The basic premise is that Republicans are more patriotic than Democrats. The reasoning behind this is that more Republicans SAY they are more patriotic.
Hangonaminnit? HD is proposing that one team is more patriotic than the other, but doesn’t actually define what patriotism is?
Bwhahhhaaaaa. Gotta love the challenged posters on this board! They’re entertaining if nothing else.
As I understood it, the poll linked to by the moron said that more Democrats than Republicans identified as “patriotic”, but more Republicans than Democrats identified as “very patriotic”.
Which to me just seemed to mean that more of the normal, sane, reasoned patriots were democratic while the flag waving “USA USA USA” redneck super patriots were republican.
In a time where your racist president holds rallies for those types of red cap wearing idiots I think I took a very different conclusion from that poll than the OP did.
But then he is one of these clowns who would rather defend his “side” at all costs rather than accept the reality of what he is defending, so I never gave much weight to his opinion anyway.
This is how I read the thread as well, and I find this pitting to be small potatoes indeed. The quibbling misses the point of the thread. The worst you can say about this thread is that HurricaneDitka did a poor job of explaining his thoughts in the OP, and a bunch of pedants jumped on him as a result. In polls, democrats regularly identify themselves as less patriotic than republicans. There’s an interesting discussion to be had about why that is. It would have been nice to have that discussion, instead of turning it into yet another tribe signalling exercise - “No, the poll is biased, you’re interpreting it wrong, blah blah blah”. All valid points, all utterly uninteresting and missing the point of the thread.
No. If that had, indeed, been the poll question (“Do you consider yourself less patriotic than a member of the opposition party”), that would be a very interesting conversation.
That poll, on the other hand, boils down to “Why do less Democrats identify as Teh X-Treemzorz!!!111. ?” which is a lot less interesting, with an easy answer, which was given multiple times - and only reads as partisan “signalling” because reality has a partisan bias…
I quite liked his opening line, and was saddened that the thread’s placement in GD prevented me from answering the question properly:
[QUOTE=Hurricane Ditka]
I now believe that it is fairly well-established that Republicans are generally more patriotic than Democrats. Why is that so?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the thread title was “Why are Republicans generally more patriotic than Democrats?” and the closing statement in the OP was
This was not a question about why Republicans and Democrats answer a particular poll in a particular way, which might have been an interesting question. It took the results of the poll and presumed that the poll accurately identified the actual patriotism of the respective parties without even identifying what patriotism was or attempting to identify how each group understood its definition.
The responses are not pedantic nitpicking; they are the natural response to a weird assumption applied poorly to different groups.
I do not think this Pitting was necessary, but your defense fails.
It’s not markedly different from the dozens of other concern-trollicious “golly gee guys, help me figure this thing out!” threads launched by Master Ditka since he hit the ground running on his race toward enlightenment, but while we have freelance Überhacks like Okrahoma and suffocatingly ignorant faulty A.I. like doorhinge to compare and contrast, Ditka has a place setting at the Good Ones’ table, apparently.
As one of those apparently being a pedantic nitpicker, let me say, that I agree with this. It isn’t as if a couple of us pointed out the error and Ditka said "Ok, I recognize the error. Hey can we shift the conversation to ‘why do Republicans self-identify as more patriotic that Democrats?’ No, he’s still seems to defending the conclusions in the OP. What conversation can there be had when the initial conclusions are not reasonable given the evidence and the OP won’t concede it? Hence my latest suggestion that if he really wants to have the more reasonable conversation the sensible thing to do would be to start over. That thread is too poisoned now. Of course Budget Player Cadet there’s nothing keeping you from starting such a thread if you think it might be interesting, and I agree with you that it could be interesting.
Since the poster I was asking got a warning in the other thread for the underlying post, I’ll repost my inquiry here.
My impression is that the target of the OP has been starting these threads in good faith, even if he is reluctant to accept pushback on his premises. I’d like to see if I’m wrong.
I tend to agree. I don’t get the same impression from HurricaneDitka that I get from say Okrahoma or doorhinge. That being said, I have a policy for online discussions that I won’t go in circles with somebody, and at least with respect to that thread, I’m done because it isn’t going to go anywhere. The underlying interesting point is never going to get covered. I could start a new thread on it, except I just don’t feel that passionately about it to defend an OP.