POLL: Ugly Politics

[Mac1958]

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.

Oh, believe me, often times when I bring this stuff up I'll get people saying it's no big deal, and that it's no worse than before.
.

 

[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.

Oh, believe me, often times when I bring this stuff up I'll get people saying it's no big deal, and that it's no worse than before.
.

I agree with you that it IS worse than before.

But that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that anyone "enjoys" it. I see it more as a trap, set by manipulators. Wherein we are merely the puppets.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Well, the people we're talking about are not liberal. They will call themselves liberal, they will defend and represent the Democratic party, but they are leftist authoritarians.
.
.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

 

[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, 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.
.

Believing any and every rumor that puts the other side in a bad light.

Well, that goes directly to the point of intellectual torpor that I discussed in another of your recent threads. (I think it was your thread...I'm too lazy just now to check. LOL)

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

I tend to agree that it's worse now than it was in 44's tenure.

I think the reason for that is that we for the first time in living memory got a POTUS who exhibits no more smarts than does an average individual. It may be that he's somewhat brighter than the average person, but we sure don't see any evidence of that being so. It's not as though the man is a fountain of brilliant ideas, other than marketing ideas, but at some point, the emperor needs to actually have some damn clothes, so to speak. Add to the man's lack of substantive acumen on myriad matters his degeneracy and, yes, the acrimony is rightly more ardent than before.

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.

I agree with your principle in that regard.

 

[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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree.
.

 

[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.

Oh, believe me, often times when I bring this stuff up I'll get people saying it's no big deal, and that it's no worse than before.
.

We thank our lucky stars most of those folks haven't got leadership roles in our society.

 

[Pogo]

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

Well, the people we're talking about are not liberal. They will call themselves liberal, they will defend and represent the Democratic party, but they are leftist authoritarians.

That may well be true depending on who you're talking about.

But if they are in fact authoritarians and not Liberals ---- then just don't refer to them as "Liberals". That's misleading.

Just as you wouldn't refer to them as "Swedes" or "albinos". Simple.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Well, the people we're talking about are not liberal. They will call themselves liberal, they will defend and represent the Democratic party, but they are leftist authoritarians.

That may well be true depending on who you're talking about.

But if they are in fact authoritarians and not Liberals ---- then just don't refer to them as "Liberals". That's misleading.

Just as you wouldn't refer to them as "Swedes" or "albinos". Simple.

I haven't referred to them as liberals. I have referred to them as Regressives and illiberal leftist authoritarians.

Again, my point is that they are NOT liberal.
.

 

[Pogo]

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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

The confrontational - personal - Eliminationism type of "discourse" I would say began with Lush Rimjob about 25 years ago. That's when the whole "White House dog" personal bullshit started. That's when the Eliminationist idea that one's adversary was not a simple adversary to be reasoned with but a bacteria to be exterminated, came about. And Lush was awash in the dumb-down blanket generalization fallacy, whether it was "Democrats" or "Liburruls" or "feminazis" or "sluts" --- all dehumanizing tools.

Occasional trolls since then have taken that dirty ball and run with it for their own attention whoring, and we got the Sean Hannitys and Glenn Becks. Then Rump saw his chance to do the same thing, and we had the most divisive and violent campaign since at least the time when the Klan was running around trashing Al Smith because he was a Catholic.

That's my read of the road to 'here'.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree.
.

My team does not have conhatelie&cryradio that started with Rush. Your side has been thermonuclear for decades.

I will admit that getting my team out to vote is damn hard. Your side is lucky we don't vote or you would never win another election.

As far as Identity Politics goes, of course you all hate it. You only have one identity ~ white males & women who obey.

 

[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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree.
.

My team does not have conhatelie&cryradio that started with Rush. Your side has been thermonuclear for decades.

I will admit that getting my team out to vote is damn hard. Your side is lucky we don't vote or you would never win another election.

As far as Identity Politics goes, of course you all hate it. You only have one identity ~ white males women who obey.

Actually, I'm a left-leaning Independent, I voted for Hillary. I'm just horrified about what has happened to the Democrats.

And I agree. If I were to point to one place at which this madness started, I would point to Rush and his merry band of copycats.

I'm virulently anti-PC and anti-Identity Politics because they are divisive, dishonest and counter-productive.
.

 

[Pogo]

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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree..

So given that definition is Rump a "Regressive"? Cramming "identity politics" like the continuous polarizations of "they're rapists" and "shutdown of Muslims" and "beat the crap out of 'em -- I'll pay your legal fees" and "bleeding from her wherever" and "they're laughing at us" and "you are fake news" and "fire the sumbitches"?

 

[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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree..

So given that definition is Rump a "Regressive"? Cramming "identity politics" like the continuous polarizations of "they're rapists" and "shutdown of Muslims" and "beat the crap out of 'em -- I'll pay your legal fees" and "bleeding from her wherever" and "they're laughing at us" and "you are fake news" and "fire the sumbitches"?

No, but you can try to commandeer the term if you'd like.
.

 

[Crixus]

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.
.

Full disclosure, I was here round 2009 the first time. It was way different. You saw all the jabs and banter, but typically it would end with laughs in the flame zone on Friday. If you need proof, just go look at old posts. It got worse as politics got worse. I blame the 24 news cycle.

 

[Mac1958]

Full disclosure, I was here round 2009 the first time. It was way different. You saw all the jabs and banter, but typically it would end with laughs in the flame zone on Friday. If you need proof, just go look at old posts. It got worse as politics got worse. I blame the 24 news cycle.

Holy shit, I can't even imagine that.

Yikes.
.

 

[Pogo]

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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree..

So given that definition is Rump a "Regressive"? Cramming "identity politics" like the continuous polarizations of "they're rapists" and "shutdown of Muslims" and "beat the crap out of 'em -- I'll pay your legal fees" and "bleeding from her wherever" and "they're laughing at us" and "you are fake news" and "fire the sumbitches"?

No, but you can try to commandeer the term if you'd like.

I'm not interested in the term really. I just want to know, if that's your definition, why Rump doesn't fit right in there. Because if what he's trolling is not "identity politics" I'm the Queen of Belgium.

 

[jc456]

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.
.

Cons started it. We libs are learning quickly. Getting hit hard over the head with the 2016 2x4 has taught us that we need to raise the temperature to thermonuclear

Well, my argument is that the Regressives played a role in 2016, cramming PC & Identity Politics down the country's throat until it choked and pushed back. The liberals in the videos I posted earlier agree.
.

My team does not have conhatelie&cryradio that started with Rush. Your side has been thermonuclear for decades.

I will admit that getting my team out to vote is damn hard. Your side is lucky we don't vote or you would never win another election.

As far as Identity Politics goes, of course you all hate it. You only have one identity ~ white males & women who obey.

As far as Identity Politics goes, of course you all hate it. You only have one identity ~ white males women who obey.

Harvey, is that you?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Do you think you (or anyone else, for that matter) ever change minds, or at least cause second thoughts?
.

 

[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.
.

Full disclosure, I was here round 2009 the first time. It was way different. You saw all the jabs and banter, but typically it would end with laughs in the flame zone on Friday. If you need proof, just go look at old posts. It got worse as politics got worse. I blame the 24 news cycle.

You have a point.

The constant info-dump is a factor. In part because it dumbs down the general news and makes the most trite who-cares bullshit into "breaking news" as if it were just as deserving as actual news.

But that was around before 2009. Look at minute-by-minute drooling over the OJ Simpson trial.

Another part of it is celebrity culture.