Trumped

[krAbs]

6 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I disagree. Even with Pres. Obama for 8 years he hardly existed in a vacuum and social changes happened slowly...  I think more it's a social change thanks to the interwebs. Republicans in a physical sense have been isolated from ideological diversity much more than their liberal counterparts for decades. Urban/Suburban vs Rural etc. (Small towns are crazy!) But social media has changed all that. Now many on both sides spend large if not practically their entire social time online in these echo chambers (credit @Glen) where they don't hear opposing thoughts from peers. And when they do hear anything they aren't they are super quick to the block button. So much so that we see it affect non-online aspects such as safe spaces at universities. This trend seems...dangerous.

Sure. I can get behind that. Basically everyone can find their ideologically pure niche, and dig their feet in there. But, I guess my point is kinda like....As I'm sure everyone on here is well aware of, since Obama has left office, ACA approval numbers have skyrocketed. One theory is that people complain about things until they think they won't have them. That probably has some truth. But, another theory I've heard is that a big chunk of the approval of the bill is people on the left pissed that its not a single payer system. But, now that Trump is president, they are willing to support it because now the alternative is far more unacceptable to them. That's kind of what I meant. You can play the "ideological purity" game when your party is in power, but you look like a fool doing it when your party has no leverage. Like...say they actually hold a vote to repeal the ACA with no replacement. A Democrat would be a FOOL to say "I'll vote for this because I believe I can negotiate a MORE liberal option, and the ACA is unacceptable because its not ideologically pure enough for me."

 

I'm not going to touch the safe space comment cuz I'm still waiting to jump into the SJW thread that has been floating around here for a bit.

[Thomas]

19 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

sides, at least to me, limit free thought.  A side has to believe a certain core set of values.  I don't think a lot of people think that way anymore.

Sure but when dealing with a species that evolved from a very socially structured predecessor it's a bit much to ask for the majority to split from instinct. At best we could at least hope for there to be civility and an open dialogue between the different sides. 

[Thomas]

11 minutes ago, krAbs said:

ACA approval numbers have skyrocketed.

I think prior to Trump, ACA in polls represented all the problems with healthcare with premiums and deductibles going up each year. Which is again why I don't think the Republicans were ever going to actually repeal it. As Trump will remind us for God knows how long, the Democrats own that! But when you compare ACA to an alternative, such as the abysmal Republican plan, it doesn't look nearly as bad.

[UndertheHalo]

I think the left still has a problem with idealogical purity, and it concerns me going forward. 

The right does as well, but it seems like at least in the last go around the people on the right side of the spectrum were at least willing to roll the dice with Donald cause he was on their "team". Even if they dis liked much of his messaging.  People predicted that they would break and abandon him but that was completely wrong.  It seems like the idealogical purists on the left did abandon Clinton.  I'm sure they did on the right as well, but not to the same extent. 

I know a bunch of you will go on and on about how she's a terrible candidate etc.  Donald wasn't any super star either out side of his fairly small alt right leaning followers and yet, not crazy people on the right voted for him. 

BTW, I completely agree with MT about the alarm that should be caused by the fan boy loyalty to political ideologies that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent.  I think it 100% has to do with the social media echo chamber. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[arch stanton]

The problem with the ideological purity on either side is it seems to be based on donor preference rather than any actual ideology

[UndertheHalo]

Holy smokes.  What a shit show. 

On the bright side, this has to mean Foghorn Leghorn is on his way out right ?

[Glen]

Trump is such a whiny bitch.

[Thomas]

23 minutes ago, Glen said:

Trump is such a whiny bitch.

I would hope what Trump is doing here is pretty transparent. Right? 

[Jason]

11 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

Holy smokes.  What a shit show. 

On the bright side, this has to mean Foghorn Leghorn is on his way out right ?

I think so as many congressional republicans arent happy with his stance on asset forfeiture stuff. 

[Stradling]

23 hours ago, Glen said:

 

Why can't we do both?  Focus on a positive alternative as well as keep an eye on the president.  And, the first part of your post illustrates the problem.  If a positive alternative is thrown out there, said alternative has about a five percent chance right now.  The people who voted for Trump would still vote for Trump.  There is no changing them.

And the people who voted for Hillary will still vote for Hillary.  It's a two sided problem.  I didn't vote for either but could never see myself voting for a democrat.  Just as I'm positive Red, Glen and Rally will never vote for another republican. We've become too polarized.  

[Taylor]

One of these tweets is more meaningful and genuine than the other.

[Glen]

45 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And the people who voted for Hillary will still vote for Hillary.  It's a two sided problem.  I didn't vote for either but could never see myself voting for a democrat.  Just as I'm positive Red, Glen and Rally will never vote for another republican. We've become too polarized.  

I have voted R in the past and I will again if they have a candidate I support.  I often vote R on downticket offices. You are positively wrong.

[tdawg87]

"Get well soon"

 

lol

[mtangelsfan]

America has hit a new low.  We are using twitter as a gauge of sincerity.

[Glen]

23 minutes ago, Taylor said:

One of these tweets is more meaningful and genuine than the other.

I hope cancer doesn't capture McCain.

[Glen]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

America has hit a new low.  We are using twitter as a gauge of sincerity.

That's your gauge for a new low, with Trump in office?

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, Glen said:

That's your gauge for a new low, with Trump in office?

Twitter is one of the reasons Trump is president.

So, yeah.

[red321]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

And the people who voted for Hillary will still vote for Hillary.  It's a two sided problem.  I didn't vote for either but could never see myself voting for a democrat.  Just as I'm positive Red, Glen and Rally will never vote for another republican. We've become too polarized.  

That's a pretty broad brush you are using there...did you get it at Costco?

If the Republican party stops wedding itself to the likes of the far right/social conservatives and moves back towards the middle, I would probably consider a candidate in a local race.

But it goes beyond that as well, it goes to what the party stands for...the Republican party has been taken over by the likes of Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and the tea party. I may not agree with everything the Democrats stand for, but at the issues that matter the most to me, they do. So, even if a socially and fiscally moderate Republican ran in my district, they'd still be back in Washington and voting party line in almost all cases. It's not much different than what occurred for Obamacare, as much as Ed Royce tried everything possible to avoid taking a position on the repeal, when push came to shove he did what he was instructed and voted for it.

[krAbs]

15 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I think the left still has a problem with idealogical purity, and it concerns me going forward. 

The right does as well, but it seems like at least in the last go around the people on the right side of the spectrum were at least willing to roll the dice with Donald cause he was on their "team". Even if they dis liked much of his messaging.  People predicted that they would break and abandon him but that was completely wrong.  It seems like the idealogical purists on the left did abandon Clinton.  I'm sure they did on the right as well, but not to the same extent. 

I know a bunch of you will go on and on about how she's a terrible candidate etc.  Donald wasn't any super star either out side of his fairly small alt right leaning followers and yet, not crazy people on the right voted for him. 

BTW, I completely agree with MT about the alarm that should be caused by the fan boy loyalty to political ideologies that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent.  I think it 100% has to do with the social media echo chamber. 

See, this is a problem. One of the worst situations for a democracy is when you have strong party loyalty with weak party control. The captain is blind, but we will follow him to our death.

[krAbs]

19 minutes ago, red321 said:

That's a pretty broad brush you are using there...did you get it at Costco?

If the Republican party stops wedding itself to the likes of the far right/social conservatives and moves back towards the middle, I would probably consider a candidate in a local race.

But it goes beyond that as well, it goes to what the party stands for...the Republican party has been taken over by the likes of Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and the tea party. I may not agree with everything the Democrats stand for, but at the issues that matter the most to me, they do. So, even if a socially and fiscally moderate Republican ran in my district, they'd still be back in Washington and voting party line in almost all cases. It's not much different than what occurred for Obamacare, as much as Ed Royce tried everything possible to avoid taking a position on the repeal, when push came to shove he did what he was instructed and voted for it.

Seriously. I grew up Republican, and only really shifted hard left when I watched the primary debates. I've actually been looking for an analytical podcast on the right to listen to and get takes from, but whenever I think I find one, it breaks down and starts praising the alt right and talking about how the problem in America is there is too much damn diversity and we need less Mexicans and Muslims. Its sickening.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Try Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder.

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, Make Angels Great Again said:

Try Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder.

Ben Shapiro is a fucking douche bag and about as idealogically possessed as it gets.  He's just awful.

[Make Angels Great Again]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ben Shapiro is a fucking douche bag and about as idealogically possessed as it gets.  He's just awful.

ideologically*

 

Can you point anything out? He has always seemed to use common sense and logic rather than emotional pandering from what i've seen.

[UndertheHalo]

44 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Seriously. I grew up Republican, and only really shifted hard left when I watched the primary debates. I've actually been looking for an analytical podcast on the right to listen to and get takes from, but whenever I think I find one, it breaks down and starts praising the alt right and talking about how the problem in America is there is too much damn diversity and we need less Mexicans and Muslims. Its sickening.

i voted republican a decent number of times until after Obama got elected.  The radical shift to the right that was the parties response really troubled me.  I don't see myself voting for a republican in the near future.  I voted for Ed Royce in '08, and before.  Thats a vote i really regret.

[UndertheHalo]

20 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

ideologically*

 

Can you point anything out? He has always seemed to use common sense and logic rather than emotional pandering from what i've seen.

thank you for pointing out my spelling error. 

I imagine you and I have very different definitions of "common sense" 

I have a lot of issues with Ben Shapiro.  He takes IMO a radically libertarian view of the world that I just disagree with on a very fundamental level.  I disagree with his positions on basically everything.  For example, he thinks the causes of poverty are 100% the outcome of people who are just shitty with money.  This is a core belief for him and it appears to inform many of his positions.  

On the douchebag count, just go on youtube man, he's extremely abrasive.  He's a fucking prick that picks fights with high schoolers.  He's basically the jewish version of Ann Coulter.

Edited July 20, 2017 by UndertheHalo