Cool, thanks for the clarification.
The point you say is valid is my only point. If you didn’t want this kind of push back, you shouldn’t characterize policy positions in such an obviously partisan (and false, for the side you disagree with) manner.
Has anyone suggested “2020 VISION” as a slogan? I really like it.
I want to come back to this, if you don’t mind, H-D:
I asked if Republicans shouldn’t be in equal agreement with the sentiments expressed in the 4 minute video, and we had this exchange:
In that particular video, nothing is said about military spending or small business tax policies. All it talks about is the diversity of America as a nation and getting people to realize that America is much more diverse than most people realize. Thus, celebrating that diversity is patriotic.
But what you got out of my question about what Republicans could possibly disagree with in the message you brought up military spending and small business taxes.
So I’m wondering why you thought those issues were relevant in this context. So I ask again, why shouldn’t Democrats and Republicans agree with the premise of that video specifically? What makes the sentiments expressed in the video more appealing to Democrats than Republicans?
So you’re equating patriotism with jingoism. That’s pretty much what I thought.
FTFY
Not bad, but it doesn’t seem to hit the inspirational button enough.
I loved that Bill Maher segment. 
Peacey McPeaceface!
I’m not equating patriotism with anything. Let’s just focus on the last sentence in the cite:
They “called themselves” extremely patriotic. I’m not trying to foist my definition of patriotism on Democrats (or anyone else) here. They defined it however they liked in their own mind, and then decided if their own definition applied to them or not. Only 20 percent decided it did, as opposed to 52 percent of Republicans. Given that fact, do you think it’s fair to say that Democrats are less “patriotic” than Republicans? I do, because they told us they were.
I don’t mind pushback, but this thread didn’t seem like the appropriate place for it. If you want to debate which party is more pro-military or pro-business, we can do it, but let’s just do it in another thread. I didn’t want to derail what I thought was a pretty cool thread.
My non-relevant examples were an attempt to point out how parties can agree on something, and yet have differing degrees of enthusiasm. In hindsight, I probably should have picked less politically-touchy topics. Let me try again:
I might agree with someone that strawberry ice cream is quite delicious, but what I’m really enthusiastic about is a big bowl of chocolate ice cream. It doesn’t mean that strawberry is bad, or that I disagree that it’s good. It’s just that I get more excited by a bowl of chocolate, and others may get more excited about a bowl of strawberry, and that’s ok.
Like I said, I think many / most Republicans (and Democrats) agree with the sentiment in the Cena video. It wouldn’t surprise me if Democrats were more … enthusiastic about that message than Republicans. As for what makes the sentiments expressed more appealing to Democrats than Republicans (and I’d express it as varying levels of enthusiasm than degrees of appeal), my answer before was differing priorities. I still think it’s a pretty accurate answer.
I have a feeling it had to do with words like gay, bi, trans, and lesbian, and the message of inclusiveness.
I tried Cena’s little thought experiment, and he was right. Of course I should’ve thought to picture the average American as a woman, but I didn’t.
Btw, I liked the video a lot.
If you don’t want to derail it, don’t characterize the positions of Democrats in false and hyper partisan language.
2020 We are awaited in Valhalla! Witness us!
The thing is, diversity in America should not be a “politically-touchy topic”. Diversity in society is an unavoidable fact and should be politically agnostic. But it isn’t, is it? One party clearly prefers to avoid the subject while the other tends to embrace it.
What is it about this subject that makes it more touchy for the Republican side of the political spectrum?
Or, in terms of ice cream analogies, preference for chocolate is not the same thing as sensitivity to strawberry. Would you agree?
One party has a plan of using diversity as a way of smashing their political opponents. That’s just one reason the subject is not politically “agnostic”.
Do you mean to suggest that Democrats are using diversity as a cudgel with which to beat the Republicans? If so, wouldn’t it be a trivial (and politically effective) matter for the Republicans to disarm the Democrats by readily embracing the reality of social diversity?
If this analogy is moving in the direction of Neapolitan, well, that’s just plain wrong.:mad:
How the heck would do I know what was best for Republicans on this matter? That’s what super-intelligent political eggheads are well paid for, and even these super-intelligent political eggheads get it wrong as much as they get it correct. The success of Trump this election suggests Trump’s policy is just about right at this moment in time. However, my main point was simply that there are plenty of reasons why agnosticism shouldn’t be the natural attitude to diversity. The fact that neither Repubs or Dems(both staffed with far more intelligent political operators than you or I) are agnostic in regards to diversity strongly suggests the natural political attitude to diversity is not an agnostic one.