|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are.
I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't.
|
On June 25 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." This reminds me of the "the left made me a Nazi" argument. Goes something like "Well they started it" which besides being grossly wrong, is something I thought kids were taught as children doesn't excuse their behavior. There is no middle ground with oppression and exploitation, you're either on the side of the oppressor or the oppressed, the exploiter or exploited. The "middle" in the situation you describe is most certainly an argument in favor of the oppressors.
I can't agree with this at all. There's complexity and difficulty, and it is never as simple as taking a side, or you wouldn't have all the infighting on the left.
There's plenty of middle ground, there just isn't really any neutral ground, if you know what I mean. There's massive variety among confirmed allies as to what methods to use in political campaigning, which issues are most important, reform vs revolution etc.
I would describe myself as occupying middle ground - in that I'm fully supportive of the oppressed and their right to make themselves heard and make others listen - but I have disagreements about how this usually ends up being done.
Simplifying it down to 'with us or against us' pretty much pushes people who would be your allies away. It feeds a growing scene of 'liberal' communities online that end up going to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson because they cast a wider net and allow for more differences in opinion, and from there its only a short step to alt-right 4chan insanity.
|
United States43430 Posts
On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen."
Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money...
|
United States24752 Posts
On June 25 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are. I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't.
I kind of see how my position is defending oppressors. On the other hand, I don't default to defending oppressors is bad. For example, I may stop you from burning a group of oppressors to death (defend oppressors), then have them all thrown in prison for life shortly after (a better alternative to gruesomely burning them to death in a civilized world). The current discussion is less extreme, but my concern is that this is the wrong way to protest. Don't protest in a way that will ultimately hurt both sides of the issue equally. It's noble but not very effective.
On June 25 2018 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money...
Segregation was bad when it was about race. I think it will be bad if it's about which of the two major parties you belong to as well, even if it's not necessarily formally enforced by the government*.
* there is already some, but more wouldn't be better.
|
On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen."
Pray tell, do you have an alternative suggestion? One that will be both effective and somehow magically not be more ammunition for fox bullshit cannon? Because I don't think it exists.
|
On June 25 2018 09:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are. I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't. I kind of see how my position is defending oppressors. On the other hand, I don't default to defending oppressors is bad. For example, I may stop you from burning a group of oppressors to death (defend oppressors), then have them all thrown in prison for life shortly after (a better alternative to gruesomely burning them to death in a civilized world). The current discussion is less extreme, but my concern is that this is the wrong way to protest. Don't protest in a way that will ultimately hurt both sides of the issue equally. It's noble but not very effective. Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:35 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money... Segregation was bad when it was about race. I think it will be bad if it's about which of the two major parties you belong to as well.
I mean I understand your argument, it's just not new. It's what is said by the "reasonable people in the middle" every time oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, and every time it's an argument that empowers the oppressors.
On June 25 2018 09:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." This reminds me of the "the left made me a Nazi" argument. Goes something like "Well they started it" which besides being grossly wrong, is something I thought kids were taught as children doesn't excuse their behavior. There is no middle ground with oppression and exploitation, you're either on the side of the oppressor or the oppressed, the exploiter or exploited. The "middle" in the situation you describe is most certainly an argument in favor of the oppressors. I can't agree with this at all. There's complexity and difficulty, and it is never as simple as taking a side, or you wouldn't have all the infighting on the left. There's plenty of middle ground, there just isn't really any neutral ground, if you know what I mean. There's massive variety among confirmed allies as to what methods to use in political campaigning, which issues are most important, reform vs revolution etc. I would describe myself as occupying middle ground - in that I'm fully supportive of the oppressed and their right to make themselves heard and make others listen - but I have disagreements about how this usually ends up being done. Simplifying it down to 'with us or against us' pretty much pushes people who would be your allies away. It feeds a growing scene of 'liberal' communities online that end up going to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson because they cast a wider net and allow for more differences in opinion, and from there its only a short step to alt-right 4chan insanity.
"Middle ground" and "Fully supporting oppressed people" are mutually exclusive. If confronting that sends someone to Jordan and Sam they weren't where they thought they were in the first place.
|
United States24752 Posts
On June 25 2018 09:42 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Pray tell, do you have an alternative suggestion? One that will be both effective and somehow magically not be more ammunition for fox bullshit cannon? Because I don't think it exists.
A suggestion for what? What is the actual objective here? I don't think it's been established.
Also, nothing any of us do will be exempt from being fox bullshit cannon ammunition, but that's a separate matter.
On June 25 2018 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:40 micronesia wrote:On June 25 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are. I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't. I kind of see how my position is defending oppressors. On the other hand, I don't default to defending oppressors is bad. For example, I may stop you from burning a group of oppressors to death (defend oppressors), then have them all thrown in prison for life shortly after (a better alternative to gruesomely burning them to death in a civilized world). The current discussion is less extreme, but my concern is that this is the wrong way to protest. Don't protest in a way that will ultimately hurt both sides of the issue equally. It's noble but not very effective. On June 25 2018 09:35 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money... Segregation was bad when it was about race. I think it will be bad if it's about which of the two major parties you belong to as well. I mean I understand your argument, it's just not new. It's what is said by the "reasonable people in the middle" every time oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, and every time it's an argument that empowers the oppressors.
Would you disagree with or condemn someone from this thread who generally disagrees with the Republican party going around and murdering every 'oppressor' currently in power, if they somehow were skilled enough to do it? Serious question.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Seeing as there's discussion around what took place at The Red Hen, I thought this article about it which looks briefly at the ethics from the perspective of a former director would be interesting. It mostly recaps the situation and has several statements from said director:
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’s tweet about a Virginia restaurant which refused to serve her is in violation of U.S. ethics laws, according to a the former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4293875/sarah-sanders-ethics-red-hen-restaurant/
Definitely an interesting situation, but with that baker story and the ruling as well as the fact that it's a private business and the owner respectfully asked her to leave on a non racist grounds, I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to do. I would be hard pressed to serve her or anyone who's directly involved if I had a restaurant.
|
United States43430 Posts
On June 25 2018 09:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are. I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't. I kind of see how my position is defending oppressors. On the other hand, I don't default to defending oppressors is bad. For example, I may stop you from burning a group of oppressors to death (defend oppressors), then have them all thrown in prison for life shortly after (a better alternative to gruesomely burning them to death in a civilized world). The current discussion is less extreme, but my concern is that this is the wrong way to protest. Don't protest in a way that will ultimately hurt both sides of the issue equally. It's noble but not very effective. Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:35 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money... Segregation was bad when it was about race. I think it will be bad if it's about which of the two major parties you belong to as well, even if it's not necessarily formally enforced by the government*. * there is already some, but more wouldn't be better.
Treating people differently based on their actions is not the same thing as segregation. If racists want racial segregation and I don't want to hang out with racists we're not both supporters of segregation.
This is some grade A "intolerance of intolerance is intolerant" shit. The sooner conservatives lose their privileged position in society the better, and I have no sympathy for their tears at each increment towards equality. These morons genuinely believe that they're the moral equivalent of the Little Rock Nine, while espousing the same beliefs as those who assaulted them. Fuck them.
|
On June 25 2018 09:45 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:42 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Pray tell, do you have an alternative suggestion? One that will be both effective and somehow magically not be more ammunition for fox bullshit cannon? Because I don't think it exists. A suggestion for what? What is the actual objective here? I don't think it's been established. Also, nothing any of us do will be exempt from being fox bullshit cannon ammunition, but that's a separate matter.
Preventing the sort of obviously racist, authoritarian nonsense Trump is pushing from being seen as normal and acceptable would be a first objective. The message that you can't actually just screw with society however you like without consequences is communicated pretty loud and clear by this action, and I struggle to believe anything less extreme is going to have nearly the same efficacy.
|
United States24752 Posts
On June 25 2018 09:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:40 micronesia wrote:On June 25 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are. I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't. I kind of see how my position is defending oppressors. On the other hand, I don't default to defending oppressors is bad. For example, I may stop you from burning a group of oppressors to death (defend oppressors), then have them all thrown in prison for life shortly after (a better alternative to gruesomely burning them to death in a civilized world). The current discussion is less extreme, but my concern is that this is the wrong way to protest. Don't protest in a way that will ultimately hurt both sides of the issue equally. It's noble but not very effective. On June 25 2018 09:35 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money... Segregation was bad when it was about race. I think it will be bad if it's about which of the two major parties you belong to as well, even if it's not necessarily formally enforced by the government*. * there is already some, but more wouldn't be better. Treating people differently based on their actions is not the same thing as segregation. If racists want racial segregation and I don't want to hang out with racists we're not both supporters of segregation. Note that I'm not talking about segregation according to our actions, I'm talking about segregation by political alignment, because ultimately that's what would happen. It would devolve into right vs left or some similar dichotomy, and the original 'actions' would get lost entirely by at least half of the population.
This is some grade A "intolerance of intolerance is intolerant" shit. The sooner conservatives lose their privileged position in society the better, and I have no sympathy for their tears at each increment towards equality. These morons genuinely believe that they're the moral equivalent of the Little Rock Nine, while espousing the same beliefs as those who assaulted them. Fuck them.
I have no problem with this position.
|
On June 25 2018 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:40 micronesia wrote:On June 25 2018 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:25 micronesia wrote:
You should understand I'm not trying to defend the right on this issue. I just think they won't understand why the situation is different in the future, regardless of how justified the current protesters actually are. I'm just pointing out those in the "middle" saying "I knew this would happen" are making an argument for the oppressors. If you don't intend to make an argument in favor of the oppressors, then don't. I kind of see how my position is defending oppressors. On the other hand, I don't default to defending oppressors is bad. For example, I may stop you from burning a group of oppressors to death (defend oppressors), then have them all thrown in prison for life shortly after (a better alternative to gruesomely burning them to death in a civilized world). The current discussion is less extreme, but my concern is that this is the wrong way to protest. Don't protest in a way that will ultimately hurt both sides of the issue equally. It's noble but not very effective. On June 25 2018 09:35 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." Oh no, the conservative assholes might not let us give them our money... Segregation was bad when it was about race. I think it will be bad if it's about which of the two major parties you belong to as well. I mean I understand your argument, it's just not new. It's what is said by the "reasonable people in the middle" every time oppressed people rise up against their oppressors, and every time it's an argument that empowers the oppressors. Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 09:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 25 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen." This reminds me of the "the left made me a Nazi" argument. Goes something like "Well they started it" which besides being grossly wrong, is something I thought kids were taught as children doesn't excuse their behavior. There is no middle ground with oppression and exploitation, you're either on the side of the oppressor or the oppressed, the exploiter or exploited. The "middle" in the situation you describe is most certainly an argument in favor of the oppressors. I can't agree with this at all. There's complexity and difficulty, and it is never as simple as taking a side, or you wouldn't have all the infighting on the left. There's plenty of middle ground, there just isn't really any neutral ground, if you know what I mean. There's massive variety among confirmed allies as to what methods to use in political campaigning, which issues are most important, reform vs revolution etc. I would describe myself as occupying middle ground - in that I'm fully supportive of the oppressed and their right to make themselves heard and make others listen - but I have disagreements about how this usually ends up being done. Simplifying it down to 'with us or against us' pretty much pushes people who would be your allies away. It feeds a growing scene of 'liberal' communities online that end up going to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson because they cast a wider net and allow for more differences in opinion, and from there its only a short step to alt-right 4chan insanity. "Middle ground" and "Fully supporting oppressed people" are mutually exclusive. If confronting that sends someone to Jordan and Sam they weren't where they thought they were in the first place.
I never said they were mutually exclusive.
Let's go through a hypothetical situation (don't read anything into this - its the first example that comes to mind)
An ethnic minority group is being horrendously oppressed by the police. They have huge support all throughout the country. One day, a particular incident leads to huge upset, which leads to protests, rioting and general disorder. They retain my support. The next day, the rioting continues,at which several police officers are kidnapped. I'm freaking out now- but I'm still on their side. The next day they execute their hostages. That's too far for me. Am I now taking the side of the oppressors?
Moral certainty shouldn't survive in this kind of extreme context. Unconditional support of any group of people is a terrible idea because we have all seen what humans are capable of doing with it.
As for people not being where they thought they were in the first place - you assume that thought processes, political opinions and moral concerns are devoid of context and take no notice of group allegiance. This is untrue. If you are bullied, harassed and generally mistreated by a group for not supporting something bad that they did, you will probably change your opinions about that where you stand in relation to that group.
|
On June 25 2018 09:18 micronesia wrote:
Be careful what you wish for everyone. A few years in the future when, perhaps, when Democrats control much of the government, and many conservative Americans are unhappy with the state of politics, there may be a sudden push for any establishment operated by a conservative to never serve representatives of the government. The conservative pundits will say "this is exactly how the previous administration was treated," the liberal pundits will say, "that was different, our party isn't being evil!" and people in the middle will sigh and say, "I knew this would happen."
so?
I mean, I agree that's a foreseeable possibility;
but that doesn't change the validity of the various justifications.
and the people in the middle should (and hopefully will) know enough to see that it's not an equivalent situation.
|
On June 25 2018 09:49 BigFan wrote:Seeing as there's discussion around what took place at The Red Hen, I thought this article about it which looks briefly at the ethics from the perspective of a former director would be interesting. It mostly recaps the situation and has several statements from said director: Show nested quote +White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’s tweet about a Virginia restaurant which refused to serve her is in violation of U.S. ethics laws, according to a the former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. https://globalnews.ca/news/4293875/sarah-sanders-ethics-red-hen-restaurant/Definitely an interesting situation, but with that baker story and the ruling as well as the fact that it's a private business and the owner respectfully asked her to leave on a non racist grounds, I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to do. I would be hard pressed to serve her or anyone who's directly involved if I had a restaurant.
It's perfectly reasonable for the Press Secretary to provide her side of the story after the owners have gone all over the media detailing their heroic deeds and receiving accolades from the left. She did not tweet before the owner. I call open game on correcting the record.
|
There essentially is no middle right now, and there wasn't really one before hand. It's sort of the same thing as "RINO". It's almost always a way for people to disavow their politics instead of owning it. You're "in the middle" on Trump? K. I totally believe you, mister reasonable person. You're a good guy. Not a fucking idiot, who voted for a monster.
I agree that dichotomy is bad and simplistic as it gets. But the last thing I'm interested in is "fair and balanced" solutions. The solution is to destroy the Republican party, which destroys the whole dichotomy right there. The Democrats should splinter, and Republicans find new homes among the remnant, maybe, hopefully, God-willing, having begrudgingly learned something from their decades of being absolutely shitty.
Don't get me wrong, that's not what will happen. People are going to desperately want the old status-quo. Republicans need to be Republicans, and likewise Democrats. Republicans will spend the next few election cycles playing the ol' "Trump was a RINO" game, and maybe succeed in getting back what they lost from Trump. Democrats will spend the next elections patting themselves on the back for having done nothing really wrong (or anything really right). And that will sadly return us to the old routine until the Republicans manage to elect their next sadist.
|
Alternatively, move the democratic party to the left so that the republican party has room to be to the right on issues without having to be insane.
|
The underlying problem to Trump is the last few decades the Republicans have become a propagandist cult.
Where did Trump come from? Trump is the symptom.
If you're not talking about fixing the Republican Party, if you're talking about "the middle ground", you're not being real.
|
The republican party isn't going to get fixed, because from its point of view it isn't broken. Its goal is to side with its donors no matter what and distract you with nonsense and propaganda while it does it. It's been doing all of that just fine, it only requires intellectual bankruptcy, there is plenty of that to go around.
It's clear that you're going to need a few things along the way to deal with bad actors (fairness doctrine would have been helpful there, just sayin), but in the end the most effective tool to move opinions has always been the Overton window.
|
United States24752 Posts
On June 25 2018 10:46 Leporello wrote:
The underlying problem to Trump is the last few decades the Republicans have become a propagandist cult.
Where did Trump come from? Trump is the symptom.
If you're not talking about fixing the Republican Party, if you're talking about "the middle ground", you're not being real.
I'm a little confused. The only person who recently mentioned the middle (other than GH responding) was me, and I was not referring to being in the middle on the behavior of Trump and his current political party. I was referring to being in the middle, generally, on political issues (not the ones that are currently being described as oppressive, and not all conservative viewpoints are necessarily oppressive when compared to liberal viewpoints). Where are you bringing up this hypothetical of people saying they are neither supportive of or against Trump's atrocious shenanigans and that of his ilk?
|
United States43430 Posts
Only with Fox News can you have Trump saying something crazy, Fox News taking the quote and using it in statement form as their banner headline to discuss Trump saying the thing, at which point Trump cites Fox News as his source for the insane and obviously untrue thing he said, creating a perfect loop.
It's state propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
