I disagree.
I am amenable to being reasoned into positions I did not hold previously, and that’s happened to me on this very board.
I disagree.
I am amenable to being reasoned into positions I did not hold previously, and that’s happened to me on this very board.
But, only because you feel that logic and causality are superior to opinion and emotion for evaluating positions.
And you are a rare duck indeed that does tend to put such things to the side and actually concentrate on the facts. Even rarer is someone who is willing to change their opinion based on facts.
If all conservatives were like you, then we wouldn’t be having conversations on how to communicate with them. I mean, we’d fight and argue over all the times our goal diverge, but at least we could have a conversation based on logical principles, instead of dealing with random non-sequiturs of non-facts. (I will note that it is also a rare liberal with those qualities. [I will ultimately note that it is a rare individual of any political persuasion.])
No, the republican party is worse in my opinion and much more blatant. But I also don’t think either party serves a greater good. I think Democrats, together with most labour/center-left parties in europe, have made a move to the right over the last decades, leaving their core-voters behind in favour of the financial sector.
I’m not gonna lie, I don’t think Hillary would have done a great job. I’m also not a fan of her husband. She’d probably be more competent than Trump, but that’s not much of an accomplishment. I hope the dems clean up their act, move back center-left, or further, and begin working for the majority of people in America, instead of economically well-off few. Banking regulations, cutting ties to corporate interests and regulating political donations would be good places to start, I think.
I didn’t intend to say they are doing so equally. Just that they both are doing so.
What k9bfriender said (at least the part I quoted). Not only that, but you also feel that your specific tools for evaluating logic are more correct than those of others. We all feel that we are reasoning creatures, but I suggest that the kind of reasoning that leads you (the general you) to a change of opinion does so not because it is ‘correct’ reasoning, but because it speaks to you in an emotional way.
Some things are simple enough that 99.9% of the people are going to reason correctly 99.9% of the time. “If I cut this apple in half, I’ll likely end up with two halves of apple.” Stray too far, though, and feelings/unspecific processing starts to shape how we look at both questions and their conclusions. Get into the realm of societal governance, and even if you can frame problems such that you can draw a simple and uninterrupted chain of reason from problem to solution, odds are that you’ve left out most of the variables, either by choice or because you didn’t know they existed in the first place, or because looking at problems in a specific way brings you satisfaction, so you are pre-disposed to block out things that don’t fit.
Which isn’t to say we can’t change, we most certainly can, but only in as much as we are open to it on any particular position, and how strong our feelings are about it.
I’d almost say this is a hijack, but I think it’s at the core of what this is all about. Who’s worse, Clinton or Trump? To me, it’s such a no-brainer I can’t believe it’s a question. To you, IIRC, it was a difficult choice. Are you hopelessly stupid? Am I? Or, are we each responding emotionally to facts and suggestions put before us, and just trying to figure it out the best we can?
You’re a smart guy, and when I am amazed when I read you advocating for positions and interpretations that just seem completely stupid, I remember that we’re just fucking monkeys in shoes, and I’ve probably got as many positions and philosophies that seem narrow and mindless to you, or to others.
I endorse post #105. But I think delving too deeply into philosophical relativism presents some hazards of its own, even if it helps us avoid the pitfalls of undue moral certitude.
We have to remember that that sort of relativism exists because of differences between individual means of perception or metaphysical understandings which allow different interpretations of phenomena between affected parties. Thus, although relativism means we must accept uncertainty when evaluating propositions, any position or belief which is further informed by -or at least amenable to- a broadened perspective and/or the introduction of new information is inherently less wrong than one which does not.
Yeah it is. It really is that simple. Had a few more Dems voted in the states that swung red, we wouldn’t be having this convo right now.
Dismiss this as minor if you want, but it’s a major clue as to what campaign strategy should be at the forefront next time. It’s not paying lip service to working class whites who still believe in trickle down economics and faithfully watch Fox & Friends in the morning. It’s doing a better at getting out the vote among those who are most at risk of not voting.
Why misconstrue the OP like that? That isn’t exactly setting an example of acting “civilized” towards someone. It’s also making me question whether you actually understand the point being made. Dems can’t change opinions that are not open to being changed, and its hubris to think otherwise.
We don’t; it’s too late. The far right is taking power and they aren’t ever going to let go of it.
What we could have done is stop catering to bigots who are never going to vote Democrat and actually tried appealing to the people who might do so. Instead of sucking up to people who hate Democrats, which not only gained no votes but drove potential Democratic voters to stay home.
You don’t and can’t communicate with them, they wont listen. And yes it is sucking up, because sucking up is the only thing they will accept.
On the contrary, they do so to the point of self-destructiveness. One of their flaws is an unwillingness to claim they are right and their opponents wrong.
Those are the same thing.
I’m not. Ever.
Nonsense; it caters to them and coddles them. But since all they can accept is the utter submission or annihilation of everyone not exactly like themselves, that isn’t enough.
On the contrary, what we should have done is been willing to stand up and condemn the right, instead of constantly pandering to them and surrendering to them. And in the process, driving away people who see no reason to support the Democrats when the Democrats keep surrendering to the bigots and pandering to them.
A story in my local paper about the terrorist attack at Ohio State illustrates the hurdles Democrats face in appealing to “white, working class America”.
In a sidebar about politicians weighing in on the violence, the paper quotes Republican state treasurer Josh Mandel tweeting “Looks like Radical Islamic terror came to my alma mater today. So sad what happened at OSU. We must remain vigilant against Radical Islam.”
In response, the chief of staff for Ohio Senate Democrats, Michael Premo tweeted back “Looks like knee-jerk islamophobia came to my state today. So sad what @JoshMandelOhio said. Me must remain vigilant against prejudice.”
Bearing in mind that Mandel is a sleazy opportunist whose most fervent conviction is that he deserves higher office, he said something that resonates with a lot of voters. On the other hand, we have a Democratic official who sounds like his overriding concern is not for the safety of potential terror victims, but instead is preoccupied that this incident might increase prejudice against Muslims.
Whoever you think is right, Premo’s approach is politically tone-deaf.*
*I’m reminded of that story in The Atlantic about Obama telling his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents and falls in bathtubs (so quit yer worrying).
That’s true.
But in the context of the election, I personally think that a lot of people probably felt like they were stuck between the Devil and the deep blue sea, and picked what they saw as the lesser of two evils.
On one hand, you had (in their eyes) a demonstrably dishonest, shady and self-aggrandizing Democrat politician in Hillary.
On the other, you have a blowhard, arguably racist Republican.
It then comes down to which you detest more- dishonesty or racism. And I can’t really fault people for choosing either way, as long as they didn’t like either choice to begin with.
Except that’s a false characterization. Clinton* wasn’t* “demonstrably dishonest, shady and self-aggrandizing”; and certainly far less so than Trump.
People voted for Trump because they are bigoted sadists; they voted for him because *he’s *the greater evil, and the greater evil was exactly what they wanted. They wanted Trump because he’s going to cause immense suffering to people who aren’t copies of them, and that’s all such people really want out of life.
Who is demonstrably dishonest, shady, and self-aggrandizing.
Sadly, I think DT has it right:
And many of them voted for Obama, twice, although most of the posters in this thread completely ignore that fact. The Dems lost this election because of those people not because of the voters who always vote against them. The article is totally irrelevant; the Dems need to win back those who voted for Obama. If they do they’ll regain the Presidency.
No, they won’t. The Republicans will never allow it once they control the government.
I keep seeing this stated like it’s an obvious thing. But it ain’t to me. Cite for it?
You do know which forum we’re in? But I’ll be kind.
The New York Times - Election Analysis
Another from The Washington Post
There are a myriad more. Did you even read any election analysis?
Many? Some? A few? This guy over here, that guy over there?
10 million people that voted for Obama in 2008 did not vote for Clinton this time. You know who else they didn’t vote for? It isn’t as though Donald Trump got some extraordnary number of votes, here, he got the fewest votes of any candidate in the last 3 elections. I’d buy this angry/insulted/ignored/requires understanding/Midwestern White Guy voting for a Republican instead of his usual Democrat as a problem if Trump had won by an unusual margin. That didn’t even come close to happening. Not even close to it.
Democrats stayed home, that’s all.
I feel fine with faulting them – racism has a far, far more terrible and damaging history in America than dishonesty (which is an American political tradition and pretty close to the norm). Tolerating Trump’s bigotry is a lot worse than tolerating Clinton’s dishonesty (especially when Trump was demonstrably as dishonest, or more so).
Nonsense. Faced with a choice between the demonstrably dishonest, shady, self-aggrandizing, blowhard, and racist Devil and a somewhat naughty imp, they voted for the Devil. Any rational and ethical person would fault them severely for such a deplorable act.
Did you bother to read the links, you cretin? Trump won by a small margin. That small margin would have been easily overturned if the previous Obama voters had voted for Clinton. It matters not a jot that millions of Democrats stayed at home. They are beside the point I was making. The few that came out and voted for Trump were enough to hand him the victory.
Some of you jokers are astonishing. Secure in the ruff of your opinions clothed you blithely ignore obvious truths and tilt triumphantly at windmills. Still, long may you do so, it makes for fine entertainment.