Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:32 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672

Beliefs that liberals and conservatives have about each other, that would be agreed on as accurate


In the past, whenever there were "What do Trump voters think about _______?" threads, about 70% of the comments wouldn't be from Trumpers, but rather, from Trump opponents trying to project what they thought Trumpers were thinking, onto Trumpers (kind of like the "What do women think about __?" threads; usually, the comments weren't from women, but from men trying to project what they thought women thought, onto women - not that I'm comparing women to Trumpers, but you get the idea.)

We also frequently hear:

"Republicans hate minorities, women, Muslims and gays"
"Democrats hate white men"
"Trump voters want to take America back to the 1950s"
"Liberals support open borders"
"Republicans are trying to disenfranchise minorities with voter-ID laws"
"Democrats want to take your guns away"
"Pro-lifers are trying to force women into back-alley abortions"


Etc. etc. etc.


So what I wanted to ask in this thread was: What are beliefs that liberals and conservatives hold about each other, that the other side would agree are an accurate description of their views? In other words, what do Republicans say about Democrats, that Democrats would agree, "Yep, that's what we think" and vice versa?
  #2  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:48 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
"Republicans hate minorities, women, Muslims and gays"
Some certainly do, no doubt. The single issue voters (e.g. guns) don't necessarily.
Quote:
"Trump voters want to take America back to the 1950s"
I would say, if you had to put a more accurate time on it, it's probably closer to the 1980s. And, obviously, not everything from the 1980s. Republicans love Reagan, nobody talks about Eisenhower, though he is highly respected.
Quote:
"Republicans are trying to disenfranchise minorities with voter-ID laws"
Personally I don't understand why I, in a northern blue state, 26% African American, am asked for my ID, nobody bats an eye, that isn't disenfranchisement, but other places it is. I honestly don't care how they do it, but dammit, be consistent.
Quote:
"Pro-lifers are trying to force women into back-alley abortions"
I think at this point a lot of Pro-lifers would be happy with 3rd trimester bans. I am somewhat pleasantly surprised that Tulsi Gabbard wasn't booed off the stage for basically that position.

In all YMMV on any individual conservative.
  #3  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:13 AM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
In theory this question would take at least two people to answer. None the less, I’ll give it my best shot and start with a few that

I think conservatives believe that the right to own a gun does make them safer.

I think conservatives believe that they aren’t racist, even though we would probably disagree on what counts as racist and what doesn’t.

I think conservatives believe that homosexuality and being transgender are wrong.
  #4  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:25 AM
Author Balk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 199
I see three catagories...
1. Statements that both sides agree on. Such as: Repubicans want to reduce/eliminate abortions. Or Demcrats want stronger gun control laws.
2. Statements from the perspective of the opponent. Such as: Republicans want to control women's bodies. A Republican would say that they don't want to control women, it's about protecting the life of the unborn child.
3. Made of views. Liberals want to go door to door and confiscate guns.
  #5  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:28 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
In theory this question would take at least two people to answer. None the less, I’ll give it my best shot and start with a few that
Yeah, I sort of agree. If one makes a specific statement about conservatives, I feel like I can give a take on it as an individual conservative, speaking for myself, not all conservatives. I regularly skip over posts with the typical "scum of the earth" descriptors, that's fine, they're entitled to their opinion, and I'm entitled to skip it.

I can demonstrably prove that some democrats want to take away guns, but I don't believe that all, or even most, want to take away guns. So this is going to be somewhat individualized. You can't neatly fit either side into boxes.

Last edited by Ashtura; 10-25-2019 at 11:30 AM.
  #6  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:30 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Author Balk View Post
I see three catagories...
1. Statements that both sides agree on. Such as: Repubicans want to reduce/eliminate abortions.
.
I'm a liberal democrat and I don't agree with this though.

one of the most effective way to reduce abortions is to have universal sex education, easy access to free contraceptives, etc will reduce abortions and conservatives are opposed to these things.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #7  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:37 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
I think a lot of conservatives have sort of given up the fight, so to speak, and taken a libertarian "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" view on recent social changes (e.g. legalized pot, same sex marriage). Few conservatives realistically believe that same sex marriage is going to be reversed regardless of how they think about it, so why expend the brain power thinking about it? Polls are reflecting this too. Obviously many are still on a gradient of opposition, but I think that is and will continue to lessen over time.

Last edited by Ashtura; 10-25-2019 at 11:38 AM.
  #8  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:47 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm a liberal democrat and I don't agree with this though.

one of the most effective way to reduce abortions is to have universal sex education, easy access to free contraceptives, etc will reduce abortions and conservatives are opposed to these things.
AIUI, it can be rephrased as, "Conservatives want to reduce abortion, but only by certain means." For instance, many believe that birth control is wrong, or sex education encourages premarital sex.
  #9  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:08 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,908
I think a good test of such a description is whether the party's actions are consistent with the description.

For instance Velocity's "Conservatives want to reduce abortion, but only by certain means" is consistent with the actions of conservative politicians.

Of course, that raises the question, "why only certain means," but best for this thread that we make a note of it and keep going.
  #10  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:52 PM
Author Balk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 199
There is a difference between what each side wants, and how to accomplish it. Conservatives want to limit abortions and focus on making it illegal, closing down places that provide it, punishment for doctors who perform abortions, etc.
Both sides want to cut down on school shootings. Democrats talk about gun control. Republicans will bring up things like it's because of mental health issues, we removed God from schools, or unarmed teachers.

Someone had "I think that conservatives believe that..." and that may be the best way to answer the question. For example,

Liberals believe that gun control laws will reduce gun violence.
Conservatives believe that "good guns" will reduce gun violence.
  #11  
Old 10-25-2019, 04:19 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,709
Conservatives believe that a (competitive) environment with a fair (if not absolutely guaranteed-to-be-equal) opportunity will reward diligence, intelligence, skill, and other useful attributes, and that therefore giving everyone an opportunity to enter the economic fray is the best way to give marginalized people a shot at success. Far better than special programs or ameliorative policies of any sort, which they perceive as handouts, and they see handouts as breeders of malaise and loss of dignity. They see all social movements that seek redistribution of resources or urging special protection for marginalzied special-interest groups as likely vehicles for external influence aimed at disrupting the American system, even if that's not how those groups originate: that they are useful for America's enemies to infiltrate.

Liberals believe that the market economy unfairly rewards the wealthy with ridiculously large advantages in economic competition, so that it is grossly unfair to let it operate without redistributive fixes, specific protections for the impoverished, and, on top of that, specific protections for certain classes of people who have historically been disenfranchised and had even less of a fair shot than similarly economically deprived people. They see individual Horatio Alger success stories as exceptions to a general rule by which the poor get poorer because they pay more and have fewer opportunities to preserve what they earn; and they see the rich as undeserving of their wealth, not so much because they are greedy selfish pigs or anything but because, in a world where some people are paid minimum wage for backbreaking work, it isn't conceivable that anyone could "earn" what the wealthy bring in.

Last edited by AHunter3; 10-25-2019 at 04:20 PM.
  #12  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:25 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,176
Some years ago, the Republican legislature passed a very strong voter ID law and some Republican politician remarked that this would guarantee Republican control of the state for the foreseeable future. The law was thrown out. In Canada we have voter ID laws, but everyone has the necessary ID (a health card) and I never had to show a birth certificate get it. What makes the ID laws inimical is that their purpose is to deny voting to eligible voters.

I think we all agree that Dems would take away assault weapons. I cannot think think of a single acceptable civilian use for such weapons.

Democrats believe that health care is the government's legitimate business. I think Republicans believe it isn't.

Republicans believe that life starts at conception. Dems that it starts with quickening.

Dems believe that global warming is real, is human caused and we are running out of time to do something about it. Reps think it is a fiction and, in any case, not our responsibility to do anything about it.
  #13  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
... Dems that it starts with quickening. ...
I suspect many dems do not agree with this.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-25-2019 at 05:38 PM.
  #14  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:49 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
I don't think all dems would take away assault weapons. semi auto rifles aren't really the cause of our gun homicides, handguns are.

As far as health care, its a little more nuanced. There are already about ~150 million Americans on government health care. Even republican tea party types tend to defend medicare and medicaid (at least for themselves). And since the GOP's voters tend to be elderly white people who enjoy medicare and poor white people who enjoy medicaid, I don't see them opposing these programs wholesale even though they opposed the ACA and medicaid expansions.

The GOP ran on the platform that the ACA would harm medicare (not true) and they passed medicare D back under Bush.

So health care is a little more nuanced.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 10-25-2019 at 05:50 PM.
  #15  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:05 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I don't think all dems would take away assault weapons. semi auto rifles aren't really the cause of our gun homicides, handguns are.
Yeah, but Mass shootings are the ones that get all the press. In other murders, if they get national coverage at all, nobody talks about makes and models, as if that makes a difference.

When was the last time you heard about someone killed by a "Glock-styled assault pistol"? Or that pistols, literally being carried by soldiers in standing armies, with no distinction in form or function from something you can buy off any gun store shelf, is a "weapon of war"?

You won't, not until semi auto rifles are banned anyway. The only reason AR-15s are popular in Mass shootings is the media publicizes it and the moron copycats (that in some cases never owned a gun before, and, thank God don't know how to prevent or clear jams) figure their sick heroes already did their homework for them. There are more effective ways to kill a lot of people than with an AR-15. Maybe slamming a truck into pedestrians isn't as satisfying?
  #16  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:13 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 412
It's tricky. I'm not sure liberal principles have changed over recent decades, but conservative 'principals' (if any) sure have. Are we asking people who consider themselves conservative NOW? Can 'honest' conservatives (if any) admit to flipping views on government intrusion and scope, alliances, trade, Russia, conservation, etc?

I see this POTUS as a dark star sweeping into the political system and sucking former 'conservatives' into its toxic gravitational field. Will that debris follow as it swings into the interstellar void?
  #17  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:22 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
It's tricky. I'm not sure liberal principles have changed over recent decades, but conservative 'principals' (if any) sure have. Are we asking people who consider themselves conservative NOW? Can 'honest' conservatives (if any) admit to flipping views on government intrusion and scope, alliances, trade, Russia, conservation, etc?

I see this POTUS as a dark star sweeping into the political system and sucking former 'conservatives' into its toxic gravitational field. Will that debris follow as it swings into the interstellar void?
I know on this board we usually just end up with leftists trying to speak for the right, but personally I think people like Trump are just taking the veneer off what the GOP actually stands for.

The GOP at root seems to stand for 2 things. Plutocracy and white identity politics in that order. Everything else is negotiable or a tertiary concern at best. I think Trump is just taking the veneer of what the GOP pretends to stand for off.

However I do wonder if there will be some kind of civil war within the GOP between the business class who call the shots and the rural whites who vote GOP because of identity politics. The voters seem more open to trade wars, social safety nets, etc. than the business class.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #18  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
I don't see how you can say liberal views on Russia haven't changed. In 2012 Obama mocked Romney for calling Russia our "number one geopolitical foe", to a great deal of liberal applause. In 2009 Hillary Clinton gave Russia her famous "reset button". Now she's accusing all sorts of people of being Russian assets.
  #19  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:31 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm a liberal democrat and I don't agree with this though.

one of the most effective way to reduce abortions is to have universal sex education, easy access to free contraceptives, etc will reduce abortions and conservatives are opposed to these things.
There's a right way and a wrong way to do things.

If you say that you would like to eliminate recidivism, and I agree with your goal, and I propose the mechanism of doing to by executing every single person convicted of any type of crime--
Are you for or against that goal if you oppose that particular mechanism?

You have to admit that that mechanism would be spectacularly effective. But would it be morally right? Is effectiveness the ONLY consideration when determining a course of action?
  #20  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:03 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I think conservatives believe that homosexuality and being transgender are wrong.
To build on this: from what I've read, and heard from more conservative friends of mine (yes, I do have some), I think that most* conservatives feel that the U.S. has lost its way, from a moral standpoint, and this loss of morality is threatening to doom the country.

This is, from what I can see, particularly visible in how they view sexuality and gender roles. Most of them feel that sex outside of marriage is sinful, that homosexuality is sinful, and that transgenderism and all other non-traditional expressions of gender or sexual preference are somewhere between "sinful" and "the product of a sick or insane mind."

Additionally, they also often believe that traditional gender roles (including a wife being submissive to her husband) are what God had intended, and to behave otherwise is sinful.

And, since many of these sinful ideas and behaviors really began to come out of the shadows in American culture in the 1960s (which saw the sexual revolution, the women's liberation movement, and the beginning of the gay rights movement), I do agree with the OP that many conservatives long for a return to the 1950s, or at least the sexual and gender mores from that time.

* - I use this qualifier because any blanket statement about conservatives, or liberals, is almost undoubtedly not going to be universally true.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 10-26-2019 at 02:06 AM.
  #21  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:19 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Now she's accusing all sorts of people of being Russian assets.
That's one sort of person. The Russian asset sort.
  #22  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
That's one sort of person. The Russian asset sort.
I hope you can one day realize how crazy this sounds. Hillary Clinton is nuts.
  #23  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:43 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
There's a right way and a wrong way to do things.

If you say that you would like to eliminate recidivism, and I agree with your goal, and I propose the mechanism of doing to by executing every single person convicted of any type of crime--
Are you for or against that goal if you oppose that particular mechanism?

You have to admit that that mechanism would be spectacularly effective. But would it be morally right? Is effectiveness the ONLY consideration when determining a course of action?
Thats a valid counterpoint. However when looked at objectively, conservatives seem to more care about stopping abortion after pregnancy than they are about stopping the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Also conservative efforts to stop abortion mostly target those low in socio-economic status. Middle class, educated people can always get abortions. THey take time off work and drive to another state with legal abortions. It is young people, poorly educated people, poor people, etc. who can't go to nearby states to get abortions. So arguably in practice conservatives are opposed to abortion among low SES people more than against abortion itself because that is what their beliefs translate into real life. But then again, any stressor is going to be worse for low SES people and maybe abortion is no different.

Also according to the book 'everybody lies' which is about large scale internet data, in states with more strict abortion laws there aren't more births as you would expect. If abortion is harder to get and there are fewer abortions, you'd assume there would be more births. What there are more of are google searches for how to terminate a pregnancy at home. So strict abortion laws don't lead to more births, they lead to more women terminating their pregnancy at home.

https://kottke.org/17/06/google-sear...uced-abortions

Overall its hard to look at the conservative stance on abortion as being about anything other than a proxy for something else (controlling women, especially disadvantaged women) since it has very little to do with abortion itself. The conservative stance on abortion eschews proven ways to prevent the need for abortions in the first place, it mostly penalizes poor and young women (while allowing wealthier, more educated women to still get abortions) and it just replaces medical abortions with at home abortions.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 10-26-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #24  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I hope you can one day realize how crazy this sounds. Hillary Clinton is nuts.
Not really, it is more political animosity, but there are items that do not come form the imagination of Hillary.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...dispute-054398
Quote:
The interference by Russia’s Internet Research Agency and other actors was chronicled in both an indictment of Russian operatives and Senate Intelligence Committee reports that showed how the foreign government used social media platforms to spread disinformation and negative information about Clinton, sometimes by boosting Trump or her other opponents.

Bill Browder, a financier and an activist who has run afoul of Putin, said he thought it is no coincidence that Gabbard recently hired an operative who had worked with a Kremlin-backed lawyer who smeared him because he helped secure the passage of the Magnitsky Act. That law imposed sanctions on Russia in reaction to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, Browder’s lawyer and friend, after whom the law is named.

“Out of all the thousands of people she could have chosen, she happened to choose the one who had first-hand experience working with a Russian agent of Vladimir Putin’s,” Browder said of Gabbard. “I don’t believe in coincidences. It’s less likely to be a coincidence when you look at her policies, which are the same policy as Putin’s: pro-Assad, anti-gay and pro-Trump.”
  #25  
Old 10-26-2019, 03:08 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
I'll chip in another one: Many - if not nearly all - liberals define "equality" as something akin to "achieving equal results" - not necessarily exactly equal, but moving towards that direction (as opposed to "equal treatment regardless of circumstances and background.")

This is why many liberals ascribe to a "punch-up vs. punch-down" mindset, which is that they consider jokes made at the expense of black people to be different than jokes made at the expense of white people, for instance (or jokes about men vs. jokes about women), because they consider one group to occupy a higher perch in society than the other (having more privilege,) and so if jokes are made at the expense of the less-privileged group, that exacerbates the inequality.

(This does not necessarily mean that liberals like jokes being made at the expense of a privileged group, but they consider it much less offensive than if made at the expense of a disadvantaged group.)
  #26  
Old 10-26-2019, 06:18 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't see how you can say liberal views on Russia haven't changed. In 2012 Obama mocked Romney for calling Russia our "number one geopolitical foe", to a great deal of liberal applause. In 2009 Hillary Clinton gave Russia her famous "reset button". Now she's accusing all sorts of people of being Russian assets.
Whataboutism won't serve you well. I don't see liberal politicians sucking-up to Putin, unlike most GOP politicos. Anyway, Obama and Hillary are both corporate whores. What did their soulless masters think would be beneficial at the time?

"The opposite of liberal is not conservative, but enslaved."
  #27  
Old 10-26-2019, 07:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
"The opposite of liberal is not conservative, but enslaved."
I like this, but enslaved should be replaced with "a slaver" or "a plantation owner", or something like that, IMO.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #28  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:41 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,813
How about this one:

Conservatives believe that prosperity and poverty are, by and large, the results of personal choices and not outside forces.
  #29  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:46 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I hope you can one day realize how crazy this sounds. Hillary Clinton is nuts.
Hillary Clinton may be nuts, but not about this. Both Stein and Gabbard are straighforwardly Russian assets by any reasonable definition.
  #30  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:51 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
How about this one:

Conservatives believe that prosperity and poverty are, by and large, the results of personal choices and not outside forces.
Yeah I think this describes upwards of 90%, maybe 95% of conservatives.
  #31  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:31 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
How about this one:

Conservatives believe that prosperity and poverty are, by and large, the results of personal choices and not outside forces.
I think thats probably fair, meanwhile liberals think prosperity and poverty are a mix of factors within the control of the individual as well as forces outside the control of the individual (cultural issues, racial issues, economic issues, etc).
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #32  
Old 10-27-2019, 08:21 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I hope you can one day realize how crazy this sounds. Hillary Clinton is nuts.
Hey, I realize how crazy the above sounds already. What do I win?

Anyone who has a good word to say about Donald Trump, yet says Hillary is nuts - what color is the sky, etc.
  #33  
Old 10-27-2019, 09:15 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't see how you can say liberal views on Russia haven't changed. In 2012 Obama mocked Romney for calling Russia our "number one geopolitical foe", to a great deal of liberal applause. In 2009 Hillary Clinton gave Russia her famous "reset button". Now she's accusing all sorts of people of being Russian assets.
The fact is, Russia wasn't much of a threat in 2012, and still wouldn't be, without a lot of Western help.

We're a long way from the days when our military was constantly on alert against the threat that Soviet tanks would roll across Western Europe. Today, a much-weakened Russian military would have its work cut out for it to reclaim the countries that used to be parts of the USSR, and the Warsaw Pact nations are beyond its reach.

What little Russia can do is either in its own backyard, too far from areas controlled by NATO (e.g. Crimea, Ossettia) for us to do much about it, or by having Russian assets in control of Western militaries cause those militaries to abandon the field to the Russians in local/regional conflicts where other parties have invited the Russians in. (E.g. Syria.)

Absent the handiwork of Russian assets - Trump and the GOP in the U.S. especially - the Russians wouldn't be much of a geopolitical threat even now. But those assets are enabling the Russians to be a much greater threat than they would otherwise be.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 10-27-2019 at 09:17 AM. Reason: Added the "E.g. Syria" parenthetical.
  #34  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:55 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I think thats probably fair, meanwhile liberals think prosperity and poverty are a mix of factors within the control of the individual as well as forces outside the control of the individual (cultural issues, racial issues, economic issues, etc).
And just plain luck. The November Scientific American has a fascinating article on the role of luck. They use an admittedly unrealistic model of society, so this is just a suggestion. On the other hand, I know from my own life that I had a couple of pieces of blind luck that got me started. One of them led me to going to college.
  #35  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:13 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Some years ago, the Republican legislature passed a very strong voter ID law and some Republican politician remarked that this would guarantee Republican control of the state for the foreseeable future. The law was thrown out. In Canada we have voter ID laws, but everyone has the necessary ID (a health card) and I never had to show a birth certificate get it. What makes the ID laws inimical is that their purpose is to deny voting to eligible voters.
Canadian voter ID doesn't deny voting to eligible voters? Why do USA voter ID laws deny voting to eligible voters?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I think we all agree that Dems would take away assault weapons. I cannot think think of a single acceptable civilian use for such weapons.
What is an assault weapon? We need to have the terms understood for any debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Democrats believe that health care is the government's legitimate business. I think Republicans believe it isn't.
When ans why did it become the gov't's business? The push lately feels to me like 'vote us into office and we'll give you free stuff'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Republicans believe that life starts at conception. Dems that it starts with quickening.
This is too complex for me to go into here. I acknowledge it is simpler for many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Dems believe that global warming is real, is human caused and we are running out of time to do something about it. Reps think it is a fiction and, in any case, not our responsibility to do anything about it.
Whether one believes in climate change or not, I don't think the world will significantly reduce it's use of fossil fuels. And agreements giving carveouts to nations are not going to convine many- if it's a problem, then why the carveouts?
  #36  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:17 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
I don't see liberal politicians sucking-up to (the USSR).
They have before, and the 'reset button' was basically 'we'll give you a pass on everything you've done up until now'.
  #37  
Old 10-27-2019, 08:51 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Whether one believes in climate change or not
I'd be all LMAO if this weren't so serious.
  #38  
Old 10-27-2019, 11:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I like this, but enslaved should be replaced with "a slaver" or "a plantation owner", or something like that, IMO.
You think the opposite of liberal is a slaver or plantation owner? Not really surprised but uhh, yeah okay.

From my view, the responses in this thread are pretty much par for the course, with each side not understanding the other very well. Or maybe it's me, but most of what has been offered seems like poor caricatures. The only saving grace is there are so many flavors of folks that a single label tends to not work very well.

Last edited by Bone; 10-27-2019 at 11:24 PM.
  #39  
Old 10-28-2019, 06:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You think the opposite of liberal is a slaver or plantation owner? Not really surprised but uhh, yeah okay.
Sort of -- at least I see my own views as pretty much the opposite of a slaver/plantation owner. I like it because it sounds good, even if it's a bit of a juvenile summation that isn't much more than a quip.
  #40  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:57 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sort of -- at least I see my own views as pretty much the opposite of a slaver/plantation owner. I like it because it sounds good, even if it's a bit of a juvenile summation that isn't much more than a quip.
But is that how the opposite-of-a-liberal person would see themselves - would they agree that they are a slaver/plantation owner? That's what this thread is about.
  #41  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:00 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Overall its hard to look at the conservative stance on abortion as being about anything other than a proxy for something else (controlling women, especially disadvantaged women)
But would conservatives agree that that's what their stance is about?
  #42  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:28 AM
Author Balk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 199
The ______ party are people who love their country, and want to make it better. They believe their ideas are the best way to improve the country. And they believe the other party is misinformed or maybe even stupid. They believe the other party's ideas are inferior, trying to correct problems that don't exist, etc.
  #43  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:51 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,609
There was a podcast I heard called "Red Brain, Blue Brain" which said:

Quote:
... showed liberals and conservatives positive and negative pictures, and he found they reacted very differently.
...
A positive picture would be something like a beautiful sunset or somebody enjoying themselves on a ski slope, a happy child. A negative picture would be things like a house that had just been leveled by a hurricane or a guy eating worms or children who are malnourished. We had people hooked up to some physiological devices. The most obvious one is electrodermal activity or skin conductance, which is a common way of seeing if somebody is just having a reaction - having a physiological arousal to that stimulus. And what we found is that people do have arousals when they see these kinds of images because they have some emotional content. But we tended to find that liberals were more reactive to the positive images, and conservatives are more reactive to the negative images.
...
Liberals' brains, when they looked at mutilation images, were much more active in a part of the brain called the S2, somatosensory 2. And this is part of the brain that will be activated if you suffer pain. So if I kick you in the shin, your somatosensory 2 would be active. But it's also active if you see pain in others
While opinions can often be based on biases, these scans allowed techs to determine whether someone was a liberal or conservative just from looking at the brain scans. So these kinds of differences should be more accurate than something that is based on personal bias.
  #44  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But is that how the opposite-of-a-liberal person would see themselves - would they agree that they are a slaver/plantation owner? That's what this thread is about.
Obviously not. That was just a little side quip.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #45  
Old 10-28-2019, 03:22 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,320
I do agree that a lot posted so far is not really what both sides agree on, they are mostly items that the sides do not agree with. Having said that, after looking at the divide through the years, a very important item that affects other beliefs is about the sources of information a side uses.

Right wing media like talk radio, FOX news and others are seen by both the left and the right as the sources that many on the right do see as accurate, or fair, essentially: their news. It can be argued how fair or accurate they are, but most people do agree that the right does see those sources as representing their views.

The reverse tough shows how there is little to equate about what liberals do see as "their news"

This is because one factor is always denied by many on the right, one that many liberals do see as important: that most of the mainstream media are in the end following the interests of corporations. Sure, there are some items were corporate media interests match the interests of the liberals, but as one study I read on the 80’s pointed out, mainstream media (before FOX, talk radio or conservative internet came) was a bit liberal on social issues, but it remained conservative about financial or business issues (not only in the US but also foreign issues)

This is not new, as J.David Stern, the owner of the then “liberal” New York Post in the 1930's reportedly said: “What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?” -Witness to a Century- By George Seldes.

It looks like things have not changed much. The point here is that while the conservatives and the liberals do agree that media like FOX are the media for and by conservatives, the conservatives do have ignorant beliefs about what the liberals see as "their" media.
  #46  
Old 10-28-2019, 06:12 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
I've often heard it said that the media is beholden to corporate interests, but how so? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. seemed to have absolutely no qualms about covering the 2008 banking/Wall Street fiasco, or Boeing's incompetence in the deadly 737 MAX crashes, or Enron corruption, or British Petroleum's oil-rig leak, or Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
  #47  
Old 10-28-2019, 08:03 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I've often heard it said that the media is beholden to corporate interests, but how so? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. seemed to have absolutely no qualms about covering the 2008 banking/Wall Street fiasco, or Boeing's incompetence in the deadly 737 MAX crashes, or Enron corruption, or British Petroleum's oil-rig leak, or Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
Notice that a lot of that came after the disaster, very little before it took place even if mainstream media had evidence of chicanery. Now I think you confuse the news after a train wreck, it is natural for even FOX news to cover that, but the reality is that there was little reported about the dubious accounting by Enron for example (and this was mentioned many times before by me BTW).

In a Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron's economic models were bananas and Enron was likely not a good investment or a coming failure.

The Times economic reporter being interviewed had this commentary, on why they did not report much of that conclusion:

Because “Other things came up!”

Charlie Rose, by not making any follow-up questions to that whitewash of an answer just completed the picture, media that depends on corporation revenue will have many inconvenient points of view not covered much if at all.

The issue of Global Warming does demonstrate this, there was a huge drop of reports on the issue, inexplicable if the media did not have issues when they depend on corporate money coming from their advertisements.

https://grist.org/article/climate-wh...hange-in-2018/
Quote:
To get a full picture of 2018 climate coverage, you actually need to look further back. Check out this graph showing climate change coverage over the last three years, from January 1, 2016, to December 16, 2018.

See that huge spike in the middle? That’s from June 1, 2017, when President Donald Trump announced that he intended to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. No other day in the last three years saw anywhere near that much coverage. When Trump stages an event related to climate change, the media snap to attention. The rest of the time it’s like, “Climate what?”
In the end liberals do not control what corporate media does report about. If there is a slight rise on reports recently is because the number of extreme weather "train wrecks" that are related to the issue grow in intensity. Many other issues that hurt "the bottom line" of corporations are not reported much about, as Bernie Sanders could tell you:

http://inthesetimes.com/features/ber...democracy.html
Quote:
When there is very little coverage of the suffering of the 43 million Americans living in poverty, or the thousands of Americans without health insurance who die each year because they can’t get to a doctor when they should, corporately owned media is telling us that these are not issues of major concern. For years, major crises like climate change, the impact of trade agreements on our economy, the role of big money in politics and youth unemployment have received scant media coverage. Trade union leaders, environmentalists, low-income activists, people prepared to challenge the corporate ideology, rarely appear on our TV screens.

Media is not just about what is covered and how. It is about what is not covered. And those decisions, of what is and is not covered, are not made in the heavens. They are made by human beings who often have major conflicts of interest.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-28-2019 at 08:04 PM.
  #48  
Old 10-29-2019, 08:54 AM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm a liberal democrat and I don't agree with this though.

one of the most effective way to reduce abortions is to have universal sex education, easy access to free contraceptives, etc will reduce abortions and conservatives are opposed to these things.
I hate to say it but you need to examine their mindset down to the basic tenets. I have a family filled with them and I can speak to this. They are "driven" by the concepts of punishment and reward. Do the right thing or else be punished. The concept of do the right thing for its own sake is lost on them. As for the reward side, the tenet is "you deserve nothing, you must earn every little thing". Sex is not a given right to them, its an earned privilege. Contraception? No that's against God. Not married? Sorry you shouldn't have sex. Have sex anyway and get pregnant ? You have to keep the child. Give financial aid to the single mother? Tough shit - you made the poor decision, live with it.

I thank my lucky stars that I saw the light and got away from this neanderthal non-thinking mindset.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ
  #49  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:09 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I think thats probably fair, meanwhile liberals think prosperity and poverty are a mix of factors within the control of the individual as well as forces outside the control of the individual (cultural issues, racial issues, economic issues, etc).
As do conservatives, its the mix that is different.
  #50  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:21 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
As do conservatives, its the mix that is different.
It's a spectrum, like many things. Virtually all conservatives and liberals would agree that, on an end of "Your status is because your circumstances" and "Your status is because of your character traits," that most people got to where they are today because of a mix. But conservatives might weight it as "30% circumstances, 70% character/intelligence/hard work," and liberals might go with the opposite ratio.
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 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017