(11-07-2022, 11:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Gosh, what happened to that post?
How does one fix that?
That was weird. Let's try again.
Also apparently she is willing to ignore the likes of Jim Jordan, Tom Cotton, etc saying how they will "go after" everyone when they get control of congress.
Quote:But, TBF, she's really just reading from a script since she doesn't actually hold a belief and just wants to grift.
As Washington elite push authoritarian policies and weaponize law enforcement agencies to go after political opponents, we realize our right to bear arms is the deterrent our founders intended to push back against this threat of government tyranny. pic.twitter.com/OMTpcPHZTH
Most gun-related crimes are committed by criminals using stolen guns, so taking guns away from law-abiding Americans is useless. To make our streets safer, we must enforce existing gun laws and get repeat criminals off our streets with stiff penalties for crimes involving guns
I'm spending every day until election day campaigning for great Americans who share my commitment to putting the American people first, and upholding our God-given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and our right to bear arms. pic.twitter.com/MWDcYBaIGZ
(11-06-2022, 05:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: I ask myself, would Italy have gone fascist had they a two-party system in 1920, or Germany in 1930? I have some doubts. Authoritarians have seized power from (small "d") democrats in many places because they were in a system which enabled governance with pluralities/superminorities.
Now that is comparing apples to oranges. I'd argue the authoritarians would have risen up no matter which democratic system. The Weimar Republic was a young and hence very vulnerable, widely unsupported democracy forced upon the country through a devastating defeat in a devastating war. And then the global depression, the huge reparations. There was poverty, suffering, desperation (and a constant sense of humiliation) on a level that does not compare to modern times.
I quite understand the post-war shocks of post 1918 and Weimar, and agree that they are not comparable in intensity to the current U.S. (though do note some affinities, such as the challenge to government legitimacy).
But Hitler's seizure of power was by no means inevitable or unavoidable. Nor was Mussolini's.
So all I'm doing is a kind of thought experiment to test the two-party concept, not to compare the U.S. to struggling Weimar. What might have happened had Germany only two parties, like an SPD which included most Communists and a dozen socialist splinters, and a center-conservative party which included the Zenrum, DVNP and DNP and similar liberal and nationalist parties?
There would have been authoritarians in such a two-party system, sure, and possibly a higher percentage than the U.S., but I don't see disruptive fascists rising through a traditional party hierarchy on either side. I don't see how they could have engineered a "Preussenschlag" style take over of one state (Land) to set the stage for power seizure on the national stage. That was only possible because of the way state (or in this case Land) power could be momentarily (and legally) levered to single party control, amidst many competing parties.
(11-06-2022, 05:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's of course not meant as an excuse for history. But no, I wouldn't know how a two-party system would have prevented Hitler. My reasoning is one of my grievances with this system actually. To gain power, one only has to get a hold of one of the parties. Enough hold that the rest falls in line. Similar to what Trump did, with maybe say around 20% (something around that) of voters actually liking him initially (and quite many more that still vote for him over the democrat anyways and of course quite some more who don't vote at all). And as soon as you're there. You just have to wait. The party in power does not get reelected too often, especially when the world is as grim as it was in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Once, maybe twice if the other side is real scary, but at some not too distant point the swing is bound to happen. You got 20% of devout followers and time, you get there, even if you're a monster.
And that's the trick isn't it? That's not so easy with these big umbrella parties.
There have always been at least 20% of "devout followers" in the U.S. since the Civil War, often more, if by that you mean anti-democratic authoritarians. And Trump is not like Hitler, someone who dedicated his life to a long-term goals, single-mindedly following them to a terrible final solution decades later.
Trump's authoritarians were ready made for him and fell into his lap. Where we disagree, possibly, is whether they were the product of a "system," or something more amorphous, growing more to historical and economic divisions between regions and classes now registering as identity threats.
The "fall in line" phenomenon has not occurred to this extent since the Civil War, right after a new major party had formed, and several others were in throes of dissolution.
(11-06-2022, 05:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: 3. The current divisions have much more to do with 1) economic conditions--decades of flat wages amidst dramatically rising worker productivity, and workers aren't pocketing all that extra value they are creating (neoliberalism), 2) shrinking union membership, and the political socialization that went with such membership, 3) an economic elite with a long tradition of ruling through fear (of working masses, a black underclass, immigration, socialists from Europe, and Muslims straining to impose Sharia on us all), and 4) new communication technology which advantages 3 over traditional political debate/discussion subject to civil norms and standards of evidence. So that 3 elite is able to control the "narrative" about why the U.S. is going in the wrong direction--though their success also undermines their control, as millions believe the uncontrollable MJT and DJT speak their pain.
That's it? 1, 2, 3, 4, explanation done? Yeah I want to add 5) a two party system that kills the middle ground, forces everone to pick sides, divides even the news in left and right, turns people to messengers of talking points and designed controversies to get the wheel of disdain spinning, two sides that can't even listen to each other any more with any sense of earnesty, it's only about shooting holes in someone else's opinion, make him look as crazy, stupid and immoral as possible. An atmosphere where hateful messages can rise and truth isn't important and 6) a whole lot of other awful consequences of a dualistic system, like both parties being bought by big money and engaging in open bribery and then some. As stated, worth a thread sometimes. And of course 7) a whole lot of other things, you haven't even mentioned social media for example.
We widely agree on Tulsi though.
Your #7, social media, is already subsumed under my #4, where one would find Fox, Newsmax and Infowars. Your #6 is covered by my 1-3, I think.
It's your #5 that we don't agree on. You seem to regard it as an important driver of division. But your "evidence," the "atmosphere where hateful messages an rise and truth isn't important," --which evokes horror in us equally--still looks to me attributable to the causes I've already enumerated.
You say "the two sides." But I don't think the division is driven by both sides. There is a Gingrich memo, but no Tip O'Neill memo. https://able2know.org/topic/122842-1
And the point was to use abusive and distortive language to define Dem "enemies" REGARDLESS of the issue. Dems were ALWAYS to be described as "hypocrites" "corrupt" "traitors" and against "flag, family, child, jobs" be the issue debt limit, workplace equity, or a treaty with Mexico. Rush Limbaugh was already doing this on his radio program, but Gingrich embedded it in the party from top down, Washington outward. It metastasized in the Republican party, while Democrats who thought "We're now forced to do the same" were never able to attract Dem voters that way.
Looks to me like the division arises elsewhere, but plays out in a two party system.
And we disputed this previously, perhaps obliquely, when we disputed the degree to which "liberal" or MSM media are a mirror image of Fox/Newsmax et al. This was, if I remember, question of degree between us, but the center of my argument was that the right wing media are structurally different from the MSM. They generate and mass circulate untruth.
The parties themselves reflect this decision. There is no Dem counterpart to the Big Lie. Because the Big lie raises tempers and creates argument still does not mean "both sides" are equally unable to listen to one another and only about shooting holes in someone else's opinion.
(11-07-2022, 12:44 PM)Dill Wrote: And that's the trick isn't it? That's not so easy with these big umbrella parties.
Then why does it work with your Republican party? Where's the big umbrella telling Trump his time is up and he's way too extreme for the more moderate wing. It doesn't necessarily happen that way, not even in a rich country like modern times US, even less so in a desperate country that is bound to go with the extremes since everything moderate failed.
That makes me wonder, you see for yourself that this big party umbrella in a strictly dual system is a myth, or say it existing under any circumstances is. Even if you put more distinct parties under one tent. At some point, the unsucccessful ones fall in line or get kicked out. And if only one prong is successful, then that's that.
But the debate is tough to lead, there's no evidence either way. I still stand by my hypothetical as described. And it's gonna be tough to convince me a two-party system would have stopped the rise of the authoritarians post WW1, especially since I see a modern day example of how that exact hope does not materialize. Election fraud claims, Capitol storm, Abortion bans and so on. Extreme positions that these days basically go unchallenged within the own ranks and within the own voter base. You think it would be much different if the GOP would demand forbidding the other party? I don't. If only the position remains consistent, it's still just a matter of time.
(11-07-2022, 12:44 PM)Dill Wrote: There have always been at least 20% of "devout followers" in the U.S. since the Civil War, often more, if by that you mean anti-democratic authoritarians. And Trump is not like Hitler, someone who dedicated his life to a long-term goals, single-mindedly following them to a terrible final solution decades later.
Please don't even insinuate I compared Trump to Hitler, I did my best to avoid that impression.
But yes you always had this system in place, and it often failed you before. McCarthy era, Nixon era, to name a few. Agreed, you always had principled people in power standing up to them and undoing them in the end, but that's what it depends on, such people. It were those decent folks that put an end to things like this. The ballot boxes, not so much actually. They demand a swing back and forth no matter what.
(11-07-2022, 12:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump's authoritarians were ready made for him and fell into his lap. Where we disagree, possibly, is whether they were the product of a "system," or something more amorphous, growing more to historical and economic divisions between regions and classes now registering as identity threats.
(11-07-2022, 10:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Your #7, social media, is already subsumed under my #4, where one would find Fox, Newsmax and Infowars. Your #6 is covered by my 1-3, I think.
It's your #5 that we don't agree on. You seem to regard it as an important driver of division. But your "evidence," the "atmosphere where hateful messages an rise and truth isn't important," --which evokes horror in us equally--still looks to me attributable to the causes I've already enumerated.
You say "the two sides." But I don't think the division is driven by both sides. There is a Gingrich memo, but no Tip O'Neill memo. https://able2know.org/topic/122842-1
And the point was to use abusive and distortive language to define Dem "enemies" REGARDLESS of the issue. Dems were ALWAYS to be described as "hypocrites" "corrupt" "traitors" and against "flag, family, child, jobs" be the issue debt limit, workplace equity, or a treaty with Mexico. Rush Limbaugh was already doing this on his radio program, but Gingrich embedded it in the party from top down, Washington outward. It metastasized in the Republican party, while Democrats who thought "We're now forced to do the same" were never able to attract Dem voters that way.
Looks to me like the division arises elsewhere, but plays out in a two party system.
And we disputed this previously, perhaps obliquely, when we disputed the degree to which "liberal" or MSM media are a mirror image of Fox/Newsmax et al. This was, if I remember, question of degree between us, but the center of my argument was that the right wing media are structurally different from the MSM. They generate and mass circulate untruth.
The parties themselves reflect this decision. There is no Dem counterpart to the Big Lie. Because the Big lie raises tempers and creates argument still does not mean "both sides" are equally unable to listen to one another and only about shooting holes in someone else's opinion.
So that is one issue, the way you seem to make the GOP side more responsible than the Dem side. And to a degree, I see it the same way. It's of course irrelevant to evaluate the dangers of a two-party system, one side taking advantage of its eternal flaw is sufficient. I understand what Limbaugh et al. did, I just claim that they could do so in an already simplistic, strictly dualistic system, where whatever outrageous thing anyone says is trumped by the fact that he fights for the right team. But of course I also give the liberal side, including the media, plenty of blame for the division too. I know I can never convince you of that though, not even in the slightest actually. A fact I attribute to you also being beholden to one side in the two-sided affair, in the end for you it's about blaming Republicans. As I said, fair enough, they're the ones with Trump, that are fine with him asking for overturning results and storming capitols and talking about fraud or stop the count when he's ahead and all that. They're actually trying the coup (or are idly standing by and having no issue with it), sure, while blaming the other side of doing so. Which they do all the time actually, Goebbels playbook. So I get that. But to me that's all symptoms, not the underlying issue. And it doesn't mean the other side is blameless in their own extremes and their own demand of loyalty to their own no matter what.
For this is the typical liberal, he says what's true and righteous and whoever disagrees gets laughed at, called uninformed or a bigot or indeed often a racist or at the very least someone who is very wrong and needs to be educated (that would be your thing). And it's not always fair. In short, your side tends to be overly condescending and again there's no way to convince you of that, I am aware, even though pretty much any debate here or anywhere looks like clear evidence of that to me. Both sides carry this extreme black and white worldview around and are more concerned with scoring points for their own side than to actually have a meaningful exchange. Yeah Americans from different aisles do not really talk to each other any longer, you just fight with each other, with extreme rhetoric that kills all chance of any convergence and is in fact designed to do so. You don't have a nuanced debate about anything, but plenty of talking points and rhetorical tricks - and constantly fed disdain. And often the conservative side is just more open about the latter. For one, it's the most attractive quality Trump has, he makes liberal heads explode and that's great. It's a toxic climate where the hatred for the other side, the domestic enemy of sorts, is more important than democracy. I can't point to any clear evidence that this is a result of the two-party system, it just makes sense to me that it is.
(11-08-2022, 05:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: There have always been at least 20% of "devout followers" in the U.S. since the Civil War, often more, if by that you mean anti-democratic authoritarians. And Trump is not like Hitler, someone who dedicated his life to a long-term goals, single-mindedly following them to a terrible final solution decades later.
Please don't even insinuate I compared Trump to Hitler, I did my best to avoid that impression.
But yes you always had this system in place, and it often failed you before. McCarthy era, Nixon era, to name a few. Agreed, you always had principled people in power standing up to them and undoing them in the end, but that's what it depends on, such people. It were those decent folks that put an end to things like this. The ballot boxes, not so much actually. They demand a swing back and forth no matter what.
?? I'm the one who brought up interwar fascisms.
And the comparison did not concern individuals but political organization/structure and conditions on the ground.
I compared Trump to Hitler to illustrate a structural difference between Weimar and the U.S. That was in response to
your use of the term "authoritarians," but I didn't see that as an allusion to Trump. I assumed that you, like me,
supposed they were always in the body politic in some proportion. The question is how they organize, expand, and
gain power. I mention Trump because he was NOT the one who created/orchestrated the political apparatus he found ready made.
That came from somewhere else, and I don't see the two-party system as a cause of that.
Not sure what you mean by "failed" if McCarthy and Nixon are the examples.
E.g., Nixon chose resignation over impeachment. That is the system working.
It is not working now.
And ALL democracies depend upon principled people standing up and doing the right thing.
If there aren't enough of those people anymore, I think there is a much more immediate
cause than the 2-party system.
There are a few other points I'd like to clarify, but I can't get back to this until evening.
(11-08-2022, 01:21 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? I'm the one who brought up interwar fascisms.
And the comparison did not concern individuals but political organization/structure and conditions on the ground.
Oh alright, sorry then, never mind. Guess I misread or rather said this anyway so no one accuses me of having made a direct comparison.
(11-08-2022, 01:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean by "failed" if McCarthy and Nixon are the examples.
E.g., Nixon chose resignation over impeachment. That is the system working.
It is not working now.
That appears to be a contradiction of sorts. And a system either reliaby works or it does not work at all.
Maybe it wasn't the system working back then, but people in the right places doing the right thing, something your system depends on upon all other factors. These people were eventually present then, they are not present now.
And while the same thing might indeed be true for other democracies. The ones in Europe have way more direct and indirect safeguards in place. Starting with us actually being able to charge our leaders with crimes. But mainly with us not experiencing uncondinional loyalty to one person on such a massive scale. There's a reason why Russian propaganda worked so much better in the US than here, and it was not for lack of trying on Putin's part. It's because US citizens are extremely susceptible to accept anything as true as long as it helps their side, which again is a result of there only being two polarized sides staring at each other in increasing disdain. But I guess that leads to your next response already.
ive already walked away from trump and have put my support to desantis. but if he actualy did have gabbard as his vp pick id be in a pickle an wouldnt really have no choose but to go back to trump. i hope desantis is smarter thn that an i think he is,
(11-08-2022, 03:09 PM)Leon Wrote: ive already walked away from trump and have put my support to desantis. but if he actualy did have gabbard as his vp pick id be in a pickle an wouldnt really have no choose but to go back to trump. i hope desantis is smarter thn that an i think he is,
I know people want him to choose Gabbard, but at the moment that doesn't seem realistic to me.
DeSantis is smart like a normal politician.
She would have a lot of baggage for some Repubs. And as I say, I don't see her winning a debate with
MJT, certainly not Nikki Haley.
There are a lot of MAGA Repubs and marginal MAGAs who have been fighting FOR Trumpism for
years, and they and their backers would not take kindly to an upstart who was recently pro abortion and
con assault weapon bans.
Even if she converts whole heartedly to the MAGA style and program, she'll be regarded as fickle.
Great for talk shows as the Dem-who-admits-how-bad-they-really-are. Not a running mate, though.
(11-08-2022, 05:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I know people want him to choose Gabbard, but at the moment that doesn't seem realistic to me.
DeSanitis is smart like a normal politician.
She would have a lot of baggage for some Repubs. And as I say, I don't see her winning a debate with
MJT, certainly not Nikki Haley.
There are a lot of MAGA Repubs and marginal MAGAs who have been fighting FOR Trumpism for
years, and they and their backers would not take kindly to an upstart who was recently pro abortion and
con assault weapon bans.
Even if she converts whole heartedly to the MAGA style and program, she'll be regarded as fickle.
Great for talk shows as the Dem-who-admits-how-bad-they-really-are. Not a running mate, though.
Lake is a much stronger VP candidate for the right. She's very polished and although she has a liberal past, she's not waffling about her far right affiliations in the current moment. The right doesn't need to beat around the bush electing centrists for swing votes like the left does. They have the luxury of going full crazy.
(11-08-2022, 06:13 PM)samhain Wrote: Lake is a much stronger VP candidate for the right. She's very polished and although she has a liberal past, she's not waffling about her far right affiliations in the current moment. The right doesn't need to beat around the bush electing centrists for swing votes like the left does. They have the luxury of going full crazy.
Right. She is a tiger, and she has mastered the evolving MAGA-speak.
"I will accept the results of the election if I win!
I will accept the results of the election if I win!"
As for the second bolded, you're right; they wouldn't be looking for centrists,
but maybe Evangelicals. Pence helped seal the deal for Trump.
I wonder if they'll need to pick an E in 2024, though.
(11-08-2022, 05:43 AM)hollodero Wrote: So that is one issue, the way you seem to make the GOP side more responsible than the Dem side. And to a degree, I see it the same way. It's of course irrelevant to evaluate the dangers of a two-party system, one side taking advantage of its eternal flaw is sufficient. I understand what Limbaugh et al. did, I just claim that they could do so in an already simplistic, strictly dualistic system, where whatever outrageous thing anyone says is trumped by the fact that he fights for the right team. But of course I also give the liberal side, including the media, plenty of blame for the division too. I know I can never convince you of that though, not even in the slightest actually. A fact I attribute to you also being beholden to one side in the two-sided affair, in the end for you it's about blaming Republicans. As I said, fair enough, they're the ones with Trump, that are fine with him asking for overturning results and storming capitols and talking about fraud or stop the count when he's ahead and all that. They're actually trying the coup (or are idly standing by and having no issue with it), sure, while blaming the other side of doing so. Which they do all the time actually, Goebbels playbook. So I get that. But to me that's all symptoms, not the underlying issue. And it doesn't mean the other side is blameless in their own extremes and their own demand of loyalty to their own no matter what.
I do indeed "seem" to make the GOP side more responsible--for the reasons you "seem" to give in the second bolded.
You CAN convince me that the liberal side or "liberal media" are as much to blame--but you need evidence. Vague references to liberal "extremes" won't do it.
Like I say, there is no Tip O'Neill memo. Dems didn't storm the capital. Whatever their "extremes," they pale in comparison to naked autogolpe.
I spent most of the 90s and the first decade of this millennium criticizing the ethnocentrism and class bias of the MSM.
But when democracy itself is under threat, a situation for which right wing media holds primary responsibility, I'm not misguidedly noting "both sides do it" when this is heard in ways that undermine recognition of the current danger, especially by people desperately looking for false equivalence. The clarity of this division needs to be said and, for whoever will listen, demonstrated.
Saying that is just about blaming Republicans, like that's the point and not steering the country back on track, is no different from saying that when you post one of your marvelous recaps of Trump malfeasance, it's only because you "hate" Trump, not because you and I and others understand that that behavior harms democracy.
(11-08-2022, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I do indeed "seem" to make the GOP side more responsible--for the reasons you "seem" to give in the second bolded.
You CAN convince me that the liberal side or "liberal media" are as much to blame--but you need evidence. Vague references to liberal "extremes" won't do it.
Let's be precise about my position. I say the liberal side is far from blameless. I did not say they deserve an equal share of the blame.
So I don't feel inclined to defend a stance I did not take.
(11-08-2022, 05:43 AM)hollodero Wrote: For this is the typical liberal, he says what's true and righteous and whoever disagrees gets laughed at, called uninformed or a bigot or indeed often a racist or at the very least someone who is very wrong and needs to be educated (that would be your thing). And it's not always fair. In short, your side tends to be overly condescending and again there's no way to convince you of that, I am aware, even though pretty much any debate here or anywhere looks like clear evidence of that to me. Both sides carry this extreme black and white worldview around and are more concerned with scoring points for their own side than to actually have a meaningful exchange. Yeah Americans from different aisles do not really talk to each other any longer, you just fight with each other, with extreme rhetoric that kills all chance of any convergence and is in fact designed to do so. You don't have a nuanced debate about anything, but plenty of talking points and rhetorical tricks - and constantly fed disdain. And often the conservative side is just more open about the latter. For one, it's the most attractive quality Trump has, he makes liberal heads explode and that's great. It's a toxic climate where the hatred for the other side, the domestic enemy of sorts, is more important than democracy. I can't point to any clear evidence that this is a result of the two-party system, it just makes sense to me that it is.
Re: the last bolded, indeed you cannot.
Re: the first, I might be hard to convince that the "typical liberal" is a righteous condescender who laughs at uninformed bigots and calls them "racist" who need to be educated (my thing?) because--
1. In this forum, I get called "stupid" and "racist" and condescended to with quite some frequency by our friends on the right, who find my posts, and me, "silly" and "laughable." yet I don't return such invective in kind.* You've not noticed that? If you are right, why isn't the reverse true?
2. As far as the "need to be educated"--that charge is pretty fuzzy. If someone repeats disinformation about Palestine or CRT and I dispute it with an alternative account, that's always two sides, at least, who think they have a correct account, the "education" the other side needs. Shouldn't the question always be whether one of us is actually right? I thought that was important to you too. But I am not sure I understand what you mean by the presumptuous education of others. E.g., I say that for democracy to work, citizens have to be educated FOR democracy, not just job training. That's an assumption that goes back to the 17th century. Is it condescending to say that our own democracy might work better if citizens had a better knowledge of how democracies go under at a time when our own is in danger?
3. You were accused of condescension once a few months back, weren't you? And yet I don't think you were condescending. Someone just "felt" that way because you appeared to have more knowledge on a subject. Have you never wondered how much of the rhetoric about condescending liberal elites might be manufactured? Why does Hannity have to free-associate condescension of liberal elites to virtually every subtopic on his show every night? I'm not disputing there might be 'liberals' who do it, but it's a stretch to say that behavior sets the tone for the party, as it does on the other side. Rachel Maddow doesn't tell her audience nightly that our Repub masters think they are better than us.
4. Horrors to say the conservative side is "more open" about disdain. Like that's a positive, more honest, when it is in fact the principled rejection of honesty, dialogue and compromise. They don't call Dems the party of NO. I just cited the Gingrich memo above. That is indeed "more open" and the embrace of its consequences by Republicans should not be fogged by suggesting Democrats really do the same, just less honestly.
What is the thing that Dems might do which would end the deadlock? You think we have it because Dems don't listen? The division would ease and finally end if they did? Until they do they are partially responsible?
*Well, maybe there is a grey area. One person thinks my LOLs are condescending.
(11-08-2022, 07:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: Let's be precise about my position. I say the liberal side is far from blameless. I did not say they deserve an equal share of the blame.
So I don't feel inclined to defend a stance I did not take.
Ok. Your stance was that the liberal side deserves "plenty" of blame.
But I don't see even that nuance in statements like the following, which appear to apply equally to both sides.
Both sides carry this extreme black and white worldview around and are more concerned with scoring points for their own side than to actually have a meaningful exchange. Yeah Americans from different aisles do not really talk to each other any longer, you just fight with each other, with extreme rhetoric that kills all chance of any convergence and is in fact designed to do so.
(11-08-2022, 08:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok. Your stance was that the liberal side deserves "plenty" of blame.
But I don't see even that nuance in statements like the following, which appear to apply equally to both sides.
Both sides carry this extreme black and white worldview around and are more concerned with scoring points for their own side than to actually have a meaningful exchange. Yeah Americans from different aisles do not really talk to each other any longer, you just fight with each other, with extreme rhetoric that kills all chance of any convergence and is in fact designed to do so.
Yeah, so that's some aspects of many where I think it's actually not that far apart, the extent of bad behaviour or whatever one wants to call it. Regarding riling up the other side more or less intentionally or rather assuming the worst and most worthy of mockery then trying to understand where the other person's actually coming from, for example. There are other aspects where it is not that close, like tolerating the idiocy of Donald Trump, minimizing blatant coup attempts or what FOX does compared to liberal media etc. etc. And yes, in total I think the conservative side is more extreme and harbors the greater threat to democracy, and so on. I'm not arguing for equality on all fronts. I feel you misrepresent my position by oversimplifying it.
I have to say though. It also seems you use your "I won't have this 'both sides do it' argument" stance to shield the liberal side from any sort of critizism. At least the way you use it, it could very well serve that purpose.
(11-08-2022, 06:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Right. She is a tiger, and she has mastered the evolving MAGA-speak.
"I will accept the results of the election if I win!
I will accept the results of the election if I win!"
As for the second bolded, you're right; they wouldn't be looking for centrists,
but maybe Evangelicals. Pence helped seal the deal for Trump.
I wonder if they'll need to pick an E in 2024, though.
If Walker pulls off a win in GA today, I don't even think they'll care about churchy bona-fides. Trump is as amoral a public figure as has ever existed. A lifelong hedonist when it comes to his nightlife. All they need is a pet parrot that can repeat lines and come off as mad about whatever conspiracy they fele like spouting about at the given moment.
Lake is the ultimate test-tube authoritarian. No previous conservative credit, liberal leanings well into adulthood. She's a made-from-scratch Trumper with TV experience to polish the turd.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Re: the last bolded, indeed you cannot.
Well, to be fair, neither can you prove that I'm wrong. Eg. when it comes to my view of the two-party system being toxic and a bad system, there's no conclusive evidence. Just hints like your country not looking so hot right now, politically speaking.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Re: the first, I might be hard to convince that the "typical liberal" is a righteous condescender who laughs at uninformed bigots and calls them "racist" who need to be educated (my thing?) because--
1. In this forum, I get called "stupid" and "racist" and condescended to with quite some frequency by our friends on the right, who find my posts, and me, "silly" and "laughable." yet I don't return such invective in kind.* You've not noticed that? If you are right, why isn't the reverse true?
OK. In case I did not get into this kind of thing enough already. Yes I am aware you get called things, especially from SSF with his silver tongue (copyright Roto), and I am not defending that. Never was. And I know you don't conduct yourself the same way. And I would not want to evaluate if what you are doing is equally worthy of critizism.
But here's what you most certainly do, for starters. You engage. And I don't get that. If I come across someone I consider a particularly unpleasant fellow, I will cut down on my interactions or stop them eventually. You, however, grinded your teeth into one another, pages over pages in threads over threads. And sure, I noticed things that could make you legitimately angry, but I could quite often also understand what made SSF or maybe also others angry. And no you don't call people racists, I know, but you might equate something they say to something someone said in defense of racism, or things like that. And I know you don't want to be condescending, but people tend to get that impression when you put their words in quotes and then try to pick them apart. But actually, I have no intention of presenting you my insignificant thoughts on your conduct. You're a nice person and a fine poster and most certainly don't represent the worst of the liberal side.
But have you ever wondered why I (and Bels, though that guy actually knows stuff, so this is a bit different) got along with SSF so much better? We both sure did not pander to him, I disagreed with him almost as often as you did and sure did not hide that. And yet there were no harsh words. I'd assume the reason was that I did not try to prove him wrong, I tried to explain why I saw things differently. We didn't make it personal. But when people (not you) jump to clever retorts like pointing out how a policeman can have no moral compass or how he is a coveted Trump fan or doesn't care about racists or things of that kind, I can understand why his feelings towards liberals are getting worse. And at times I even understand how not saying anything about any of that gave an impression of complicity, aka I don't attack my fellow liberal no matter what.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. As far as the "need to be educated"--that charge is pretty fuzzy.
Agreed. I shouldn't have gone there.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. You were accused of condescension once a few months back, weren't you? And yet I don't think you were condescending.
I don't remember. I will say this though. I'm certain I got called out on this less often that I would have deserved it.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Someone just "felt" that way because you appeared to have more knowledge on a subject. Have you never wondered how much of the rhetoric about condescending liberal elites might be manufactured? Why does Hannity have to free-associate condescension of liberal elites to virtually every subtopic on his show every night? I'm not disputing there might be 'liberals' who do it
Good.
And of course the rhetorics about condescending elites most often is manufactured. Just sometimes based on a shred of truth.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Rachel Maddow doesn't tell her audience nightly that our Repub masters think they are better than us.
I don't want to attack her, she's a product of the times and one of the bettter ones at that. But Rachel Maddow sure tells me which side are the good guys. Of course not on the same level as Hannity, and of course that's where the similarities end. But she is team blue and it's not hidden away.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 4. Horrors to say the conservative side is "more open" about disdain. Like that's a positive, more honest, when it is in fact the principled rejection of honesty, dialogue and compromise.
It wasn't meant as a positive.
(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: What is the thing that Dems might do which would end the deadlock? You think we have it because Dems don't listen? The division would ease and finally end if they did? Until they do they are partially responsible?
No, I don't think that. As indicated, I think the two-party system created this toxic, bipolar, divisive mess and if you continue to employ it, you're probably doomed. A step to a solution could be the Maine model of voting, or some other reforms. That is my position, not that liberals can necessarily end the deadlock by being better. Chances are you reached a point of no return and it can't be ended.
(11-08-2022, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: But here's what you most certainly do, for starters. You engage. And I don't get that. If I come across someone I consider a particularly unpleasant fellow, I will cut down on my interactions or stop them eventually. You, however, grinded your teeth into one another, pages over pages in threads over threads.
Others have asked me this too.
So I'd like to explain, to you and others. And people who complain about our "grinding teeth into one another, pages over pages etc." don't really follow the thread of the argument, don't see any difference in the manner and method. Just an old grudge or something. But there are principles at stake, and our conflict is solidly embedded in the larger social context of what's happening in the country. And I'll be concise.
There is also method in my interaction with you, which could be made more explicit.
But I cannot get back to this until tomorrow evening.
Meantime, as the Red Wave turned into a Red Ripple, and Fetterman won, I'm going enjoy the brewing internecine MAGA battle and worry about the chaos of election challenges which may follow the Ripple.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 4540978331_3e8fe35323.jpg]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2781/4540978331_3e8fe35323.jpg)
