Partisan Polarization

This is the stuff that just makes me laugh. Yes, the party that nominated a moderate institutionalist is the one that ceded to the "fringe," not the party that tried to arrange a coup after losing the election.

 

Thanks for sharing that. It's the most frightening piece I've read because it shows how entrenched we can become in what we want to believe and reflects a sea change in how the right now views the democratic process. It also explains the right's drift to a degree of extremism that forecloses unity on fundamental principles in a democratic society. The power hungry unscrupulous politicians are seizing on it. It was on display in the Wyoming debate, a link to which was posted earlier today.

 

Sounds like you’re thinking of the prisoners’ dilemma.

 

Arizona tells Wyoming to “hold my beer”




Whole thing:

 

No need to rehash my views concerning the words coup, insurrection and treason. It is the democratic party that doesn't understand the definitions of these words. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it reality. Nor does saying republicans support a coup, insurrection or treasonous acts of our government. If such claims were the case a coup / insurrection would be in full swing right now.

 

Well that makes two of us concerning the decades of time we have followed politics. What was once labeled conservatism by pundits in no longer conservative. The same is true for the democratic party. What hasn't changed is those that have political views of liberalism and communism. The latter groups hold true to their beliefs while the former have morphed into a shell of their original political views.

Why people migrate or are pulled to the republican point of view I suspect is mainly attributed to economic and nationalist sovereignty. Neither of which the democratic party espouses. To be fair the republican party is not stellar on the issues of economic well being or national sovereignty however this not due to a lack of interest or specific legislation that can't get past ground zero.

 

We don't need to rehash you playing semantics. The President, many of his advisors, and some of his Republican pals in Congress tried to overturn an election they lost. When that failed, their supporters attacked the Capitol. I don't care what words you want to use to describe that. Those are the hallmarks of a radical party.

 

You just aren’t getting what I’m saying. This isn’t liberals good conservatives bad or republicans bad democrats good. My point is the infatuation of wanting to be “conservative” even though the definition of being conservative changes. When I grew up our household was generally conservative and we would get “the conservative digest” which would have ratings of who was the most conservative. The most conservative lawmakers closely followed such ratings as a test of ideological purity. But to some degree the ideology has gone but for some it is just about being loyal to Trump. But the goal of being “conservative” is still primary.

I only bring this up because I started watching the video and one of the primary themes was what it means to be conservative. Isn’t that kind of weird? It is an identity descriptor that seems to be very important to people.

 

Isn’t it telling that we talk of “lower than expected” when, based upon competent substantial evidence, it should be 0%?

 

While for me it doesn’t happen a lot it does happen. Some people just assume me being a white middle aged male living in TX that I’m going to think a certain way.

I recall going to vote in a primary some years ago. They had two lines at the voting place. One for Dems and one for Republicans. It was pretty striking. Most of the republicans were middle aged adults, heavily male, many balding greying hair with modest gray beards. The Democrats had people of different color, black, Hispanic, female, younger and even the white male adults usually had a different look about them, perhaps the worked at the local university. Just by looks I clearly seemed to be in the wrong line.

 

LOL, I forgot about there mathematically never being zero, and you’re right about the second paragraph in just about every issue except the issue of the correctness of the election results. I don’t know that the deniers are so much crazy as entrenched. All of us get entrenched about something, though usually there’s at least some factual basis for it. I have tried (by reading as much as I can), but I otherwise can’t get my head around so many republicans and independents believing the election wasn’t fair.

Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and emotion still gets the upper hand more than it ought to for our species. It must have some survival benefit.

 

I don't think that's surprising. Keep in mind that plenty of "Independents" are actually hardened partisans who decided not to register with their preferred political party for one reason or another.

 

The semantics are yours and yours alone. They tried using the law and the constitution as it is currently in their purview to do so. That is the only argument that yourself and other fail to give credence to..

As for the idiots I think at this point we know who they are and it is not former President Trump as the kangaroo court tries to implicate. Any one of means and power as this sham of corruptible incompetence would have understood that. Such power would have regulated them to the dust bin of history as Mark Antony did Julius Ceasar. The silver tongue of Mr. Shift rings hallow in the annuls of time while that of Mark Antony pervades.

The liars court falls on deaf ears of the populace. Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend is not what Americans (16 million) are willing to believe. That game is no longer relevant than the rags claiming aliens are living on planet earth. For a man that has not been given the right to legal representation and state his case it is worth noting that a legitimate although stacked inquisition holds insignificant sway with the public.

 

Ridiculous. They attempted to overturn an election they lost and deny the peaceful transition of power by spreading falsehoods and abusing the legal process. It was not in their "purview" to do that. It was very much an attempted coup, regardless of whatever semantics-based games you want to play. The fact that you're sitting here and defending it while simultaneously calling the Democratic Party "radical" only shows how full of dookie you are.

What a bunch of delusions. Trump is 100% responsible for what happened. And he intended to do every bit of it.

 

I am kind of shocked at your responses here. I have no idea how what Trump and his cronies are doing is using the law and constitution. The hearings have had a lot of republicans who worked in the Trump administration ultimately felt that what Trump was doing was well beyond the constitution and the law.

So president Trump is not an “idiot” and this court is a kangaroo court? So who are the idiots?

Either I have misread your point or I have completely misinterpreted your general outlook on politics in general. I would not have figured you for an apologist of Trump and his antics.

 

You're right it is identity and what is left other than to take over the republican party? The same holds true for the left and the democratic party. What we are left with is where each party will settle.

Thank you for watching the video I while have my own views the point are hard to argue against what is discussed. You and I have both lived the experiences of the US becoming the cop of the world. I abhorred it at the onset with the mantra take of me then we can take care of thee. Former President Cliton didin;t see it that way, Former President did.

 

I should just stop. The fact that you keep bringing up democrats, left right etc means you just aren’t understanding what I am saying.

Forget parties. I am talking about “being conservative”. That label has great importance for most on the right. There isn’t a comparable word or concept on the left.

On the right, it is typically about

1. I want to be conservative.
2. Let’s define what it is to be conservative.
3. I want to be that.

The definition changes. In actuality many people don’t adhere to the definition in #2. They set their own standards. To be conservative is anti tariffs. To be conservative is pro tariffs. What is important is to be conservative.

Those on the left tend to have their pet issues and values. Of course there is general consensus on some issues, but there is usually a bit more disparity on some issues. But ultimately there isn’t a striving to be “liberal” or “progressive” or any other particular term.

You look on just about any Republican candidate brochure or sign you will see the phrase “conservative”. Both Liz Cheney and MTG view themselves as conservative but they are wildly different in some respects.