Asymmetry in political thinking

[chucky2]

You are a lost fucking cause. If everyone in the world agrees how borders should be "respected and enforced" then why is there such a disagreement about what should be done with illegal immigrants?

And again setting new levels. Soon you'll be at DominionPony level. You have completely conflated the concept of borders and enforcement of those borders with dealing with illegal immigrants in country - that is what you meant by "disagreement about what should be done with illegal immigrants", is it not?

Hmmm? No, like every other fucking conservative you think the way you view it is the ONLY right way to view it. It's just common sense, right? Anyone who disagrees must be stupid, right?

Congrats. You now are at Pony level retardation. Danger. The next step is advocating that people need training to pick trash up off the ground. You're not at that level yet, but, you are approaching it.

 

[fskimospy]

Are civil rights up for debate? Is there a compromise to be had? Or should they be the rights of all, regardless of race, religion, and orientation?

Does that make Democrats ideologues, uninterested in compromise?

You realize that this doesn't hold true for all topics and at all times, right? It is a general posture, and I have to say that after the responses in this thread the characterization seems pretty accurate.

 

[BoberFett]

You realize that this doesn't hold true for all topics and at all times, right? It is a general posture, and I have to say that after the responses in this thread the characterization seems pretty accurate.

The premise of the thread was that Democrats compromise while Republicans are uncompromising ideologues. Now you're saying that it depends on the topic. Doesn't that invalidate your original premise?

 

[dank69]

And again setting new levels. Soon you'll be at DominionPony level. You have completely conflated the concept of borders and enforcement of those borders with dealing with illegal immigrants in country - that is what you meant by "disagreement about what should be done with illegal immigrants", is it not?



Congrats. You now are at Pony level retardation. Danger. The next step is advocating that people need training to pick trash up off the ground. You're not at that level yet, but, you are approaching it.

Some people advocate shoot on sight policy with respect to illegal border crossing. Some people advocate imprisonment/deportation. These are different ideologies and just on the conservative side of the fence. You are painfully stupid. Do us all a favor and stop posting until you learn how to think.

 

[ElFenix]

The premise of the thread was that Democrats compromise while Republicans are uncompromising ideologues. Now you're saying that it depends on the topic. Doesn't that invalidate your original premise?

i think you've read absolutes into the OP that aren't there.

 

[fskimospy]

The premise of the thread was that Democrats compromise while Republicans are uncompromising ideologues. Now you're saying that it depends on the topic. Doesn't that invalidate your original premise?

No, not at all? I don't see how it could reasonably be taken to mean that Democrats always compromise on all things and Republicans never compromise on anything.

It meant that Democrats prize results more and Republicans prize ideological purity more, making Republicans much less likely to compromise.

 

[dank69]

The premise of the thread was that Democrats compromise while Republicans are uncompromising ideologues. Now you're saying that it depends on the topic. Doesn't that invalidate your original premise?

The premise is that Democrats are much more willing to compromise than Republicans. To simpletons, that becomes "Democrats always compromise and Republicans never compromise." Then the simpleton can find an example where a Democrat will not compromise and declare victory!

 

[BoberFett]

No, not at all? I don't see how it could reasonably be taken to mean that Democrats always compromise on all things and Republicans never compromise on anything.

It meant that Democrats prize results more and Republicans prize ideological purity more, making Republicans much less likely to compromise...

...depending on the topic.

So basically, we've arrived at the conclusion that sometimes when people disagree, one side is willing to compromise and the other side is not.

So what exactly about this is new? It sounds like both sides are the same to me... depending on the topic.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The premise is that Democrats are much more willing to compromise than Republicans. To simpletons, that becomes "Democrats always compromise and Republicans never compromise." Then the simpleton can find an example where a Democrat will not compromise and declare victory!

Which would be the ideological view of it.

 

[fskimospy]

...depending on the topic.

So basically, we've arrived at the conclusion that sometimes when people disagree, one side is willing to compromise and the other side is not.

So what exactly about this is new? It sounds like both sides are the same to me... depending on the topic.

No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that Democrats are willing to compromise on many more topics and to a much greater degree. Just because both sides may have issues where they will not compromise does not mean the number of those issues are the same, nor does it mean that the level of acceptable compromise is the same.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that Democrats are willing to compromise on many more topics and to a much greater degree. Just because both sides may have issues where they will not compromise does not mean the number of those issues are the same, nor does it mean that the level of acceptable compromise is the same.

Bu, bu, but, how else do you get to be the grand objective poobahh and declare both sides as being equally bad while sitting ones ass on the collective fence.

 

[momeNt]

I look at liberals and conservatives as only one ideology. Government ideology. The rest is just details.

 

[BoberFett]

No, that's not the conclusion. The conclusion is that Democrats are willing to compromise on many more topics and to a much greater degree. Just because both sides may have issues where they will not compromise does not mean the number of those issues are the same, nor does it mean that the level of acceptable compromise is the same.

But unless you're prepared to go down the list and declare which categories are acceptable for ideology and which are not, then you've learned nothing. If you agree that sometimes it's understandable to hold fast to ideology, then are you really arguing that there's an objectively acceptable number of categories in which it's acceptable to be uncompromising, and anything over that number is obstructionism? Because that's the way Democrats in this thread seem to want to look at it.

"Sure we're ideologically pure sometimes, but not as often as Republicans, so they're the bad guys."

 

[BoberFett]

Bu, bu, but, how else do you get to be the grand objective poobahh and declare both sides as being equally bad while sitting ones ass on the collective fence.

Having your head up your ass is not much of an improvement, shit-for-brains.

 

[fskimospy]

But unless you're prepared to go down the list and declare which categories are acceptable for ideology and which are not, then you've learned nothing. If you agree that sometimes it's understandable to hold fast to ideology, then are you really arguing that there's an objectively acceptable number of categories in which it's acceptable to be uncompromising, and anything over that number is obstructionism? Because that's the way Democrats in this thread seem to want to look at it.

"Sure we're ideologically pure sometimes, but not as often as Republicans, so they're the bad guys."

There's no need to go down any list and label any categories. I also made no value judgments as to what behavior is acceptable or not or under what conditions holding fast to ideology is 'good', we're just talking about relative willingness.

I view a broad commitment to compromise as a virtue necessary for the effective functioning of government, and the extent of Republicans' unwillingness to engage in compromise is harmful to our country.

EDIT: This seems very much like an attempt to hammer the square peg of 'both parties are equally bad' into this round hole.

 

[chucky2]

Some people advocate shoot on sight policy with respect to illegal border crossing. Some people advocate imprisonment/deportation. These are different ideologies and just on the conservative side of the fence. You are painfully stupid. Do us all a favor and stop posting until you learn how to think.

So what? Some people think people on welfare should be able to buy Pepsi and Cheetos with taxpayer dollars. The point, which you've ran yourself all up into a fit doing your best to not understand, is that from an illegal invasion perspective, Righties are starting from the point of, We have borders, borders exist for a reason, they need to be respected. Then we go from there. That "ideology" is the basic understanding that every other country has. It's not some off the wall xenophobic KKK way of thinking, it's the common understanding of modern borders.

You are conflating the understanding of what a border is, and more importantly means, with what do to when someone illegally crosses it. I've been very careful not to advocate shooting people on sight, bombing them, etc. We can have a real debate on exactly the best means to secure the border, I don't think any rational minded Rightie has a problem doing that. The problem though is somehow you are moving from the need to secure the border to "shoot on sight policy" to "imprisonment/deportation". We're not even to that point in the discussion though. The How to can't be arrived at until the What's the problem is defined and agreed upon. Someone would literally have to be batshit insane to not secure the border first before talking about any other thing like Amnesty 2.0, etc. etc. What do Righties base this on? How Amnesty 1.0 turned out.

And there is the rub: In this thread we can't even get to that agreement. We've got one person who refuses to even entertain addressing the primary issue, we've got another person who wants to negate the primary issue, despite all evidence (Amnesty 1.0) that flies in the face of doing that, and now we've got you going on a whine fest about "ideologues" wanting to shoot people.

You are entirely right on this point eski: This thread is a great example...just not in the way you were thinking...

 

[Vic]

I'll get around to reading the OP, but I also recommend this $2 ebook: The Three languages of politics. You can find more media on Kling's thoughts if you google for it.

tl;dr-
Progressives think in terms of oppressors vs oppressed
Conservatives think in terms of civilization vs barbarism
Libertarians think in terms of coercion vs freedom

/thread

 

[momeNt]

There's no need to go down any list and label any categories. I also made no value judgments as to what behavior is acceptable or not or under what conditions holding fast to ideology is 'good', we're just talking about relative willingness.

I view a broad commitment to compromise as a virtue necessary for the effective functioning of government, and the extent of Republicans' unwillingness to engage in compromise is harmful to our country.

EDIT: This seems very much like an attempt to hammer the square peg of 'both parties are equally bad' into this round hole.

This is how I see the article, maybe you can provide your thoughts on my view.

The democratic party as a whole appears compromising, because the platform caters to a broad base of individuals with specific needs. The individuals themselves are uncompromising when it comes to their specific concern. But are compromising on a whole because many things don't involve their specific interest.

The republican party as a whole appears uncompromising, because the platform caters to individuals with a very broad need (small government). the individuals themselves are uncompromising because essentially everything interferes in one way or another with their specific concern.

So essentially democrats think mostly about their own specific needs, and find a party that caters to them, and republicans have a broad, and therefore ideological need for small government, and not necessarily anything specific, and their party caters to that need.

Are the people themselves compromising or not? I'm not really sure, and I don't think any paper should even bother trying to answer that. But when you look at an entire party platform, I think you can safely say yes.

Are democrats just more focused on things that directly impact them?

 

[BoberFett]

There's no need to go down any list and label any categories. I also made no value judgments as to what behavior is acceptable or not or under what conditions holding fast to ideology is 'good', we're just talking about relative willingness.

I view a broad commitment to compromise as a virtue necessary for the effective functioning of government, and the extent of Republicans' unwillingness to engage in compromise is harmful to our country.

EDIT: This seems very much like an attempt to hammer the square peg of 'both parties are equally bad' into this round hole.

You're right, that's what it is. Politics, team sport that it is, seems to be all about painting the other team(s) in the worst possible light. In this forum that manifests itself as repeated Moonbeam threads about brain defects, or in this case a discussion of willingness to compromise. I don't necessarily blame you, in this case you were just presenting the information in what started out as a fairly non-biased OP, and others quickly jumped on the "Republicans bad" meme.

However even in this quote, you're choosing a side and saying that Republicans are harmful to the country because they won't compromise, despite the fact that we've now established that both teams refuse to compromise... depending on the topic. If unwillingness to compromise is harmful, then are not the Democrats also harmful?

 

[BoberFett]

This is how I see the article, maybe you can provide your thoughts on my view.

The democratic party as a whole appears compromising, because the platform caters to a broad base of individuals with specific needs. The individuals themselves are uncompromising when it comes to their specific concern. But are compromising on a whole because many things don't involve their specific interest.

The republican party as a whole appears uncompromising, because the platform caters to individuals with a very broad need (small government). the individuals themselves are uncompromising because essentially everything interferes in one way or another with their specific concern.

So essentially democrats think mostly about their own specific needs, and find a party that caters to them, and republicans have a broad, and therefore ideological need for small government, and not necessarily anything specific, and their party caters to that need.

Are the people themselves compromising or not? I'm not really sure, and I don't think any paper should even bother trying to answer that. But when you look at an entire party platform, I think you can safely say yes.

Are democrats just more focused on things that directly impact them?

Normally I believe you're just trolling, but this is actually an insightful post.

 

[hal2kilo]

Having your head up your ass is not much of an improvement, shit-for-brains.

I find it facinating how getting an insult from you seems like a complement. At least with you I don't feel singled out.:wub:

 

[BoberFett]

I find it facinating how getting an insult from you seems like a complement. At least with you I don't feel singled out.:wub:

Happy to oblige, sweetie.

 

[fskimospy]

You're right, that's what it is. Politics, team sport that it is, seems to be all about painting the other team(s) in the worst possible light. In this forum that manifests itself as repeated Moonbeam threads about brain defects, or in this case a discussion of willingness to compromise. I don't necessarily blame you, in this case you were just presenting the information in what started out as a fairly non-biased OP, and others quickly jumped on the "Republicans bad" meme.

However even in this quote, you're choosing a side and saying that Republicans are harmful to the country because they won't compromise, despite the fact that we've now established that both teams refuse to compromise... depending on the topic. If unwillingness to compromise is harmful, then are not the Democrats also harmful?

Yes, both sides sometimes resist compromise. As I've already said, this is not equal. While being uncompromising is generally a bad thing, the gap between the parties is so huge on this (as demonstrated in both that study and this thread) that pretending they are both equal is a damaging fiction.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yes, they're immigrants. Each and every one here illegally is an illegal immigrant. Individually, they're illegal immigrants. If in a country of 300M people you had 10k illegal immigrants, you'd have some illegal immigrants in your country. If in a country you have tens of millions of illegal immigrants, and then on top of that all the offspring they've produced and will continue to produce (which conveniently doesn't get counted in the illegal numbers, because they are US citizens), you don't have 'some illegal immigrants in your country', you have been invaded. Or to make it more simple: If one USSR soldier during the cold war swims across the ocean and ends up in Alaska, you have someone here improperly. When Millions of USSR soldiers make their way into Alaska, you have an invasion. I'm hoping you can understand the difference here.

Ahh, the good old conservative racist ideology.

Military force != peaceful government, numbskull.
Soldiers, with weapons, using said weapons to create a power differential with which to force compliance is not the same as a demographic shift within a democracy.

Your problem is you see "America" as "White, English-speaking." But guess what? If that Russian settles down, gets a job, and wants to pay his taxes, his participation in the American government that is over him is not "unamerican."
The American ideal has no ethnic boundaries. Joining the process does not destroy it.
You are afraid of your white hegemony being overturned. I suggest you find yourself a new country, because what you want isn't America.

 

[dank69]

Normally I believe you're just trolling, but this is actually an insightful post.

Which part of the post is insightful? The parts where he equates Republicans with small government?