|
Post by slkone on Jan 25, 2019 22:09:43 GMT
Raising my hand. I'm very liberal on social issues and very right-leaning pragmatic on financial and security issues, but the unfiltered HATE coming from the radical left is going to kill this country. I'm curious what you think about the unfiltered HATE coming from the leader of the GOP? Considering he is the most powerful man in the world, I am pretty sure he has way more capability to inflict enough damage to kill this country than any liberals you might be worried about.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Jan 25, 2019 22:39:24 GMT
No one is disputing border security is an issue that need to be addressed. What is being questioned is how is a 10 year construction project going to address any of it? Well, yeah, there is quite the new wave of Democrats who are in fact disputing that border security is an issue to be addressed. (Hence the foot long post.)But since you were somehow able to disregard that part of your post, even as you copied my entire foot long one, I'm going to return the favor and ask you why this construction project was a big talking point for Democrats Obama, Pelosi & Schumer just a few years ago when illegal immigration was hurting our country and had to be addressed with tighter security, including a wall, at our southern border, yet it is now worth $1 funding because President Trump is the POTUS? On a more serious note, the construction of a substantial border will not take an additional 10 years, nor will it be the solid mass that was added as in a comic some pages back. In some areas, it will look like this and as Jim Acosta so readily points out, nothing much is happening where this wall has been built. Jim Acosta standing by the wallAdvocating the abolishment of ICE does not equal advocating for open borders. It is part of the discussion of border security. Trump's wall has evolved from concrete to slats to transparent steel (quite intrigued to see this version). Honestly, I don't think he knows what he wants or what is viable, but he held the country hostage to get 5 billion dollars for it. Today was the first time I heard him say anything about it not following the whole border form Tijuana to the gulf coast. He has already started the walking back of expectations and redefining what he promised because he knows he isn't getting it. If you have looked at the 8 prototypes that were built in San Diego you would see what he wanted was a substantially bigger barrier than what Acosta is standing beside.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 25, 2019 22:47:39 GMT
Ooh, I can play this game. Look! Here's a picture of my family hiking right near the Mexican border. Totally tranquil. Not a rapist or murderer in sight. Also, no wall. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 26, 2019 1:01:41 GMT
No one is disputing border security is an issue that need to be addressed. What is being questioned is how is a 10 year construction project going to address any of it? Well, yeah, there is quite the new wave of Democrats who are in fact disputing that border security is an issue to be addressed. (Hence the foot long post.) But since you were somehow able to disregard that part of your post, even as you copied my entire foot long one, I'm going to return the favor and ask you why this construction project was a big talking point for Democrats Obama, Pelosi & Schumer just a few years ago when illegal immigration was hurting our country and had to be addressed with tighter security, including a wall, at our southern border, yet it is now worth $1 funding because President Trump is the POTUS? On a more serious note, the construction of a substantial border will not take an additional 10 years, nor will it be the solid mass that was added as in a comic some pages back. In some areas, it will look like this and as Jim Acosta so readily points out, nothing much is happening where this wall has been built. Jim Acosta standing by the wallEminent domain lawsuits will tie this up in the courts for years, before construction even begins.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jan 26, 2019 1:29:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 26, 2019 1:32:37 GMT
Maybe someone already addressed this, but if Trump and Republicans want a wall so much, why didn’t they do it when they had the House? Honest question; I don’t know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jan 26, 2019 1:36:14 GMT
Maybe someone already addressed this, but if Trump and Republicans want a wall so much, why didn’t they do it when they had the House? Honest question; I don’t know the answer. I have no answer either. Republicans in Washington have befuddled me more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Jan 26, 2019 1:57:36 GMT
Maybe someone already addressed this, but if Trump and Republicans want a wall so much, why didn’t they do it when they had the House? Honest question; I don’t know the answer. Because it’s like abortion. If they passed legislation to get what they want, they can no longer use it as an issue to campaign on.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 26, 2019 2:03:30 GMT
Well, yeah, there is quite the new wave of Democrats who are in fact disputing that border security is an issue to be addressed. (Hence the foot long post.)But since you were somehow able to disregard that part of your post, even as you copied my entire foot long one, I'm going to return the favor and ask you why this construction project was a big talking point for Democrats Obama, Pelosi & Schumer just a few years ago when illegal immigration was hurting our country and had to be addressed with tighter security, including a wall, at our southern border, yet it is now worth $1 funding because President Trump is the POTUS? On a more serious note, the construction of a substantial border will not take an additional 10 years, nor will it be the solid mass that was added as in a comic some pages back. In some areas, it will look like this and as Jim Acosta so readily points out, nothing much is happening where this wall has been built. Jim Acosta standing by the wall Advocating the abolishment of ICE does not equal advocating for open borders. It is part of the discussion of border security. Trump's wall has evolved from concrete to slats to transparent steel (quite intrigued to see this version). Honestly, I don't think he knows what he wants or what is viable, but he held the country hostage to get 5 billion dollars for it. Today was the first time I heard him say anything about it not following the whole border form Tijuana to the gulf coast. He has already started the walking back of expectations and redefining what he promised because he knows he isn't getting it. If you have looked at the 8 prototypes that were built in San Diego you would see what he wanted was a substantially bigger barrier than what Acosta is standing beside. Exactly. Has he or any of his minions actually done research into a wall, how much it would cost, what the benefit would be, what the unintended consequences may be, etc? I don’t think so.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jan 26, 2019 2:06:21 GMT
Maybe someone already addressed this, but if Trump and Republicans want a wall so much, why didn’t they do it when they had the House? Honest question; I don’t know the answer. My thought is, the majority of Republicans do not want the type of wall Trump promised his base. It's only been VERY recently that Trump has talked about anything other than a cement wall (from sea to "shiny" sea and paid for by Mexico). All his prototypes are cement walls.
The Republicans in the House and Senate have not supported a humongous, butt-ugly cement wall that will disrupt wildlife, water flow, and legitimate economic enterprise, and require forcefully taking private land from American citizens. Additionally, due to the building constraints of the landscape in some places, there will be areas where American land will be left on the south side of a wall. So, the US would essentially be giving land to Mexico.
I think there's a big difference between the Republicans in Congress and Trump's base/fan club on Fox.
|
|
zookeeper
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,909
Aug 28, 2014 2:37:56 GMT
|
Post by zookeeper on Jan 26, 2019 2:09:13 GMT
I sit squarely in the middle. I believe that the two party system in our country will be our demise. I also think that career politicians suck. There should be term limits for Congress and Senate.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jan 26, 2019 2:20:52 GMT
Exactly. Has he or any of his minions actually done research into a wall, how much it would cost, what the benefit would be, what the unintended consequences may be, etc? I don’t think so. You do understand that some kind of physical border barrier has been studied and in progress since Bush was president, don't you? Y'all act like this is some new idea created by Trump. But don't take my word for it. Listen to these politicians speaking in their own words.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jan 26, 2019 2:24:10 GMT
Too bad none of the 40 border patrol agents that have been killed in the line of duty were fortunate enough to patrol in a tranquil spot along the border.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jan 26, 2019 2:31:16 GMT
My thought is, the majority of Republicans do not want the type of wall Trump promised his base. It's only been VERY recently that Trump has talked about anything other than a cement wall (from sea to "shiny" sea and paid for by Mexico). All his prototypes are cement walls.
The Republicans in the House and Senate have not supported a humongous, butt-ugly cement wall that will disrupt wildlife, water flow, and legitimate economic enterprise, and require forcefully taking private land from American citizens. Additionally, due to the building constraints of the landscape in some places, there will be areas where American land will be left on the south side of a wall. So, the US would essentially be giving land to Mexico.
The Republicans in Congress have been sore disappointment and are as equally as responsible for the election of President Trump as the Democrats. While Trump goaded the media with claims he'd make that wall even bigger, I heard time and time again him also give other descriptions even as he was campaigning. The actual physical characteristics do and will vary with the topography of the land and the needs of the area. The steel slats that Jim Acosta was standing right next to are part of the wall. Butterflies can easily pass right through. Water can pass right through. Small animals may be able to pass right through. Acosta certainly didn't act like his view was horribly obscured. To the contrary, he was underwhelmed with its presence even as he was unwittingly describing how well it was working at deterring human trespass. There is a link earlier in the thread in the post with the photo of Jim Acosta that leads to his video he made at the wall and posted at Twitter. Check it out for yourself. We already have part of a border wall with American land to the south of it. You might want to check out the map I linked to above.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jan 26, 2019 2:35:41 GMT
Too bad none of the 40 border patrol agents that have been killed in the line of duty were fortunate enough to patrol in a tranquil spot along the border. Which is it then? The border is dangerous and needs further protection or the border doesn't need better protection for everyone involved, especially those tasked with patrolling it to enforce our laws? I have long been on the side that it has become an extremely dangerous place. BTW, the idea of a wall that is see-thru, therefore the steel slats, is supported by law enforcement in a move toward making it safer for them to guard the border.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 26, 2019 2:49:30 GMT
What National Geographic has to say about the potential consequences of any barrier on the environment.I wonder how conservatives reconcile their concept of property rights with the fact that hundreds of property owners will have their private land taken via eminent domain for this fiasco. I don't really care what prior politicians have said. There are places along the border where a wall is appropriate - to create an orderly entry point at a port of entry, for example, or separating adjacent cities from one another - and places where it is not (remote ranch land in south Texas, where a wall without continual surveillance is easily scaled, sawed through or defeated). We don't need to destroy the environment or seize people's property to make the border safer.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 26, 2019 3:35:15 GMT
I have really thought about how to respond here. If this same exact topic had been posted three years ago, I would have raised my hand as a right leaning pea with no hesitation.
I am no longer a right leaning pea. I don't know what I am exactly. I am not right leaning, or left leaning. I HATE the extremes of both parties. I am middle of the road, I guess. And in this political climate, that is a difficult place to be. I don't really fit in anywhere. I never am sure of what I should post on political threads.
*I have always been for tight immigration laws, but I am definitely against spending billions of $$$ on a wall because I don't think it will solve any of the problems we have with illegal immigrants.
*I am not in favor of socialized medicine, but I do believe we desperately need to find a way to fix our healthcare system.
*I do not believe that people should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. This hits very close to home for me.
*I am pro-choice. NOT "pro-abortion." I hope and pray that none of my children will ever have an abortion, but I also hope and pray that there is never a time when we go back to the days of unsafe abortions.
*The 2016 election was one of only 3 times since I was old enough to vote that I did not vote for a Republican president. (The first time I was of age to vote was when I voted for Reagan). I've never been a registered Republican, but I have rarely voted any other party.
I am so disillusioned now. I did not vote for Trump, but when he won, I told myself that the party would rein him in. Checks and balances, ya know? But that hasn't happened, and I have found myself really disillusioned with the Republican party.
I feel lost politically.
You've said it well!! No one is disputing border security is an issue that need to be addressed. What is being questioned is how is a 10 year construction project going to address any of it? I cannot find the article, but it detailed drones, cameras, equipment to find drugs at the legal border crossings, also manpower, whose numbers are way low....... for far less money then any attempt at a wall, other than some specific areas that have been named. Most people do not think that a wall is needed or necessary to curtail the crossings. Legal ports of entry need the help NOW!
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jan 26, 2019 3:35:59 GMT
Thanks for the common sense Merge We are not saying no walls or borders. We are saying only where they are needed. We are acknowledging reality, and that is that the wall the entire length of our border our idiot President is suggesting will.not.work. the way he claims it will. And oh yeah, how about one that isn’t fairly easy to destroy? Or pass drugs through. Or over. How about we not take people’s land needlessly. How about we not destroy the environment for nothing. It is not worth the money. We are not saying no border security. We are saying better border security. Sensible border security. Border security that also addresses where the majority of our illegal immigrants come from now. Hint: it’s not illegally through the Southern border. Or drugs. Same hint. Well, that’s not true. But the wall won’t address the ways the majority of it comes in. Also, while we are at it. It’d be great if the POTUS would stop demonizing these people that want to make a better life here. It’d be wonderful if he stuck to the truth. And stopped the fear mongering and “othering” people because of their skin color and country of origin. It’s dangerous. It’s wrong. It’s disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 26, 2019 3:39:27 GMT
Thanks for the common sense Merge We are not saying no walls or borders. We are saying only where they are needed. We are acknowledging reality, and that is that the wall the entire length of our border our idiot President is suggesting will.not.work. the way he claims it will. And oh yeah, how about one that isn’t fairly easy to destroy? Or pass drugs through. Or over. How about we not take people’s land needlessly. How about we not destroy the environment for nothing. It is not worth the money. We are not saying no border security. We are saying better border security. Sensible border security. Border security that also addresses where the majority of our illegal immigrants come from now. Hint: it’s not illegally through the Southern border. Or drugs. Same hint. Well, that’s not true. But the wall won’t address the ways the majority of it comes in. Also, while we are at it. It’d be great if the POTUS would stop demonizing these people that want to make a better life here. It’d be wonderful if he stuck to the truth. And stopped the fear mongering and “othering” people because of their skin color and country of origin. It’s dangerous. It’s wrong. It’s disgusting.And stop trying to thwart the legal rights of asylum seekers.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 26, 2019 3:47:12 GMT
Maybe someone already addressed this, but if Trump and Republicans want a wall so much, why didn’t they do it when they had the House? Honest question; I don’t know the answer. Nor do I, but they should have addressed it more than they did and taken action. Also I have thought about it some and as technology advances so quickly there is less need for the wall, even as recently as a few years ago. Death of border agents is a problem as it is with all law enforcement officers. Locally, here, in general they ride 2 to a vehicle in the more dangerous areas and at night. With the border patrol short on officers, I think I read that they often ride alone, NOT so safe, particularly in the very remote areas they travel to. Border security is important and we have 4 borders. I don't think an extended wall is needed. There are so many environmental issues, animal migration issues that need to be addressed before there would be construction... ETA: For far less dollars they could start implementing/purchase the on-ground equipment that is needed NOW!
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Jan 26, 2019 4:45:57 GMT
Too bad none of the 40 border patrol agents that have been killed in the line of duty were fortunate enough to patrol in a tranquil spot along the border. Because I was wondering what the time frame for these 40 deaths was, I went to the USCBP website In Memoriam page of those who died in the Line of Duty. These are the most recent 11 deaths over 7 years, only the last one is really an "in the line of duty" death. 2017 R. Martinez died of critical injuries while on patrol in Texas ( possible he fell in a culvert) I. Morales died of stab wounds received in a bar fight while off duty ( mistrial in murder trial) 2016 D. Gomez died after a heart attack while on bike patrol M. Alvarez died in a dirt bike accident while on duty J. Barraza died in a car accident heading home after work ( slammed into the back of a semi) 2014 T. Robledo died as the result of injuries from a car accident while on duty ( the other driver died at the scene) J. Vega Jr. killed in a robbery attempt while off duty A. Giannini killed in a single vehicle accident while on duty ( vehicle equipment failure may be involved) 2013 D. Windhaus had a heart attack while on duty 2012 D. Delaney collapsed while on foot patrol (suffered a medical emergency) N. Ivie shot while responding to a remote sensor activation - he was killed by another team of agents also responding I'm surprised those dying from heart attacks and vehicular accidents are included in deaths "in the line of duty". Nicholas Ivie was the first one that was what IMHO is a death in the line of duty and sadly if was other agents that killed him.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 26, 2019 7:05:26 GMT
Too bad none of the 40 border patrol agents that have been killed in the line of duty were fortunate enough to patrol in a tranquil spot along the border. Because I was wondering what the time frame for these 40 deaths was, I went to the USCBP website In Memoriam page of those who died in the Line of Duty. These are the most recent 11 deaths over 7 years, only the last one is really an "in the line of duty" death. 2017 R. Martinez died of critical injuries while on patrol in Texas ( possible he fell in a culvert) I. Morales died of stab wounds received in a bar fight while off duty ( mistrial in murder trial) 2016 D. Gomez died after a heart attack while on bike patrol M. Alvarez died in a dirt bike accident while on duty J. Barraza died in a car accident heading home after work ( slammed into the back of a semi) 2014 T. Robledo died as the result of injuries from a car accident while on duty ( the other driver died at the scene) J. Vega Jr. killed in a robbery attempt while off duty A. Giannini killed in a single vehicle accident while on duty ( vehicle equipment failure may be involved) 2013 D. Windhaus had a heart attack while on duty 2012 D. Delaney collapsed while on foot patrol (suffered a medical emergency) N. Ivie shot while responding to a remote sensor activation - he was killed by another team of agents also responding I'm surprised those dying from heart attacks and vehicular accidents are included in deaths "in the line of duty". Nicholas Ivie was the first one that was what IMHO is a death in the line of duty and sadly if was other agents that killed him. Any law enforcement death while on duty that involves physical injury of any sort (shooting, MVA, drowning, fire, falls, etc.) are considered line-of-duty deaths. Also, heart attacks, some cancers, and probably some other physical conditions that occur on- or off-duty are considered duty related and treated as line-of-duty deaths. I don’t know about possibly work-related suicides. I’m surprised the off-duty murders and MVAs are treated as line-of-duty, unless they were related to something involving work ... like the bar fight, was it started by someone who recognized him as a border patrol agent? That could make it line-of-duty. The car accident, if he was driving an agency vehicle, that might do it. Now you might have a good argument to make that the accidents, heart attacks, etc., aren’t related to the lack of a 2,000 mile concrete border wall. The shootings might also have nothing to do with anyone sneaking in across the desert. But I doubt that’s going to stop anyone who wants to use 40 dead border patrol agents as a weapon in the Great Wall wars.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jan 26, 2019 14:13:38 GMT
This is at least the third time I’m specifically asking you this: ideologically, what characterizes the “radical left”? [snip] I consider the radical left to be those who fully embrace socialism. Ocasio-Cortez is a good example. It's worrisome to me because socialism can easily go extreme and quickly turn into communism. I don't want that for my country which is founded on freedom, not force.. Socialism is a political ideology based on the economics of production. Production and distribution of goods is owned by society or the government. While there are different types of socialism (Utopianism, Trotskyism, etc.), you’re implying that whatever brand is being espoused by the [American Left?] [Democratic Party?] has been “fully embraced,” which, based on our current Democratic (federal and state) legislators and voters, beggars belief. We have a capitalist system. Full stop. If by “force” versus “freedom,” you mean citizens having to comply with laws, that societal contract has been built into our country from the beginning. There are just as many Liberals as Conservatives who object to certain legislation. I know I do - increasingly, actually - but that’s grist for another thread. I know very, very little about Ms. Oscasio-Cortez. It does seem like some Conservatives are interested in her every move, which is intriguing, so I’ll have to learn more. I didn’t know that she espouses the dismantling of capitalism/free enterprise. While interesting (because that implies her voters knew that), she is so “freshman,” it’s like she’s still decorating her dorm room. She’s certainly not in the position to hijack American liberalism, just as Rep. Steve King is not going to hijack American Conservatism. But I’ll have to learn more about her beliefs before I agree with whether she’s emblematic of a new American liberalism. This whole “socialism” thing seems to have started with the ACA. I still don’t understand how that legislation is appreciably different than all our other assistance or entitlement programs, but with or without it, we still HAVE those programs, which means we have been socialist since the New Deal. Thank you for answering. I’ve briefly skimmed the rest of the thread and have seen you make some very serious generalizations about the likes of me. I would consider myself squarely Left, but I would also defy any attempt to label me socialist. I try not to apply my feelings about far-Right types (especially when they’re verifiably cuckoo or incendiary) to all Conservatives, so I’m thinking discussion between us could be unsuccessful, but I am curious about the son you’ve described before as as a radical leftist. It could be that he actually does fully embrace socialism and that has affected your perception of all of us. Again, thank you for answering.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jan 26, 2019 15:15:52 GMT
I am pretty sure I annoy both sides here. I'm pretty certain I can piss off people of just about every political philosophy. ideologically, what characterizes the “radical left”? You have not asked me, at least not that I've seen, and probably because I try very hard not to speak in those terms on this board. To me, there is a radically different perspective that is continuing to widen between interpretations of current events from those who identify as liberal/left/typically Democrat and conservative/right/typically Republican. For the life of me, I disagree with the "left" (shorthand for this post) interpretation of even the most basic statements. It's as if the statement I hear as "I like chocolate ice cream," is heard by others as "I want to murder innocent women and children!!!!!!!" (Ice cream chosen here because the last I checked, it was not headline news.) That's a radical difference in what is "heard". The differences in interpretation have become so extreme that we may as well be speaking different languages. If I interpreted what I heard the same way, I'd be similarly outraged. But, I simply do not interpret things the same at all. I'm willing to allow differences of opinion to be given without the need to constantly and publicly denigrate them. The same can not be said in reverse. The incessant debasing of a huge segment of our population brings shame on those who have lost all ability to remain civil and open-minded. When you have school personnel in a meeting to discuss the problems a student is facing and it is acceptable to declare that the parents sat up front at a Trump rally and that explains everything, you have lost all reasonable perspective and have become radically to the left. That this conclusion is not only tolerated but accepted as fact should trouble every single one of us. Yet, it does not. *The above example is from real life, not my own, and not from the news. There are no links. No sources. No Snopes fact checks available. And I don't care. This is the level of discrimination many Americans think is OK. If you don't think it's radical, then substitute the phrase "sat up front at a Trump rally" with "worship in a synagogue" or "are of African heritage" or "speak only Spanish at home" and see if that doesn't challenge you. I responded, AmeliaBloomer , because I like you. I'm having some pretty challenging anxiety right now and I am not up for "discussions" about how wrong I am. (Directed to General You.) Thanks for answering. No, I never asked you. And sorry for your anxiety. I’ve been sporadically MIA here due to some significant changes in our lives, so I hear you. Okay, down to business: 1. I didn’t start wearing a bra until I had my second baby at age 37 (apparently, even B cup breasts can betray a woman), so I have some serious bragging rights here. My SIL bought me this tee-shirt this Christmas. They sent her the black instead of the grey by mistake. When she called, they sent her the grey and told her to keep both! Loud and proud, baby. Might even wear one with my pussy hat. 2. So, if I understand, you’re equating radicalism with being reactionary. Interesting yet confusing. ‘Cause we can’t make a semantic change like that. No, as annoyingly pedantic as I can be, lots of folks would agree nobody can say “Sez YOU!” back to what I just claimed. I shall, of course, explain at greaaaaaaat length. The word “radical,” of course (!), can be be applied to a lot of things, but when it’s paired with “Democrat” or “leftist” (Lordy, I hate that word) or “conservative,” it is explicitly describing political ideology. Political theory. Political parties. Policy platforms. Can we just decide that, instead, it now means, “ Wow, those Democrats, right? They’re getting so radical. Such radical, extreme, rude perspectives. Such unfathomable interpretations. Such radical, disordered listening?” ? Call me rude, extreme, frothing, unwielding, hyperbolic, reactionary, unhinged, myopic, tone deaf. But don’t tell me I’ve become a radical leftist or a socialist or that the Democratic Pary has moved dangerously Left. During Rainbow’s big Neener-Neener-Walkaway campaign here (excuse me: irony alert), I read an article in the Washington Examiner about the march. They quoted a participant who said, “ Liberals have all become so angry. It’s like they’re all becoming socialists.” No. Just no. Anger does not equal socialism. To confuse matters exponentially more, there are people like mom26 who believe American liberals DO now fully embrace socialism, which would lead to a Communist state. How am I supposed to know, when reading the many claims about the Democratic Party lurching dangerously Left, whether they’re saying we’re taking over the factories or that we’ve lost the ability to form rational perspective? Those are radical (heh) differences in interpretation. I’m going to stay away from the topic of whether only liberals can be irrational. That’s in “Don't get me started” territory. I’ll mention, but not “paragraph,” that I do not believe that I, or most liberals I personally know, have over-the-top, reactionary, skewed comprehension or interpretation...perspectives. (Although I do think many of us are in a permanent state of shock, which can trigger hyperbole.) But I WILL indulge the need to add that the interpretation tics from the man in the White House have set a decided public tone. And I believe that his singular perspective has led to a misuse of influence that has been both reckless and dangerous. (And the fact that his own ideology is so UNformed and unINformed and unarticulated - and is centered on his own needs, not society’s - compounds the problem.) tl;dr: Left and Right, Blue and Red, Liberal and Conservative refer to political theory, not rhetorical style. Politically radicalized means politically radicalized. We just can’t co-opt those terms to describe behavior. We just can’t. I won’t have it. Yes, I just stamped my foot. But seriously, I think historical - and current! - movement in political ideology is a fascinating trend-or-accusation and should be given its due... given repeated analysis. So, most of all, I would still love to have a discussion with somebodyanybody here about the ideological trends in the last 50 years in both American political parties. My goal was not to increase your anxiety more than 3%.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 26, 2019 15:26:57 GMT
You’re on fire today, Amelia Bloomer!
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jan 26, 2019 15:44:33 GMT
You’re on fire today, Amelia Bloomer! Heh. Thanks? Sorry? Blame my fiery, unleashed, untethered, unanchored B-cups.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 26, 2019 15:48:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Jan 26, 2019 15:51:55 GMT
*sigh* No, not just from celebrities. And if you aren't hearing it, then it's simply not registering as being wrong to you. Which means you agree with it. Right back at ya! You absolutely refuse—after YOU ASKED—to see the truth that your liberal counterparts have provided. They WERE NOT attacks towards nor were they “hate” as you’ve labeled it. They are real, bonafide facts and a Then you got your panties in a twist and stomped off declaring us deaf—no one has disputed the examples you’ve given, they answered YOUR question with examples in return.
Heed your own advice—“if you’re not hearing it, then it’s simply not registering being wrong to you. Which means you agree with it.”As someone who would be classified as quite liberal, comments like these are a big part of the problem. Mom26 did not get her panties in a twist and did not stomp off. I have read up to this post that I am quoting and she did nothing but state her responses, examples, and opinions and why she has them. Those on the other side refuted them, asked for clarification, requested others examples also, etc, etc. That is completely acceptable and is what discussion is about. However to be a little exasperated and disengage from the conversation, knowing that it is just going to go around and around is by no means getting your panties in a twist and stomping off. And classifying it as such does absolutely nothing to help the divisiveness and in turn looks like maybe you have your panties in a twist also. For full disclosure: I am a liberal, I lean to the left, I am an independent, I am agnostic at best but probably more of an atheist who has no problem with religion, I absolutely can not stand Trump, I am non-confrontational, I am pro choice, I am for gay marriage, I am against discrimination, and I voted for a Republican governor in my state over the democrat, who consequently was the first transgender person running for governor. And not because I was discriminating against her but because I thought her opponent would do a better job.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,658
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Jan 26, 2019 15:58:49 GMT
Right back at ya! You absolutely refuse—after YOU ASKED—to see the truth that your liberal counterparts have provided. They WERE NOT attacks towards nor were they “hate” as you’ve labeled it. They are real, bonafide facts and a Then you got your panties in a twist and stomped off declaring us deaf—no one has disputed the examples you’ve given, they answered YOUR question with examples in return.
Heed your own advice—“if you’re not hearing it, then it’s simply not registering being wrong to you. Which means you agree with it.”As someone who would be classified as quite liberal, comments like these are a big part of the problem. “Mom26 did not get her panties in a twist and did not stomp off. I have read up to this post that I am quoting and she did nothing but state her responses, examples, and opinions and why she has them. Those on the other side refuted them, asked for clarification, requested others examples also, etc, etc. That is completely acceptable and is what discussion is about. However to be a little exasperated and disengage from the conversation, knowing that it is just going to to around and around is by no means getting your panties in a twist and stomping off. And classifying it as such does absolutely nothing to help the divisiveness and in turn looks like maybe you have your panties in a twist also. For full disclosure: I am a liberal, I lean to the left, I am an independent, I am agnostic at best but probably more of an atheist who has no problem with religion, I absolutely can not stand Trump, I am non-confrontational, I am pro choice, I am for gay marriage, I am against discrimination, and I voted for a Republican governor in my state over the democrat, who consequently was the first transgender person running for governor. not because I was discriminating against her but because I thought her opponent would do a better job. That's not what happened. No, she was the one who asked for examples. And then left when she was given them. IOP she did get her panties in a twist and left.
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Jan 26, 2019 16:01:03 GMT
As someone who would be classified as quite liberal, comments like these are a big part of the problem. “Mom26 did not get her panties in a twist and did not stomp off. I have read up to this post that I am quoting and she did nothing but state her responses, examples, and opinions and why she has them. Those on the other side refuted them, asked for clarification, requested others examples also, etc, etc. That is completely acceptable and is what discussion is about. However to be a little exasperated and disengage from the conversation, knowing that it is just going to to around and around is by no means getting your panties in a twist and stomping off. And classifying it as such does absolutely nothing to help the divisiveness and in turn looks like maybe you have your panties in a twist also. For full disclosure: I am a liberal, I lean to the left, I am an independent, I am agnostic at best but probably more of an atheist who has no problem with religion, I absolutely can not stand Trump, I am non-confrontational, I am pro choice, I am for gay marriage, I am against discrimination, and I voted for a Republican governor in my state over the democrat, who consequently was the first transgender person running for governor. not because I was discriminating against her but because I thought her opponent would do a better job. That's not what happened. No, she was the one who asked for examples. And then left when she was given them. IOP she did get her panties in a twist and left. We will agree to disagree.
|
|