety of the people in their country?

And right there you epitomize the problem with your claim "it's more the left than the right" rather than acknowledging your share of the problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not enough people are actually sitting down and having a conversation WITH the "other side" - they're all just talking AT the other side. It's so crazy.

It's more the left than the right.

Kate's law was passed mostly by a Republican Congress. Now it goes to the Senate. Take note on how many Democrats vote against it.

Kate's law is pretty much common sense. It's extra penalties for felons who return to this country after deportation. Now who could possible be against that? I'll tell you who, the Democrats.

So where is the middle ground or "having a conversation" with people who think that way? Americans who are placing political power over safety of the people in their country?

And right there you epitomize the problem with your claim "it's more the left than the right" rather than acknowledging your share of the problem.

Fair enough, examples please?

Kate's law is good for the entire country and not just one party. Name me one policy by the Democrats that were good for the country (as a whole) that were met with Republican opposition.

The Democrat party is the anti-white party. Their long term goal is to make whites a minority as quickly as possible because every minority group votes Democrat as a majority. Their only goal is to make the US a one-party government by eliminating whites as the majority.

 

[JoeB131]

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

He doesn't deal with rejection well.

 

[Freewill]

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. impossible
2. What does that even mean, "beat the other side?" Isn't that kinda what everyone does when there are two sides?