Conservatives still cannot admit that Donny is

[Jaskalas]

Forum is dehumanizing half the country... and asking what to do. Well, if you didn't already arrive at your own final solution then the obvious answer is to look for and reach out to commonalities. Healthcare is a huge one that Republicans are poised to ruin for everyone. It needs a bold plan of action, distinct from the crap we've been served before. Build on policy.

 

[Balt]

Meh, at least Obama tried to keep his base alive, literally.

He also tried to keep Trump's base alive, amusingly enough. Unemployed old white people in Kentucky/West Virginia/etc. were never likely to vote for him or whoever his successor was.

That's gratitude for ya.

 

[ivwshane]

Forum is dehumanizing half the country... and asking what to do. Well, if you didn't already arrive at your own final solution then the obvious answer is to look for and reach out to commonalities. Healthcare is a huge one that Republicans are poised to ruin for everyone. It needs a bold plan of action, distinct from the crap we've been served before. Build on policy.

I have to ask, what person/group led you to question your beliefs and how did they do it?

 

[Jaskalas]

I have to ask, what person/group led you to question your beliefs and how did they do it?

Beyond the Mea Culpa explanation?

Our usual rancor may not allow it to appear as such, but I do process what people have to say. The beginning was around 2006 where the Iraq war and other positions soured Bush for me. I did not abandon my principles, I just decided particular people and their agendas did not align with my own. Generally speaking that took someone on my side of the partisan firewall to speak the truth of it.

It was not a switching of sides so much as it was dropping one. Not forgiving or adopting the other side but demanding better of "my own". From there I generally saw a third party as best representing me. Policy, not party, became the test for whether I'd endorse someone.

You know we've been battling over economic details since at least the crash of 2008, and the basis of my positions proven... lacking. Stimulus worked, etc. There are basic principles for how economies work that laissez faire economics simply fail to address. In conjunction with that I became increasingly aware of our pending future with automation. It demands a certain approach for how to handle it. A seed of doubt had settled in.

Then there's the speaker of an undeniable truth... Robert Reich in Inequality For All was linked here at P&N, his full video was on youtube before it was pulled down behind a paywall. I watched it and then replied, stunned, on Oct 1st, 2015. I have not heard a better, more compelling, economic argument. Certainly no competing theory. That message of where America has been, its prior greatness, and the economic changes in labor and employment gave insight to changes in our country that my baby boomer parents spoke of. They attached the Reagan, Republican, dogma to it... but here was a man that cut it down to its core.

Reich gave a different and more compelling argument. I am open for others to give competing economic theories... but I'm still waiting. I wonder if one even exists. Regardless, it was that day that solidly pushed me in a direction.

 

[ivwshane]

Beyond the Mea Culpa explanation?

Our usual rancor may not allow it to appear as such, but I do process what people have to say. The beginning was around 2006 where the Iraq war and other positions soured Bush for me. I did not abandon my principles, I just decided particular people and their agendas did not align with my own. Generally speaking that took someone on my side of the partisan firewall to speak the truth of it.

It was not a switching of sides so much as it was dropping one. Not forgiving or adopting the other side but demanding better of "my own". From there I generally saw a third party as best representing me. Policy, not party, became the test for whether I'd endorse someone.

You know we've been battling over economic details since at least the crash of 2008, and the basis of my positions proven... lacking. Stimulus worked, etc. There are basic principles for how economies work that laissez faire economics simply fail to address. In conjunction with that I became increasingly aware of our pending future with automation. It demands a certain approach for how to handle it. A seed of doubt had settled in.

Then there's the speaker of an undeniable truth... Robert Reich in Inequality For All was linked here at P&N, his full video was on youtube before it was pulled down behind a paywall. I watched it and then replied, stunned, on Oct 1st, 2015. I have not heard a better, more compelling, economic argument. Certainly no competing theory. That message of where America has been, its prior greatness, and the economic changes in labor and employment gave insight to changes in our country that my baby boomer parents spoke of. They attached the Reagan, Republican, dogma to it... but here was a man that cut it down to its core.

Reich gave a different and more compelling argument. I am open for others to give competing economic theories... but I'm still waiting. I wonder if one even exists. Regardless, it was that day that solidly pushed me in a direction.

The bolded, in particular, is what I am interested in. Who was this? Or how did that happen? Do you recall the specifics?


I appreciate your willingness to be open about this, I really do, as I find this transformation in people to be fascinating.

 

[Jaskalas]

The bolded, in particular, is what I am interested in. Who was this? Or how did that happen? Do you recall the specifics?

Did a google, then an archive search. If not this exact blog post then one like it, at a similar time from the same guy, same place.
Fitzgerald: A fantastic war

Was not an argument or back n' forth of any kind. I was reading Jihad Watch, you may recall the fear and reaction to September 11th. Their fiery brand was a fine meal to fan the flames of discontent. Hugh Fitzgerald was a common voice there, and he was not a fan of nation building in Iraq and flat out made the argument of our wasting American lives over there. I look back now and see he had a slightly different point based on quite the aggressive agenda... but back then he was someone who "got it" and was also an opponent of Bush's policy.

Political parties are certainly not hive minds, there are factions and the folly of Iraq was quite the hot button issue. The truth was growing clear, we were made fools of to believe or support the President. The partisan wall blocked most noise from "others" on the topic... but when that argument is made behind the front lines, from one who has "respected" commentary... it's a commonality to latch onto... to turn the key, unlock the gate, and bring down the partisan wall. I could no longer defend what I knew deep down to be wrong. It broke the ice.

Admittedly it's difficult to return to the head space of 10+ years ago. It's a bit uncertain to go back into how I arrived at dissatisfaction there, but a key feature is how people put up a front to combat an "other". They set aside their differences, look past their faults, and engage as a unit. I think we can all recognize that our two parties today are both in turmoil. Yet we'll still regard one another as singular beasts instead of distinctive humans carrying various sets of motives. The commonalities we share with "others" are lost in the fog of war.

There was a time where if you spoke down to Neocons I'd respond "how dare you!?" It never occurred to me that I might not identify with them, just that you were an "other" and so any shots you fired must be personified and countered. That's the logic of how we apes operate via Tribalism. It's not pretty to try and wade through partisanship and reach out to understand "others". To get a feel for the space you are actually in, instead of the space you think you are in.

Yet the populist energy of the past several elections hints at a people recognizing the need to change our system. A commonality we can tap into and work with to convince them of a bold plan. Our message has to resonate at a level they understand...the same way I did not want a wasteful war, or a working poor. People get the wrong ideas for solutions... but if you show them you're on the same page, motivated to solve the same issue... recruitment can happen, and grassroots can spread.

I really do think healthcare is a winnable battle. No one wants to get sick and die. They just don't think you have a solution.

 

[ivwshane]

The main reason I'm asking you these questions is because we have half of this country who simply will not acknowledge facts if they contradict their views.

I would love to talk to about policies (or anyone for that matter) but it's pointless if the people we put in charge are incapable of acknowledging facts (like what's happened in Kansas regarding their economic policies).

Until we can figure out how to communicate with these people (and our democracy depends on it) our government and the policies it implements will be flawed and more than likely not really helpful to the problems they intended to solve. Based on what you've told me, an outsider, or someone from the other team, is unlikely to open or change any minds, change must come from an insider who is willing to call bullshit on your teams talking points. Its a much slower road than I had anticipated. It also means the best I can do is call bullshit on those who may consider themselves part of "my team" (I have no team nor do I believe in team politics when it comes to actually governing the people).



Anyway, my personal opinion, like yours, is that people shouldn't be focused on what party they do/should belong to but rather the policies themselves. No party has all the answers and no party has a monopoly on stupid. I'll go a step further though, I believe people shouldn't believe in or worship ideologies and they shouldn't do that for the same exact reasons that apply to joining/belonging to parties. People should instead focus on the results and the underlying data that caused the results they want. Party's and ideologies have their purpose but that purpose is to deal with the reality of human nature, that we are tribal. Its a strength and our weakness.

Did a google, then an archive search. If not this exact blog post then one like it, at a similar time from the same guy, same place.
Fitzgerald: A fantastic war

Was not an argument or back n' forth of any kind. I was reading Jihad Watch, you may recall the fear and reaction to September 11th. Their fiery brand was a fine meal to fan the flames of discontent. Hugh Fitzgerald was a common voice there, and he was not a fan of nation building in Iraq and flat out made the argument of our wasting American lives over there. I look back now and see he had a slightly different point based on quite the aggressive agenda... but back then he was someone who "got it" and was also an opponent of Bush's policy.

Political parties are certainly not hive minds, there are factions and the folly of Iraq was quite the hot button issue. The truth was growing clear, we were made fools of to believe or support the President. The partisan wall blocked most noise from "others" on the topic... but when that argument is made behind the front lines, from one who has "respected" commentary... it's a commonality to latch onto... to turn the key, unlock the gate, and bring down the partisan wall. I could no longer defend what I knew deep down to be wrong. It broke the ice.

Admittedly it's difficult to return to the head space of 10+ years ago. It's a bit uncertain to go back into how I arrived at dissatisfaction there, but a key feature is how people put up a front to combat an "other". They set aside their differences, look past their faults, and engage as a unit. I think we can all recognize that our two parties today are both in turmoil. Yet we'll still regard one another as singular beasts instead of distinctive humans carrying various sets of motives. The commonalities we share with "others" are lost in the fog of war.

There was a time where if you spoke down to Neocons I'd respond "how dare you!?" It never occurred to me that I might not identify with them, just that you were an "other" and so any shots you fired must be personified and countered. That's the logic of how we apes operate via Tribalism. It's not pretty to try and wade through partisanship and reach out to understand "others". To get a feel for the space you are actually in, instead of the space you think you are in.

Yet the populist energy of the past several elections hints at a people recognizing the need to change our system. A commonality we can tap into and work with to convince them of a bold plan. Our message has to resonate at a level they understand...the same way I did not want a wasteful war, or a working poor. People get the wrong ideas for solutions... but if you show them you're on the same page, motivated to solve the same issue... recruitment can happen, and grassroots can spread.

I really do think healthcare is a winnable battle. No one wants to get sick and die. They just don't think you have a solution.

 

[local]

I generally consider myself a conservative. Trump sucks. I didn't vote for him as I figured he would be bad but this is beyond my wildest imagination.

Trump is spent, get him out of there. If the GOP wants to gain a little credibility back they need to stand up to him and go after him for anything they can, I wish we had no confidence votes. I get the feeling they know he is toxic but don't want to alienate his base so they will wait until they get trounced in the mid terms and let the Dems be the bad guys. Best of both worlds for them as they can get rid of Trump and point fingers at the opposition to keep Trumps base on their side. I just don't know if they can wait that long.

This is the first time I have ever said this and never thought I would but I would rather have Hillary in there than Trump. No matter how much I dislike the woman at least she wouldn't be dragging the country down with her.

 

[local]

Until we can figure out how to communicate with these people (and our democracy depends on it) our government and the policies it implements will be flawed and more than likely not really helpful to the problems they intended to solve. Based on what you've told me, an outsider, or someone from the other team, is unlikely to open or change any minds, change must come from an insider who is willing to call bullshit on your teams talking points. Its a much slower road than I had anticipated. It also means the best I can do is call bullshit on those who may consider themselves part of "my team" (I have no team nor do I believe in team politics when it comes to actually governing the people).

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Step one has to be to stop alienating those you are trying to change by calling them idiots, deploarbles or whatever derogatory term you fancy. For one insulting others doesn't exactly make them receptive to your views and two I believe that subconsciously you start seeing those you insult as less instead of just different. But it still doesn't change the fact that you are one of "them" and that will shut down most people to your views pretty quick. I have made some inroads with a hardcore GOP guy at work because he doesn't instantly reject whatever I say. He stands by Trump wholeheartedly but I have gotten him to admit that some things Trump does is embarrassing to the nation. It may not seem like much but it is a big step.

 

[zinfamous]

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Step one has to be to stop alienating those you are trying to change by calling them idiots, deploarbles or whatever derogatory term you fancy. For one insulting others doesn't exactly make them receptive to your views and two I believe that subconsciously you start seeing those you insult as less instead of just different. But it still doesn't change the fact that you are one of "them" and that will shut down most people to your views pretty quick. I have made some inroads with a hardcore GOP guy at work because he doesn't instantly reject whatever I say. He stands by Trump wholeheartedly but I have gotten him to admit that some things Trump does is embarrassing to the nation. It may not seem like much but it is a big step.

IK,R?

 

[Mai72]

@Moonbeam: you overestimate his base. They are insane. They are not capable of rational thought. When he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and get away with it? He was right. These people are not fully functioning humans any longer. So what do we do about it?

What do you mean "What do we do about it?"

You don't do anything but worry about you. I can't change or influence Trump's choices. I worry about me and that's about it. I have control over my actions.

This is why I try to avoid the news. I get upset or angry over sh*t I have ZERO control. But, if I find success in my endevors I can then feel better. If that makes sense.

 

[local]

IK,R?

Yep it applies for both sides and for all disagreements not just political ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

The main reason I'm asking you these questions is because we have half of this country who simply will not acknowledge facts if they contradict their views.

I would love to talk to about policies (or anyone for that matter) but it's pointless if the people we put in charge are incapable of acknowledging facts (like what's happened in Kansas regarding their economic policies).

Until we can figure out how to communicate with these people (and our democracy depends on it) our government and the policies it implements will be flawed and more than likely not really helpful to the problems they intended to solve. Based on what you've told me, an outsider, or someone from the other team, is unlikely to open or change any minds, change must come from an insider who is willing to call bullshit on your teams talking points. Its a much slower road than I had anticipated. It also means the best I can do is call bullshit on those who may consider themselves part of "my team" (I have no team nor do I believe in team politics when it comes to actually governing the people).



Anyway, my personal opinion, like yours, is that people shouldn't be focused on what party they do/should belong to but rather the policies themselves. No party has all the answers and no party has a monopoly on stupid. I'll go a step further though, I believe people shouldn't believe in or worship ideologies and they shouldn't do that for the same exact reasons that apply to joining/belonging to parties. People should instead focus on the results and the underlying data that caused the results they want. Party's and ideologies have their purpose but that purpose is to deal with the reality of human nature, that we are tribal. Its a strength and our weakness.

There is only one highly ideological political party in this country & it's not Democrats.

 

[justoh]

None of us know Trump, but there's good in everyone, as well as bad, and the bad things about him don't justify or somehow cancel-out the bad in you. Just remember that, regressives. All that ill-will directed at your representative. So far any reasonable person would conclude that he's pretty much as bad as any other republican would have been, but at least he's honest. lulz. They probably mean genuine. ish. Cut the old orange bastard a little slack. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Он просто немного эксцентричный.

 

[jackstar7]

Yep it applies for both sides and for all disagreements not just political ones.

Both sides is a false narrative.

 

[acta_diurna]

The best line in that article is “You might not like what he says, but he’s honest.”
That shows just how unreachable these idiots are. They think the man who lies more frequently than any other politician in American history is honest. You can educate the ignorant, but you can't fix stupid.

Their sentiment that he is honest but blunt results from countless bold statements he has made that are "not politically correct" and his acknowledgment that he detests political correctness.

Of course he has told lies.

 

[John Connor]

The washingtoncompost, the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC. Every post here in P&N has that common denominator. I guess when you constantly take in that far-left bullshit all the time, you too will think the President is "bat shit crazy" too.

 

[cytg111]

LOL! 0bama did so much damage to Dem's while the faithful cheered on his every move, his every utterance, that it's practically incalculable. Of course one measure is how many.

Obama was, is, the exact opposite of the Orange Dofus currently in office, he was decent, respectful, openminded, intelligent, educated and empathic. One day of Trump scandal has eclipsed anything the Obamas has produced on that front for 8 years. ONE day vs EIGHT years. And when it came down to it what was it he wanted? He wanted to heal people. Heal people goddamnit! Oh and scale back the warmongering. Yea that guy was a total asshat, sure.
You had what you needed but didnt use him. Now you have what you deserve is gonna get a buttload(cus he be raping u).. Im just sad its gonna hit good people too.

 

[John Connor]

Speaking of the Washingtoncompost... https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/864231063295582209

 

[cytg111]

The washingtoncompost, the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC. Every post here in P&N has that common denominator. I guess when you constantly take in that far-left bullshit all the time, you too will think the President is "bat shit crazy" too.

CNN is far left? I guess fox is just around the middle then? Breitbart and Infowars a little bit to the right maybe? Just a little bit?

 

[Indus]

The washingtoncompost, the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC. Every post here in P&N has that common denominator. I guess when you constantly take in that far-left bullshit all the time, you too will think the President is "bat shit crazy" too.

Yes we know even the most grotesque, most scandalous and most reprehensible acts can't kill party loyalty. There's a big reason you are eating Trump shit and calling it lemon merangue pie while we all laugh at you.

Hope you don't change a bit for the rest of your life.

Unlike you we know that 3^6 = 729 so we really must be the libtards. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.

 

[amenx]

The washingtoncompost, the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC. Every post here in P&N has that common denominator. I guess when you constantly take in that far-left bullshit all the time, you too will think the President is "bat shit crazy" too.

Far left bullshit?

Erstwhile staunch Donald Trump booster Ann Coulter has called the president “grotesque” and disappointing as she appeared poised to bail on him even before The Washington Post reported Monday that he leaked classified information to the Russians.

“Everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque,” but it was the issues, the conservative commentator and author told The Daily Caller in an interview Sunday. Now, as far as the issues go, “boy, things don’t look good,” she said...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ann-coulter-calls-apos-grotesque-015318554.html

Coulter, author of In Trump We Trust maybe should re-title her book In Trump We Cringe.

 

[JMC2000]

The washingtoncompost, the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC. Every post here in P&N has that common denominator. I guess when you constantly take in that far-left bullshit all the time, you too will think the President is "bat shit crazy" too.

I don't need any of those to tell me he's bat-shit crazy. All I have to do is follow him on Twitter; no "far-left bullshit" needed.

 

[John Connor]

I don't give a rat's about Coulter. She doesn't speak for me and the millions of other voters who put Trump in office.

 

[John Connor]

I don't need any of those to tell me he's bat-shit crazy. All I have to do is follow him on Twitter; no "far-left bullshit" needed.

If it's bat-shit crazy you're after, follow Nancy Pelosi instead. BAHAHA