todays political climate

[Stormspellz]

Okay, you pulled me back in for one more bite. You have provided opinion based statements throughout the entire thread touting Obama as the reason anything good has been happening during this administration. You have an avatar showing statements which were said to be by the President which have never been proven outside of hearsay. You have numerous comments regarding job growth, economics and other things that people are passionate about yet you tell any person that has disagreed throughout this thread with your incoherent sputter to provide sourced reliable information to back anything they type. Yet you haven't provided a single thing to back your own bs. Your "I win" button is trying to make other people provide information to sway their reply to your posts or what ever they say is fictional.

I will quote the most hypocritical thing you have said to me or any other person once again so you can understand your OWN failure in this thread:

-Both quotes are widely known and have videos of him saying them at rallies
-a complete miss representation of my comments on economic metrics
-I've repeated the same things a few times, not once did anyone ask for a source of a quote or stat outside your "Post your links and sources to support the claims you make. I could care less" a few posts ago.
-Only other person i've had any real discussions was joe and his "both sides are the same" rhetoric and I asked him to cite examples (never got anything substantive) Then he showed his true colors and bounced.
-Then here you saying Trump has done good things and then bash me to find it myself, can't even give me a starting point or subject.



-

[Jagscorpion]

I think to some extent people could accept that their opponents were flawed and still work with them. We're so sensitive at this point that it feels like any admission of humanity is just a weakness to be exploited so everything must be denied.

Secondarily and I think more importantly, people feel they cannot trust the information they are given, so they only go with information that comes from sources friendly to their cause. That exaggerates the rift because people feel they are arguing based on fact when both sides may only be looking at half the story.

I also think that social media causes issues as well, because people tend to make more extreme statements the more anonymous they are, and then this gets passed around and repeated in an echo chamber. Facebook, twitter, etc... directs you to posters and users they think you'll like, so in this way existing biases are confirmed.

[Jagscorpion]

Wasn't there a decrease in illegal immigration or something related to Trump? Too lazy to look it up. That's the only thing I can think of that wouldn't take more complex numbers to quantify.

Also, we're getting a tad off topic. Why do people seem less willing to compromise now. I think there's probably sharper divides in public perception. Things that people were relatively homogeneous on 50 years ago, like sex outside of marriage they are now widely divided on. Secularization of society has led to an undermining of religiously underpinned values, society is becoming increasingly digital so there is less human connection. I think true empathy (even for those you disagree with) has taken a hit because opponents are no longer seen as people, just as idea-spouters that must be talked or beaten into submission.

[Jagscorpion]

Exactly. Basically, the left is the Horde, and the right is the Alliance. I choose not to follow a party led by an evil banshee queen who hates everything that is good and right in the world.
If you want to be evil, just have enough self-awareness to understand that.

Calling your opponent evil will not help you change their mind. Also the exact argument you are making about the left due to their support of Hillary has been made about the right due to support of Trump. My point is that you have to work point by point and not burn your bridges. You may not be able to come to consensus at this point, but how about in 4 or 8 years or whenever someone is elected who you think is Satan? Show your opponents the same courtesy you want extended to yourself.

[Stormspellz]

No, never bashed you. Not even going there. You choose to discount others comments stating they are false because they didn't provide you with links to information. I did point out that you seem to think that the only things good happening in this administration were "trending" from the Obama administration which they weren't. My point to you was to research the information you want to communicate before posting it. Numerous times through out this thread I have stated I am not an Trump fan but I won't lie or make up bs to tout that others are responsible for accomplishments owed to him. That is in a nutshell what is wrong with politics as a whole.

So let me phrase that a bit better. What is wrong with the MAJORITY of politics in the country right now is that people who have the power to vote are boarder line clueless about what is actually going on in the world. Those same people get really angry and discount other people's views based on a lack of information due to their own unwillingness to find it.

I would normally never use the following link for a credible source of information but I am sure you do based on some of your comments. Please look up the word trending prior to posting again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/b...onomy-gdp.html

Trending:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

Your link kinda leans on many of my various points on the economy i've had in this thread, the article goes into more details of the situation spikes I mentioned earlier, like soybeans export jumping as farmers try unload product before tarifs (at the time of the article)

As for Trending, I know exactly what it means, and here's a good example of it



Now just like

You have an avatar showing statements which were said to be by the President which have never been proven outside of hearsay.

the two videos in the other post shows clear as day, your comment is dead flat wrong.

So

My point to you was to research the information you want to communicate before posting it

about that....

Now you want to say most people are ill informed, or easily taken by misinformation, sure I'll whole heartily agree with you, but that's not where you/this started from.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Basically, the left is the Horde, and the right is the Alliance. I choose not to follow a party led by an evil banshee queen who hates everything that is good and right in the world.

If you want to be evil, just have enough self-awareness to understand that.

There is no point wasting time giving you the actual "debate" you so long for. A Republican could say, "mate in 4" as everyone else in the room sees it and knows the game is over. The Democrat will still sit in the chair for the rest of their life trying to find the doorway to the alternate reality in which they win.

so you simply a raging bipartisan hypocrite?

[Deleted]

Compromises are not always good. Sometimes you have to convince the other side is the right one based on facts and statistics. Compromise leaves both sides badly served.

[Jagscorpion]

Because when you think a group is evil, there's no way you're going to come to a compromise. Here's a few examples...

One thing that's important to remember is that someone can have integrity (internal consistency with their beliefs and behavior) even if it results in things you think are evil. Things like abortion are truly difficult because at its core it's a debate around the point where people consider a fetus to be valuable human life, and thus protect-able by government. Not every issue is like that, though. You can believe someone is perpetuating evil with abortion, but still possibly trust that you can come to a consensus on something like, school vouchers. You can't do that if you burn your bridges entirely by writing the person off.

- - - Updated - - -

Compromises are not always good. Sometimes you have to convince the other side is the right one based on facts and statistics. Compromise leaves both sides badly served.

The problem is that compromises have become so rare as to be non-existent.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I've posted a lot but I think at the core of it everyone seems to assume the "other side" is operating in bad faith. That may be true at times but if people take every statement as duplicitous people leave with no results, yet feel righteous about it which means nothing will change. Just like any situation, be it raiding, job performance, etc... it's super important to squelch the urge to blame other people and START by saying, "what could I do better/change"

[Deleted]

One thing that's important to remember is that someone can have integrity (internal consistency with their beliefs and behavior) even if it results in things you think are evil. Things like abortion are truly difficult because at its core it's a debate around the point where people consider a fetus to be valuable human life, and thus protect-able by government. Not every issue is like that, though. You can believe someone is perpetuating evil with abortion, but still possibly trust that you can come to a consensus on something like, school vouchers. You can't do that if you burn your bridges entirely by writing the person off.

- - - Updated - - -



The problem is that compromises have become so rare as to be non-existent.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I've posted a lot but I think at the core of it everyone seems to assume the "other side" is operating in bad faith. That may be true at times but if people take every statement as duplicitous people leave with no results, yet feel righteous about it which means nothing will change.

I agree with this and it's something I've mentioned before - both sides need to make serious compromises, and it's going to hurt, but it needs to be done

Abortion is a good example of why both sides are digging in to understandable biases, but it doesn't help

I'm pro-abortion, but I understand the problem as viewed from the other side: if you really believe that fetuses are alive, then abortion is an incredibly evil act - "killing babies" is almost the most emotional "evil act" I can think of, so it's not surprising anti-abortionists are unwilling to even give an inch on it (even though I think their assumptions for that view are wrong)

We need to find smaller areas of compromise in the middle and bridge the gaps bit by bit, because right now things are not working out

I think both sides need to dial down the ideological parts of their manifestos: right-wingers in the USA need to dial back the religious stuff (which might tangentially make abortion more acceptable, since the whole fetus alive thing is a byproduct of a belief in human souls, etc) and left-wingers in the USA need to dial back the gender/feminism stuff (since that's just an ideology of hate against men, and it's all nonsense to boot)

The part where people really need to meet urgently is climate change: without consensus, it's hard to make sufficient progress, and the consequences of getting that one policy point wrong are life-threatening

[Jagscorpion]

The part where people really need to meet urgently is climate change: without consensus, it's hard to make sufficient progress, and the consequences of getting that one policy point wrong are life-threatening

To be honest I actually disagree with you here. My impression of eco-activism has generally been that it's been all about the most extreme legal solutions it can find, without compromise that would actually make it more palatable to businesses. Thus it becomes a zero-sum gain with one side winning all or losing all. Often it evokes a visceral reaction because people think if someone disagrees that they are "killing the planet." I'm not conversant in all the facts, but my understanding of nuclear power is that it's been much vilified and many people think it's absolutely horrible when the overall factual picture surrounding it is actually fairly positive when people are informed.

Also I think it's key to remember that many of the solutions that we think are viable NOW are because we've already had our industrial revolution. Many third-world nations aren't so lucky.

edit: as an aside I would shy away from the "whole fetus alive thing is a byproduct of a belief in human souls." That implies that you don't think life has value without a soul, which means you HAVE to be religious to think life intrinsically has value (apart from its abilities, etc). That's a dangerous road to travel if you don't want a million atheists yelling at you
-Though, as a further aside that's a fairly major argument for religions. If theodicy is one of the central problems of religion, objective reason for any moral system is one of the hardest questions atheism has to answer. Haha, let's talk about easier things than the meaning of life.

[Deleted]

To be honest I actually disagree with you here. My impression of eco-activism has generally been that it's been all about the most extreme legal solutions it can find, without compromise that would actually make it more palatable to businesses. Thus it becomes a zero-sum gain with one side winning all or losing all. Often it evokes a visceral reaction because people think if someone disagrees that they are "killing the planet." I'm not conversant in all the facts, but my understanding of nuclear power is that it's been much vilified and many people think it's absolutely horrible when the overall factual picture surrounding it is actually fairly positive when people are informed.

Also I think it's key to remember that many of the solutions that we think are viable NOW are because we've already had our industrial revolution. Many third-world nations aren't so lucky.

Well then you're a nazi and should be exterminated!!!!!!!

For real though, I get what you mean - and I'm in favour of nuclear power, it's certainly better than what we have now

I think just accepting that we have a climate change problem is enough, and maybe even getting past the reasons why (which are very emotional and do often lead into anti-capitalist diatribes etc) and into the solutions is the key

[Aphrel]

Compromise is good for subjective issues such as that exact day in which an abortion is moral or immoral. However for economic or quantitative issues there is an objectively better or worse policy direction. Which for that it's more about responding to the data rather than compromise.

It depends on what your optimizing for.
Wealth distributions for instance have diffrent "right answers" depending on your goal. If your goal is the wellbeing and happiness/quality of life of the people the goal then the optimal way to make sure wealth is distributed is diffrent from if your goal is to make the countrys economy storng on the international market. And it might yet again be a completly diffrent "right answer" if your goal is advancement of technology and the human race.

[Benggaul]

You are 41 and you hate people you never met? How immature can you get?

Anyway, you either voted for Clinton or failed to vote at all. Both of those are worse than Trump. Statistically, the US is doing better than it has in a very long time. And definitely better than leftist EU. So really, what is really your problem with Trump other than "your person lost"?

...Fcuking hell. 41 and still thinks like a child.

Thanks for proving my point. Nearly everything you've written is objectively false. The only thing you got right is that I voted for Clinton, but only because she would have been better than that shitheel Trump. Have fun thinking you're "winning" while he makes himself and his buddies richer while destroying the middle class, the environment and foreign relations. And thanks for the ad hominems that make it SO easy to just ignore you now. Buh-bye kiddo.

[Mormolyce]

Both sides of politics have realised that getting people to like you or support your agenda is hard. Making them hate their ideological counterparts is easy. So they're incentivised to propose nothing real, stick to no policies, and spend all their time and money fomenting hatred.

Ultimately it is the system that is broken, and partisan politics that broke it.

- - - Updated - - -

Compromise is good for subjective issues such as that exact day in which an abortion is moral or immoral. However for economic or quantitative issues there is an objectively better or worse policy direction. Which for that it's more about responding to the data rather than compromise.

That's exactly the wrong way around.

- - - Updated - - -

I think just accepting that we have a climate change problem is enough, and maybe even getting past the reasons why (which are very emotional and do often lead into anti-capitalist diatribes etc) and into the solutions is the key

The solutions involve things like emissions targets, carbon credits etc which the right adamantly opposes.

Stop opposing them altogether and negotiate on how high the targets should be, how much carbon credits should cost and so on. That's a compromise.

[Kokolums]

so I have been on social media for about a decade, and outside of intellectual groups I have yet to see one post that is an actual compromise on any political issue. nearly every post you read is a "my way or the highway mentality ( both parties are horrible with this". I have always been in the middle with politics. agreeing with topics from each party. so my question is.... when did compromise stop happening? I see so much division and in reality the only way any country can be fully united is to compromise. every country is dominated by one side of the political spectrum, and the prevailing party has nothing but great things to say about it, while the party being left in the shadows bitches and tries to expose them. both parties are equally guilty of this. is compromise even a thought? or has that idea left the brains of humans long ago?

The best way to understand the current political climate is LOSS OF TRUST. In particular, the political right has at this point experienced effectively total loss of trust in the press. There appears to be several major events that have caused this.

1. The resignation of Nixon

There was wide trust in the press up until Nixon resigned. Repubicans blamed the press for it. I guess you could think of this as a compromise. The democrats got Nixon removed. In exchange, trust in the press among republicans fell around around 70% to around 50%. Both changes were permanent. Nixon was gone, and society was a little more fractured but OK.

2. The press turning against the Iraq War in 2003.

Republicans' trust in the press hovered in the 50% range until 2003, when the press turned against the Iraq War. You see a VERY clear and sharp divide at that moment. Trust collapses another 10%. You COULD consider this a compromise. The democrats get the media on its side to report negatively on the war. This helps ruin George W. Bush and helps the democrats win in 2008, but in exchange there is ANOTHER permanent loss of trust. Only 25%-35% of republicans now trust the press. It was this event, IMO, where you begin to see the fabric of American culture begin to split. By turning against the War, the democrats and the press set off a chain reaction. That won a shortsighted goal (the 2008 elections) but it PERMANENTLY empowered an alt-right faction to begin to grow. This was a terrible trade for the democrats. If I were to ask democrats "would you agree to go along with and support the Iraq Invasion if it meant the alt-right, Alex Jones, Donald Trump etc. stayed marginalized instead of beginning to take over the culture?" I'm pretty sure many would say yes.

3. BLM / war on cops / gay marriage / various social issues pushed in 2016.

In 2016, it seemed like everything got kicked into overdrive. The press seemed to begin to embrace a large section of the democrat social agenda, giving voice to BLM advocates, war on cops advocates, gay marriage advocates, equality for women advocates etc. That completely and utterly backfired when looking at the polls. Trump seized on the opportunity and attacked all of it. Instead of the nation embracing these new ideas, the nation basically split in two. Trust totally collapsed in 2016 among republicans. With a shocking drop to just 14% of republicans now trusting the press, the damage is irreversible. The alt-right is now FULLY empowered and making fundamental changes to the nation.

Anyway, here is a chart of loss of trust showing how we got here at least going back to the 1990s. I've seen data showing the Nixon drop but I've lost it for now.



Its amazing how fundamentally different the nation is compared to 2000. Around 2000, about half the republicans trusted the press. Now its around 0%.

[Deleted]

Yeah it's hard to talk when both sides have people who aren't willing to listen to any kind of truth against their world view. Like recently with Kavanaugh and Ford. Or with Trump being the president. Yeah Kavanaugh isn't the 100% perfect choice, Ford is also a liar.

Trump isn't absolutely perfect, he has good policies he has bad policies. He isn't an evil nazi coming to destroy everything. Still the left has that mindset after 2 years. Clinton also lied and has a lot of problems, she could have still been a decent president, but nothing amazing.

Left has people constantly accusing Trump of stuff and trying to impeach him on nothings. Right had people constantly accusing Obama on nothings. Even the presidents Obama and Trump themselves do this. Obama calls his side the good and implies they have to fight against others. Trump was right there accusing Obama. Neither has any reason behind it.

It's hard to even see it in yourself, but pretty much everyone does it. They are more willing to believe stuff that confirms them. Both sides have their own convenient facts they believe and not so convenient they don't. I don't think either side is better or worse in this.

[Deleted]

3. BLM / war on cops / gay marriage / various social issues pushed in 2016.

In 2016, it seemed like everything got kicked into overdrive. The press seemed to begin to embrace a large section of the democrat social agenda, giving voice to BLM advocates, war on cops advocates, gay marriage advocates, equality for women advocates etc. That completely and utterly backfired when looking at the polls. Trump seized on the opportunity and attacked all of it. Instead of the nation embracing these new ideas, the nation basically split in two. Trust totally collapsed in 2016 among republicans. With a shocking drop to just 14% of republicans now trusting the press, the damage is irreversible. The alt-right is now FULLY empowered and making fundamental changes to the nation.

Good data in your post

News sites struggling to survive in the era of clickbait + social media echo chambering + identity politics -> polarisation of opinion and increasing division

[Mormolyce]

Its amazing how fundamentally different the nation is compared to 2000. Around 2000, about half the republicans trusted the press. Now its around 0%.

Took a big dip once the alt right started using it as the new synonym for "the Jewish media".

[Kokolums]

Good data in your post

News sites struggling to survive in the era of clickbait + social media echo chambering + identity politics -> polarisation of opinion and increasing division

The only way back to make republicans feel like they are part of the culture again. If that does not occur, the US is at great risk of destabilization and civil unrest. It doesn't appear the danger is even recognized by the democrats. The democrats have effectively LOST the culture war at this point. It cannot push forward with its belief system without destabilization of the nation. They've run out of rope.

[Moralgy]

So you are saying the bones, DNA, poop, preserved samples are all fake like the stories in the bible?

I love this thread, i learned that person thinks dinosaurs are just a belief.

[Kokolums]

In an environment where effectively zero percent of republicans trust the press, if the democrats win in 2018 and impeach and remove Trump from office, I will guarantee civil unrest. You simply don't have the moral authority to remove him from office when an entire political party has loss trust like this. It doesn't matter if they won the power fair and square at the ballot box. You just cannot do it. The republicans are already framing the issue as "if the democrats remove him, it is a coup". They are mentally ready to revolt if it happens. The democrats might plan on revealing some "new" information to justify it, but that will not work. The reason for removing Trump doesn't matter. Your reasoning for removing trump could be air-tight, but with 0% trusting the press, the republicans will revolt anyway.

If the nation was like it was in 2000, with 50% of republicans trusting the press, you could remove Trump. (altho trump would never get elected in that political climate). Trust would probably drop by 20%, but you could do it. Not now tho.

In a way, you could say the democrats failure to compromise on Iraq and being hell-bent on destroying Bush created the political climate that allowed Trump to win 10 years later.