Sorry this happened in your city

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2018, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ok, let's go to a semantics debate to try to assert I was only referring to the Left when I said folks. You did notice the second part of the sentence you quoted started with "but" not "and"? So of course I was talking about both the left and right when I said folks. 

To be sincere I don't tend to listen to Shawn Hannity. I tend to listen a little more closely to our elected officials, including a sitting Senator. To be honest I have zero idea how anyone could compare words stated by a biased journalist to an elected official. 

Thanks for not answering the question.

You know who does listen to Hannity? The people going to Trump rallies. Who also listens to Hannity? Trump. And elected officials on the right have been calling Democrats evil, anti-American, immoral, anti-Christian, and the list goes on for decades. This is a traceable event back to Newt Gingrich's memo to use language to otherize/dehumanize the left. It was effective, and as a result the left decided to engage in it as well. That has brought us to the current political climate.

As for Cory Booker's remarks, I'm assuming you are referring to the "complicit in evil" commentary which, if I really wanted to get into a semantics debate, I would point out isn't actually calling anyone evil. But I'll just stick with the semantics debate that even by starting the second part of the sentence with "but", you still separated out the left specifically from folks when talking about them pushing their agenda.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2018, 02:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Has Trump ever advocated killing anyone?

His comments that the "second amendment people" could take care of the problem if Hillary won the election was pretty close.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2018, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be sincere I don't tend to listen to Shawn Hannity.

We are not talking about centrist like you  who do not support Trump  .  We are talking about the conservative right wing party that adores him.


I am sure it is just a coincidence that you parrot pretty much every speaking point he throws out there.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2018, 03:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Thanks for not answering the question.

You know who does listen to Hannity? The people going to Trump rallies. Who also listens to Hannity? Trump. And elected officials on the right have been calling Democrats evil, anti-American, immoral, anti-Christian, and the list goes on for decades. This is a traceable event back to Newt Gingrich's memo to use language to otherize/dehumanize the left. It was effective, and as a result the left decided to engage in it as well. That has brought us to the current political climate.

As for Cory Booker's remarks, I'm assuming you are referring to the "complicit in evil" commentary which, if I really wanted to get into a semantics debate, I would point out isn't actually calling anyone evil. But I'll just stick with the semantics debate that even by starting the second part of the sentence with "but", you still separated out the left specifically from folks when talking about them pushing their agenda.

I answered the question every bit as much as you answered mine.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2018, 04:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We are not talking about centrist like you  who do not support Trump  .  We are talking about the conservative right wing party that adores him.


I am sure it is just a coincidence that you parrot pretty much every speaking point he throws out there.

Why not share that comment with Matt when he stated what he did not listen to

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2018, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I answered the question every bit as much as you answered mine.

True enough. Given I have not really seen any mainstream instances of it, I don't know.

[ballsofsteel]

(10-28-2018, 11:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m beyond tired of it, and I imagine it’s an even bigger jolt when it happens in your own backyard. Evil continues to raise its head and it’s sickening.

Thank You.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2018, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why not share that comment with Matt when he stated what he did not listen to

Because Matt does not repeat word-for-word the speaking points of the people he claims not to listen to.  So I have reason to believe him when he says he does not listen to them.

You on the other hand.  .  .  .

[Dill]

Random thoughts aimed at no one in particular--

The refrain "both sides do it" signals a problem which has come to fore at the current conjuncture of American politics, making productive or even serious discourse about political issues more difficult now than at any time since '68.

To offer a triple thesis (subject to empirical testing): There are certain things 1) that both sides don't do (and recognizing this matters), and 2) there are some things both sides do, but in nowhere near equal degree (and recognizing this matters too). And 3) saying "one side does it mostly" may be description, not partisanship

Hasty/sweeping generalizations about large fuzzy groups called "the Left" and "the Right" don't clarify much as so many different and ideologically conflicting groups can be lumped in either category. (Not saying such groups cannot be usefully and accurately defined, only that they usually arent.) Same for generalizations about lies and hypocrisy--claims that "they all do it" should not pass for insight. Bias hunting seems not very productive either, in part because it is bias which produces and intensifies the perception of bias.  No doubt pointing out "the other side does it" can have a salutary effect if and when the other side actually does it; but if false equivalence becomes one side's preferred mode of defense, insistence "the other side does it too!" frequently just puts the claim beyond empirical testing--a move as likely to support bias as to contest or expose it.  So it is certainly possible that bias could drive a claim that "both sides do it" while a claim "one side does it more" could be an empirical claim, not automatically evidence of bias at all.  And one can only tell which it is on a case by case basis.

Some may call the situation hopeless and just cocoon. And it might in fact be hopeless--i.e., impossible for people of opposing political views to sort this out.  But people in times past have succeeded, in part because they were clear on standards, such as what could constitute an analytic framework in which questions concerning the causes of current divisions and who might bear more or less responsibility for them could actually be answered. They could agree that questions of who said what, and said it first, and what consequences followed, were to a high degree empirical and factual questions. They could also separate determinations of fact from determinations of value (e.g., blame or praise), which is important in determining proportion and degree. They could even sort out the import of figural expressions--important to good faith reconstructions of another's intentions.  

But perhaps such people no longer exist in the critical mass required to make politics work in the U.S.?

This raises for me the question of how much apparent divisions over matter (taxes, immigration, citizenship) are much more divisions over form--standards of how evidence is evaluated and cases are argued, and norms of conduct.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2018, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because Matt does not repeat word-for-word the speaking points of the people he claims not to listen to.  So I have reason to believe him when he says he does not listen to them.

You on the other hand.  .  .  .

Hell, Matt was the one that quoted Hannity's words, not me. I have a feeling Matt, you, and others here listen a lot closer to the words of folks such as Hannity than I. 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-01-2018, 07:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Random thoughts aimed at no one in particular--

The refrain "both sides do it" signals a problem which has come to fore at the current conjuncture of American politics, making productive or even serious discourse about political issues more difficult now than at any time since '68.

To offer a triple thesis (subject to empirical testing): There are certain things 1) that both sides don't do (and recognizing this matters), and 2) there are some things both sides do, but in nowhere near equal degree (and recognizing this matters too). And 3) saying "one side does it mostly" may be description, not partisanship

Hasty/sweeping generalizations about large fuzzy groups called "the Left" and "the Right" don't clarify much as so many different and ideologically conflicting groups can be lumped in either category. (Not saying such groups cannot be usefully and accurately defined, only that they usually arent.) Same for generalizations about lies and hypocrisy--claims that "they all do it" should not pass for insight. Bias hunting seems not very productive either, in part because it is bias which produces and intensifies the perception of bias.  No doubt pointing out "the other side does it" can have a salutary effect if and when the other side actually does it; but if false equivalence becomes one side's preferred mode of defense, insistence "the other side does it too!" frequently just puts the claim beyond empirical testing--a move as likely to support bias as to contest or expose it.  So it is certainly possible that bias could drive a claim that "both sides do it" while a claim "one side does it more" could be an empirical claim, not automatically evidence of bias at all.  And one can only tell which it is on a case by case basis.

Some may call the situation hopeless and just cocoon. And it might in fact be hopeless--i.e., impossible for people of opposing political views to sort this out.  But people in times past have succeeded, in part because they were clear on standards, such as what could constitute an analytic framework in which questions concerning the causes of current divisions and who might bear more or less responsibility for them could actually be answered. They could agree that questions of who said what, and said it first, and what consequences followed, were to a high degree empirical and factual questions. They could also separate determinations of fact from determinations of value (e.g., blame or praise), which is important in determining proportion and degree. They could even sort out the import of figural expressions--important to good faith reconstructions of another's intentions.  

But perhaps such people no longer exist in the critical mass required to make politics work in the U.S.?

This raises for me the question of how much apparent divisions over matter (taxes, immigration, citizenship) are much more divisions over form--standards of how evidence is evaluated and cases are argued, and norms of conduct.

You’re like a Templar on crusade with the anti-both sides do it. Trust me, anyone who reads this forum is well aware of your position on this.

Question: is there anything at all bad that you think the Democrats or the left- whichever you prefer-do that would qualify for #1 #2 or #3 and if you answer with a “they care too much” type answer I will hunt you down.

[Dill]

(11-01-2018, 08:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You’re like a Templar on crusade with the anti-both sides do it. Trust me, anyone who reads this forum is well aware of your position on this.

Question:  is there anything at all bad that you think the Democrats or the left- whichever you prefer-do that would qualify for #1 #2 or #3 and if you answer with a “they care too much” type answer I will hunt you down.

LOL Nowdays "Templar" is maybe not the best analogy for someone who contests xenophobia.
http://theconversation.com/alt-right-claims-to-march-in-step-with-the-knights-templar-this-is-fake-history-88103

But very good questions.  And I don't conflate "the Left" with "the Democrats," though the latter may include some.

So far as I can tell, Democrats as a group exhibit roughly the same susceptibility to lobbyists and corruption and sex scandals as the Republicans.  In case people are worried that I don't think Democrats do ANYTHING bad (which, though not warranted by anything I said, would be expected in the current climate), I'll certainly say both sides do that.  I might even add that in the three largest cities, Democrats have distinguished histories of corruption. If someone claims these histories continue into the present, I could not, off hand, dispute him or argue "well you see it's all a matter of degree." It would be silly to start a thread here about a Republican politician who cheated on his wife or took bribes from lobbyists and pepper it with comments like "typical REPUBLICAN hypocrisy."

But remember, these kinds of garden variety violations of integrity are not the ground of the political drama we see playing out every week, whether in the form of court nominations or special Russia investigations or "assaults" on the southern border. We can't grasp what is different about the present moment with generalities like "all politicians lie" and "both sides do it."  There are people choosing sides today precisely because one side is goes where the other will not.  I would not be all that shocked to find out Obama had an affair with an intern; but I would be VERY shocked if he denied it at a rally of Democrats with the claim she was "too ugly"--while thousands cheered.  

So where thesis #1 is going would be things like fomenting Xenophobia, tolerating (and so normalizing) misogyny, and concocting laws intended to disenfranchise voters. #2 would be things like violent rhetoric from those in leadership positions, degree of accountability to which voters hold their candidates, and manipulability of voters.   In my view, Democrats, at present, don't qualify for a meaningful "both sides do it" on these matters.  It would not be silly to start a thread about the very different responses to fake news we have seen from the MSM and the right wing media, such that only the MSM seems serious about addressing the problem of fake news (e.g., with "primers" and the like) while the right willingly amplifies the problem, and from the highest level of their political leadership. If there ARE no right wing journalists and media outlets trying to foster critical media literacy, failure to mention them for balance, would not somehow reveal "bias."  It would just be accurate description.

And of course, one could not refute such a charge by arguing that the MSM are guilty of some general "hypocrisy" and include dishonest journalists or exhibit "liberal bias."  One could only refute it with examples of right-wing journalists and media outlets that specifically foster critical media literacy to contest fake news. Only then could one legitimately say "both sides do it." One might find such among Never-Trumpers, but at this point that "never" would raise the question of how representative they were.

[ballsofsteel]

Good morning. I had a conversation with a truck driver from Tennessee the other day. He ask me if I was voting. I said yes. He ask me if I was for Trump ( by Trump he meant mid-terms I believe) . I said no. He asked why not. I said why should I be, what has he done. He said he kept his promises. I said he has? What about the wall that Mexico was going to pay for? He said "give it time",   I said what about all the lies he spews out, aren't you insulted and offended by that. He said "they all lie".   He brought something up about Obama and Hillary and I pointed out that they are not running for anything. I then told him that he must watch Fox news too much and he admitted that was all he watched. I also asked him do you really believe that Trump gives a shit about the working man? He did'nt answer. It was a friendly exchange, we just agreed to disagree.

Its amazing how media whether on the right or left make black look white in an individual mind.
Whats the motive for people to engage in this brain washing could be other than MONEY? Get the power, you get the money. God help us all.

[Benton]

(11-01-2018, 02:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No to your specific questions.But he did say there were good people on the side that was motivation for Micah Johnston to kill 5 Dallas Policemen. Were they responsible?

Did Trump push an anti-Semitic message?

Has Trump ever advocated killing anyone?

Folks are going to always try to make a tragedy into something that promotes their Political Bias, but Left's new mantra is to consider the right Evil. Hell, Corey Booker flat out said it. And now many feel they are doing their part to combat Evil when all they are doing in fanning the flames. 

(11-01-2018, 03:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I should have said both sides do it..........wait a minute, I did when I said folks are. Just left the whataboutism to others. 

My point is the Left is now pushing the agenda that the Right is Evil, do you agree with that? 

Quote:The Trump administration, which already canceled a grant for a group that fights white supremacist terror, now appears unwilling to renew the anti-domestic terror program under which it was funded, despite recent high-profile attacks like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and data showing a spike in attacks on religious minorities.

The Obama administration launched the Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program in 2016 to fight domestic terrorism. Managed by the Department of Homeland Security, the program was given $10 million to distribute.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-will-apparently-not-renew-program-fight-domestic-terror-n926361?fbclid=IwAR0EqAY9AT2C_dY_cj5IHHDFJ5ppbXRuhwH_mynGlNWW6EhS2mzITA6E9RE


Everyone on the right isn't evil. But the order of importance on issues has been les than wholesome.

The things you do first are generally the most important. With their control over federal lawmaking, Republicans were focused on giving primarily rich people more money. On the other hand, they don't seem to be interested in spending dollars on stopping people identifying as members of their own party who promote and participate in violence against people not in their party.

[GMDino]

(11-02-2018, 10:21 AM)Benton Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-will-apparently-not-renew-program-fight-domestic-terror-n926361?fbclid=IwAR0EqAY9AT2C_dY_cj5IHHDFJ5ppbXRuhwH_mynGlNWW6EhS2mzITA6E9RE


Everyone on the right isn't evil. But the order of importance on issues has been les than wholesome.

The things you do first are generally the most important. With their control over federal lawmaking, Republicans were focused on giving primarily rich people more money. On the other hand, they don't seem to be interested in spending dollars on stopping people identifying as members of their own party who promote and participate in violence against people not in their party.

But they'll spend 50 million or so to send troops to the border (a month or so early) to stop people from seeking legal asylum.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2018, 08:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, Matt was the one that quoted Hannity's words, not me. I have a feeling Matt, you, and others here listen a lot closer to the words of folks such as Hannity than I. 

But we are smart enough not to believe him.

Pretty much every point you bring up comes straight out of the right wing echo chamber.  You can deny all you want, but it is clear that your source for information has a strong right wing bias.  You parrot all of their talking points.