POLL: Ugly Politics

[Mac1958]

Mostly boredom. The idiocy that is front page news is usually the shiny rock that should be on 3rd page, b/c what is really happening is happening when you are looking at the rock. I know posting here is a waste of time, but it's mine to waste.

Crap, that's a response I should have included, it makes as much sense as anything else.
.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Mostly boredom. The idiocy that is front page news is usually the shiny rock that should be on 3rd page, b/c what is really happening is happening when you are looking at the rock. I know posting here is a waste of time, but it's mine to waste.

Crap, that's a response I should have included, it makes as much sense as anything else.
.

well I went with 'catharsis', I do get a chuckle now and then.

plus the adds at the bottom of my page usually have pics of hot chicks. Looking at that human Barbie chick now.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

Climate Change Alarmists???

These are called scientists and we are talking about the top scientists in the world. Can you please explain to me how a large body of people who have spent their whole life studying the field are wrong and the the research of an equable standard to prove so...

Conspiracy Theories don't count... Apart from anything else how does that many people of integrity all agree to back the same lie?

 

[Care4all]

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.

There are no true liberals on this board, just far left drones that would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

Are you a far right drone???

 

[SeaGal]

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.

Am I included in that group?

If so, I don't intend to be dismissive, just attempting to put things in perspective. The enmity is more visible than ever, I can't say it's more prevalent. Maybe I have a longer time frame of reference. My grandparents were Democrats and to them Republicans were de debil. I remember the heated discussions during the election of 1960 over Kennedy's religion.

The decade of the sixties?...college students shot and killed on campus by Nat'l Guard. Three assassinations. The race riots, the flag burning, the anti-war protests - tumultuous, horrifying and for some, invigorating times.

Our entire history is steeped in passionate, not always reasonable, confrontations. Can you imagine the conflicts involved in creating this nation, the divisions during the civil war, the atrocities on both sides? (I wasn't actually there, but we can read about it )

Reagan was vilified by the press almost daily. Clinton's impeachment, followed by Gore's defeat, the election of Obama, who delighted in creating deeper division by playing to identity politics, the devastating defeat of progs at the national and state level, and now the election of Trump - has some people unhinged, true. I don't even know what to say about the media's role in all of this - their credibility is greatly diminished, imho.

A couple of interesting links - one re: media takes on Reagan, the other a wiki list of physical violence among our elected officials on the House/Senate floor.

Part of remembering Reagan is to remember all the hilariously incorrect quotes about him. At the 1988 Republican convention, Roger Rosenblatt, then editor of U.S. News & World Report, transfixed his CBS interviewers by describing the Reagan legacy as “a dangerous failure at least in terms of programs. A mess in Central America, neglect of the poor, corruption in government…. And the worst legacy of all, the budget deficit, the impoverishment of our children.” In the summer of 1989, NBC’s Bryant Gumbel was still snottily dismissing reality with spit-take lines like this: “Largely as a result of the policies and priorities of the Reagan administration, more people are becoming poor and staying poor in this country than at any time since World War II.”

Read more at: Reagan Vs. The Media


5 February 1858[edit]
Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina was involved in another incident of legislative violence less than two years later, starting a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense late-night debate. Keitt became offended when Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha A. Grow stepped over to the Democratic side of the House chamber while delivering an anti-slavery speech. Keitt dismissively interrupted Grow's speech to demand he sit down, calling him a "black Republican puppy". Grow indignantly responded by telling Keitt that “No negro-driver shall crack his whip over me.” Keitt became enraged and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for that". A large brawl involving approximately 50 representatives erupted on the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep. Cadwallader Washburn of Wisconsin upended the hairpiece of Rep. William Barksdale of Mississippi. The embarrassed Barksdale accidentally replaced the wig backwards, causing both sides to erupt in spontaneous laughter..
Legislative violence - Wikipedia

I once read a comment by an unremembered author, the gist of which - it isn't the extremists on either end of the political spectrum that do the most harm to the nation, it is the squishy middle's acquiescence to policies that compromise on principles. Food for thought.

Anyway - why do I come here? Not rightly sure.

 

[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.
.

Mac, you need to face one fact.

It was the left who indulged in character assassination, ridicule, and marginalization according to procedure as written by Saul Alinsky

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Got news for ya blue-font-boi. Well that's not true, it's not 'news' since you perfectly well know it --- but nobody ever heard of Sol Belinsky until Glenn Beck dredged him up from parts unknown. To hang some kind of retroactive pied piper from the past, not only on discussants who have never brought him up or even heard of him, let alone the entire collective of "the left" (or "the right" or any other imaginary collective) is the very definition of dishonest hackery.

This is the same blanket/association fallacy I cited in my first post here. It is the tool of absolute morons, the use of which precludes the user from ever being taken with a shred of credibility.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Am I included in that group?

If so, I don't intend to be dismissive, just attempting to put things in perspective. The enmity is more visible than ever, I can't say it's more prevalent. Maybe I have a longer time frame of reference. My grandparents were Democrats and to them Republicans were de debil. I remember the heated discussions during the election of 1960 over Kennedy's religion.

The decade of the sixties?...college students shot and killed on campus by Nat'l Guard. Three assassinations. The race riots, the flag burning, the anti-war protests - tumultuous, horrifying and for some, invigorating times.

Our entire history is steeped in passionate, not always reasonable, confrontations. Can you imagine the conflicts involved in creating this nation, the divisions during the civil war, the atrocities on both sides? (I wasn't actually there, but we can read about it )

Reagan was vilified by the press almost daily. Clinton's impeachment, followed by Gore's defeat, the election of Obama, who delighted in creating deeper division by playing to identity politics, the devastating defeat of progs at the national and state level, and now the election of Trump - has some people unhinged, true. I don't even know what to say about the media's role in all of this - their credibility is greatly diminished, imho.

A couple of interesting links - one re: media takes on Reagan, the other a wiki list of physical violence among our elected officials on the House/Senate floor.

Part of remembering Reagan is to remember all the hilariously incorrect quotes about him. At the 1988 Republican convention, Roger Rosenblatt, then editor of U.S. News & World Report, transfixed his CBS interviewers by describing the Reagan legacy as “a dangerous failure at least in terms of programs. A mess in Central America, neglect of the poor, corruption in government…. And the worst legacy of all, the budget deficit, the impoverishment of our children.” In the summer of 1989, NBC’s Bryant Gumbel was still snottily dismissing reality with spit-take lines like this: “Largely as a result of the policies and priorities of the Reagan administration, more people are becoming poor and staying poor in this country than at any time since World War II.”

Read more at: Reagan Vs. The Media


5 February 1858[edit]
Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina was involved in another incident of legislative violence less than two years later, starting a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense late-night debate. Keitt became offended when Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha A. Grow stepped over to the Democratic side of the House chamber while delivering an anti-slavery speech. Keitt dismissively interrupted Grow's speech to demand he sit down, calling him a "black Republican puppy". Grow indignantly responded by telling Keitt that “No negro-driver shall crack his whip over me.” Keitt became enraged and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for that". A large brawl involving approximately 50 representatives erupted on the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep. Cadwallader Washburn of Wisconsin upended the hairpiece of Rep. William Barksdale of Mississippi. The embarrassed Barksdale accidentally replaced the wig backwards, causing both sides to erupt in spontaneous laughter..
Legislative violence - Wikipedia

I once read a comment by an unremembered author, the gist of which - it isn't the extremists on either end of the political spectrum that do the most harm to the nation, it is the squishy middle's acquiescence to policies that compromise on principles. Food for thought.

Anyway - why do I come here? Not rightly sure.

that is a great story. Somebody should do a movie.

 

[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.
.

I'll bite. I'm so very tired of the shit show that is our current political system. The constant insults to the collective intelligence of American society was pretty bad during the Obama years. It's ******* unbearable now. I'm done. I will shame both sides of the political spectrum equally when I spot the cognitive dissonance and to hell with feelings. There is lots of blame to go around when it comes to the American voter, but the biggest misstep seems a fundamental lack of education when it comes to politics. Nothing new.

The democrats most likely rigged their primaries to give Clinton (the worst candidate I've seen in many years) the nomination. Boo. The Republicans most likely rigged the election to get the biggest douche bag ever elected to the Oval Office. Double boo. We have no 'winners' here, just a gallery of 1%er scoundrels working for themselves, as usual. The American public has been an afterthought at best for decades.

What am I supposed to do about that? Rejoice? Slit my wrists? Real life is too exciting to let the political minutia sway my mood. America will continue to receive the leadership it deserves until it gets off of its fat ass and does something about it. Embrace the schadenfreude.

We Dems did not rig anything. You probably mean superdelegates. Bernie should have joined the party, it was his own fault. Why would a Dem super vote for a non Dem? Why would the DNC favor a non Dem?

And the punchline is that Hillary won against bernie w/o the supers.

trump was smart enough to join the GOP to take full advantage of party politics.

You can go back to 2008 and Hillary also had the initial super lead. Obama stole them, ALL of them. Our system works.

Bernie actually did join the party, for the duration of the run. He was sabotaged because he hadn't already been with the party before (not a loyal soldier).

To his credit as soon as he was eliminated he threw that off and went back to Independent, declaring that's how he was elected to the Senate and that's how he would serve.

He claimed he was running as a Democrat but never joined the party.

Apparently it's a bit murkier than I thought -- it depends on who you ask and when you ask it....

>> Sanders listed the Democratic Party as his party affiliation in his statement of candidacy. At the start of his campaign, he still seemed uncomfortable self-identifying as a Democrat.

When asked if he would officially join the party on April 30, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, Sanders said, "No, I am an independent who is going to be working with the —" cutting himself off mid-sentence.

In November, Sanders announced that he was full-fledged Democrat and declared as a Democrat in New Hampshire. But, as we previously noted, he’s still calling himself an independent in some cases, so it’s unclear how committed Sanders is to any label. The Sanders campaign did not get back to us.

Experts said it probably doesn't matter to his candidacy.

"The freedom of association part of the First Amendment protects political parties. If they want to nominate a non-member, they can do that," said Richard Winger, an expert on ballot access.

Winger pointed out several instances of a party nominating a non-member: 1872 when the Democratic Party chose Republican Horace Greeley; in 1864 when the Republican Party chose Democrat Andrew Johnson; and in 1952 when the Republican Party picked independent Dwight Eisenhower (who promptly changed his party registration). << -- PolitiFact​

Also learned, and I didn't remember this from when I lived there although it wouldn't have mattered --- that when you register to vote in Vermont you don't even list a political party. Everyone is officially "independent" regardless how they may self-identify personally. So you can call yourself whatever you want but the state rolls don't care.

>> Asked after the event whether Mr. Sanders considers himself a Democrat or an independent, a campaign aide said, “He ran for president as a Democrat but was elected to a six-year term in the Senate as an independent.” << --- WSJ​

So I guess bottom line Bernie has never been a "Democrat" unless it was absolutely necessary to cite a party registration, or unless it was expedient to so self-identify. As I like to put it he tried to ride the horse, but wasn't one of the owners of the horse.

 

[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.
.

I'll bite. I'm so very tired of the shit show that is our current political system. The constant insults to the collective intelligence of American society was pretty bad during the Obama years. It's ******* unbearable now. I'm done. I will shame both sides of the political spectrum equally when I spot the cognitive dissonance and to hell with feelings. There is lots of blame to go around when it comes to the American voter, but the biggest misstep seems a fundamental lack of education when it comes to politics. Nothing new.

The democrats most likely rigged their primaries to give Clinton (the worst candidate I've seen in many years) the nomination. Boo. The Republicans most likely rigged the election to get the biggest douche bag ever elected to the Oval Office. Double boo. We have no 'winners' here, just a gallery of 1%er scoundrels working for themselves, as usual. The American public has been an afterthought at best for decades.

What am I supposed to do about that? Rejoice? Slit my wrists? Real life is too exciting to let the political minutia sway my mood. America will continue to receive the leadership it deserves until it gets off of its fat ass and does something about it. Embrace the schadenfreude.

We Dems did not rig anything. You probably mean superdelegates. Bernie should have joined the party, it was his own fault. Why would a Dem super vote for a non Dem? Why would the DNC favor a non Dem?

And the punchline is that Hillary won against bernie w/o the supers.

trump was smart enough to join the GOP to take full advantage of party politics.

You can go back to 2008 and Hillary also had the initial super lead. Obama stole them, ALL of them. Our system works.

Bernie actually did join the party, for the duration of the run. He was sabotaged because he hadn't already been with the party before (not a loyal soldier).

To his credit as soon as he was eliminated he threw that off and went back to Independent, declaring that's how he was elected to the Senate and that's how he would serve.

He claimed he was running as a Democrat but never joined the party.

Apparently it's a bit murkier than I thought -- it depends on who you ask and when you ask it....

>> Sanders listed the Democratic Party as his party affiliation in his statement of candidacy. At the start of his campaign, he still seemed uncomfortable self-identifying as a Democrat.

When asked if he would officially join the party on April 30, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, Sanders said, "No, I am an independent who is going to be working with the —" cutting himself off mid-sentence.

In November, Sanders announced that he was full-fledged Democrat and declared as a Democrat in New Hampshire. But, as we previously noted, he’s still calling himself an independent in some cases, so it’s unclear how committed Sanders is to any label. The Sanders campaign did not get back to us.

Experts said it probably doesn't matter to his candidacy.

"The freedom of association part of the First Amendment protects political parties. If they want to nominate a non-member, they can do that," said Richard Winger, an expert on ballot access.

Winger pointed out several instances of a party nominating a non-member: 1872 when the Democratic Party chose Republican Horace Greeley; in 1864 when the Republican Party chose Democrat Andrew Johnson; and in 1952 when the Republican Party picked independent Dwight Eisenhower (who promptly changed his party registration). << -- PolitiFact​

Also learned, and I didn't remember this from when I lived there although it wouldn't have mattered --- that when you register to vote in Vermont you don't even list a political party. Everyone is officially "independent" regardless how they may self-identify personally. So you can call yourself whatever you want but the state rolls don't care.

>> Asked after the event whether Mr. Sanders considers himself a Democrat or an independent, a campaign aide said, “He ran for president as a Democrat but was elected to a six-year term in the Senate as an independent.” << --- WSJ​

So I guess bottom line Bernie has never been a "Democrat" unless it was absolutely necessary to cite a party registration, or unless it was expedient to so self-identify. As I like to put it he tried to ride the horse, but wasn't one of the owners of the horse.

Matter of fact, following this same thought --- I'm not sure we know whether Rump is "officially" a Republican either. He's known to have been registered multiple times as a Democrat, as a Republican, and with no party affiliation, which is the last record I could find.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Am I included in that group? If so, I don't intend to be dismissive, just attempting to put things in perspective. The enmity is more visible than ever, I can't say it's more prevalent.

I don't claim to be a political historian, that's for damn sure, but I agree with those who have said that the internet and 24/7 news has been a real driver of the behaviors.

Look at the teevee stories, the internet articles, the message board threads: Loaded with dueling "scandals", personal attacks, hyperbolic accusations and shallow innuendo, on and on, all either started on the internet and social media or quickly exacerbated there.

For the all the good the internet has done, it has played right into our most base instincts, and I'm not convinced it has been a net positive.
.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

There are no true liberals on this board, just far left drones that would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

Are you a far right drone???

Far Right Moron

 

[SeaGal]

that is a great story. Somebody should do a movie.

Why yes, yes it is. Those are just the cliffsnotes tho' - you can read all about if you choose. Oh goodness me, I forgot - todays kids, tsk tsk...if it isn't a moving picture in technicolor it didn't happen.

 

[SeaGal]

I don't claim to be a political historian, that's for damn sure, but I agree with those who have said that the internet and 24/7 news has been a real driver of the behaviors.

Look at the teevee stories, the internet articles, the message board threads: Loaded with dueling "scandals", personal attacks, hyperbolic accusations and shallow innuendo, on and on, all either started on the internet and social media or quickly exacerbated there.

For the all the good the internet has done, it has played right into our most base instincts, and I'm not convinced it has been a net positive.

Net positive or not, it's here to stay. And I sure would hate to see politicians using that as an excuse to regulate it. I think a jerk on here is going to be a jerk in traffic, in line at the grocery store, on the job, a jerk at a social gathering, etc.

I believe the behaviors are already there - the audience is wider. I'd hate to see all the reasonable folks, as in not jerks, run off because malcontents bully their way through the internet and try to squash opposing views. The internet conversations in China are probably much less controversial. Perhaps we need to do a little self-censoring...and realize that posting on a public forum with the intent of changing minds is a wasted effort. I don't have anyone on ignore, I have never reported anyone to a mod - but there are some posters I don't bother to read or respond to.. Expressing viewpoints, that's all this is good for.

I also think the far left is desperate to remove Trump from office, By Any Means Necessary, truth is optional. There's far more at stake than just the next 3 years. We are not dealing with honest brokers.

 

[Votto]

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.
.

I voted Mango cuz I like Mango

 

[Mac1958]

I don't claim to be a political historian, that's for damn sure, but I agree with those who have said that the internet and 24/7 news has been a real driver of the behaviors.

Look at the teevee stories, the internet articles, the message board threads: Loaded with dueling "scandals", personal attacks, hyperbolic accusations and shallow innuendo, on and on, all either started on the internet and social media or quickly exacerbated there.

For the all the good the internet has done, it has played right into our most base instincts, and I'm not convinced it has been a net positive.

Net positive or not, it's here to stay. And I sure would hate to see politicians using that as an excuse to regulate it. I think a jerk on here is going to be a jerk in traffic, in line at the grocery store, on the job, a jerk at a social gathering, etc.

I believe the behaviors are already there - the audience is wider. I'd hate to see all the reasonable folks, as in not jerks, run off because malcontents bully their way through the internet and try to squash opposing views. The internet conversations in China are probably much less controversial. Perhaps we need to do a little self-censoring...and realize that posting on a public forum with the intent of changing minds is a wasted effort. I don't have anyone on ignore, I have never reported anyone to a mod - but there are some posters I don't bother to read or respond to.. Expressing viewpoints, that's all this is good for.

I also think the far left is desperate to remove Trump from office, By Any Means Necessary, truth is optional. There's far more at stake than just the next 3 years. We are not dealing with honest brokers.

Well, that was inevitable. Look at what they've lost, look at how they lost (electoral votes), look at who they lost to.

Full disclosure, I voted against Trump. But the behaviors of the Left and many Democrats have been unlike anything I've ever seen. My personal theory is that they thought that the fight was over, that Obama's wins marked the turning point, the Fundamental Change they've been hoping for, and that demographics were guaranteeing it from here on.

So this loss was a huge shock, on multiple levels, and they're just not having it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I voted Mango cuz I like Mango

DAMN RIGHT
.

 

[Votto]

I don't claim to be a political historian, that's for damn sure, but I agree with those who have said that the internet and 24/7 news has been a real driver of the behaviors.

Look at the teevee stories, the internet articles, the message board threads: Loaded with dueling "scandals", personal attacks, hyperbolic accusations and shallow innuendo, on and on, all either started on the internet and social media or quickly exacerbated there.

For the all the good the internet has done, it has played right into our most base instincts, and I'm not convinced it has been a net positive.

Net positive or not, it's here to stay. And I sure would hate to see politicians using that as an excuse to regulate it. I think a jerk on here is going to be a jerk in traffic, in line at the grocery store, on the job, a jerk at a social gathering, etc.

I believe the behaviors are already there - the audience is wider. I'd hate to see all the reasonable folks, as in not jerks, run off because malcontents bully their way through the internet and try to squash opposing views. The internet conversations in China are probably much less controversial. Perhaps we need to do a little self-censoring...and realize that posting on a public forum with the intent of changing minds is a wasted effort. I don't have anyone on ignore, I have never reported anyone to a mod - but there are some posters I don't bother to read or respond to.. Expressing viewpoints, that's all this is good for.

I also think the far left is desperate to remove Trump from office, By Any Means Necessary, truth is optional. There's far more at stake than just the next 3 years. We are not dealing with honest brokers.

Well, that was inevitable. Look at what they've lost, look at how they lost (electoral votes), look at who they lost to.

Full disclosure, I voted against Trump. But the behaviors of the Left and many Democrats have been unlike anything I've ever seen. My personal theory is that they thought that the fight was over, that Obama's wins marked the turning point, the Fundamental Change they've been hoping for, and that demographics were guaranteeing it from here on.

So this loss was a huge shock, on multiple levels, and they're just not having it.
.

They let Trump win. They knew that once in office both parties would make sure that he accomplishes nothing.

In the interim, Trump will do what no one else could, which is re-energize the hopelessly corrupt DNC so people will start voting Dim again.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't claim to be a political historian, that's for damn sure, but I agree with those who have said that the internet and 24/7 news has been a real driver of the behaviors.

Look at the teevee stories, the internet articles, the message board threads: Loaded with dueling "scandals", personal attacks, hyperbolic accusations and shallow innuendo, on and on, all either started on the internet and social media or quickly exacerbated there.

For the all the good the internet has done, it has played right into our most base instincts, and I'm not convinced it has been a net positive.

Net positive or not, it's here to stay. And I sure would hate to see politicians using that as an excuse to regulate it. I think a jerk on here is going to be a jerk in traffic, in line at the grocery store, on the job, a jerk at a social gathering, etc.

I believe the behaviors are already there - the audience is wider. I'd hate to see all the reasonable folks, as in not jerks, run off because malcontents bully their way through the internet and try to squash opposing views. The internet conversations in China are probably much less controversial. Perhaps we need to do a little self-censoring...and realize that posting on a public forum with the intent of changing minds is a wasted effort. I don't have anyone on ignore, I have never reported anyone to a mod - but there are some posters I don't bother to read or respond to.. Expressing viewpoints, that's all this is good for.

I also think the far left is desperate to remove Trump from office, By Any Means Necessary, truth is optional. There's far more at stake than just the next 3 years. We are not dealing with honest brokers.

Well, that was inevitable. Look at what they've lost, look at how they lost (electoral votes), look at who they lost to.

Full disclosure, I voted against Trump. But the behaviors of the Left and many Democrats have been unlike anything I've ever seen. My personal theory is that they thought that the fight was over, that Obama's wins marked the turning point, the Fundamental Change they've been hoping for, and that demographics were guaranteeing it from here on.

So this loss was a huge shock, on multiple levels, and they're just not having it.
.

They let Trump win. They knew that once in office both parties would make sure that he accomplishes nothing.

In the interim, Trump will do what no one else could, which is re-energize the hopelessly corrupt DNC so people will start voting Dim again.

Yeah, they're gonna be REALLY motivated in '18 and '20.
.

 

[Votto]

I don't claim to be a political historian, that's for damn sure, but I agree with those who have said that the internet and 24/7 news has been a real driver of the behaviors.

Look at the teevee stories, the internet articles, the message board threads: Loaded with dueling "scandals", personal attacks, hyperbolic accusations and shallow innuendo, on and on, all either started on the internet and social media or quickly exacerbated there.

For the all the good the internet has done, it has played right into our most base instincts, and I'm not convinced it has been a net positive.

Net positive or not, it's here to stay. And I sure would hate to see politicians using that as an excuse to regulate it. I think a jerk on here is going to be a jerk in traffic, in line at the grocery store, on the job, a jerk at a social gathering, etc.

I believe the behaviors are already there - the audience is wider. I'd hate to see all the reasonable folks, as in not jerks, run off because malcontents bully their way through the internet and try to squash opposing views. The internet conversations in China are probably much less controversial. Perhaps we need to do a little self-censoring...and realize that posting on a public forum with the intent of changing minds is a wasted effort. I don't have anyone on ignore, I have never reported anyone to a mod - but there are some posters I don't bother to read or respond to.. Expressing viewpoints, that's all this is good for.

I also think the far left is desperate to remove Trump from office, By Any Means Necessary, truth is optional. There's far more at stake than just the next 3 years. We are not dealing with honest brokers.

Well, that was inevitable. Look at what they've lost, look at how they lost (electoral votes), look at who they lost to.

Full disclosure, I voted against Trump. But the behaviors of the Left and many Democrats have been unlike anything I've ever seen. My personal theory is that they thought that the fight was over, that Obama's wins marked the turning point, the Fundamental Change they've been hoping for, and that demographics were guaranteeing it from here on.

So this loss was a huge shock, on multiple levels, and they're just not having it.
.

They let Trump win. They knew that once in office both parties would make sure that he accomplishes nothing.

In the interim, Trump will do what no one else could, which is re-energize the hopelessly corrupt DNC so people will start voting Dim again.

Yeah, they're gonna be REALLY motivated in '18 and '20.
.

It would be hilarious if it's not enough.

At that point, they may try and assassinate the entire Congressional GOP again, not that the GOP ever does anything like repeal Obamacare.

 

[sartre play]

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.
.
.

How so?