Is the division in American politics the result mostly from movement to the left by the left?

[zinfamous]

Yes, Reaganomics was a bit too extreme economically, but you can't deny that he was respected as Commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces compared to Carter, Clinton, and Obama. The first job of any American president is to be respected by the U.S. armed forces. Reagan was liked by them.

wat? who the hell thinks such a thing?

 

[GettyRoad]

wat? who the hell thinks such a thing?

You are Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Something that some liberals forget.

1. Constitution
2. Commander-in-Chief

Something that McCain and Bush and Cheney would remind Obama and other presidents.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No, I love our melting pot and that America is a mix of all kinds of different bits of other cultures. I am the average Trump voter, I just care that people will put the constitution first and add to society, not be a parasite. We don't care about skin color, that is a leftist false narrative.

Pants on fire.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Something that some liberals forget.

1. Constitution
2. Commander-in-Chief

Something that McCain and Bush and Cheney would remind Obama and other presidents.

Yeh, but Trump prefers Heroes who weren't captured, remember? And I'm sure the Military is thrilled with the prospect of selling out our Kurdish allies in Syria, too. It's not like our troops are just mercenaries. They need to feel like their sacrifice actually accomplishes something. And, hey, how about the units bivouacked down by the border, huh? Trump lovers every one, I'm sure. And he's sending in more!

 

[Moonbeam]

I read this as Democrats adjusting their perspective in line with the adjusting reality of the world around them: obviously corporations are making mroe and more and more and more money than they were 25 years ago, especially at the top. Why wouldn't perspective on that fact change? It is only reasonable, right?

We even hear from righties all the time that "racism is far worse than it was before Obama was president!" So ah, why should liberals not be able to see that changing tide as well? ...admittedly, it's strange to see a poll where conservatives move against some of their more vocal arguments, but whatever. I guess that isn't really new. likewise with the first point: with wealth concentrating more and more and more at the tippy top, what kind of reasonable person thinks that poor people could ever experience anything like "freeloading" with the pittance that is available, and is factually claimed in considerably small numbers, that is welfare?

I think Jordan Peterson describes this in a fundamentally articulate way, so I will try to paraphrase.

Biological life must move forward to survive. It must seek resources and the proper conditions to survive. The result is that when looked at intellectually, this can be called having an aim, the aim to optimally survive. To have an aim or a goal means to create value, to create a hierarchy of meaning where the good can be categorized and described. As soon as any system of value is established, of any kind really, a hierarchy of competence is also created simultaneously. Some people will be better at whatever the value system is than others are. The result is inequality.

Since order is stasis, inequality will inevitably increase due to the fact that the system will be gamed by people seeking advantages they haven't the real competence to achieve. This is where the left becomes vital to the survival of systems. The inequality must be constantly remedied and checked. We need both order and the chaos of openness and creativity, new avenues of adaption because life can't stand still. There must be a balance between the left and the right and neither can exist without the tension provided by the other. This is why both conservative or liberal dominence is dangerous. We need to adapt to changing conditions without falling into total chaos. The way to move forward is via dialog not ideological warfare.

The author of the original link, in my opinion, doesn't see the vital role liberals must play in protecting those who are ill equipped to be competent in the system nor sees how out of whack it has become.

Here is an interesting story Peterson tells:

The army became interested in how to find competent soldiers and has a law or a rule now that they will not accept into service anybody with an IQ below, I think 85 or 83, not sure which because they discovered by testing that people below that IQ could not master any skills needed to be a decent soldier. That is 10% of the population the Army says are unable to benefit from training to be proficient in any army job. What are we to do with such people particularly since there is zero correlation between IQ and being a decent person. Are the data wrong?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

That would go against everything I stand for. Are you a leaf that can be blown away by the wind, a sacred well that is spoiled by the plot of a frog, somebody who will be hospitalized by rumors of a tempest in a teapot?

More and more of late, as the Trump ship of state sales over the edge of the world, I have seen a panic on the left that has become frantic, irrational, and dangerous, at least in my opinion and to such an extent that I believe others are noting the same thing and commenting as much in the media. So I went looking for a critique of the left by googling on the internet and viola, what I posted is what I found right off the bat. I read it and thought to myself, this is bull shit. I know nothing about the media source or that it is right wing. I read the opinion piece without such a prior bias and thought this does not make sense.

I could have moved on and found something more in line with what I am seeing personally, but I decided to find out how others viewed the piece. I didn't bring a preconception of what I would read before I read it. And I personally don't think anybody who can think would need too because, at least for me, the logic presented in the piece stinks to high heavens.

How will you handle information independently if you need to dismiss by prejudging the source. Lots of media outlets have opinion pieces the posting media may not agree with.

There plenty of credible sources for facts or opinion based on fact. IBD is not one of those sources.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You are Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Something that some liberals forget.

1. Constitution
2. Commander-in-Chief

Something that McCain and Bush and Cheney would remind Obama and other presidents.

Nice backpedal attempt with a weak jab (unfounded) at the guy who killed Osama. Reagan had zero military achievements.

The president has many responsibilities, you falsely claim commander in chief is his primary one.

 

[Moonbeam]

There plenty of credible sources for facts or opinion based on fact. IBD is not one of those sources.

But if you think about what was said you didn't need to know anything about the source to see the opinion was groundless. You rely on source to tell you that because as I said, opinion pieces in media don't always represent the views of the the source. You, therefore, are willing to judge by what I would call a false yardstick.

 

[fskimospy]

You are Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Something that some liberals forget.

1. Constitution
2. Commander-in-Chief

Something that McCain and Bush and Cheney would remind Obama and other presidents.

I was in the military from 1999-2006. ‘Respect’ would not be a term I would have used to describe Bush, haha.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Here is a video of leftist politicians calling for border security and barriers, and enforcement of immigration law. These clips are from pretty recent times. Today, just a few years later, the left acts as if securing a problematic border is some kind of ultimate evil against humanity. Common sense, like enforcing immigration law is now too far right of the left. The left has jumped further liberal in recent years, they've gone left of common sense.

 

[UNCjigga]

Here is a video of leftist politicians calling for border security and barriers, and enforcement of immigration law. These clips are from pretty recent times. Today, just a few years later, the left acts as if securing a problematic border is some kind of ultimate evil against humanity. Common sense, like enforcing immigration law is now too far right of the left. The left has jumped further liberal in recent years, they've gone left of common sense.

Why can’t you be honest about something so simple? No Democrat has ever called for a contiguous 30 foot border wall that stretches from the Pacific to the Gulf. No Democrat has ever suggested seizing private land through eminent domain or ignoring environmental issues in order to achieve a contiguous wall.

What Democrats have voted for in the past (and will continue to support) are barriers in certain areas where patrols are difficult or where the crossing is too dangerous. They’ve also supported additional border patrol agents, drones, and other technology, infrastructure or jobs to help secure the border. They want mayors of border towns and other local agencies/resources to be involved in the process.

The barrier to getting this done isn’t Democrats...it’s Republicans. The minute Democrats agree to a deal, the goalposts get moved. You don’t remember that time chain migration became more important than the wall, do you?? Stop being such an ignorant little shit and look around.

You complain about spite when Republicans essentially abandoned THEIR OWN healthcare plan simply because a black man got it done...that wasn’t even a vanity project but GOP called it “Obamacare” and all you trolls were like “omg death panels...black man bad!” Stop projecting and pay attention to what’s really going on.

 

[fskimospy]

It’s interesting how he keeps repeating the same phrases over and over again. ‘Left of common sense’ and all that.

 

[Bitek]

I generally do unless there is a person running that reflect my values better but try finding a Green Party candidate in NC., not very many out there.

closest I came to voting for any repub was back in in 2k before bush won the nomination and McCain rolled over and played dead. that year I voted Nader as I was living in TX at the time it was a bush shoe-in.

I actually voted Nader too in 2k, as Bush was a runaway in CO. How things have changed...

Big reason is frustration with the Dems playing too centrist, and Gore was a pile of mush.

In other ways I am more moderate that some on the left, but on the big issues (education, taxes, healthcare, social services, MJ and social values) I think the Dems have been too timid and what we are finally seeing is the party actually aligning with more mainstream thought rather than just playing "centrist" defense to the Rs.

Damn, even Obama had to be pushed by Biden into marriage equality.

I used to vote for some Rs, but the party has gone so far off the deep end (really since Gingrich) that they offer nothing to me unless the local D is a real shitbird.

 

[Bitek]

Overall I'm a strong capitalist and believer in personal freedom, but the Rs are ruining capitalism with corruption and cronyism.

I also think the rough edges need to be blunted with effective gov oversight as well as a strong social safety net to give people the freedom to be daring, creative and innovative.

Otherwise gov needs to stay out of people's personal business so long as they are not hitting others. Smoke weed if you want, marry who you want, pray to who you want or don't at all, and have control over your own body.

Not too much to ask, but Rs don't, and Ds have been afraid to champion it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Pants on fire.

No, 100% truth. But you can't see past your Trump stereotyping bs to realize it.

 

[realibrad]

Overall I'm a strong capitalist and believer in personal freedom, but the Rs are ruining capitalism with corruption and cronyism.

On the Right, you get corruption and Cronyism. On the Left, you get throwing the baby out with the bathwater for socialism.

I also think the rough edges need to be blunted with effective gov oversight as well as a strong social safety net to give people the freedom to be daring, creative and innovative.

I agree with a social safety net, but, the problem is in the details. How much support? Further, creation and innovation have to be constrained as getting to something can be wasteful. What constrains that waste now is that you will not get funding. So you have to do something productive and use your excess to fund your innovation and creation. If you cant, then you have to convince someone else to fund you. If we are funding people to be creative and innovative, there is a huge risk of waste there if its over done. Not sure how you could effectively measure the right balance.

Otherwise gov needs to stay out of people's personal business so long as they are not hitting others. Smoke weed if you want, marry who you want, pray to who you want or don't at all, and have control over your own body.

The problem I see here is what it means to not hurt others. Children are obese, would that qualify as needing government? Children are exposed to sexist ideas by parents, would that need government?

Obviously we have some idea of when its needed. Sexual/physical abuse. Malnutrition is another.

Not too much to ask, but Rs don't, and Ds have been afraid to champion it.

I think its a bit more to ask than I think you give credit to. For a long time, the D's have been the buoy to sane government as the R's have gone extreme. I do not see the R's moving closer to the center, so I'm worried about the D's moving away. We will see how it works out though.

 

[fskimospy]

If anything the Democrats have been moving closer to the center of you assume polling support accurately measures the policies people want. The Democrats have been significantly to the right of center for years on health care, taxes, etc.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If anything the Democrats have been moving closer to the center of you assume polling support accurately measures the policies people want. The Democrats have been significantly to the right of center for years on health care, taxes, etc.

So you are saying today the Democrats have moved sharply left from where they were in recent years, yes?

 

[realibrad]

So you are saying today the Democrats have moved sharply left from where they were in recent years, yes?

Nothing he said indicates how much, just that its a move to the left.

 

[fskimospy]

So you are saying today the Democrats have moved sharply left from where they were in recent years, yes?

They have moved leftward, but not majorly so. That has always been my position and as much was reflected in the DW-NOMINATE data I showed you to begin with that you decided didn't count because it made you feel bad.

Polarization is overwhelmingly due to the radicalization of the right as the data shows but it is not entirely due to that.

EDIT: It would also be hilariously bad logic to claim that Democrats were responsible for partisan polarization because they were moving their position closer to what most people wanted.

 

[FerrelGeek]

IKR!!! Everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knows that the left is never wrong. All their ideas are intellectually and morally superior - the product of a more evolved form of human. The mere fact that anyone disagrees with the left is ample proof of their inferiority. The non-left must be swept away by any means necessary.

I for one am shocked that an editorial from an ultra right news source thinks the real cause of polarization is the left.

Here’s the easiest way to know that the writer is a dishonest shitbag. He lists ‘Medicare for all’ as a sign that the Democratic Party has become radicalized and has moved far from the mainstream. This radical proposal is so far out of the mainstream that it only has support of...seventy percent of Americans.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all

Contrast that with the Republican health plan that was one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in history.

 

[fskimospy]

IKR!!! Everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knows that the left is never wrong. All their ideas are intellectually and morally superior - the product of a more evolved form of human. The mere fact that anyone disagrees with the left is ample proof of their inferiority. The non-left must be swept away by any means necessary.

lolwut. Are you drunk?

 

[Jhhnn]

They have moved leftward, but not majorly so. That has always been my position and as much was reflected in the DW-NOMINATE data I showed you to begin with that you decided didn't count because it made you feel bad.

Polarization is overwhelmingly due to the radicalization of the right as the data shows but it is not entirely due to that.

EDIT: It would also be hilariously bad logic to claim that Democrats were responsible for partisan polarization because they were moving their position closer to what most people wanted.

Conservative trickle down economic theory? It made the Rich richer & the middle class poorer. Didn't work as advertised. Now that those changes have occurred only moving to the left will create corrective change.

 

[Jhhnn]

lolwut. Are you drunk?

Maybe he just woke up & is still in a semi-dreaming state.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Nah, if anything too much coffee.

lolwut. Are you drunk?