- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When did the singular goal in politics become to vanquish your enemies?
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that argument would have worked better 10, hell even 5, years ago
You don't think Goldwater was proven correct?
0
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:04 pm to BamaChick
quote:
I think the "YAY TEAM"/"MY TEAM GOOD, YOUR TEAM EVIL" became the main driver in 1998 - Clinton's impeachment.
Then the 2000 election completely sealed it.
Those two events with 24 hour news channels and short news cycle = "YAY TEAM"/"MY TEAM GOOD, YOUR TEAM EVIL".
100% Correct. Politics has always been a tough business but those events you just listed were the starting point for the division that we see today.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:10 pm to Slippy
The problem is that this is the Dems philosophy.
It's not the GOP'S
It's not the GOP'S
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:14 pm to Slippy
It started with talk radio.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:21 pm to mahdragonz
All the above is true,but, the real source is from the Democratic Party during the Reagan years. When Reagan was doing great, the economy was booming, jobs were plentiful, careers were there in factories,and the Soviet Communists were losing,freedom winning, there was a big meeting of the Union leaders that were active in the Democratic Party. They infiltrated the National and State Dem. Party in order to stop Reagan and Capitalism,etc.. They decided to start making up and using lies to hurt Republicans and following Sol Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals for the end justifies the Means. Outright lies were to be used as policy to prevail in politics. We see these lies today being used as fact. Shumer and Pelosi are examples. Lies. Me and a certain Governor were in those meetings. I heard it with my on ears. I later left that activity over disgust.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:26 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
It started with talk radio.
I think that was an effect, not the cause
Posted on 3/26/17 at 3:35 pm to Slippy
IDK but it is at times a pretty frightening place to be.
On the right you literally have some people that openly advocate civil war against the left. Who speak in some pretty scary language about their fellow citizens, cheer on anti-western regimes if they help your party temporarily, a cheerfulness at borderline government actions as long as they serve to harm the "other."
On the left you have - as I experienced personally and was attacked for pushing back on it on a left leaning forum - people that openly advocate harming those that failed to be as "enlightened" as they are.
In this case, it was a topic about a story of a Trump voter upset that Trump and the GOP were gearing up to(this is before the AHCA is released, but it remained true) gut drug treatment requirements that were helping their son get sober from a horrible opiod addiction. Aside from the bi-partisan tendency for people to smugly point out that X or Y is voting against their self-interests, several people were openly advocating that the Mom(the Trump voter) and anyone she was friends or family with deserve the harm they get for voting Trump. That these "people" should be left out to suffer in the future after any reforms that could of otherwise helped them because they didn't align perfectly with their votes in this moment in time. A level of cruelty and vindictiveness that undercuts the very core of the ideas they claim to hold.
On either side there is growing de-huminzation of the other, a trend toward cult of personality, viewpoint purity, and echo chambering. Where what you signal as your ideals and what talking points you use is more important then the factual or empirical foundation of an argument. Where pointing that out often just leads to deflections and charges of the "other side" is worse anyways, so who cares. We are the good guys and they are the bad guys. The ends justify the means.
I think we have as a country gotten to a place where we hate others because of the caricatures we have of them and their perceived group, which to be fair are not always incorrect, instead of recognizing that we all are born with the human condition, and what should divide us is our competing views and philosophies on government and society, but with a common ground of respecting our fellow citizens and having a country that allows others to voice their opinions, however discomforting, and respects the democratic republic process, even if it means pushing back on things "your side" may do that feels good now but could harm that structure. Recognizing that just because you can point to something a person did one time, or point to any number of parts of American history that superficially disarms that ideal, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving for it.
On the right you literally have some people that openly advocate civil war against the left. Who speak in some pretty scary language about their fellow citizens, cheer on anti-western regimes if they help your party temporarily, a cheerfulness at borderline government actions as long as they serve to harm the "other."
On the left you have - as I experienced personally and was attacked for pushing back on it on a left leaning forum - people that openly advocate harming those that failed to be as "enlightened" as they are.
In this case, it was a topic about a story of a Trump voter upset that Trump and the GOP were gearing up to(this is before the AHCA is released, but it remained true) gut drug treatment requirements that were helping their son get sober from a horrible opiod addiction. Aside from the bi-partisan tendency for people to smugly point out that X or Y is voting against their self-interests, several people were openly advocating that the Mom(the Trump voter) and anyone she was friends or family with deserve the harm they get for voting Trump. That these "people" should be left out to suffer in the future after any reforms that could of otherwise helped them because they didn't align perfectly with their votes in this moment in time. A level of cruelty and vindictiveness that undercuts the very core of the ideas they claim to hold.
On either side there is growing de-huminzation of the other, a trend toward cult of personality, viewpoint purity, and echo chambering. Where what you signal as your ideals and what talking points you use is more important then the factual or empirical foundation of an argument. Where pointing that out often just leads to deflections and charges of the "other side" is worse anyways, so who cares. We are the good guys and they are the bad guys. The ends justify the means.
I think we have as a country gotten to a place where we hate others because of the caricatures we have of them and their perceived group, which to be fair are not always incorrect, instead of recognizing that we all are born with the human condition, and what should divide us is our competing views and philosophies on government and society, but with a common ground of respecting our fellow citizens and having a country that allows others to voice their opinions, however discomforting, and respects the democratic republic process, even if it means pushing back on things "your side" may do that feels good now but could harm that structure. Recognizing that just because you can point to something a person did one time, or point to any number of parts of American history that superficially disarms that ideal, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving for it.
This post was edited on 3/26/17 at 3:44 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News