vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:27

Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:18 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:15 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:06 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 6:17 Sadly, this isn't faked: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197 It's also not uncommon in past presidents. Let's not pretend Trump invented being a manipulative, insincere shitbag. Actually, *this* level is pretty extreme. It's one thing to be coached beforehand, but you really need notes to remind you to say "We hear you." Really? I'm not an Obama fan, but he went to Sandy Hook and quietly spent hours talking with the parents and survivors, no press, etc. He didn't have talking points he needed to carry with him to be a basic human being listening to people. He was a better public speaker and better at recall. I guarantee you he was coached and prepped beforehand. The rest is just your bias. I actually don't think so in this case; Obama was a career activist instead of being a career politician, but even if you want to pretend it is all faked, Obama spent hours in Sandy Hook, while Trump spent minutes in the hospital on his way down to golfing in Mar-e-lago. I'm sorry but while I'm not a fan of the DNC, pretending that both sides are equally terrible is really just a cop out.

Pretending that both sides aren't the problem instead of the solution is the cop-out.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:27

Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:18 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:15 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:06 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 6:17 Sadly, this isn't faked: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197 It's also not uncommon in past presidents. Let's not pretend Trump invented being a manipulative, insincere shitbag. Actually, *this* level is pretty extreme. It's one thing to be coached beforehand, but you really need notes to remind you to say "We hear you." Really? I'm not an Obama fan, but he went to Sandy Hook and quietly spent hours talking with the parents and survivors, no press, etc. He didn't have talking points he needed to carry with him to be a basic human being listening to people. He was a better public speaker and better at recall. I guarantee you he was coached and prepped beforehand. The rest is just your bias. I actually don't think so in this case; Obama was a career activist instead of being a career politician, but even if you want to pretend it is all faked, Obama spent hours in Sandy Hook, while Trump spent minutes in the hospital on his way down to golfing in Mar-e-lago. I'm sorry but while I'm not a fan of the DNC, pretending that both sides are equally terrible is really just a cop out.

Also I'm not saying Obama was insincere. Just that he was handled and prepped beforehand.

Timmah @ 22/2/2018 9:44

Yeah, both sides are pretty equally terrible. Which is the reason that Trump got elected in the first place, in my opinion.

Again- that's a cop out. Was Hil bad? Yep. But to say both sides (liberal and conservative) or even Dem vs Rep are equally bad is again a cop out. Stop pretending that "They are all politicians taking money" and look at platforms.

Primate @ 22/2/2018 9:52

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:27 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:18 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:15 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:06 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 6:17 Sadly, this isn't faked: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197 It's also not uncommon in past presidents. Let's not pretend Trump invented being a manipulative, insincere shitbag. Actually, *this* level is pretty extreme. It's one thing to be coached beforehand, but you really need notes to remind you to say "We hear you." Really? I'm not an Obama fan, but he went to Sandy Hook and quietly spent hours talking with the parents and survivors, no press, etc. He didn't have talking points he needed to carry with him to be a basic human being listening to people. He was a better public speaker and better at recall. I guarantee you he was coached and prepped beforehand. The rest is just your bias. I actually don't think so in this case; Obama was a career activist instead of being a career politician, but even if you want to pretend it is all faked, Obama spent hours in Sandy Hook, while Trump spent minutes in the hospital on his way down to golfing in Mar-e-lago. I'm sorry but while I'm not a fan of the DNC, pretending that both sides are equally terrible is really just a cop out. Pretending that both sides aren't the problem instead of the solution is the cop-out.

No, pretending that government is naturally terrible and we should live in a libertarian paradise is a cop-out, considering how such places tend to fair (from the scam that was Galt's Gulch in Chile to the wonderful lawlessness of Somalia).

Primate @ 22/2/2018 9:54

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:27 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:18 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:15 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:06 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 6:17 Sadly, this isn't faked: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197 It's also not uncommon in past presidents. Let's not pretend Trump invented being a manipulative, insincere shitbag. Actually, *this* level is pretty extreme. It's one thing to be coached beforehand, but you really need notes to remind you to say "We hear you." Really? I'm not an Obama fan, but he went to Sandy Hook and quietly spent hours talking with the parents and survivors, no press, etc. He didn't have talking points he needed to carry with him to be a basic human being listening to people. He was a better public speaker and better at recall. I guarantee you he was coached and prepped beforehand. The rest is just your bias. I actually don't think so in this case; Obama was a career activist instead of being a career politician, but even if you want to pretend it is all faked, Obama spent hours in Sandy Hook, while Trump spent minutes in the hospital on his way down to golfing in Mar-e-lago. I'm sorry but while I'm not a fan of the DNC, pretending that both sides are equally terrible is really just a cop out. Also I'm not saying Obama was insincere. Just that he was handled and prepped beforehand.

No amount of coaching can prep you to sit for hours listening to those stories. Either you feel for the people, or you show up for a few minutes for a photo op on the way to your latest golf outing.

And again- this isn't a partisan thing: Dubya, dumb as he is, didn't have this lack of empathy.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 9:58

Timmah @ 22/2/2018 9:44 Yeah, both sides are pretty equally terrible. Which is the reason that Trump got elected in the first place, in my opinion. Again- that's a cop out. Was Hil bad? Yep. But to say both sides (liberal and conservative) or even Dem vs Rep are equally bad is again a cop out. Stop pretending that "They are all politicians taking money" and look at platforms.

Okay, on an individual by individual basis, you are correct, they are not ALL bad. In fact there are great people who are politicians on both sides of the aisle, who care about their constituents and doing the right things. However, those individuals cannot accomplish a lot when the entire system, on all sides, is biased towards things that are not what is best for the people as a whole.

We can look at platforms all we want. At the end of the day, those platforms often mean nothing at all other than being a way to get certain rhetoric into the public to win votes. Is that ALWAYS the case? Of course not, but all too often it is. Further, just because someone has a platform does not mean they can achieve the goals of that platform even if they wanted to, because the deck is stacked in favor of consolidating the power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The whole system is broken, in my opinion, and that's coming from probably the only conservative on this board.

I suppose I have a pretty jaded opinion of the country, hell the world as a whole, at this point. But, you know what they say about opinions: opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 10:00

Primate @ 22/2/2018 9:52 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:27 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:18 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 7:15 Primate @ 22/2/2018 8:06 vladykins @ 22/2/2018 6:17 Sadly, this isn't faked: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197 It's also not uncommon in past presidents. Let's not pretend Trump invented being a manipulative, insincere shitbag. Actually, *this* level is pretty extreme. It's one thing to be coached beforehand, but you really need notes to remind you to say "We hear you." Really? I'm not an Obama fan, but he went to Sandy Hook and quietly spent hours talking with the parents and survivors, no press, etc. He didn't have talking points he needed to carry with him to be a basic human being listening to people. He was a better public speaker and better at recall. I guarantee you he was coached and prepped beforehand. The rest is just your bias. I actually don't think so in this case; Obama was a career activist instead of being a career politician, but even if you want to pretend it is all faked, Obama spent hours in Sandy Hook, while Trump spent minutes in the hospital on his way down to golfing in Mar-e-lago. I'm sorry but while I'm not a fan of the DNC, pretending that both sides are equally terrible is really just a cop out. Pretending that both sides aren't the problem instead of the solution is the cop-out. No, pretending that government is naturally terrible and we should live in a libertarian paradise is a cop-out, considering how such places tend to fair (from the scam that was Galt's Gulch in Chile to the wonderful lawlessness of Somalia).

That's quite a broad, sweeping, and over-reaching conclusion to draw from what he has said.

The NRA can go straight to hell imotbhfwiwiukwim

Timmah @ 22/2/2018 10:07

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 9:58 Timmah @ 22/2/2018 9:44 Yeah, both sides are pretty equally terrible. Which is the reason that Trump got elected in the first place, in my opinion. Again- that's a cop out. Was Hil bad? Yep. But to say both sides (liberal and conservative) or even Dem vs Rep are equally bad is again a cop out. Stop pretending that "They are all politicians taking money" and look at platforms. Okay, on an individual by individual basis, you are correct, they are not ALL bad. In fact there are great people who are politicians on both sides of the aisle, who care about their constituents and doing the right things. However, those individuals cannot accomplish a lot when the entire system, on all sides, is biased towards things that are not what is best for the people as a whole. We can look at platforms all we want. At the end of the day, those platforms often mean nothing at all other than being a way to get certain rhetoric into the public to win votes. Is that ALWAYS the case? Of course not, but all too often it is. Further, just because someone has a platform does not mean they can achieve the goals of that platform even if they wanted to, because the deck is stacked in favor of consolidating the power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. The whole system is broken, in my opinion, and that's coming from probably the only conservative on this board. I suppose I have a pretty jaded opinion of the country, hell the world as a whole, at this point. But, you know what they say about opinions: opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

The deal is that the platform states what they believe and are pushing for. It's not every person's personal belief, but it is what the party itself stands for and when a politician's position strays too far from the platform, they tend to leave the party and/or get forced out. And those stated goals *are* key to understanding where they are going, whether they can achieve it short term or not. Fr example, the Rep platform of 2016 stated that Puerto Rico should move forward on becoming the 51st whereas DC with its "corrupt Democratic government" shouldn't even be considered. Doesn't mean that every Rep believes PR should be a state and DC shouldn't, but that the vast majority do (or it wouldn't have made it into the platform).

Timmah @ 22/2/2018 10:08

That's quite a broad, sweeping, and over-reaching conclusion to draw from what he has said.

Drawing from many previous conversations on that one regarding the system itself being the problem. It's not like this is our first conversation on this. ;)

And if the chief problem is money being in US politics (which we've discussed previously), I again note that one party says that Citizens United should be overturned. The other says:

Quote

We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government.... We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits..."

Again- the parties are "just as bad" except for the multitude of places they aren't.

My initial contribution to this was that the system, on the whole, is broken. As evidence in support of my hypothesis, I offered up the fact that Trump was elected. I do not believe Trump can possibly be elected in a country in which even one of the two parties on the whole, is doing good work. That, however, is simply my opinion.

I don't even understand what you are arguing here, but it has nothing to do with my initial hypothesis. I suppose you are arguing that saying the parties are equally bad is wrong because you believe the Democratic Party's Platform is superior to the Republican Party's Platform? That's all fine and dandy, though it is also just an opinion.

Your argument also fails to consider that Trump took the Republican Party by force, instituting a platform that isn't necessarily what the platform would've typically been. Again, I believe he was able to do this because most conservatives view the Republican Party as being broken. The parties' platforms also evolve from year to year to encompass issues that the party leaders believe will assist in getting their candidates elected, so that the platforms become sort of a hodgepodge of hot topic issues spread out over the demographics of the particular party.

On a grand scale, sure, the Republican Platform is theoretically geared towards what conservatives want, while the Democratic Platform is theoretically geared towards what liberals want. And both typically trend closer to the middle than a lot of either party would like. But, that brings me back to the question of your point about "looking at platforms". Everyone's viewpoint of the platforms will be different depending on their personal beliefs and what they view as important.

vladykins @ 22/2/2018 10:27

Again- the parties are "just as bad" except for the multitude of places they aren't.

Again, that's simply in your opinion. Other people surely have different opinions, even on that specific topic. I'm not arguing whether you are right are wrong, simply that an argument based on "looking at the platforms" is inherently flawed because there is no black and white, right or wrong, answer. There are simply different viewpoints on either side of that argument. Suggesting otherwise is to suggest that one set of viewpoints are inherently superior to another set of viewpoints.

I really didn't mean to get caught up in this argument this morning, though I do enjoy healthy debates from all viewpoints. It certainly helps me better understand the world through the lenses of my own viewpoint.

The 2016 platform is pretty consistent with previous Rep platforms, so it is not hijacked by Trumpites. The platforms and thus core beliefs are not the same and again, I am fighting the concept of "both equally bad". I really want to see laid out what is "equally bad" here from the platforms. If you won't point out specifics, it is, as I said above, a cop out.

I'm more than happy to list my issues with each of the two platforms. But the big complaint I've seen is "they both take money". As noted above, one seeks to change that, while the other wants to make the money thing even bigger than currently set.

Sure- someone might disagree on abortion. We know what the parties stances are on that. But in that case, again, you wouldn't say "the parties are equally bad." Clearly, if that is your one issue that matters for everything, one party is clearly worse in your mind than the other.

Just throwing up your hands, saying both parties are bad, and then doing nothing is what is a cop-out. Frankly, I do think one party is worse than the other based on my values (stuff like intellectualism being important). And personally I'm sick of the "lesser of two evils", because that's what you get when people say "they're no different anyway. I'd rather see someone come in and passionately defend a position I don't agree with (like thumbs not being fingers) than just say "Oh well- doesn't matter. Everyone sucks anyway." The platforms and core beliefs are not the same, even if median-voter theorem gives us middling crap for presidential candidates (and I'd argue more right wing than middling).

Here's a similar argument I get that's a cop out:

"We can't do anything to stop school shootings because these people are crazy and will get guns and shoot people."

If I had any answers, I'd be running for office somewhere. I'd suggest that we start with term limits for Congress, and see what happens when people aren't more worried about re-election than what's possibly more important. But, perhaps my opinion on that is easily refutable. Baby steps, though, I guess.