# "How Did We Become Bitter Political Enemies?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112 "2017-06-16T13:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/241 "2017-06-18T16:33:19Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The kill us all, and the kill nearly all of us are well within the error bars of future climate modeling. Cite? Which climate model(s), by which scientist(s), predict the extinction of mankind, or the near-extinction of mankind? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/242 "2017-06-18T16:41:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > See if you still feel that way in a few years. Yes, we will have to see, and I’m not predicting that I will, but it wouldn’t surprise me. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am not sure exactly why you are happy that we are selling national monument land to oil and gas companies. What are you getting out of this? Do you want to see further federal parks and lands sold to development? Do you even feel we have a need to hold onto any of it, or would you prefer that we sold it all? It wasn’t ‘national monument land’ until 7 months ago. I answered this in detail in another thread, but the short version is that: I see certain areas that are worth protecting, but not all 1.3 million acres are such areas. There are some real natural treasures in Utah, and I’m happy with the status of our five national parks. I think Bears Ears and Grand Staircase could shrink by a good bit, without losing anything too significant. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/243 "2017-06-18T16:44:11Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You may get a tax break, but I doubt you make enough, as pretty much all of that is going to the extremely wealthy. I’m curious, where do you imagine the lower end of the income range of people who will benefit from Republican tax policies is? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/244 "2017-06-18T16:47:06Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > It’s also sometimes justified. If Person X says something derisive of the poor - not only once, but many times, comparing them to vermin - and pushes through laws that punish only poor, it’s not name-calling, but an accurate description to say that Person X hates the poor. Has some elected official used the word “vermin” to describe blacks / gays / poor recently? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/245 "2017-06-18T16:50:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I feel like there’s been plenty of that going on here in this thread. > > If ‘the world’ wanted an enduring agreement with the US, they should have negotiated something that could achieve ratification in the US Senate. They didn’t, and so they were left with something that was entirely at the whim of the US President, and when the President changes, those whims change. As noted before in other threads about the issue, even more than half of the Republicans think that something needs to be done. > **[How Americans Think About Climate Change, in Six Maps (Published 2017)](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?mcubz=2&_r=0)** > > Americans overwhelmingly believe that global warming is happening, and that carbon emissions should be scaled back. But fewer are sure that it will harm them personally. > [@](#): > > Nationally, about seven in 10 Americans support regulating carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants — and 75 percent support regulating CO2 as a pollutant more generally. But lawmakers are unlikely to change direction soon. > > Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina, warned that committed activists — like the Tea Party — can shape politicians’ approaches to issues like climate change. “Those are the ones who can take you out at the next primary,” he said. Mr. Inglis lost his primary in 2010 to Trey Gowdy, a Tea Party candidate who attacked his climate views. Even with the wide differences show most people (and even more than half or a plurality of the Republicans) do think that government should play a part on the solution and that there is strong bipartisan support for expanding solar, wind energy production. Something that the Trump administration and many Republican congresspersons oppose. As I pointed before, a lot of people on the right are not really aware of how their representatives are the problem now. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/246 "2017-06-18T17:00:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Trump rips U.S. defense of Japan as one-sided, too expensive - The Japan Times](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/06/national/politics-diplomacy/trump-rips-u-s-defense-japan-one-sided-expensive/) I suspect Mattis has convinced Trump away from that pre-election position, but even if he hasn’t, do you really think a handful of hypothetical Japanese nukes are worthy of constanze’s concerns about repair costs and lost R&D costs? Here is the portion of constanze’s post I was responding to: > [@constanze](#): > > And with dozens of countries, every country buying more of their own makes for hundreds of different types of rifles, tanks, planes, which makes repairs and coordination very more expensive than standardized units. Plus, you don’t order 10 tanks from the Factory. You develop one that’s good, only that can take 20 years, and everything has changed, so you ordered 10 tanks for millions of Euros that are now obsolete. Worse with planes with so much computers inside. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/247 "2017-06-18T17:02:03Z")
Phew! All caught up (I think). If there’s something any of you still have a burning desire for a personalized **HD** response to, point it out and I’ll try to reply. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/248 "2017-06-18T17:03:17Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You’re probably right. I’m being unrealistic in thinking that he might say that knowing what he knows now, he’d choose to stay home instead. Yes, **The Other Waldo Pepper** was indeed correct. But, I live in Utah, so it doesn’t _really_ matter if I stay home or not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/249 "2017-06-18T17:06:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Cite? Which climate model(s), by which scientist(s), predict the extinction of mankind, or the near-extinction of mankind? I have seen scientists like Lovelock to harp about that, but of course he is not taken seriously by many other scientists. Of course projections that report increases in temperature as high as 6 or more degrees are still at the tail end of the projections. Not likely, but the point here is that I remember Tamino at one of the best statistical sites about the issue mentions the point that those nightmare scenarios have virtually the same probability to happen as the low “lukewarmer” increases that misguided skeptics and deniers think we are going to get. IOW it should give you and many others pause that the same chances of seeing a nice result are the same as the chances of seeing an end of the world precipitated by the climate changes. We are discussing really how much pain we will get into. I think it will not be the end of humans, but the issue here is that we should ensure that the less number of people get crushed in the coming bottleneck. So, just as it is not likely that all people will use their home insurance in a fire one still has to insure it when other less catastrophic problems can still take place and are more likely. Problem is that Trump and minions do not even think about insurance. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/250 "2017-06-18T17:07:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect Mattis has convinced Trump away from that pre-election position, but even if he hasn’t, do you really think a handful of hypothetical Japanese nukes are worthy of constanze’s concerns about repair costs and lost R&D costs? Here is the portion of constanze’s post I was responding to: The point was that you were wrong, deal with it and Trump. Most Republicans are arriving to the conclusion that they can not rely on things getting better with Trump and his hapless cabinet nowadays. But even then they need to realize that most congress critters are against what they really want. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/251 "2017-06-18T17:07:37Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > [Debates: Ten Rules for a Good Discussion | ZEIT ONLINE](http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2017-05/debates-discussions-politics-rules-d17) Ten Rules for useful discussions. BTW, thanks for sharing this. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/252 "2017-06-18T17:07:52Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > No. But I suppose most name-calling is about equal. What do you think? Is Tone Policing a valid means of deciding issues? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/253 "2017-06-18T17:09:13Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Conservatives don’t seem to want ANY climate policy. In fact, Conservatives really don’t want anything to change at all (unless it’s reverting backwards). Let me see if I can adequately explain some positions here: > > Climate Change: > Left: Human caused climate change is a scientifically proven phenomenon that needs to be addressed before it causes untold cost and human suffering. > Right: We are fine with climate policies that don’t require us to change our spending habits and doesn’t affect business in any way. We aren’t even sure it exists because some study commissioned by ExxonMobil indicated it might not. > > Guns: > Left: The freedom of unrestricted gun ownership is not worth the loss of life > Right: Any loss of life is acceptable so long as we don’t have to give up our freedom to own guns. > > Gay Marriage: > Left: Gays should have the same rights as straights when it comes to marriage. > Right: It should be on a state by state basis so those homos in New York and California can get married if they want, but I don’t have to deal with it. > > Equality: > Left: All people deserve to be treated equally regardless of race, nationality, sex, gender, religion > Right: White American Christians enjoy an exceptionalism handed down by God almighty, however we are tolerant of “other” groups so long as they share our values (of White American Christian exceptionalism). > > Free Speech: > Left: All speech should be protected except for hate speech or yelling “fire” in a crowded room. > Right: Anyone trying to curtail my hate speech is infringing on my rights and isn’t accepting of other viewpoints. > > Foreign Policy: > Left: We need to work with our allies and other nations. > Right: The rest of the world needs to work with us. > > Government Spending: > Left: The resources of government should go towards building infrastructure and improving the lives of it’s citizens through education, health care and social safety nets. > Right: Anything other than military spending is Communism. > > Economics: > Left: The role of government is to curtain corporate excess and, when necessary, provide a safety net to support the economy. > Right: Poor people can go fuck themselves. I wholeheartedly endorse this post and applaud the author. My succinct take on the question at hand: we became bitter enemies when one side became batshit crazy, when Republicans insulated themselves from reality by only paying attention to Hate Radio, Fox “News”, and Facebook memes. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/254 "2017-06-18T17:10:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that you were wrong, deal with it and Trump. How was I wrong? My post mentioned _European_ countries, your cite was about Japan (and South Korea). I was going to let it slide, but since you’re going to bring it up like this, why don’t you clarify how you think a cite about Japan addresses my post about European countries. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/255 "2017-06-18T17:13:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > How was I wrong? My post mentioned _European_ countries, your cite was about Japan (and South Korea). I was going to let it slide, but since you’re going to bring it up like this, why don’t you clarify how you think a cite about Japan addresses my post about European countries. The cite also mentioned Europe, and Trump implied that what Europe needed to do was just as what South Korea and Japan should do. In any case Trump was not shy to later point out that Europe should spent more on their defense capabilities. > **[Analysis | The Trump administration wants Europe to pay more to defend...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/03/europe-may-not-be-able-to-expand-its-defenses-like-president-trump-wants/)** > > Defense cooperation among European countries sounds like a good plan -- on paper ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/256 "2017-06-18T17:22:48Z")
BTW as I mentioned in my post I clarified that how “wrong” you were included the climate change part. As I said, deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/257 "2017-06-18T17:45:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If ‘the world’ wanted an enduring agreement with the US, they should have negotiated something that could achieve ratification in the US Senate. They didn’t, and so they were left with something that was entirely at the whim of the US President, and when the President changes, those whims change. This is probably the most ridiculous comment in this entire thread, and I only say “probably” because there are a few other howlers in it. But I call it out because it also functions as an excellent illustration of what is not just a political divide, but a factual divide – fundamental disagreements about the basic nature of reality in which one side seems to have lost the faculty of reason. The Paris accord was not the result of a “whim” of President Obama, however much you might hate both the former President and those pesky climate scientists who provided the sound scientific guidance on which the agreement was based. So the first element of reality-denial we have to address here is the assertion that the terms of the agreement were arbitrary and not achievable; this is utterly false. The second fact of actual reality is that virtually every country on earth signed on in the belief that it was both achievable and necessary, and IIRC the majority – some 148 nations – have now ratified. The third fact of actual reality, [as previously discussed over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20248023&postcount=86), is that political factors did indeed influence the agreement, by weakening it. The most aggressive goal was left as “best-effort”, and while the stated temperature objectives were scientifically sound, they probably won’t be achieved without more aggressive emissions targets and more binding agreements. IOW, the agreement was a practical compromise among the world’s nations to at least sign on to a tangible first step that would begin to have significant if insufficient impacts and set the stage for future progress. Or to put it another way, the agreement was precisely the sort of compromise you suggest that the rational leaders of the world’s nations felt could be ratified. And it could be ratified by a US Senate, too – one with a Democratic majority. As for the gang of denialists that is installed there now, just what kind of agreement do you imagine they would ever ratify? Seriously. When Trump made the announcement about totally pulling out of the Paris agreement, virtually the whole of the announcement [was manifestly a pack of lies](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20247462&postcount=68). Do you imagine that there’s _ **any** _ climate agreement that would be endorsed by this gang of UN-hating climate-denying shills for the oil and coal industries and its plutocratic beneficiaries? And this is the point that this thread is making about contemporary Republicans: anti-science, anti-fact, detached from reality, utterly careless of the truth, and devoted to the well-being of themselves and their plutocratic base. And kindly don’t remind me that I’m being mean to Republicans. If you want to respond constructively, please start by addressing the facts. When their transgressions are as egregious as they are here, they deserve to be called out in appropriately emphatic terms. When someone has just set in motion a process that may send the world on a course of runaway climate change with catastrophic consequences, it seems kind of superfluous to feign indignation and accuse their critics of speaking to them in an unfriendly tone of voice. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/258 "2017-06-18T17:53:04Z")
All I hear from the far right on the Paris Treaty is how it will cost the USA TRILLIONS and we’ll have to subsidize other nations. Neither are true. The payments are voluntary and there is no enforcement mechanism. But it does follow the usual right wing ‘ignore the facts, sell fear and outrage’ pattern. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/259 "2017-06-18T18:04:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not actually certain myself, but I believe you are recalling events correctly too. And yes, I’d still vote for Trump today (in the general election, assuming the same slate of candidates as last November). I’m thrilled that Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court and feeling good that Bears Ears is going to get shrunk, and still optimistic that something may be done to lower my healthcare bills. If I get a tax break out of it too, I’ll be even happier. I didn’t like the Comey firing, or the incessant tweeting. Would you mind explaining why you are optimistic that your healthcare bills will decrease? Preferably with an explanation of what specific policy change you think will be enacted, and how that would lead to your desired outcome? I’m just asking because I haven’t seen anything that indicates conservative legislators are even close to reducing the cost of health care. They just want to repeal ACA regardless of the consequences. I am not a blindly loyal champion of ACA, I agree that millions are unhappy with it, but it seems evident to me that repealing it without a considered replacement would be a catastrophe. If it is your contention that the current piece of legislation being kicked around is a good idea, I’d like to understand why. Also, your continued insistence that liberals are out of touch with reality on climate change ‘‘killing us all’’ is a bit perplexing given the scientific evidence presented in this thread that human extinction due to climate change has occurred in the past, and may very well occur again. It’s hardly a fringe position, so much as, you know, inference based on science. Again, based on the history of the planet, we can conclude that human extinction is pretty much inevitable at some point. The question is whether we knowingly hasten ourselves toward that end or just wait for a meteor to strike. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112/260 "2017-06-18T18:16:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And this is the point that this thread is making about contemporary Republicans: anti-science, anti-fact, detached from reality, utterly careless of the truth, and devoted to the well-being of themselves and their plutocratic base. > > And kindly don’t remind me that I’m being mean to Republicans. If you want to respond constructively, please start by addressing the facts. When their transgressions are as egregious as they are here, they deserve to be called out in appropriately emphatic terms. When someone has just set in motion a process that may send the world on a course of runaway climate change with catastrophic consequences, it seems kind of superfluous to feign indignation and accuse their critics of speaking to them in an unfriendly tone of voice. Just a nitpick here. Remember, that fairly applies to almost all the Republicans **in power**. Many Republicans actually **do** think that something should be done about the issue and there are many places were compromise is possible, of course IMHO most republicans out of power **still** need to learn that the ones in power are not doing even an iota of what they want to do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-we-become-bitter-political-enemies/789112.md?page=14)