Discussing politics with people who don't share your views........

[bripat9643]

Well Mac, you can see it here on these boards everyday. I think that the anonymous nature of message boards makes people less likely to compromise.

We're waiting for you to put your ideals into practice by changing your views after discussing them with a rightwinger.

 

[Lesh]

Amazingly you are spouting right wing talking points.

Fine

uns?

Okay, what's your solution?

So in spite of your claims to not agree with either side...you clearly agree with the anti-immigrant right wing on this issue. Fine

Now

Guns. Where are you on that?

 

[Muhammed]

Newsflash.
We talk past each other.

There is no discussing anything with Trumpers and really not much chance of a real discussion with Republicans in general.

No matter what evidence is presented to them...the response is always

Hillary!!!....or Obama!!!!...

The only reason I bother is to counter their bullshit for any open minded people out there

You are simply lying. Why don't you try being honest?

We all know damn well that "Hillary.... or Obama!!!!" was not the response you received from every single Trump voter and Republican.

You are fucking lying. Period. And you have no fucking chance to gain wisdom if your ego is so fucking fragile that you cannot admit it to yourself that you are lying.

Are you going to admit that you were lying or not?

 

[Lesh]

They're not "right wing talking points", if you want open boarders, we can't have social programs. If you want social programs, we can't have open boarders.

Of course, Social Programs inherently don't work, but in tangent with open boarders they're even more unsustainable.

That said, which part(s) did you disagree with, and why?

Social programs don't work?

Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people who had decent retirements because of Social Security and Medicare/medicaid

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know, there has been a lot of talk (mostly by comedians) about how people like to live in an echo chamber and only talk with others who think like them. Some have said that discussing politics with someone who doesn't agree with you is a way to mend the divide and learn compromise. Face to face negotiation has been proven to lead to compromise and understanding.

Turns out that ain't the case when it comes to the Internet. Seems that if you are discussing politics with a person different than your group can actually be worse than living in a bubble, because people will dig in even harder in their views. I guess the lack of face to face communication is what causes it to happen.

Caught in a political echo chamber? Listening to the opposition can make partisanship even worse

Dwelling in a political echo chamber — where you only encounter people who agree with you — is hardly conducive to a healthy democracy.


But it turns out that broadening your horizons by perusing opposing points of view on social media may just make the partisan divide worse.


That’s the depressing result of an unusual experiment involving 909 Democrats and 751 Republicans who spend a lot of time on Twitter.


“Attempts to introduce people to a broad range of opposing political views on a social media site such as Twitter might be not only ineffective but counterproductive,” researchers reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.




Political polarization is on the rise in America, and the results aren’t pretty, the study authors explained.


“Americans are deeply divided on controversial issues such as inequality, gun control, and immigration,” they wrote. “Partisan divisions not only impede compromise in the design and implementation of social policies but also have far-reaching consequences for the effective function of democracy more broadly.”


The researchers, led by Duke University sociologist Christopher Bail, set out to do something about this problem by harnessing the power of Twitter.


They already knew people become more inclined to compromise on political issues when they spend time with people who hold opposing views. Face-to-face meetings can override negative stereotypes about our adversaries, paving the way for negotiation.

We’ve reached a point... And this point always comes... Just like in a bad marriage; where there’s nothing left to say. No more compromise. No more going along, for the sake of getting along... Eventually there comes a time when the different sides have to fight it out; or go their separate ways. Unfortunately, (or fortunately) it seems that’s the point we’re at.

Several months ago I created a topic about if we should divide the country in two. From north to south, a line down the middle, and each vote on which side one party of people will live. Winner of the vote gets to pick the side.

Without going into detail, the general replies were how us on the right would be ever so delighted of never having to put up with liberals again, and those on the left were outraged I even thought of such an idea.

ButI agree with what you are saying here because of my mother. When me and my siblings were kids and fought too much, my mother would make us play in separate rooms. It was the only way to achieve peace. We eventually missed playing with each other and found a way to get along. But my mother didn't force us to, we made that decision ourselves.

So I still believe the only way to achieve peace among us is to simply separate because every year we are becoming more and more divided. On the right, the Tea Party types are taking over. We want the Constitution as written to be the law of the land. On the left, the US Communist Party endorsed the last three Democrat presidential candidates and of course, really were behind Bernie Sanders.

Where is the middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism? There is none. So maybe it is time to make two separate countries.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I think you're dead wrong.

I am a liberal. Voted for Obama twice, Hillary once. Etc... I voted for them based on a myriad of things; they support a social safety net as the cornerstone of our society, want to preserve social security, pro-choice, they are pro-union....any number of issues.

That being said,

I'm for nuclear energy. We've had nuke reactors on Navy ships for 40+ years, few issues. We can duplicate that on land.
I'm for voter IDs. We have an opportunity to make the electoral process more sterile. Not taking it is dumb.
I'm for the border wall as a way to keep WMD payloads out of the country. It won't stop illegal immigration; saying it will is stupid.
I'm for closing as many foreign embassies and consulates as possible. We don't need embassies in both Budapest and Vienna for example; 3 hour car trip between the two.

I could point out a host of other conservative initiatives I am behind. Everything from re-empowering vocational education in our schools to supporting the electoral college to getting rid of federal funding for the Corp. for public broadcasting. One of my favorite was Mitt Romney's idea to have congressional action for any EPA ruling that would seriously impact the workforce or economy of an area.

I don't think I'm that unusual frankly. All of us are shades of purple. Some are far more red or blue than directly purple but with most of us, you can always go more left or further right.

I think that the two parties however often are "for" or "against" something because they (on the macro level) assume the opposite position on an issue because they can fund raise on it and get votes as a result. Here is an example. I haven't followed your posts enough to know where you stand on the spectrum so I'm not asking "you" directly but I am asking anyone who cares to comment; do you honestly believe Donald Trump who has likely never fired a gun in his life cares about your rights to have an Uzi or MP10? I imagine he does innately support the concept of self defense but I would think that if the GOP and his supporters were of the opinion that an Uzi or MP10 were "over the top", he would mirror where they are; not be the leader of the movement. So you get bad legislation based on what they think will salve their constituents; not what would be the winning solution. The Castle Doctrine in Florida is a good example. Gun nuts wanted it. Gun nuts got it. And now you flick off your safety before you say good morning to someone at Disney World.

Anyway, the Center is where the best legislation comes from. If everybody is somewhat unhappy, that is good government. Government isn't (or shouldn't be anyway) a solution to all of our problems. It's supposed to open the door for you, not give you a conveyor belt to stand on as you go through it. When something is proposed, the center isn't where it starts. It starts on the wings and becomes less toxic as you have more people consider it.

Voter ID at the state level, I'm okay with.

But we're routinely seeing people on the left and right compromising for National ID. That's a big problem. And the immigration issue is what is going to give us National ID. I've read the legislation. It's bad. It gives government an open door, limitless, to pretty much biomtrically monitor every aspect of our lives if they want. What's worse, is they keep leaving the legislation arbitrarily open ended in the name of security. In other words, they can add to it if some three letter alphabet agency wants more power.

National ID is the very antithesis for freedom and is a reflection of a government who fears the people.

Trump's comment on guns was take guns first, due process later.

I don't like the wall. It's going to hinder us more than them. All that's gonna do is keep us in. And our wealth. That's a whole different topic, though. a lot of people have their wealth confiscated by the government at the border as it is, and it takes years to get it back, if at all.

Social Security? Meh. I'd abolish it gradually. It's broke anyway, thanks to the Keynesian monetary policy we run.

Energy? Hm. Right now I like hemp. Rand Paul was just talking about legalizing its manufacturing. But...the government shouldn't be subsidizing energy. All that does is kill competition.

As far as voting? I've wrote-in Ron Paul the last three general elections. And kept busy during his '08 and '12 campmaigns in one manner or another. I'm an old school liberal. It was refreshing to see that he still got 1 electoral vote in the 2016. That tells me there;s still a few refuseniks out there who want to kee pthe government limited for liberty.

I pretty much reject everything that comes out of Washington from both parties, because it almost always advocates for more government, more spending, more money printing, more war, and less liberty, aside from any legislation Massie, Rand, Amash, and company write. I like them.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

They're not "right wing talking points", if you want open boarders, we can't have social programs. If you want social programs, we can't have open boarders.

Of course, Social Programs inherently don't work, but in tangent with open boarders they're even more unsustainable.

That said, which part(s) did you disagree with, and why?

Social programs don't work?

Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people who had decent retirements because of Social Security and Medicare/medicaid

You mean the hundreds of millions that the government stole money from in an unsustainable ponzi scheme. Yes, it factually does not work, that's why taxes keep getting raised, as well as the age that you collect at.

Do you actually believe that an organization which is drowning in debt can actually save the money it steals from Americans better than said Americans? Absolutely laughable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only a couple of years ago a republican Tea Party member could enter a left wing establishment and even engage in political banter without a problem. Today the same encounter might lead to assault or worse. What happened? Why did the democrat equivalent of a republican Tea Party member take a freaking gun and try to murder conservative republican members of congress last year? The liberal media isn't curious. Why did a small town small restaurant owner try to assault the Press secretary in the Trump administration when few people would have even recognized the name of Obama's press secretary two years ago? Maybe democrats go freaking mad cow crazy when they lose an election. TDS is the only thing that would explain it.

Not really, it's actually brainwashing.

Their leaders on the left have trained them to believe that the right is on their way out; old white people slowly dying off. Socialism is the new path of our country.

So when they lose elections, their leaders try to convince them they actually won, it's just the right (once again) found a way to cheat them out of their vote.

Donald Trump: Russians, Comey, and all the free media attention, the electoral college.

GW Bush second election: Diebold machines.

Retaking leadership of Congress in 2010: Gerrymandering, Voter-ID, disenfranchisement of Democrat voters.

GW first election: punch card ballots, Supreme Court "selecting" our President.

They don't see a pattern here because that's how brainwashing works. As far as they are concerned, they win all elections, but Republicans rob them of their wins all the time.

So they get violent and angry. You will have a flake once in a while kill somebody, that happens on both sides, but in reality, the media is loaded with stories of violence from the left because they believe they were somehow screwed out of wins.

 

[Votto]

You know, there has been a lot of talk (mostly by comedians) about how people like to live in an echo chamber and only talk with others who think like them. Some have said that discussing politics with someone who doesn't agree with you is a way to mend the divide and learn compromise. Face to face negotiation has been proven to lead to compromise and understanding.

Turns out that ain't the case when it comes to the Internet. Seems that if you are discussing politics with a person different than your group can actually be worse than living in a bubble, because people will dig in even harder in their views. I guess the lack of face to face communication is what causes it to happen.

Caught in a political echo chamber? Listening to the opposition can make partisanship even worse

Dwelling in a political echo chamber — where you only encounter people who agree with you — is hardly conducive to a healthy democracy.


But it turns out that broadening your horizons by perusing opposing points of view on social media may just make the partisan divide worse.


That’s the depressing result of an unusual experiment involving 909 Democrats and 751 Republicans who spend a lot of time on Twitter.


“Attempts to introduce people to a broad range of opposing political views on a social media site such as Twitter might be not only ineffective but counterproductive,” researchers reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.




Political polarization is on the rise in America, and the results aren’t pretty, the study authors explained.


“Americans are deeply divided on controversial issues such as inequality, gun control, and immigration,” they wrote. “Partisan divisions not only impede compromise in the design and implementation of social policies but also have far-reaching consequences for the effective function of democracy more broadly.”


The researchers, led by Duke University sociologist Christopher Bail, set out to do something about this problem by harnessing the power of Twitter.


They already knew people become more inclined to compromise on political issues when they spend time with people who hold opposing views. Face-to-face meetings can override negative stereotypes about our adversaries, paving the way for negotiation.

I see. So you're saying you don't call people racists all the time in real life like you do on message boards?

Wasist!

 

[BrokeLoser]

Well Mac, you can see it here on these boards everyday. I think that the anonymous nature of message boards makes people less likely to compromise.

What concerns me is that I'm seeing more and more of this manic behavior in real life. More and more people I talk to and see are walking around, one inch away from completely losing their shit on someone. Screaming, not listening, ever.
.

And you don't even notice the high correlation with them being leftists, do you?

No, not at all. Sometimes when talking with a new client about taxes, they go off on the same shallow, naive talking points I hear on talk radio and see here daily.

Lefties see more volatile and angry, Righties seem more trained and obedient.

Just my observation, of course.
.

And when you turn on hearings, it's leftists screaming and disrupting. It's leftists kicking people out of their restaurants. It's leftists to tried to stop Trump supporters physically from getting to his rallies. It's leftists who stopped anyone they disagreed with from speaking at Berkeley.

But you admitted what I said, you're not observant or just flat out biased, you don't see it

What about the Trump tow truck driver that left a disabled Bernie supporter stranded, just because she had a bumper sticker on her car?

Pro-Trump tow truck driver leaves disabled Sanders supporter stranded

On Monday, a Donald Trump-supporting tow truck driver outside Asheville, North Carolina, responded to a call from a driver with disabilities.


When the tow truck driver saw the stranded motorist’s Bernie Sanders sticker, Fox Carolina reported, he aborted the pick-up and left her on the side of the highway.


According to Fox Carolina: “Kenneth Shupe said he was called to pick up a woman stranded on I-26 in Asheville on Monday.


“When he saw ‘a bunch of Bernie Sanders stuff’, he said he told the woman ‘very politely’ that he couldn’t tow her car because she was ‘obviously a socialist’.


Shupe “advised her to ‘call the government’ for a tow”, the report said, adding: “Every business dealing in recent history with a socialist-minded person I have not gotten paid … every time I deal with these people I get ‘Berned’ with an ‘e’ not a ‘u’.’”

That tow truck driver is a badass. He deserves a bonus. What’s the name of the company?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those that have political views closer to my own tend to be the ones I talk to,
some time I step over the line of polite discourse when hearing something that seems crazy to me.
Don't much like the over the top behavior, personal attacks by both sides.
wish there was more sharing of information from people who work or have education in most any field
Like to learn new stuff.
get tired of petty insults slung back & forth devoid of any information.

I think discussing politics with like kind can get kind of boring. I would rather discuss politics with adversaries.

But I'm with you on the personal insult thing. I try to conduct myself on this board the same way as if I were meeting with some of these people at a bar or doughnut shop. I only get insulting when I'm talking with somebody who is a flamer and always insults first.

We had a local blog years ago; mostly the same people participated. So we decided to meet in person at a bar on several occasions. The loud mouths never even considered it. They were only computer keyboard tough guys who wouldn't dare meet face to face. As for those of us who conducted ourselves like adults, we had great times talking in person left and right.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So in spite of your claims to not agree with either side...you clearly agree with the anti-immigrant right wing on this issue. Fine

Now

Guns. Where are you on that?

Listen. If you're going to debate me, you're going to have to do so functionally. You don't get to play 20 questions without offering a counter argument.

I gave you my solution to your initial question about immigration.

Do you agree with my solution or not? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?

To repeat. What is your solution? I provided mine. Tell me yours, if you're not in agreement with mine. Right after you tell me why you disagree with my solution, that is.

Thanks!

We can move on to guns next, if you want, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On another board, we did meet up in NYC. It was a fun outing. Then, Obama won and Liberals stopped wanting to meet.

I tried to have a meetup where I first joined here. We invited everyone: Conservatives and Liberals. The Conservatives showed up, it was then I realized that that there was only one person Liberal woman who introduced her as 30 different Progressive posters

 

[candycorn]

I think you're dead wrong.

I am a liberal. Voted for Obama twice, Hillary once. Etc... I voted for them based on a myriad of things; they support a social safety net as the cornerstone of our society, want to preserve social security, pro-choice, they are pro-union....any number of issues.

That being said,

I'm for nuclear energy. We've had nuke reactors on Navy ships for 40+ years, few issues. We can duplicate that on land.
I'm for voter IDs. We have an opportunity to make the electoral process more sterile. Not taking it is dumb.
I'm for the border wall as a way to keep WMD payloads out of the country. It won't stop illegal immigration; saying it will is stupid.
I'm for closing as many foreign embassies and consulates as possible. We don't need embassies in both Budapest and Vienna for example; 3 hour car trip between the two.

I could point out a host of other conservative initiatives I am behind. Everything from re-empowering vocational education in our schools to supporting the electoral college to getting rid of federal funding for the Corp. for public broadcasting. One of my favorite was Mitt Romney's idea to have congressional action for any EPA ruling that would seriously impact the workforce or economy of an area.

I don't think I'm that unusual frankly. All of us are shades of purple. Some are far more red or blue than directly purple but with most of us, you can always go more left or further right.

I think that the two parties however often are "for" or "against" something because they (on the macro level) assume the opposite position on an issue because they can fund raise on it and get votes as a result. Here is an example. I haven't followed your posts enough to know where you stand on the spectrum so I'm not asking "you" directly but I am asking anyone who cares to comment; do you honestly believe Donald Trump who has likely never fired a gun in his life cares about your rights to have an Uzi or MP10? I imagine he does innately support the concept of self defense but I would think that if the GOP and his supporters were of the opinion that an Uzi or MP10 were "over the top", he would mirror where they are; not be the leader of the movement. So you get bad legislation based on what they think will salve their constituents; not what would be the winning solution. The Castle Doctrine in Florida is a good example. Gun nuts wanted it. Gun nuts got it. And now you flick off your safety before you say good morning to someone at Disney World.

Anyway, the Center is where the best legislation comes from. If everybody is somewhat unhappy, that is good government. Government isn't (or shouldn't be anyway) a solution to all of our problems. It's supposed to open the door for you, not give you a conveyor belt to stand on as you go through it. When something is proposed, the center isn't where it starts. It starts on the wings and becomes less toxic as you have more people consider it.

Voter ID at the state level, I'm okay with.

But we're routinely seeing people on the left and right compromising for National ID. That's a big problem. And the immigration issue is what is going to give us National ID. I've read the legislation. It's bad. It gives government an open door, limitless, to pretty much biomtrically monitor every aspect of our lives if they want. What's worse, is they keep leaving the legislation arbitrarily open ended in the name of security. In other words, they can add to it if some three letter alphabet agency wants more power.

National ID is the very antithesis for freedom and is a reflection of a government who fears the people.

Trump's comment on guns was take guns first, due process later.

I don't like the wall. It's going to hinder us more than them. All that's gonna do is keep us in. And our wealth. That's a whole different topic, though. a lot of people have their wealth confiscated by the government at the border as it is, and it takes years to get it back, if at all.

Social Security? Meh. I'd abolish it gradually. It's broke anyway, thanks to the Keynesian monetary policy we run.

Energy? Hm. Right now I like hemp. Rand Paul was just talking about legalizing its manufacturing. But...the government shouldn't be subsidizing energy. All that does is kill competition.

As far as voting? I've wrote-in Ron Paul the last three general elections. And kept busy during his '08 and '12 campmaigns in one manner or another. I'm an old school liberal. It was refreshing to see that he still got 1 electoral vote in the 2016. That tells me there;s still a few refuseniks out there who want to kee pthe government limited for liberty.

I pretty much reject everything that comes out of Washington from both parties, because it almost always advocates for more government, more spending, more money printing, more war, and less liberty, aside from any legislation Massie, Rand, Amash, and company write. I like them.

ok

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't have the topic wandering thru a laundry list of issues, because each one is a potential thread diversion. And the only tool USMB moderation has is to require "specific on-topic content" in every reply. Stay closer to the actual OP of this thread.

Also -- 8 posts are deleted for being completely personal flame and baiting. This has to be done by respecting the actual SPECIFIC topic of the thread in each reply. Don't CARE what your content or opinions are or how you express them. But each post has to move the ACTUAL topic forward.

 

[kaz]

Well Mac, you can see it here on these boards everyday. I think that the anonymous nature of message boards makes people less likely to compromise.

What concerns me is that I'm seeing more and more of this manic behavior in real life. More and more people I talk to and see are walking around, one inch away from completely losing their shit on someone. Screaming, not listening, ever.
.

And you don't even notice the high correlation with them being leftists, do you?

No, not at all. Sometimes when talking with a new client about taxes, they go off on the same shallow, naive talking points I hear on talk radio and see here daily.

Lefties see more volatile and angry, Righties seem more trained and obedient.

Just my observation, of course.
.

Righties here routinely prescribe civil war as a remedy to all our ills. Your observation is inaccurate

You're just brainwashed. All you have to do it turn on the TV and it's the leftists who are intolerant, hostile and violent. Maxine Watters openly calls for confronting anyone you disagree with. And you just don't see it. You need psychological help

 

[kaz]

The left "debates" on emotion. The right on logic

There’s also a level of ignorance involved.
I saw that when a leftist woman at work joined me for lunch. I don’t think she’ll be doing that again. lol

You debate one leftist you've debated them all, same talking points and when you corner them they scream "you racist, bigoted, homophobe!!!!" and run away

That particular woman has known me for years from work. She knows I’m in the habit of respecting everyone.

She sat down when she noticed I was watching Fox News. That’s when I realized she was a leftist.
That’s also when she learned I’m a Trump supporter.

LOL, yes, they are nuts.

I work with a leftist. We walked in the break room and FoxNews was on. He said, "I can't watch Fox News and changed the channel to CNN without asking me." Then he asked about it. I said either is fine, I like a variety of channels. I never discuss politics at work or with people I don't know in general.

He's not a jerk, he's a nice guy. But he makes comments that he thinks I'm a Trump supporter since then. It amuses me, I haven't told him no, I'm not a Republican at all and didn't vote for them. Just not going to discuss it.

Trump supporters are overwhelmingly quiet about it at work. Leftists always make it known

While we have several break rooms throughout the hospital, I usually eat in the cafeteria with others.
Talking politics at work is also discouraged.

That said; this leftist saw me watching Fox on my phone and decided to join me. lol
I’m thinking/hoping it’ll be the last time she does that.

I'm confused what you said in the second paragraph

 

[kaz]

Well Mac, you can see it here on these boards everyday. I think that the anonymous nature of message boards makes people less likely to compromise.

The problem with compromising with you is that every compromise that I give you limits my freedom while every compromise you give me expands yours

Good thing our Founders didn't think like you do.

Gotcha, the founding fathers loved more, more, more government like you do. They weren't interested in limiting it like I want to do.

WTF are you talking about? Have you ever read a history book? You think the FFs were socialists?

Seriously, pick up a history book. Maybe in retrospect, you should have stayed in high school. I know, hindsight is 20/20 and all ...

 

[kaz]

What concerns me is that I'm seeing more and more of this manic behavior in real life. More and more people I talk to and see are walking around, one inch away from completely losing their shit on someone. Screaming, not listening, ever.
.

And you don't even notice the high correlation with them being leftists, do you?

No, not at all. Sometimes when talking with a new client about taxes, they go off on the same shallow, naive talking points I hear on talk radio and see here daily.

Lefties see more volatile and angry, Righties seem more trained and obedient.

Just my observation, of course.
.

Righties here routinely prescribe civil war as a remedy to all our ills. Your observation is inaccurate

Who's the masked marauders showing up at events using violence and which side are they on? Hint it's starts with an A and ends with an A

Amanda?

Who's the guys running around with tiki torches and mowing down others in their car? Trump supporters. Same types of folks who blew up churches in the South, drug black folks behind their trucks in Texas, threaten violence (aka "second amendment solutions"), etc...

You watch too much entertainment tonight, not enough actual news ...

 

[Crixus]

Well Mac, you can see it here on these boards everyday. I think that the anonymous nature of message boards makes people less likely to compromise.

What concerns me is that I'm seeing more and more of this manic behavior in real life. More and more people I talk to and see are walking around, one inch away from completely losing their shit on someone. Screaming, not listening, ever.
.

And you don't even notice the high correlation with them being leftists, do you?

No, not at all. Sometimes when talking with a new client about taxes, they go off on the same shallow, naive talking points I hear on talk radio and see here daily.

Lefties see more volatile and angry, Righties seem more trained and obedient.

Just my observation, of course.
.

An astute observation. Now, would that be Orwellian?