Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:50 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,292
Well, I think it has been going on for a LONG time, I think technology has just made it far more obvious. It SEEMS like it started in the 90s but honestly I think it has roots going back til at least the 60s, when "liberalism" was "classic liberalism" and conservatism was a bit more focused on economics. Religion played a bigger part in American life. Everyone's.

For print, before the mid 90's, you got your news from the newspaper or magazines, and any "letters to the editor" section was highly moderated.

A lot of people didn't have cable, so they were stuck with a few channels, with far fewer "opinion news" shows. Call in radio "opinion shows" were far rarer. Now everyone has a damn podcast. You just weren't exposed to other POVs as much.

Now you know what everybody knows. Everybody has an opinion. So it makes things LOOK far more hateful. Yeah, Trump says outrageous stuff, and so do some other politicians, however, I've seen much MUCH worse on the internet. Prior to the late 90's I don't recall ever being told to die in a fire. Back in the day, you had to watch what you say, because you were saying it to someone's face.

There was definitely more of a sense of community. Now everybody's on their phone. Their community is online, and a LOT more diverse, which, strangely, I think has contributed to tribalism and generally a lot more toxic discussion.

I think socially, there was a lot more things that people had a fairly unified opinion on. Now, it's less. You can simply simply look at polls on social issues over time. It's obvious.

Last edited by Ashtura; 02-13-2018 at 02:52 PM.
  #102  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:44 PM
proudfootz proudfootz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Left Coast USA
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
the problem is that there are quite a number on the left and far left that only take interest in politics when they choose to be interested in politics. Sure, they helped get Obama elected in 2008, but then left him high and dry in 2010 when they didn't go out to vote to keep a congress that would support him. They cam back out in 2012 to re-elect the president, but in 2014, once again, no where to be found.

Then 2016 rolls around, and they say, "Well, what have you done for me?", so they stay home and let trump get elected.

The wanted to teach democrats a lesson by staying home or voting for a candidate with no chance to win, the democrats learned the lesson that these are not dependable voters, so they are looking somewhere else.
I think you nailed the problem right there: the Democratic leadership went looking for dependable Republican voters and decided to have more Republican friendly policies.
  #103  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:47 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz View Post
I think you nailed the problem right there: the Democratic leadership went looking for dependable Republican voters and decided to have more Republican friendly policies.
Problem or solution?

If people aren't going to support your party and your candidates, then for how long are you supposed to represent their interests?
  #104  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:09 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Naw, they'll come out and vote the party line, they always do. They did before Trump, they did it with Trump, they'll do it after him too.
How often do you vote across party lines? I'll make this multiple choice in an effort to make it simple for you:
  1. Very Frequently
  2. Frequently
  3. Sometimes
  4. Infrequently
  5. Never

See, this is another area where both parties are alike. The guy from the other party is an asshole always voting the party line. The guy from your side who does it is a savvy, intelligent fellow.
  #105  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:14 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The guy from the other party is an asshole always voting the party line. The guy from your side who does it is a savvy, intelligent fellow.
He's probably a dunce too, but lose the moron vote and we're doomed.
  #106  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
How often do you vote across party lines? I'll make this multiple choice in an effort to make it simple for you:
  1. Very Frequently
  2. Frequently
  3. Sometimes
  4. Infrequently
  5. Never

See, this is another area where both parties are alike. The guy from the other party is an asshole always voting the party line. The guy from your side who does it is a savvy, intelligent fellow.
When the leader of one party is saying that some of those marching with white supremacists are good people (along with many, many other similarly questionable at best statements about race, ethnicity, nationality, and identity), and most elected officials in his party are going along with his agenda, it's awfully hard not to see that party as supportive, or at least tolerant, of a white supremacist and/or otherwise bigoted agenda.
  #107  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:23 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
When the leader of one party is saying that some of those marching with white supremacists are good people (along with many, many other similarly questionable at best statements about race, ethnicity, nationality, and identity), and most elected officials in his party are going along with his agenda, it's awfully hard not to see that party as supportive, or at least tolerant, of a white supremacist and/or otherwise bigoted agenda.
Get involved in the intrrnal politics of your party, then get back to me. Ideally, run for something on the county or state level. After you see how the sausage is made, we'll talk about how awesome our party is.
  #108  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:26 PM
proudfootz proudfootz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Left Coast USA
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Problem or solution?

If people aren't going to support your party and your candidates, then for how long are you supposed to represent their interests?
The problem is that the Democratic 'leadership' were already abandoning the New Deal programs that created the strong middle class everyone is so nostalgic for in favor of deregulation and 'tough on crime' mantras of the rightwingers.
  #109  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:40 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
I was heavily involved in union matters for much of my career, including being the president of my local. As such, I was put in considerable contact with Democratic candidates for various state offices. The teachers union is one of the few left standing in PA that is still politically important, you see. Going back at least to when that POS Tom Ridge was governor, the R's made no secret that their goal was to break us as Reagan broke the air traffic controllers. At least they were honest. The D's made us lots of promises, including that weasel in Harrisburg right now, and followed through on precious few of them. They had exactly the same "where else you gonna go?" attitude that the GOP has towards gun rights activists.
Yeah, the Democratic Party is just fucking swell.
I think everybody pays too much attention to the buffoon-in-chief in DC. Your state and local weasels have more day-to-day effect on you. Do you ever take time out from worrying what Trump tweeted today to see how they've decided to fuck you?
  #110  
Old 02-13-2018, 05:12 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
How often do you vote across party lines? I'll make this multiple choice in an effort to make it simple for you:
  1. Very Frequently
  2. Frequently
  3. Sometimes
  4. Infrequently
  5. Never

See, this is another area where both parties are alike. The guy from the other party is an asshole always voting the party line. The guy from your side who does it is a savvy, intelligent fellow.
Politics are local.

I usually vote in the republican primaries, as there is generally not a democrat running, and if there is, he has no chance of winning.

There have been many times when I have chosen the more conservative candidate over the more liberal, as that candidate had more experience or better articulated ideas.

In local politics, I vote for the republican more often than the democrat.

In state politics, it's a mixed bag, but I'll admit that I usually vote for the democrat. I had a hard choice with portman vs strickland for senate last year. I thought portman actually made a better senator, but I prefered strickland's politics. If he had actually had a chance, I may have thought about it a bit more, but I went ahead and went with strickland to be part of the <20 protest vote.

National politics, I've only voted D since 2000.


I'd say that people who concentrate on national politics, and ignore local politics are all alike, but there are many of us who actually understand that the reason you go vote is to go vote for the people who make sure your street is plowed in the winter, and while you are there, you may as well toss your voice into the race of national politics.
  #111  
Old 02-13-2018, 05:40 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Politics are local.

I usually vote in the republican primaries, as there is generally not a democrat running, and if there is, he has no chance of winning.

There have been many times when I have chosen the more conservative candidate over the more liberal, as that candidate had more experience or better articulated ideas.

In local politics, I vote for the republican more often than the democrat.

In state politics, it's a mixed bag, but I'll admit that I usually vote for the democrat. I had a hard choice with portman vs strickland for senate last year. I thought portman actually made a better senator, but I prefered strickland's politics. If he had actually had a chance, I may have thought about it a bit more, but I went ahead and went with strickland to be part of the <20 protest vote.

National politics, I've only voted D since 2000.


I'd say that people who concentrate on national politics, and ignore local politics are all alike, but there are many of us who actually understand that the reason you go vote is to go vote for the people who make sure your street is plowed in the winter, and while you are there, you may as well toss your voice into the race of national politics.

Yes. Quite so. Both parties are far more than the clowns in DC who get national media attention. Those clowns rose up through the ranks of local/county/state politics for the most part. Both parties have an image they polish for the rubes. Behind closed doors, there is a lot of grubbing for money, insincere promising, and general mendacious assholery. Anybody who thinks I am wrong need only get involved in their party's internal politics. Fuck me, maybe you'll be the broom that sweeps it all clean.

Last edited by Scumpup; 02-13-2018 at 05:41 PM.
  #112  
Old 02-13-2018, 05:45 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
There are a number of factors, but IMHO one of the biggest is that they care about what the editorial pages of the NYT and WaPo have to say about them. (The GOP doesn't give a damn, which greatly liberates them from a tactical perspective.)
And what every bit of this came down to was the filibuster. If they'd axed the filibuster on January 3, 2009, it would have been a totally different ballgame, which I'll get to in a moment. But they didn't, partly because they were afraid of What People Might Say. Meaning people like Fred Hiatt of the WaPo calling them dangerous bombthrowers.

Take card check, for instance. They had the votes to pass this in 2009, but not enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. This would have made it a lot easier for workers to get union representation.

Or take the ACA. No, in 2009 they wouldn't have done single-payer any which way. But if they'd only needed 50 votes rather than 60, they could have included a public option, and raised the income levels where subsidies applied.

Or take the stimulus bill. With 50 votes, it could have been a lot larger, and gotten us out of the Great Recession a lot faster.

Etc.
A public option could be passed with budget reconciliation. The dems just didn't do it. They didn't want to alienate the health insurance industry which couldn't compete with a public option.

When Brown won a senate seat in MA, the democrats all said 'we have to seat Brown before we vote on health care'. But when Jones won in AL the GOP pushed ahead on their tax bill ASAP to make sure it would get a vote when they still had 52 GOP senators.

The dems fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Then they act surprised when their voters stay home or support insurgent candidates who act like they are actually going to fight against the plutocrats, white nationalists and their lackeys.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #113  
Old 02-13-2018, 06:02 PM
proudfootz proudfootz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Left Coast USA
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
A public option could be passed with budget reconciliation. The dems just didn't do it. They didn't want to alienate the health insurance industry which couldn't compete with a public option.
This was a big failure - the leadership was too dependent sucking on lobbyists' teats to stand up for anything better than RomneyCare.

Quote:
When Brown won a senate seat in MA, the democrats all said 'we have to seat Brown before we vote on health care'. But when Jones won in AL the GOP pushed ahead on their tax bill ASAP to make sure it would get a vote when they still had 52 GOP senators.
...and while everyone is screaming their heads off about how dangerous Trump is Dems not only vote to support granting Trump more power to spy on Americans and giving Trump more money for war than he even asked for.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...uld-ncna836836

Quote:
The dems fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Then they act surprised when their voters stay home or support insurgent candidates who act like they are actually going to fight against the plutocrats, white nationalists and their lackeys.
We all saw how the Dems managed to throw DACA Dreamers under the bus twice now.
  #114  
Old 02-13-2018, 06:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Get involved in the intrrnal politics of your party, then get back to me. Ideally, run for something on the county or state level. After you see how the sausage is made, we'll talk about how awesome our party is.
But I'm not saying the Democrats are awesome, or anything close to awesome. I'm saying that the Republicans, at least at this moment, are really, really awful, and considerably worse than the Democrats, especially on race and ethnicity, which is the sin that's done, by far, the most damage to America and Americans in our history (and the Democrats were involved in the lions share of that damage until recent decades).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-13-2018 at 06:08 PM.
  #115  
Old 02-13-2018, 06:19 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
A public option could be passed with budget reconciliation. The dems just didn't do it. They didn't want to alienate the health insurance industry which couldn't compete with a public option.
It was mostly Max Baucus, who was a big swinging dick in that affair. Big insurance had him by the short hairs, and he was chairman of an important Senate committee that the Public Option had to traverse.
  #116  
Old 02-13-2018, 06:26 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But I'm not saying the Democrats are awesome, or anything close to awesome. I'm saying that the Republicans, at least at this moment, are really, really awful, and considerably worse than the Democrats, especially on race and ethnicity, which is the sin that's done, by far, the most damage to America and Americans in our history (and the Democrats were involved in the lions share of that damage until recent decades).
And I am saying that I am sick of choosing between evils. Even more, I am sick of being lied to by partisans. Not about the other guy's party. About their own.
  #117  
Old 02-13-2018, 06:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
And I am saying that I am sick of choosing between evils. Even more, I am sick of being lied to by partisans. Not about the other guy's party. About their own.
I vote for the better option, or the least bad option, and will continue to do so. I don't see any other choice.
  #118  
Old 02-13-2018, 08:37 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,853
Well, we're not fighting duels anymore. Or having fist fights in the Senate. Or attempted murder. So that's something.

And while the Klan may still be around, it doesn't have nearly the power it did back in the 1920s.
__________________
Itís not you, itís your sports team.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 02-13-2018 at 08:39 PM.
  #119  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:37 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
It has its roots, as do most of today's societal ills, with the liberal activism of the sixties. (Witness the behavior of anti-war demonstrators taking over college admin buildings, chanting 'Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today' and excoriating returning servicemen as 'baby killers', etc.) The erosion of the fabric of society that followed the breakdown of family values plays a large roll too. But long story short, today's hatred began when the left began hurling accusations of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc., at anyone who had even a slightly different opinion than they on anything, and even worse, hurling them when they weren't remotely called for. To have heard the left tell it, anyone who opposes universal health care wants people to die, anyone who opposes abortion wants women to die, anyone opposed to forced busing was a racist (hell, for that matter, anyone who opposed Obama was a racist). Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum from the sixties up to today.
Bwahahahahaha

Yeah, yeah. It is always the "liberals" that started it. Nothing about the way in which anyone who might have been to the left of the John Birch Society was targeted as a commie sympathizer, (Nixon's "Pink Lady" slur dates to 1950), nothing about the way in which any questioning of the war in Southeast Asia immediately earned the epithet "traitor." And, of course, the nasty college kids of 1968 could not possibly have learned anything from the fire hoses in the South or the rioting police of 1968 Chicago who, unprovoked, attacked protesters in Lincoln Park.

== = =

I would guess that the current breakdown of civility is actually from different sources: cable TV and the internet. Reading any papers or magazines from the founding of the nation to the Great Depression, one sees all sorts of villainous attacks on both people and groups. (The KKK, against blacks, Catholics, Jews, and any foreigners, held major marches in many cities throughout the 1920s.) This was also the period in which every city had multiple newspapers, each promoting a particular viewpoint and willing to runup to the very edge of libel laws to excoriate anyone they opposed.

During WWII, there was an explicit effort by the government to promote the view of "one America." Hollywood helped as can be seen in the many movies in which the squad or the ship or the plane had the requisite number of guys from different regions, religions, and (typically white) ethnic backgrounds. At about the same time, national radio networks had arisen that toned down divisive language to appeal to the largest audiences. Those networks morphed into the big three TV networks that kept the policies of minimizing differences of opinion. Later UHF channels tended to follow along, for the same audience appeal. At the same time, the many contentious newspapers slowly began to fold. The ones that survived the longest were those who followed the TV networks in taking "moderate" positions on all issues and refraining from outright character assassination even when they were extremely partisan. When cable TV arose, there were many joyous cries that there would be something for everyone available on so many different channels. What cable actually accomplished was to drive the opening wedge into the (probably artificial) "oneness" of the country. Lots of ideas could be broadcast to many homes without the restraint of the Big Three.

About the time that cable was coming into its own across the country, it was superseded by the internet. With the internet, anyone with a small investment could attract lots of viewers across the country, (not hindered by any local restrictions placed on many cable companies), to push their messages. The Balkanization of news was well under way and there was no longer any restraint to prevent truly malicious attacks. (The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in which broadcast stations had been required to present something vaguely resembling both sides of an argument did not help and Murdoch's willingness to promote Fox News editorial programs as the foremost issuers of calumny did not help, but there was plenty of room for scoundrels such as Alex Jones and those of his ilk to push the country in the direction of the multiple divisive newspapers of old.) Individual outbreaks of violence occurred on both sides throughout our history, (riots against legislation, ethnic groups, integration, busing, war, etc.), and the demonization of opponents has also always been part of our history, (attacks on political leaders, proponents and opponents of slavery or unions, supporters and opponents of Roe v. Wade, etc.) However, after a period of manufactured civility from the 1940s through the 1980s, (punctuated by many exceptions), general civility began to fall apart in the 1990s.
  #120  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:46 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,131
Re: The cross-party voting thing. I voted for our states Republican Governor multiple times (a moderate when there was such a thing), a State Rep candidate whom I knew personally, the county clerk candidate whom I went to college with (she went on to become the state's Sec'y of State, a position I also voted for her the first time but not the second as she had, by then, fallen prey to party orthodoxy). At the national level, I voted for Anderson in 1980, and he had been a Republican. I also crossed over and voted in Republican presidential primaries twice, once in 2000 for John McCain, and again in 2016 for John Kasich. Neither of those votes were "malicious crossovers", but represented an honest belief that the candidate in question was the best in the field, on that side at least.
  #121  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:26 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,853
Also, couldn't one argue that the predecessor of Limbaugh be Charles Coughlin?
__________________
Itís not you, itís your sports team.
  #122  
Old 02-14-2018, 04:59 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I do think part of the reason for incivility is that now both sides fully feel that if the other side is in power, then pain and suffering are going to ensue.

Democrats in power? Abortions everywhere, street crime out of control, terrorists emboldened, national defenses down, our political enemies emboldened, economy on the brink of collapse due to debt and regulation.

Republicans in power? Endless unnecessary wars, cuts to programs for the poor and middle class, suppression of civil and human rights, emboldening of the plutocrats.

Both sides now feel when the other party is in power, people are going to be miserable and in constant states of vulnerability, oppression, pain and suffering.
I can't help but notice that (with the arguable exception of abortion) none of the things alleged happened when Democrats were in power but all of the ones under "Republicans in power" have happened or are happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
The terrifying specter of payday loan regulation been keeping you up nights, has it?
I mentioned elsewhere that a few years ago the UK drastically ramped up regulation of payday lenders, debt management companies and other consumer credit companies and did a massive housecleaning. Many of the existing companies were virtually criminal enterprises which were shut down, and even the reputable ones were engaged in seriously questionable behaviour (such as sending out "warning" letters under the heading of a fictitious law firm) and got hit with massive fines.

Note that there are still thousands of these companies operating in the UK, but now they're not allowed to actively cheat their customers and have to be open and transparent about costs and conditions of their loans. I'm curious why some people think it would be a bad thing for the US to follow suit.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #123  
Old 02-14-2018, 07:43 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It was mostly Max Baucus, who was a big swinging dick in that affair. Big insurance had him by the short hairs
Pretty sure you're thinking of Joe Lieberman (R-Aetna), or maybe both. Point being, there was no public option in ACA, not even a lowering of the Medicare eligibility age to 55 that was discussed, because there weren't 50 votes available to do it. Most of the responsibility for that goes to the 49 automatic No votes on the Republican side than the 1 or 2 bought-out ones on the Dem side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Yeah I know. People use their own partisan slant to push an agenda.

I do think part of the reason for incivility is that now both sides fully feel that if the other side is in power, then pain and suffering are going to ensue.
Careful with the bothsidesism there. Here we go again with basis in fact.

Quote:
Democrats in power? Abortions everywhere, street crime out of control, terrorists emboldened, national defenses down, our political enemies emboldened, economy on the brink of collapse due to debt and regulation.

Republicans in power? Endless unnecessary wars, cuts to programs for the poor and middle class, suppression of civil and human rights, emboldening of the plutocrats.
All those things you list under "fear" of the Republican agenda have actually come to pass. Those fears are fact-based and legitimate. The ones you have listed under fear of the Democrats are imaginary, or more to the point manufactured. You could also list non-fact-based fear of the Democrats imposing Sharia law and grabbing yer guns. The common retort of "Yeah, well, they want to!" is just lame.
  #124  
Old 02-14-2018, 08:52 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
There are a number of factors, but IMHO one of the biggest is that they care about what the editorial pages of the NYT and WaPo have to say about them.
And either don't know, or don't care, what people say in flyover country.

Voter ID has majority support across the country. Democrats in Congress are against it. Banning late-term abortion has majority support across the country. Dems in Congress won't hear of it. Death penalty has majority support across the country. Dems in Congress are against it. Etc.

Regards,
Shodan
  #125  
Old 02-14-2018, 09:17 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 12,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
We have maybe 20% of the country that thinks that Donald is incapable of error and is a god walking in our midst. If Republicans dump him, they will walk away from the party. They won't vote Democratic, they just won't vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Naw, they'll come out and vote the party line, they always do. They did before Trump, they did it with Trump, they'll do it after him too.
I'm not so sure about that. Now that they've gotten a taste of red tRump meat, they aren't going to respond as well to the pink slime offered by the Republican Establishment. Certainly, if the base voters see anything that even remotely resembles their idol being stabbed in the back by the "RINOs", the GOP would be very lucky if all they do is pick up their marbles and go home.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #126  
Old 02-14-2018, 09:25 AM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,353
Here are the milestones of partisan rancor that I remember in my adult life.

1. In 1994, Republicans flat-out rejected the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency. This was from the day of the election. This is the first time I recall the normalizing of day-one calls for impeachment without any grounds being in evidence. I do acknowledge part of this was fueled by Democrat disregard of Bill's sins, at Hillary's pretending to the throne of co-president, and at the general idea that the counterculture had arrived at the White House.

2. I left the US in 2004. Returning overnight, it seemed to me that the rancor had reached a fever pitch. The right-wing rage machine was at full pitch on TV and in bookstores. On the other hand, I heard liberals routinely calling for Bush to be jailed as a war criminal. I happen to agree with the sentiment, but I also think it was the dawn of the "Lock Him/Her Up" trope that is still making the rounds.

3. When Obama got elected in 2008, again we saw day-one calls for impeachment with no evidence of criminality ever surfacing. The right simply up and lost its shit.

But, milestones notwithstanding, I also think this is historical continuity, not change. If we look back to the Civil War, remember that though there were many causes, the proximate trigger was the simple fact of Lincoln's election. The South realized it wasn't going to get the slavery expansion that it wanted, nor the fugitive slave concessions, nor control of the national discourse in general (but especially regarding slavery).

Lincoln's election wast the trigger for the South to lose its collective shit over all of these issues. I can't help seeing echoes of this in the Clinton and Obama elections, where the right (now Southerners since Nixon, you recall) going apoplectic over the prospect of losing control of the national conversation on race and equality, once again. I can't say why this seemed so especially threatening in 1865, 1994, and 2008. My only guess is that in a period of long relative peace and prosperity, for the first time we see minorities becoming the majority, and climbing in affluence relative to the same Southern-strategy whites who went for Nixon.

Anyway, my $0.02 ended up being more like six bucks, so enjoy for what it's worth.
  #127  
Old 02-14-2018, 09:40 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Voter ID has majority support across the country.
Because the Republicans have been spreading lies about the level of voter fraud for years.

Quote:
Democrats in Congress are against it.
Because the need for it is based on a manufactured narrative and the application of it is being used to discourage and disenfranchise legitimate voters.

Quote:
Banning late-term abortion has majority support across the country.
Because the Republicans have been spreading lies about what "late-term abortion" entails (and indeed what the Democrats want) for years.

Quote:
Dems in Congress won't hear of it.
They certainly won't sign off on the lies, if that's what you mean.

Really, all you are showing is that in certain parts of the country the right-wing have been very effective at spreading anti-left propaganda - and now you're blaming the Democrats for that.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #128  
Old 02-14-2018, 10:03 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,105
Politics has always been nasty. What we're seeing is two things. One is simply a return to the norm. We had a few decades of relative political tranquility due to the fact that the parties were very ideologically mixed following the civil rights switch where Democrats went from being the party of oppressing black people to being the party of supporting them, while Republicans used the southern strategy to start sweeping up disaffected Democrats from the south. What this did was make the two parties very divided internally. You had Democrats like Bob Byrd who was a former Klansman mixed up with west coast liberals and so it required parties to be more moderate. In the past, political parties were very nasty and political rhetoric was not kind and would break out in violence at times.

I think this current iteration of nastiness has a lot to do with Roe v. Wade. The abortion debate is extremely polarized and very, very moral in nature. To the point that it offends our basic senses of decency. If you are anti-abortion, it is very likely you actually believe that the government is allowing an industrial murder complex that kills a million people a year. That's not something that lends itself to compromise. It's difficult to say, "Hey, let's just split the difference and enact policies that will only kill half a million people." and expect them to buy it. On the other side, it is seen as enslaving a woman to a piece of tissue. Saying, "Well, it's only slavery for nine months." to them is not a realistic compromise either. To be honest, there's really not a good solution to the problem, so we just dig into camps. Political parties are taking a ton of money from both sides and they find it difficult if not impossible to allow any breach in the line on the issue. It's at the point where you can agree with every single policy that Democrats want, but if you're pro-life even a soft pro-life, they won't support you. That pushes people into the arms of one party or another just based on a single moral issue and once you're in that party, the party itself becomes a moral agent. Republicans become 'the party fighting against industrial infanticide.' That gives them a very outsized proportion of moral strength with their supporters. It's very difficult for someone to criticize tax policy when that party is literally the defender of human life.

I think the other big thing is that we're more socially isolated, but casually connected so this allows us to attack without the fear of consequence that occurred in earlier times. In the past, a social circle was something that you were part of due to geography and class. If I got in an argument with Billy, then I would likely see Billy again tomorrow and the next day and I would see Billy's friends and family and that causes us to curb our behavior. In the age of the internet, I can spout off on SDMB and have essentially no social penalty for any argument I want to engage in beyond possibly getting banned and moving on to another relatively anonymous corner of the internet where I can begin arguing again. I can go on Facebook and comfortably pan a high school classmate comfortable in the fact that I won't see them or their family ever again. I"m a church-goer in a relatively liberal church filled with many gay couples and that takes a relatively liberal stance on pretty much every social issue-our sermon on Sunday was essentially an attack on Trumpists and how Christians who support evil for the sake of power deny their faith. At the same time though, I know for a fact that there are many older conservatives who attend the church as well. Because of that, I keep my mouth shut about politics beyond vague allusions. The reason why is that I know these people and have known them for quite some time and I know that at heart they are good, caring people despite their political affiliation and I don't want to hurt them or hurt our relationship. On the internet though, I lambaste Trump and his minions effortlessly and constantly because there is no social penalty for doing so.
  #129  
Old 02-14-2018, 10:25 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,529
http://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/f...ly-voting.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Because the Republicans have been spreading lies about the level of voter fraud for years.



Because the need for it is based on a manufactured narrative and the application of it is being used to discourage and disenfranchise legitimate voters.

Because the Republicans have been spreading lies about what "late-term abortion" entails (and indeed what the Democrats want) for years.

They certainly won't sign off on the lies, if that's what you mean.

Really, all you are showing is that in certain parts of the country the right-wing have been very effective at spreading anti-left propaganda - and now you're blaming the Democrats for that.
You are kind of missing my point.

Large majorities, including Democrats, support voter ID. Likewise for late-term abortions. Refusing to consider that, and dismissing it out of hand, means that you are missing a real opportunity. Is there a chance that the support is based on something other than lies? It goes to what I said above - if you don't want to know, you will never find out anything, including that you might be wrong. Especially you might be wrong about why people think what they do.

So yes, to some extent I am blaming Democrats for that. They don't seem willing to consider that there could be some other reason for the failure of their narrative besides racist/sexist/homophobe/stupid/deplorable/you don't count.

If they'd rather be right than President, that's fine. But then they aren't President, and they will never know if, maybe, just a little - they aren't as right as they think.

Regards,
Shodan
  #130  
Old 02-14-2018, 10:45 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,436
Certainly since at least the GOP's Southern strategy, there has been an effort to take push cultural wedge issues for political gains. Gingrinch in the 90s really accelerated that process and then after George W. Bush won the election thanks to a Supreme Court vote, but decided to run the country as if he had a mandate, it's only got worse. Since the Clinton years, the GOP has been pushing the idea that there were two Americas and that red state America was the real America. The invasion of Iraq and the support it garnered in red America while being opposed in blue America made that divide even clearer. Then, when the GOP establishment, who had been pandering to white racists for generations, used that racism to undermine the nation's first black president with the most vile hate, the break was complete. What had been a wedge issue became a real break.

As for when it ends, it doesn't. I would never vote for a Republican because in a very real sense it is the party of climate change denial, racism and Donald Trump. For the past 30 years I was hearing how real America hates liberal east coast elites like me and during the Obama years it occurred to me: I hate you back. We'll stagger along like this for the next couple of generations and it will continue to get worse.
  #131  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:13 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,292
I live in Delaware, a pretty diverse state, Biden's home state, and consistently goes Democrat in most elections (last time a republican won in the presidential election was Bush Sr. for example)

I am required to show an ID when I vote. So does everybody else.

Why should I (or anybody for that matter) feel oppressed by that?

I presume I have to show it to say, "Yeah, I am who I say I am, and making a pretty consequential decision." How is that suppression?
  #132  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:16 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
1. In 1994, Republicans flat-out rejected the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency. This was from the day of the election. This is the first time I recall the normalizing of day-one calls for impeachment without any grounds being in evidence. I do acknowledge part of this was fueled by Democrat disregard of Bill's sins, at Hillary's pretending to the throne of co-president, and at the general idea that the counterculture had arrived at the White House.
What people don't get, and what the Right exploited, is that, for all his playing around, Bill and Hillary were a unit. She was a smart woman with her hands on power, something no self-respecting, patriarchal, conservative male will ever want, whatever lip service he pays to equality for women.

Quote:
But, milestones notwithstanding, I also think this is historical continuity, not change. If we look back to the Civil War, remember that though there were many causes, the proximate trigger was the simple fact of Lincoln's election. The South realized it wasn't going to get the slavery expansion that it wanted, nor the fugitive slave concessions, nor control of the national discourse in general (but especially regarding slavery).

Lincoln's election wast the trigger for the South to lose its collective shit over all of these issues. I can't help seeing echoes of this in the Clinton and Obama elections, where the right (now Southerners since Nixon, you recall) going apoplectic over the prospect of losing control of the national conversation on race and equality, once again. I can't say why this seemed so especially threatening in 1865, 1994, and 2008. My only guess is that in a period of long relative peace and prosperity, for the first time we see minorities becoming the majority, and climbing in affluence relative to the same Southern-strategy whites who went for Nixon.
I've been saying it for years. The only way racism, and conservative hegemony, will end is by their being bred out. It will happen, eventually, for all the desperate stands and shady countermeasures Republicans try to pull off; unfortunately, it likely won't be in my lifetime.
  #133  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:25 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
What people don't get, and what the Right exploited, is that, for all his playing around, Bill and Hillary were a unit. She was a smart woman with her hands on power, something no self-respecting, patriarchal, conservative male will ever want, whatever lip service he pays to equality for women.



I've been saying it for years. The only way racism, and conservative hegemony, will end is by their being bred out. It will happen, eventually, for all the desperate stands and shady countermeasures Republicans try to pull off; unfortunately, it likely won't be in my lifetime.
Who has more children? The secular or the religious?
  #134  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:26 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I live in Delaware, a pretty diverse state, Biden's home state, and consistently goes Democrat in most elections (last time a republican won in the presidential election was Bush Sr. for example)

I am required to show an ID when I vote. So does everybody else.

Why should I (or anybody for that matter) feel oppressed by that?

I presume I have to show it to say, "Yeah, I am who I say I am, and making a pretty consequential decision." How is that suppression?
It's not suppression for you. This is one of those shady countermeasures that Republicans use, though. It's a fact that voter ID disproportionately reduces the number of Democrat minority voters, not because they don't have the exact same rights, but because for various reasons they don't have the particular ID types that Pubbies are pushing for. And Pubbies know it, which is why you'll never see them stop supporting it.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 02-14-2018 at 11:27 AM.
  #135  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:28 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I live in Delaware, a pretty diverse state, Biden's home state, and consistently goes Democrat in most elections (last time a republican won in the presidential election was Bush Sr. for example)

I am required to show an ID when I vote. So does everybody else.

Why should I (or anybody for that matter) feel oppressed by that?

I presume I have to show it to say, "Yeah, I am who I say I am, and making a pretty consequential decision." How is that suppression?
Voter ID laws are often accompanied by changes in policies making it more difficult for voters likely to vote Democratic to get IDs. They will, for example, change the hours of DMVs near black communities so that it is harder for those people to get IDs. In general, it can be a package of selectively enforcing the rules, or changing them close to the election to suppress votes.

Don't take my word for it, there have been instances of Republicans admitting as much. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/u...ical-gain.html

Quote:
In Pennsylvania, the state Republican Party chairman, Robert Gleason, told an interviewer that the stateís voter ID law ďhad helped a bitĒ in lowering President Obamaís margin of victory over the Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in the state in 2012.
  #136  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:34 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Who has more children? The secular or the religious?
Minorities are just as religious as anyone else, overall. But they also vote much more strongly Democratic in the aggregate.

You should have said the Catholic or the non-Catholic. Birth control is the issue there, and it's the last holdout religion. Religions can preach abstinence all they want, but overall it's not going to mean much when Billy and Mary are alone together in his pickup.
  #137  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:35 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
http://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/f...ly-voting.aspxYou are kind of missing my point.

Large majorities, including Democrats, support voter ID. Likewise for late-term abortions. Refusing to consider that, and dismissing it out of hand, means that you are missing a real opportunity. Is there a chance that the support is based on something other than lies? It goes to what I said above - if you don't want to know, you will never find out anything, including that you might be wrong. Especially you might be wrong about why people think what they do.

So yes, to some extent I am blaming Democrats for that.
Meh, that only shows that you follow the caricature that the right wing media is telling you to follow about what the Democrats think. In reality the main issue is that while many do agree that in theory voter ID is ok, in reality the ones applying the ID solution have been found to grossly ignore that it should be funded properly or that access to it should not be denied for political or prejudiced reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.ace63b853699
Quote:
Voting rights activists scored legal victories in key presidential election states Friday, the most important being a federal appeals court ruling that North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature enacted new voting restrictions in 2013 to intentionally blunt the growing clout of African American voters.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups. Election law experts consider North Carolina’s voter law one of the nation’s most far-reaching.

In Wisconsin, where one federal judge already had eased restrictions on voter-ID requirements, a second judge found that additional elements of the law passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) were unconstitutional.
One thing I noticed that conservatives want to ignore or not ponder about is that when judges found that the ID law was actually fair (as in not removing voters for prejudice or to not deny access to the ID in practice to poor people) in a state like Virginia the state voted for Clinton. Guess for who the other states that were found to abuse their ID requirements did vote for?

But thank you for mentioning one big reason why hate is consuming the Republican party, it only requires a good number of Republicans to only see the Potemkin village arguments that the Republicans erect and to be misled by those. While the ones in power that do hate minorities, the poor or Democrats get away with their hate turned into action.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-14-2018 at 11:36 AM.
  #138  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:15 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Meh, that only shows that you follow the caricature that the right wing media is telling you to follow about what the Democrats think.
Again, you are missing the point. Doesn't the fact that large majorities, including Democrats, support voter ID suggest that there might perhaps be reasons for it other than the ones you think?

Regards,
Shodan
  #139  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:17 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,691
What other reasons do you have to offer?
  #140  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:28 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again, you are missing the point. Doesn't the fact that large majorities, including Democrats, support voter ID suggest that there might perhaps be reasons for it other than the ones you think?

Regards,
Shodan
I am not sure why you think repeating the same tired old line over and over again is the same thing as responding to actual arguments, but I will answer your question one time.

I support Voter ID. I do think that it is in the best interest that people voting have shown that they are supposed to be voting in the precinct that they are voting in. If asked on a poll, whether I favor Voter ID, with no other part to the question I would answer "yes".

OTOH, the method in which voter ID is being implemented I do not agree with, and I find that the ways that they are going about it to be discriminatory along class, party, and racial lines.

Do you get that there may be some nuance that you are missing?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-14-2018 at 12:31 PM.
  #141  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:33 PM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again, you are missing the point. Doesn't the fact that large majorities, including Democrats, support voter ID suggest that there might perhaps be reasons for it other than the ones you think?

Regards,
Shodan
Actually, I think you're the one missing the point. The purpose of voting is to give citizens the opportunity to articulate their will as to how we should be governed. Voter ID laws that are burdensome and unequally applied prevent accurate articulation of the people's will and undercut the core tenet of democratic government.
  #142  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:54 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
It has its roots, as do most of today's societal ills, with the liberal activism of the sixties. (Witness the behavior of anti-war demonstrators taking over college admin buildings, chanting 'Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today' and excoriating returning servicemen as 'baby killers', etc.) The erosion of the fabric of society that followed the breakdown of family values plays a large roll too. But long story short, today's hatred began when the left began hurling accusations of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc., at anyone who had even a slightly different opinion than they on anything, and even worse, hurling them when they weren't remotely called for. To have heard the left tell it, anyone who opposes universal health care wants people to die, anyone who opposes abortion wants women to die, anyone opposed to forced busing was a racist (hell, for that matter, anyone who opposed Obama was a racist). Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum from the sixties up to today.

Predictably, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Fox News, etc., are getting the blame for today's political hatred on this board, but their success was a reaction to the hatred and intransigence coming from the left that had become so prevalent by the time they rose to prominence. When you yell at people, hurl insults at them (especially when they're undeserved and/or make no sense and take a my-way-or-the-highway-and-if-the-highway-you're-an-asshole' approach to politics, you create enemies, and so much of the country that had been seething under relentless leftwing attack were ripe to become the audience of the aforementioned media figures.

Then with the advent of social media, the right finally had an effective way to fight back, and, deciding to fight fire with fire, we get to where we are today.

And now of course, it's gotten so bad and so many on the left are so eager to find some way to virtue signal their superiority that even card-carrying members of the left are being attacked by their own - the brouhaha that arose when Steve Martin dared to describe Carrie Fisher as beautiful being just one example. And so now we've got 1,000 different liberal groups with a 1,000 different perspectives all shouting at everyone else for not seeing things their way, which of course leads to more hatred and more division. Even the election of Donald Trump and a Republican Congress, both of which were a direct pushback against all this, has been enough to put them off their game. In the wake of Trump's election any of wiser and more prescient liberal commenters tried to caution their brethren about their politics of insult and hatred but the most of the left in this country would have none of it, vowing not only to back off with their attacks but to increase them. I have no idea how this will all end and there's not even a hint of it on the horizon, but more than ever things look quite bleak as to our future.

The left in this country is notoriously blind to the consequences of its own behavior, and this post will no doubt be followed with an endless number of 'No u' responses. But all you have to do is look at how people comported themselves in this country prior to the late sixties and how they behave now, where people are brawling and stabbing each other in J.C. Penny's no less in a mall that already has 'a history of violence', and the reasons are obvious.
I think the hate really came to the forefront during the 1960s and 1970s.

Desegregation dredged up the bottom-feeders of hatefulness, especially in our southern states. I have rarely seen anything as hateful and intolerant as Gov. George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door. His face twisted with anger and frustration, his chin jutting out in defiance. And seeing images of the police turning dogs, firehoses, and billy clubs on unarmed demonstrators, both black and white.

Images of white women, ordinary housewives in starched full skirts and those pointy-tipped sunglasses, screeching full-throated into the cameras, their faces contorted by a rage that you would never imagine coming from someone who enjoyed a normal, comfortable life. A preternatural rage.

I felt I was seeing a soul all charred and blackened by hate. Like charred fish. I've never witnessed anything so horrifying.

It seems that other factions on the American scene, instead of being horrified by these images, adopted these and similar tactics as their very own.

My family lived in the San Francisco Bay area in 1966 and 67 when the happenings in Haight-Ashbury were beginning to receive national coverage. It was "peace, love, and understanding" at the very outside. "Turn on, tune in, and drop out." (Semi-colons forbidden by the spirit of the time.)

As the 1960s drew to a close, the tone from the Left became angrier, more intolerant.

By 1970-71, we had anti-war demonstrators descending on airports specifically to demonstrate against GIs returning from Vietnam. Specifically to punish these GIs for serving. Many had been draftees, who were now returning to be punished for not evading. I remember seeing the demonstrators giving the returning GIs the finger. And screaming obscenities in their faces.

The tactic was to single out and attacking the little guy. Trying to make him feel small and worthless.

The only thing I can remember seeing as maliciously intolerant as the intolerance of these demonstrators, was the image of George Wallace, blocking the schoolhouse door.

Both sides of the same coin.

Radioactive intolerance. Weapons-grade intolerance.

Seared souls.

At around that same period, we had anti-war demonstrators wading through the reflecting pool in DC, screaming and chanting obscenities, and giving the finger, also, during a speech from the President. On Memorial Day. With tons of ordinary families and tourists present. Moms and Dads with strollers, middle-aged WWII vets in uniform who came down for the day.

A day ruined by people behaving like men and women possessed. (Figuratively speaking)

Much resembling the behavior of the housewives screeching into the camera in Selma and Birmingham.

And these tactics were born and bred in the late 60s and early 70s, and continue on to this very day.

Unbelievable.

I don't remember seeing, hearing, or hearing about anything like it.

My parents told us they didn't remember anything like it, in their time, either.

I don't know how long a society can survive with people whose souls are seared, charred with hatred and rage, living in it. Running it.

People whose own interior landscape would have to resemble (figuratively) something like a twin-engine crash, and fire. The fuselage scattered, the flames extending up to the trees, the people dead. Smoke and horror, within the hearts and minds.

That's what I believe hatred and rage do to people.

I've seen this rage and hatred on people's faces, on both camps.

People I've loved, and trusted, and admired, have taught me to fear these twin evils and to avoid them, to the extent that I can. Because they are the destroyers of our own hearts and minds.
  #143  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:03 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I vote for the better option, or the least bad option, and will continue to do so. I don't see any other choice.
How do you determine which is the better/least bad option? If I vote D because of issue x, then I will quite likely get fucked on issue y. If I vote R because of issue y, then I get fucked on issue x. And no matter who wins, I'll get fucked on issue z.

There is always being a single issue voter, but it is questionable whether it is a good idea to subordinate everything else in an enterprise as complex as governing the US to a candidate's or party's official stance on one single issue.

Last edited by Scumpup; 02-14-2018 at 01:03 PM.
  #144  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:04 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,607
I've always thought the bad treatment of returning Vietnam vets to be quite exaggerated. This is an interesting article. Believe it or not, your choice.

Quote:
book is an analysis of the widely believed, but historically inaccurate, urban legend that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by antiwar protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War.
Did some soldiers get spat on? Perhaps, but I personally don't believe it was commonplace. It's just one of those things that has become accepted truth by repetition.
  #145  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:05 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
It's not suppression for you. This is one of those shady countermeasures that Republicans use, though. It's a fact that voter ID disproportionately reduces the number of Democrat minority voters, not because they don't have the exact same rights, but because for various reasons they don't have the particular ID types that Pubbies are pushing for. And Pubbies know it, which is why you'll never see them stop supporting it.
Then why do democrats keep winning in my state? If it's supposed to suppress minorities, it's not working.
  #146  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:35 PM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I've always thought the bad treatment of returning Vietnam vets to be quite exaggerated. This is an interesting article. Believe it or not, your choice.



Did some soldiers get spat on? Perhaps, but I personally don't believe it was commonplace. It's just one of those things that has become accepted truth by repetition.
May I ask, BobLibDem, whether you remember where you were and what you were doing and how the people around you were reacting in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963?
  #147  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
How do you determine which is the better/least bad option? If I vote D because of issue x, then I will quite likely get fucked on issue y. If I vote R because of issue y, then I get fucked on issue x. And no matter who wins, I'll get fucked on issue z.

There is always being a single issue voter, but it is questionable whether it is a good idea to subordinate everything else in an enterprise as complex as governing the US to a candidate's or party's official stance on one single issue.
I prioritize issues, so some are more important than others. Generally, I prioritize them by potential for harm, and I base that potential on American history -- so, for example, the issue (broadly) that has caused, by far, the most harm to Americans and America, is bigotry/hatred/racism, so that is the top issue for me. If I think both candidates are acceptable on that issue, then I'll move to the next one (which might vary depending on the office and other circumstances). It's been a long time since it hasn't been very easy to choose a candidate based on this.
  #148  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:48 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 13,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I've always thought the bad treatment of returning Vietnam vets to be quite exaggerated. This is an interesting article. Believe it or not, your choice.



Did some soldiers get spat on? Perhaps, but I personally don't believe it was commonplace. It's just one of those things that has become accepted truth by repetition.
My late husband served in VietNam as a Medevac (Dustoff) helicopter pilot. When he came back, he was called a baby killer. The military was reviled during those dark days even if it was not "commonplace" to be spat on. It wasn't until the first Gulf War in 1990 when the military came to be respected again that VietNam vets started crawling out of the woodwork with no fear of being shunned and verbally attacked. I lived through it. I was there. Suggest you do more research.

I don't understand why you would even question the veracity of this? What's it to you anyway?

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 02-14-2018 at 01:49 PM.
  #149  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:55 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
May I ask, BobLibDem, whether you remember where you were and what you were doing and how the people around you were reacting in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963?
Yeah, I was in second grade. We were all pretty shocked and saddened. Don't recall any other reaction.
  #150  
Old 02-14-2018, 01:58 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
My late husband served in VietNam as a Medevac (Dustoff) helicopter pilot. When he came back, he was called a baby killer. The military was reviled during those dark days even if it was not "commonplace" to be spat on. It wasn't until the first Gulf War in 1990 when the military came to be respected again that VietNam vets started crawling out of the woodwork with no fear of being shunned and verbally attacked. I lived through it. I was there. Suggest you do more research.

I don't understand why you would even question the veracity of this? What's it to you anyway?
The current patriotically correct memory of how soldiers were welcomed home I believe is full of holes. I was too young to serve but I have known Vietnam vets and none have recounted to me any such stories. Some, no doubt, had rude welcomes. Others did not. It probably had a lot to do with where you lived. Personally, I believe that it's healthier for a nation to not view its military with wide eyed awe and reverence as it does today.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017