POLL: Ugly Politics

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I don't really insult people much unless they insult me first, which is why I voted mango. None of the others fit.

However, if I think someone is being an idiot, I will say so, and provide reasons why I think that.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Let's assume that most people here enjoy how ugly our politics have become. The Righties jumped all over Obama for every real, perceived, supposed or imagined sin, and the Lefties are doing the same with Trump. It's all reflected on USMB all day, every day. Absolutely as nasty and dirty and ugly as possible, 24/7.

So what motivates you to do this? Choose whatever answers are appropriate.
.

Been a democrat all my, never been a liberal, they have destroyed my party, I will not forgive them and will expose them every chance I get...they have reared several generations of Americans who just cannot think or see...btw, gun violence only became a problem since the 60's and the rise/infection of liberalism and it is plaguing liberal areas at a far greater rate than conservative which is the Libs and cons are taking the sides they take in this.

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. It would be like saying "cold heat".

And neither of them refer to a "party".

In this case I assumed both to be nouns, but make no mistake, authoritarians find it quite easy to disguise themselves as liberals and can assemble quite a posse when invoking the adjective "fascists" while using it as a noun

 

[Mac1958]

Let's assume that most people here enjoy how ugly our politics have become. The Righties jumped all over Obama for every real, perceived, supposed or imagined sin, and the Lefties are doing the same with Trump. It's all reflected on USMB all day, every day. Absolutely as nasty and dirty and ugly as possible, 24/7.

So what motivates you to do this? Choose whatever answers are appropriate.
.

Been a democrat all my, never been a liberal, they have destroyed my party, I will not forgive them and will expose them every chance I get...they have reared several generations of Americans who just cannot think or see...btw, gun violence only became a problem since the 60's and the rise/infection of liberalism and it is plaguing liberal areas at a far greater rate than conservative which is the Libs and cons are taking the sides they take in this.

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm here for my entertainment, nothing more.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Let's assume that most people here enjoy how ugly our politics have become. The Righties jumped all over Obama for every real, perceived, supposed or imagined sin, and the Lefties are doing the same with Trump. It's all reflected on USMB all day, every day. Absolutely as nasty and dirty and ugly as possible, 24/7.

So what motivates you to do this? Choose whatever answers are appropriate.
.

Been a democrat all my, never been a liberal, they have destroyed my party, I will not forgive them and will expose them every chance I get...they have reared several generations of Americans who just cannot think or see...btw, gun violence only became a problem since the 60's and the rise/infection of liberalism and it is plaguing liberal areas at a far greater rate than conservative which is the Libs and cons are taking the sides they take in this.

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. It would be like saying "cold heat".

And neither of them refer to a "party". Parties and philosophies are two different things with two different functions.

I'm a liberal. Sure liberals can be authoritarian. I have crazy members of my posse just like the cons do. OK, not as many cuz cons are totally insane.

I'll even give you an example of my crazies ~ Climate Change Alarmists.

 

[Pogo]

Let's assume that most people here enjoy how ugly our politics have become. The Righties jumped all over Obama for every real, perceived, supposed or imagined sin, and the Lefties are doing the same with Trump. It's all reflected on USMB all day, every day. Absolutely as nasty and dirty and ugly as possible, 24/7.

So what motivates you to do this? Choose whatever answers are appropriate.
.

Been a democrat all my, never been a liberal, they have destroyed my party, I will not forgive them and will expose them every chance I get...they have reared several generations of Americans who just cannot think or see...btw, gun violence only became a problem since the 60's and the rise/infection of liberalism and it is plaguing liberal areas at a far greater rate than conservative which is the Libs and cons are taking the sides they take in this.

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. It would be like saying "cold heat".

And neither of them refer to a "party".

In this case I assumed both to be nouns, but make no mistake, authoritarians find it quite easy to disguise themselves as liberals and can assemble quite a posse when invoking the adjective "fascists" while using it as a noun

When somebody refers to "an authoritarian Liberal" or to "a liberal Authoritarian" -- the first term is the adjective.

In this case it doesn't work, because the Authoritarian believes in a striated hierarchy with a concentration on a single strong leader, whereas the Liberal believes in the opposite: that power derives from the consent of the masses and disdains that hierarchy. They can't mix. If somebody's mixing the two, then they don't understand one (or both) of the terms.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Been a democrat all my, never been a liberal, they have destroyed my party, I will not forgive them and will expose them every chance I get...they have reared several generations of Americans who just cannot think or see...btw, gun violence only became a problem since the 60's and the rise/infection of liberalism and it is plaguing liberal areas at a far greater rate than conservative which is the Libs and cons are taking the sides they take in this.

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

 

[Pogo]

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

I don't know whose word it is but until we have a definition --- this one actually makes more sense.

Or how 'bout a guy who won't sit at a dinner table with a female unless his wife is present, apparently to keep him under control.

 

[Mac1958]

I usually divide that end into actual liberals - the people you and I probably like - and the Regressives, aka the illiberal leftist authoritarians who have taken over the party.

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

Actually, the term Regressive Left was coined by a liberal Muslim Brit named Maajid Nawaz, and advanced by other honest liberals who are horrified by the terribly illiberal behavior of their fellow lefties. A few of those honest liberals below.
.

 

[Pogo]

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

Actually, the term Regressive Left was coined by a liberal Muslim Brit named Maajid Nawaz, and advanced by other honest liberals who are horrified by the terribly illiberal behavior of their fellow lefties. A few of those honest liberals below.
.

"Lefties" would not have any reason to follow "Liberal" principles. They're two different things.

By the way --- why do you point out the religion of your citation? Is it relevant to something?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

I don't know whose word it is but until we have a definition --- this one actually makes more sense.

Or how 'bout a guy who won't sit at a dinner table with a female unless his wife is present, apparently to keep him under control.

Is that what that means? I thought Pence just didn't trust his wife cuz she might go to a different table.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OP-er, do you mean attack in the sense of attacking the person airing an idea or position? Or do you mean attacking the idea/proposition, not the person who makes it?

If you mean the former, I'm not terribly given to that other than with regard to individuals who don't exhibit the expected degree of mental acuity when expressing their ideas. With regard to the latter, I "attack" the idea because as the individuals presents it, it's lame, and I'll criticize (constructive or deprecating) the proposition regardless of whether I agree with it because there's no rational basis for leaving to stand unassailed a poorly developed idea, no matter one's personal affinity toward it. I do that because I take public policy design, enactment and implementation, along with governance and leadership quite seriously.

Perhaps that's a personal thing. In my life, since I was a child, I've never found success from doing things half-assed, so I don't have much, if any, tolerance for slovenliness when others -- family, friends, colleagues, or random people -- display it when interacting with me. I don't disrespect others and their ideas by not giving them the best consideration I can, and I don't care to bother with folks who don't do the same.

I mean, at some point, one has to commit to always striving in all they do to be outstandingly, to manifest excellence to the best of one's ability. That's what living is all about, isn't it? Life isn't about squeaking by; it's about flourishing by taking the bull by the horns. I don't one's advancement and growth stops when one stops doing so, and once one reaches that point, one is a drag on society not a contributor to it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Let's assume that most people here enjoy how ugly our politics have become.

Dear, God! I'm going to hope that assumption isn't accurate.

 

[Pogo]

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

I don't know whose word it is but until we have a definition --- this one actually makes more sense.

Or how 'bout a guy who won't sit at a dinner table with a female unless his wife is present, apparently to keep him under control.

Is that what that means? I thought Pence just didn't trust his wife cuz she might go to a different table.

I take it that he doesn't trust himself. Because women are temptressess or some shit.
Shades of Hijjab.

 

[ColonelAngus]

My reason is not in the poll.

I simply like to point out the false logic, hypocrisy, and lack of common sense that most Progs/Snowflakes/Libbies/Dems show on nearly every issue.

Their paradigm makes no sense. The Prog puppet masters tell the snowflakes what to think,. and the snowflakes lap it up like Monica Lewinsky lapping up the Presidential penis.

You can always get to a Prog by simply telling the truth and sticking to facts. They cannot operate in a world of truth and facts. They have to lie about their true intentions.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Once again --- "Liberal" and "Authoritarian" are polar opposites. You can't use one as an adjective to the other's noun. And neither of them refer to a "party".

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

Actually, the term Regressive Left was coined by a liberal Muslim Brit named Maajid Nawaz, and advanced by other honest liberals who are horrified by the terribly illiberal behavior of their fellow lefties. A few of those honest liberals below.
.

Ah, I see. What you call regressive left, I call authoritarian left. More crazies

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Righties jumped all over Obama for every real, perceived, supposed or imagined sin, and the Lefties are doing the same with Trump.

Well, in fairness, the office of POTUS is the highest office in the land. Whoever holds it is rightly subject to intense scrutiny. The question is in what instances the scrutiny, and whatever, if any, criticism comes of it, is legit or is it mountain making from molehills.

 

[Pogo]

Let's assume that most people here enjoy how ugly our politics have become.

Dear, God! I'm going to hope that assumption isn't accurate.

I know right? I asked the OP why we would start with that assumption. Never got a response.

I noted that "I *DON'T* attack collectives" was not on the list of choices, which is why I voted for Mango.

 

[Mac1958]

OP-er, do you mean attack in the sense of attacking the person airing an idea or position? Or do you mean attacking the idea/proposition, not the person who makes it?

If you mean the former, I'm not terribly given to that other than with regard to individuals who don't exhibit the expected degree of mental acuity when expressing their ideas. With regard to the latter, I "attack" the idea because as the individuals presents it, it's lame, and I'll criticize (constructive or deprecating) the proposition regardless of whether I agree with it because there's no rational basis for leaving to stand unassailed a poorly developed idea, no matter one's personal affinity toward it. I do that because I take public policy design, enactment and implementation, along with governance and leadership quite seriously.

Perhaps that's a personal thing. In my life, since I was a child, I've never found success from doing things half-assed, so I don't have much, if any, tolerance for slovenliness when others -- family, friends, colleagues, or random people -- display it when interacting with me. I don't disrespect others and their ideas by not giving them the best consideration I can, and I don't care to bother with folks who don't do the same.

I mean, at some point, one has to commit to always striving in all they do to be outstandingly, to manifest excellence to the best of one's ability. That's what living is, isn't it? Life isn't about squeaking by; it's about flourishing by taking the bull by the horns. I don't one's advancement and growth stops when one stops doing so, and once one reaches that point, one is a drag on society not a contributor to it.

I was thinking more of the general madness that has taken over political discussion. Believing any and every rumor that puts the other side in a bad light. Personal attacks, name-calling, distortions, deflection, straw man arguments, outright lies.

Full disclosure: I do admit that it's possible it's no worse than before, but it sure as hell seems that way to me.

Y'know, when I see something that is broken, my impulse is to fix it, not make it worse. So a lot of this just doesn't make sense to me.
.

 

[Pogo]

Looks like we disagree.
.

So make the case if you care to.

You know me --- I don't come unarmed.

We actually agree. Regressives are not liberal. I say that all the time.

Other than that, believe what you'd like.
.

You cannot steal our word! Regressive is a far RWinger who wants to return to the good ol days when men were men and sheep were nervous.

Actually, the term Regressive Left was coined by a liberal Muslim Brit named Maajid Nawaz, and advanced by other honest liberals who are horrified by the terribly illiberal behavior of their fellow lefties. A few of those honest liberals below.
.

Ah, I see. What you call regressive left, I call authoritarian left. More crazies

Now "authoritarian left", that works. Antifa for example. But you can't call 'em "Liberals". That's why I keep pointing out they're two different things.