The political bubble and how it affects your opinion

[Dill]

(07-23-2019, 11:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're right, the Dems typically lean to the right, my bad.

Again, stating the point of the article.

Yes, which the article states as well.  I don't know that anyone can "live" outside their bubble, but they can certainly venture out of it via numerous sources.  If a person chooses not to do so then yes, by definition they are choosing not to do that.

One could argue that Nixon leaned to the left of Reagan, but that would not make him a "leftist."

The Democratic party might "lean to the left" of the Republican, but that doesn't make them "the left."  Hence my question--who is "the left" which is retreating inside a bubble.

To restate my bubble question: Can ANYONE follow political issues from a position outside of a bubble, ANY bubble?

If no one can, then no one can choose to be outside bubbles altogether. I'd like that agreed/disagreed upon before any further discussion of who is "retreating" into bubbles and who is not.

[Dill]

(07-23-2019, 01:59 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: There is a debate to be had about whether Trump is the cause or the symptom of this whole debacle going on on the Right at the moment. I personally, in the past, have leaned towards cause simply because he came out of nowhere to become the most prominent racist politician that we've had in decades. But maybe that just means the voters have been yearning for a guy to just say what they're thinking, making Trump the symptom...

I agree that Fox News carries a large portion of the blame. But, if I remember correctly, they were against Trump for the majority of the primary season in 2015. It wasn't until he actually won the nomination that they started to change their tune. You saw that in people like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz as well. That tells me, at the very least, even Fox News was resistant to embracing racial stoking as a political strategy until it was essentially forced down their throats by the voters (incidentally, Trump is kind of the exact reason why Democrats have super delegates).

So maybe the cause was the perfect blend of a candidate willing to stoke the base's racism along with the bases' long held desire to be stoked XD. Which was first? The chicken or the egg?

Interesting observation, the bolded. Remember when Megan Kelly called Trump out for his misogynistic tweets? That was a moment when Fox world seemed to be teetering--could have gone for or against Trump.

Looks to me like the viewership decided that. And Fox went with them.  Megan gone.

This brings me to a point regarding what might be a blind spot in liberals' vision: they still can't imagine that millions upon millions of voters either cheer Trump's misogyny and racism or find it not ALL THAT objectionable, though they frequently say things like "Well, I wouldn't express myself that way."    I don't see how this squares with the OP's finding that "liberals" have underestimated Republican voters opposition to racism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2019, 10:44 PM)Dill Wrote: One could argue that Nixon leaned to the left of Reagan, but that would not make him a "leftist."

No, obviously it wouldn't.  Not sure why you felt the need to add this irrelevant piece of info.

Quote:The Democratic party might "lean to the left" of the Republican, but that doesn't make them "the left."  Hence my question--who is "the left" which is retreating inside a bubble.

Seeing as we have two political parties, and the article in OP is discussing those political parties, then yes, for the purposes of this discussion the Dems are the left.  As to your question, I rather think the article answers that question, so I'm not sure why you're asking me.

Quote:To restate my bubble question: Can ANYONE follow political issues from a position outside of a bubble, ANY bubble?

For a person who apparently prides themselves on being logical and fact driven to ask a question in such absolutist terms is puzzling to say the least.

Quote:If no one can, then no one can choose to be outside bubbles altogether. I'd like that agreed/disagreed upon before any further discussion of who is "retreating" into bubbles and who is not.

Depends on what you mean by "altogether".  I'd like that agreed upon before further discussion of the point made in the article which apparently you're confusing me as the author of.

(07-23-2019, 11:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Interesting observation, the bolded. Remember when Megan Kelly called Trump out for his misogynistic tweets? That was a moment when Fox world seemed to be teetering--could have gone for or against Trump.

Yeah, I do.  I also remember absolutely no one being for Trump until he looked like he'd win.  Odd how that works, hmm? 

Quote:Looks to me like the viewership decided that. And Fox went with them.  Megan gone.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be the boatload of cash NBC threw at her.  It was Trump that caused her exit.

Quote:This brings me to a point regarding what might be a blind spot in liberals' vision: they still can't imagine that millions upon millions of voters either cheer Trump's misogyny and racism or find it not ALL THAT objectionable, though they frequently say things like "Well, I wouldn't express myself that way."    I don't see how this squares with the OP's finding that "liberals" have underestimated Republican voters opposition to racism.

You unwittingly made the most excellent point in this thread.  You assume that Trump voters voted for him by either embracing or excusing his misogyny or racism.  Maybe they voted for him because they liked his politics more than Hillary?  You've literally hoisted yourself up as a perfect example of the author's point.  I will leave you to try and twist of this hook.  Rest assured I will enjoy watching.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 12:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: dill:One could argue that Nixon leaned to the left of Reagan, but that would not make him a "leftist."

The Democratic party might "lean to the left" of the Republican, but that doesn't make them "the left."  Hence my question--who is "the left" which is retreating inside a bubble.

No, obviously it wouldn't.  Not sure why you felt the need to add this irrelevant piece of info.

Seeing as we have two political parties, and the article in OP is discussing those political parties, then yes, for the purposes of this discussion the Dems are the left.

You spoke of "the left," not the Dems. 

When I asked who "the left" was, your answer was "You're right, the Dems typically lean to the right, my bad."

Sounds like you are calling Dems "the left."

That's why I felt the need for an "irrelevant piece of info" like the above analogy.

There is for sure a bubble in which the Dems are perceived as "leftists," but I'm not in that bubble and won't grant its assumptions,
especially on a thread about how bubbles affect political perception, not even for "purposes of discussion."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2019, 03:17 PM)Dill Wrote: You spoke of "the left," not the Dems.

Rather interchangeable in a discussion of Republican v. Democrat  

Quote:When I asked who "the left" was, your answer was "You're right, the Dems typically lean to the right, my bad."

Yes, I used sarcasm to address your question as it was willfully obtuse.

Quote:Sounds like you are calling Dems "the left."

In this context, absolutely.

Quote:That's why I felt the need for an "irrelevant piece of info" like the above analogy.

I actually give your intelligence way too much credit to actually buy this.

Quote:There is for sure a bubble in which the Dems are perceived as "leftists," but I'm not in that bubble and won't grant its assumptions,
especially on a thread about how bubbles affect political perception, not even for "purposes of discussion."

And now you're off on a completely different tangent than any previously discussed in the thread.  Kindly return to the topic at hand or we can call it a day.  Thank you.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 12:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to your question, I rather think the article answers that question, so I'm not sure why you're asking me.

For a person who apparently prides themselves on being logical and fact driven to ask a question in such absolutist terms is puzzling to say the least.

Depends on what you mean by "altogether".  I'd like that agreed upon before further discussion of the point made in the article which apparently you're confusing me as the author of.

I rather don't think the the article answers that question, at all.

Traditional logic operates with premises and conclusions which must take the form of propositional statements, of which there are four basic kinds: All A are B, No A are B, Some A are B, Some A are not B. It does not work with "fuzzy" categories or questions or ambivalent statements.

What you mistakenly call "absolutism" is a typical effort to establish agreement about a starting point, an "All A are B" proposition. In this case, All people/voters absorbing information about politics and making judgements based thereon are always inside at least one (educational, informational, cultural) bubble. To state this as a negative, No person making political observations is outside all bubbles.

To answer your question simply and directly, a person outside all bubbles would be outside "altogether." Can we agree that is what "altogether" means in this case?

Or more to the point, can we agree that All people making political judgments are inside some bubble/none are outside all bubbles?

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:There is for sure a bubble in which the Dems are perceived as "leftists," but I'm not in that bubble and won't grant its assumptions,

And now you're off on a completely different tangent than any previously discussed in the thread.  Kindly return to the topic at hand or we can call it a day.  Thank you.

Grant the Dems are "the left" on a  thread about how bubbles inform political perception or I'm off topic.

And you'll call it a day.

So call it a day.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 12:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:This brings me to a point regarding what might be a blind spot in liberals' vision: they still can't imagine that millions upon millions of voters either cheer Trump's misogyny and racism or find it not ALL THAT objectionable, though they frequently say things like "Well, I wouldn't express myself that way."    I don't see how this squares with the OP's finding that "liberals" have underestimated Republican voters opposition to racism.

You unwittingly made the most excellent point in this thread.  You assume that Trump voters voted for him by either embracing or excusing his misogyny or racism.  Maybe they voted for him because they liked his politics more than Hillary?  You've literally hoisted yourself up as a perfect example of the author's point.  I will leave you to try and twist of this hook.  Rest assured I will enjoy watching.

Of course many or most liked his "politics" more than they "liked Hillary." She wasn't going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. She didn't promise to sign a "Muslim ban" on her first day in office.

If you want to "enjoy watching" as I "twist off this hook," then you need to make sure I am on a hook. You do that by demonstrating there is no ground to suppose millions of Trump voters embraced his racism and misogyny, and other millions did not find it objectionable enough to vote for someone else.  And you need to demonstrate that liberals--at least Arlie Russell, the author of your article--are not dismissing these darker motivations driving Trumpism. 

Finally, the "author's point" is exactly what is in question here. Hence my reference to a blind spot in liberal vision. Even granting generally that people have trouble seeing beyond their bubbles or retreating back into them, it's not at all clear why you are not doing exactly that in post which begins by offering a conclusion as proof and ends with an imaginary scene of enjoyment offered in place of demonstration.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2019, 04:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course many or most liked his "politics" more than they "liked Hillary." She wasn't going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. She didn't promise to sign a "Muslim ban" on her first day in office.

Yes, those were the only two policy differences, well argued.  We do know that you have a very pro-muslim bias, so your opinion in this regard must be regarded as skewed.

Quote:If you want to "enjoy watching" as I "twist off this hook," then you need to make sure I am on a hook. You do that by demonstrating there is no ground to suppose millions of Trump voters embraced his racism and misogyny, and other millions did not find it objectionable enough to vote for someone else.  And you need to demonstrate that liberals--at least Arlie Russell, the author of your article--are not dismissing these darker motivations driving Trumpism. 

You've provided zero evidence that they did.  Kind of a catch 22 for you.  I don't need to demonstrate a damn thing, you're the one making an assertion.

Quote:Finally, the "author's point" is exactly what is in question here. Hence my reference to a blind spot in liberal vision. Even granting generally that people have trouble seeing beyond their bubbles or retreating back into them, it's not at all clear why you are not doing exactly that in post which begins by offering a conclusion as proof and ends with an imaginary scene of enjoyment offered in place of demonstration.

Quite the word pretzel here.  I'll make is simple.  The author demonstrated a clear bias towards insulation on the left (or among Dems since  the term "left" triggers you so much).  If you disagree then merely explain why.  Thanks and enjoy the rest of your day.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 10:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, those were the only two policy differences, well argued.  We do know that you have a very pro-muslim bias, so your opinion in this regard must be regarded as skewed.

Wow.  "We" know I have a "pro-muslim bias."  So my "opinion" (argument?) MUST be "regarded as skewed"? LOL

That means what here--that Trump DIDN'T announce the goal of a Muslim ban?  Only "pro-muslim bias" makes that goal look bad?

This is an instance of how bias-hunting short circuits thinking. A previous instance would be your disqualifying reference to Netflix' "extensive ties to Obama" on the "Trump documentary" thread.

This has been a fringe right practice for decades, and is now a common feature of Trump defenses--a judge with a Mexican surname, FBI agents who contribute to Democrats, etc. 

(07-24-2019, 10:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've provided zero evidence that they did.  Kind of a catch 22 for you.  I don't need to demonstrate a damn thing, you're the one making an assertion.

Quite the word pretzel here.  I'll make is simple.  The author demonstrated a clear bias towards insulation on the left (or among Dems since  the term "left" triggers you so much).  If you disagree then merely explain why.  Thanks and enjoy the rest of your day.

First of all, I'm not "the only one making an assertion." You've claimed that I have somehow proved the author's point simply by questioning it. There's your logic pretzel.

And I've already begun the process of raising questions, like these from post #30 on this thread.

I am concerned with how the OP/Common Ground has framed the issue using poll results. We are told in the Common Ground poll that 79% of Republicans think racism is still a problem in the US.  But 57% agree with Trump's tweets against the squad, according to a USA Today poll.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/17/trump-tweets-poll-unamerican-offensive-partisan-divide/1748737001/. Only 45% found the tweets "racist."

And a Marist poll showed that Trump's popularity increased after the tweets. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/22/trump-approval-rating-new-high-npr-pbs-poll-after-racist-tweets/1796556001/.

These are not fringe numbers. So if one asks people "Is racism still a problem today?" there need be some further qualifying questions to ascertain what they mean by this. E.g., Dems could mean that racism, as in discrimination against minorities (especially black), is still with us. Others could mean that whites are now more discriminated against (like Christians! lol).  So if Dems guess that only 50% of Republicans think racism is a problem, as Dems understand racism, they might not be so far off as 79% suggests.

Also, when formulating poll questions, it is good to remember that Americans as a group sound "progressive" when asked about principles. E.g., is equality good, racism bad etc. But when you ask about specific policies or cases, results are often flipped, as we have seen with the Trump tweets.

Which is to say, I am not finding "clear demonstration of bias towards insulation on the left." If I have time tomorrow, I'll add another test of "left insulation"--a comparison of how the "Russia hoax" figures in various bubbles.

You appear ready to use the claims without question, perhaps as an easy means of linking people to "bias" with labels like "the left"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2019, 11:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Wow.  "We" know I have a "pro-muslim bias."  So my "opinion" (argument?) MUST be "regarded as skewed"? LOL

As you have previously argued, we have only your history to go on.  One could very easily infer such.  Maybe if you typed "LOL" a few more times that would make this less true?

Quote:That means what here--that Trump DIDN'T announce the goal of a Muslim ban?  Only "pro-muslim bias" makes that goal look bad?

He did announce it and no, your bias doesn't change that.  He also didn't implement it.

Quote:This is an instance of how bias-hunting short circuits thinking. A previous instance would be your disqualifying reference to Netflix' "extensive ties to Obama" on the "Trump documentary" thread.

No, Netflix has a left leaning agenda.  By default this makes them more pro-Obama.  Seeing as I am not inherently anti-Obama I'm not sure what accusation you're trying to make.

Quote:First of all, I'm not "the only one making an assertion." Hence the reference to a conclusion offered as proof.

And I've already begun the process of raising questions, like these from post #30 on this thread.

I am concerned with how the OP/Common Ground has framed the issue using poll results. We are told in the Common Ground poll that 79% of Republicans think racism is still a problem in the US.  But 57% agree with Trump's tweets against the squad, according to a USA Today poll.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/17/trump-tweets-poll-unamerican-offensive-partisan-divide/1748737001/. Only 45% found the tweets "racist."

And a Marist poll showed that Trump's popularity increased after the tweets. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/22/trump-approval-rating-new-high-npr-pbs-poll-after-racist-tweets/1796556001/.

These are not fringe numbers. So if one asks people "Is racism still a problem today?" there need be some further qualifying questions to ascertain what they mean by this. E.g., Dems could mean that racism, as in discrimination against minorities (especially black), is still with us. Others could mean that whites are now more discriminated against (like Christians! lol).  So if Dems guess that only 50% of Republicans think racism is a problem, as Dems understand racism, they might not be so far off as 79% suggests.

Also, when formulating poll questions, it is good to remember that Americans as a group sound "progressive" when asked about principles. E.g., is equality good, racism bad etc. But when you ask about specific policies or cases, results are often flipped, as we have seen with the Trump tweets.

Oh, you're including the author of the author of the article in OP in your assertion?  I'm afraid they don't post here. 

Quote:Which is to say, I am not finding "clear demonstration of bias towards insulation on the left." If I have time tomorrow, I'll add another test of "left insulation"--a comparison of how the "Russia hoax" figures in various bubbles.

The left leaning author of the article in OP did.

Quote:You appear ready to use the claims without question, perhaps as an easy means of linking people to "bias" with labels like "the left"?

Yes, when comparing Republican to Democrats I am very comfortable describing Democrats as left leaning.  The fact that you do not seems to be indicative of a failure to understand basic American politics (which would honestly explain a lot).  I put the article out there for discussion, I didn't realize it would whip you into such a froth, I do humbly apologize (maybe it was the muslim bias thing that hit too close to home?).  In any event, please do enhance your calm and hopefully return to us tomorrow able to discuss this issue in a rational, adult manner.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As you have previously argued, we have only your history to go on.  One could very easily infer such.  Maybe if you typed "LOL" a few more times that would make this less true?

He did announce it and no, your bias doesn't change that.  He also didn't implement it.

No, Netflix has a left leaning agenda.  By default this makes them more pro-Obama.  Seeing as I am not inherently anti-Obama I'm not sure what accusation you're trying to make.

LOL is not a proposition. (Did you miss my point about in post #46 above about the kinds of expression excluded from argument?)

And how, exactly, could one "easily infer" my pro-Muslim bias?  All my "history" establishes is that I am not an Islamophobe, and that I don't exclude Muslims from the same human rights accorded others.  To go that extra step, to get from there to "pro-Muslim" requires---an anti-Muslim bias? My bias consists in NOT being anti-Muslim?  And as far as "we" goes, no one else has stepped forward to assert I have a pro-Muslim bias. Now that Vlad and Lucie are gone, that's just you. Most of the posters you respect have exactly the same stance towards human rights as I do, and do not exclude Muslims.

And if my "bias" doesn't change the point about Trump's Muslim ban, then why the red herring?

Unless what happens AFTER the election can affect what happens on election day, then "he also didn't implement it" is another non-point, another red herring.

The "accusation" I am making is that baldly asserting "bias" in others is really just a substitute for argument/demonstration. It's about inhabiting a particular kind of bubble in a specific way.  Here's how I put it on the "Trump Documentary" thread, post #10, responding to your labeling of Netflix. You added you didn't see how anything "remotely fair" about Trump could come from the UK, once again judging by perceived source--i.e., pre-judging, prejudice.

. . . claiming outlets are "biased" and then judging whatever passes through them as similarly tainted--especially without viewing or reading them--is itself a strong exercise in bias. 

One reason why I don't waste time bias hunting is that the most biased readers, viewers, newsconsumers tend to be bias hunters who assume bias everywhere and modify their information reception accordingly in a kind of self censorship. E.g., won't read the NYT because they "know" what comes out of that paper.

Fox news certainly puts out biased commentary, but a specific example of Fox commentary is not biased because it is put out by Fox, but because analysis of that example reveals bias in that example.  Another example might not register any significant bias at all, even though a Fox commentary. There is no short cut to this kind of direct analysis, case by case.

I should add that the concept of bias itself is not generally thought through by people. it is not possible to participate in political discussion without being animated by some sort of bias. And all bias is not bad or irrational.

To which I add, Labels and categories are necessary for understanding and talking about social groups. But simply arguing from labels does not produce understanding at all.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, you're including the author of the author of the article in OP in your assertion?  I'm afraid they don't post here. 

The left leaning author of the article in OP did.

Yes, when comparing Republican to Democrats I am very comfortable describing Democrats as left leaning.  The fact that you do not seems to be indicative of a failure to understand basic American politics (which would honestly explain a lot).  I put the article out there for discussion, I didn't realize it would whip you into such a froth, I do humbly apologize (maybe it was the muslim bias thing that hit too close to home?).  In any event, please do enhance your calm and hopefully return to us tomorrow able to discuss this issue in a rational, adult manner.

Your chance to address a counter argument to the claim that the More in Common survey "demonstrated clear bias towards insulation on the left," your chance to demonstrate your skills in rational argument, and you whiff and cover with a joke.

Then more bald assertion. You are "comfortable" describing Democrats as "left-leaning." So they are no longer "the left"?

That I am not in YOUR "comfort zone" indicates MY failure to understand basic American politics?  And would explain a lot--of some unnamed something. Thus you continue to pile up unsupported statements,  as if just saying them made them true.

And after claiming a point I made "must be disregarded" because of my "pro-Muslim bias"--a point you yourself grant unaffected by any bias--you now, whiplash-fashion, shift to calls for rational, adult discussion. 

If you do come back to post tomorrow, in rational adult manner, perhaps you can answer this question: if "living in a bubble is bad," why have you "comfortably" mapped yourself right into one? The primary evidence of that being your openly affirmed practice of reading through labels ("left leaning agenda" "pro-Muslim") which appear obvious to you, but cannot be effectively defined or defended beyond mere assertion. (People who venture outside bubbles understand when their terms cannot be taken for granted, are comfortable with definition.) Add to that the preference for banter over the risk of argument shown in post after post.

You've started a thread with an article about a survey whose results you apparently cannot summarize or articulate, but would nevertheless selectively incorporate into your labeling project. That is, you could use a survey which describes groups living in different bubbles to protect your bubble, while speaking as if bubbles are what others have. ("Leftist bias! So says this article, from the usually unbalanced Guardian!")  Never mind that is exactly this behavior the survey describes as typical where the perception gap is widest, at the extremes where opponents are presumed motivated by bad intentions--liars, hypocrites, "willfully obtuse."

So once again we are at the point where I must ask you to forgo the impressions and one-line "refutations." Respond with something substantial. If you cannot refute my points about the survey or answer the questions I have raised, demonstrate, at least, that you understand both goal and method of the survey. Revise to eliminate filler before posting (feelings, well wishes for the day, apologies, imagined enjoyments etc.).





 

[CJD]

I passively follow another forum type political group called Quora. It's also liberally leaning, but they have a bunch of conservative contributors (in the minority on this website). Because of this, most of the top voted answers are liberal answers and even good conservative answers don't have too many votes unless they're exceptionally rational and clear in their explanation, proof and justifications.

This may sound like a tangent, but there was a question asked on the website "What are the differences between Republicans and Democrats? My parents are both Republican, and they want me to support that group. I don't want to support one side of a war I know nothing about. Which group is better for the whole US?"

As you could guess, most of the answers were like "Well, Democrats are the devil and Republicans are the bestest!" or the opposite version for the Democrats. On highly partisan questions like this, I like to read basically every answer, so I can get a better understanding of what rational thinkers on both sides believe or think in regards to the question being asked.

This morning, a new person answered, and it started off really strong. And then went downhill very quickly. And it felt like a pretty great example of what bubbles can do to a person's perception.

Quote:In some ways Democrats and Republicans want the same things, we just have different ways of meeting our goals:

1. Climate change. We all recognize that climate change is a real thing. Democrats claim to be all about science, yet they ignore the fact that there has been no less than nine major climate changes in Earth’s history which resulted in major extinction events, most of which occurred before humans ever arrived. We all want to utilize renewable energy but Democrats are willing to turn everything upside down to attain that goal without any regard to the consequences of doing so. Republicans know that the climate is changing but we don’t believe that it is happening just because we refuse to buy a Prius.

2. Military. Democrats want a smaller military. Republicans want a large, powerful military that can take care of business. We are about researching new technologies that give us an advantage over any potential enemies.

3. Economy. Democrats love throwing money at things like a program to study the mating habits of cockroaches, or a program to teach South African men how to wash their junk. They say we are broke, yet they keep spending. Under Obama the crushing regulations forced businesses offshore, and their jobs went with them.

4. Jobs. Republicans want people to be employed so they can improve their life and contribute to the economy. Democrats don’t care too much about people being employed because if they aren’t working there are social programs that will take care of them.

5. Abortion. Democrats don’t see a fetus as a human, even though it grows inside another human and has human DNA. They want abortions, even partial birth abortions, to be readily available for any reason. Republicans believe that a fetus is human and has the same rights as humans. We acknowledge that abortions should be available, but only in cases of medical need and they should be rare and highly regulated.

6. Socialism. The biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans in 2019 is that the Democratic Party has turned radically socialist. They want our country to become a socialist state like Venezuela, North Korea, or the former Soviet Union where the government controls what citizens should have. The younger socialist lawmakers aren’t old enough to remember the horrors that socialism has caused and mistakenly see socialism as a program that helps those who cannot help themselves. Republicans reject this idea and want each person to be responsible for their own destiny. We believe that help should be available when needed, but it should be designed to encourage people to make their own way when their circumstances change.
I’m sure there is more but those are the ones I can think of right now.

I, generally, agree with his intro. Democrats and Republicans want many of the same things. My responses as I was reading each of his points:

1. Okay, yea. I agree that Democrats may be pursuing climate change a bit more aggressively than may be economically viable. It's unclear how they want to implement the Green New Deal and if it is even realistic. This guy wants to take a more measured approach to climate change and I can understand that. I think he's being a bit charitable to the Republican view of climate change, since our President is a climate change denier. But if he is a representative of rational Republicans, then I think his viewpoint is accurate to the group he represents.

2. Agreed on both fronts. Democrats want a smaller military, but we don't really want a small military. The amount of money being spent on the development of weapons and equipment that then sit in hangars and storage facilities could be used in more efficient means and we'd still have the largest military on Earth.

3. This is a bit unfair. Sure, there are plenty of research studies that seem silly, but I am not sure many of them, especially the ones he cited, are specifically Liberal research studies. Liberals obviously are willing to spend money, but Conservatives aren't financially conservative anymore anyway, so that's a rather moot point overall. As for the regulations, I think this is a very pro-corporation opinion, as removing regulations can cause disasters like the 2009 recession. But I understand why Republicans feel that way. A free market creates jobs etc.

4. Oh wow. Okay. This is a bit of an absurd premise to base your opinion off of. Democrats don't want people on social programs. They just want people to not be financially ruined if they lose their job and are struggling to find a new one. This has a pretty significant blind spot in this guy's view of Democrats and their policies.

5. I have no idea what a partial birth abortion is, but it sounds like something you'd hear on Fox News about babies being ripped from wombs etc. Abortion is an emotional issue, so I could definitely see someone really buying into the propaganda on this issue. It's unfortunate, but it's just the way this issue typically goes.

6. Aaaaaand, there it is. The kool aid is in full effect at this point haha. What began as a relatively rational evaluation of the differences between Republicans and Democrats which had occasional partisan twists and turns has now gone fully out the window with this patented talking point of Democrats want to be Venezuela because they think medical care and education availability should not be restricted based on how much money you have in your bank account/at your disposal.

Politics are fun :)

[Aquapod770]

(07-22-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Thoughtful post, C-Dawg. 

A couple of questions though, do you think this tendency of politicians to "demonize and caricaturize the opposing party" is of equal magnitude on both sides?

And if this sort of thing "comes between" the parties, do you think politicians are the primary "cause" of it?

1) 100% yes. 

2) No. Media is the primary culprit, both social and news media. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2019, 09:28 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: 1) 100% yes. 

2) No. Media is the primary culprit, both social and news media. 

As Dill is in full obfuscation/pontification mode I'll address this.  I completely agree on both counts.  The proliferation of non-standard news outlets has really allowed those so inclined to solely dwell within the bubble of their own beliefs.  Having no common ground allows for no compromise and certainly helps promote, or even causes the promotion of, seeing the other side as an enemy to be conquered instead of a person with differing views.

[GMDino]

Here is a FOX talking head actively misrepresenting (lying about) what was said during the hearings yesterday while at the same time accusing ABC and CBS of lying.  

Ainsley Earhardt is mad at ABC and CBS for accurately reporting Mueller's statements pic.twitter.com/MWN9CVt1X8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 25, 2019

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2019, 11:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Here is a FOX talking head actively misrepresenting (lying about) what was said during the hearings yesterday while at the same time accusing ABC and CBS of lying.  

Ainsley Earhardt is mad at ABC and CBS for accurately reporting Mueller's statements pic.twitter.com/MWN9CVt1X8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 25, 2019

 

Thank you, this has nothing to do with the tread as presented.  Maybe you could explain why you thought it did?

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 09:28 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: 1) 100% yes. 

2) No. Media is the primary culprit, both social and news media. 

1. Tucker, Laura and Sean would disagree with you. They would admit some bad behavior on the part of Republicans. But the real driver is "the left," which includes establishment Republicans now. Republicans are just responding to left extremism and its politics of personal attack.

I would disagree with them, and even with notion the magnitude is equal. The number one reason for that is we have a president who goes full on personal attack when criticized, whether by the NYT, Chuck Schumer, or a sports figure. Seems that he alone destroys any semblance of equal magnitude. He has called the press "Fake News" and the enemy of the people, mocked a disabled reporter, tweeted all manner of degrading comments about female reporters, and publicly advanced a conspiracy theory about the FBI investigation into Russian influence on the election. He went after the Mexican heritage of a judge who ruled against him, and has vilified Robert Mueller for investigating him. Remember the pictures he tweeted of Melania and Ted Cruz' wife to prove his was better looking? And most recently, of course, told us four Congresswomen of color "hate" America and asked them to go back to the dysfunctional countries they came from.

No president in history has been this nasty to any and everyone who opposes him.  He offers only two options: support him, every day, or become the enemy. But he is not alone. The aforementioned journalists and more at Fox, have aided and abetted this, in books with titles like Liars, Leakers and Liberals.

No doubt if one goes down the rank and file far enough, one might find "left" demonizers as virulent as Trump and Hannity, but I don't see anything like this on the part of Dem political leaders or "left" news commentary in the mainstream press. And it did not begin with Trump. I believe I mentioned the Gingrich memo above from '94, which gives Republican politicians help in defining the other side as traitors and liars.

You know all this, Pod. So I am wondering what you think balances this out, makes the magnitude "100%" equal?  I am not saying no Democrat ever demonizes, I am just saying the magnitude is unequal, by far. Perhaps we mean something different by "demonize"? I am applying the term to depictions of the other side as inherently evil. To have their position on climate change or the national debt or the Iran deal is already a personal attack on DJT and a lie, not loyal opposition grounded in legitimate differences of interest. If Gingrich shows incoming freshmen to congress how to replace ordinary address with terms like "traitor," an attempt to get the whole party doing that, that is an example of demonization. Pointing out that he did it and saying that is a bad thing for the republic is criticizing Gingrich, but not demonizing him. The magnitude of each party's criticism of the other might be 100%, but surely not the magnitude of demonization.

2. "The media" is pretty broad. Social media seems to me more of a platform used by others, if you mean Twitter and Facebook. The problem there is perhaps the creators of the platform profit from division. Is it your view the media "demonizes" to capture audience?, ratings, and profit? If the media were to stop, then the demonization would stop?  Or would existing market demand just throw up another Fox facsimile, making it an effect rather than cause?

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 11:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Here is a FOX talking head actively misrepresenting (lying about) what was said during the hearings yesterday while at the same time accusing ABC and CBS of lying.  

Ainsley Earhardt is mad at ABC and CBS for accurately reporting Mueller's statements pic.twitter.com/MWN9CVt1X8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 25, 2019

 

Good. Now we have an example of information being distributed in different bubbles. If one of these CBS types was accurately reporting what was said at the hearing, and her audience was dismissing the false representation at Fox, or not even bothering to check that channel, that might be an example of "liberals" burying themselves more deeply in their bubble.