• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What have we come to?

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
34,679
Reaction score
14,225
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Warning, as a lefty, what follows will reflect my own biases, but I will try to insert some exampkes folks on the right might appreciate. The purpose of the title of this thread was to highlight the following things past and present that seem to define our gotcha political culture:

- Today FOX is apparently backtracking on the false story that Biden says we can't eat meat; this, after a GOP freak out
- Kudlow talks about plant based beer in response to the phony "no meat" story; makes a bit of a fool of himself, and people jump on him, pretending to miss his sarcastic point
- AOC said we should cut back on air travel and push trains, and people remind her about oceans, as if she was talking about taking a train from NY to London instead of Chicago to St. Louis
- Tucker Carlson says having kids wear masks is the equivalent of beating them
- Romney says corporations are people too, and people make fun, pretending they don't know what he was talking about
- AOC says that young people believe the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and people insist on taking her literally
- Dr. Fauci, like a good scientist, adjusts his advice as new information about the pandemic appears or new patterns of infection occur, "Fire Fauci" becomes a battle cry for some on the right
- Republicans toggle between "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and "O Lordy, Lordy, the debt!", with the key to understanding why they take one side or another at a particular time being who's holds the presidency
- A strong criminal case is made against what Chauvin did to Floyd in Minneapolis and people seem to blame rioters in Portland for the verdict
- The response to the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is a valid "Blue Lives Matter" one, but also a lets-miss-the-point-on-purpose "All Lives Matter."
- Rush Limbaugh says a woman who testified about birth control pills as useful to regulate an erratic menstrual cycle is having so much sex it's amazing she can walk. Trump gives him a Medal of Freedom (no one seen gagging); she has to go through life hearing people say "aren't you the slut?"

Here is where a form of "what aboutism," (otherwise disparaged in DP) would actually be useful, if critics asked "what about?" questions relating to each of the above, to allow the person making the statement to respond. (This probably wouldn't work with Trump, as his reflexive response seems to be to double down rather than walk back.) But current toxic political culture won't allow this.

But the larger question is how this came to pass. Some say it started years ago with the "bomb throwing" by Gingrich, who opposed things he supported just because democrats supported them too. Others, me among them, blame the GOP for not having an agenda, other than hoping for failure. We are not being served well by these ways of non-thinking. How did it come to this?
 
Tucker Carlson says having kids wear masks is the equivalent of beating them
Link please.

BTW, to mention Tucker and AOC in the same breath is misleading at best.
Tucker often uses hyperbole and irony.
AOC is NEVER being ironic. NEVER. Nor is she ever being hyperbolic.
She is being 100% serious.
 
Link please.

BTW, to mention Tucker and AOC in the same breath is misleading at best.
Tucker often uses hyperbole and irony.
AOC is NEVER being ironic. NEVER. Nor is she ever being hyperbolic.
She is being 100% serious.
You are correct that AOC is serious. Tucker isn't serious.
 
I go back to Nixon who broke the trust of many americans with our government and then came Reagan who told us government isn't the solution to your problems, the government is the problem.

That wasn't good enough so he added, the ten scariest words in the english language...I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Imagine that, our government helping we the people. And it just continues with the choices the gop inflicts on us with their choices for president.
 
If you have to beat a kid to wear a mask it reflects on bad parenting? We have met so many youngins who are ever so proud to wear their face covering. I have asked a few why they do it and they answered that they respect the less healthy and older people. What a concept.
 
Link please.

BTW, to mention Tucker and AOC in the same breath is misleading at best.
Tucker often uses hyperbole and irony.
AOC is NEVER being ironic. NEVER. Nor is she ever being hyperbolic.
She is being 100% serious.
Link to an article below. Amazing how you are able to discern Tucker's irony and AOC's 100% seriousness. I wish I had that gift. Was he being ironic when he lamented the decline of (white) America and how immigrants make the country dirtier? Sure fooled me.

Btw, AOC did a wonderful playful bit, speaking from underground, whispering to the camera, "guys, there are secret tunnels underneath the Capitol!"

 
You are correct that AOC is serious. Tucker isn't serious
Oh yeah. AOC was serious when she said millennials think the world will end in 12 years. Tucker isn't serious, a regular card, when he laments the browning of America.
 
It’s gotcha / instant gratification culture. Most posters will read your post, zoom in on the one item in it that jumps out to them in the first few seconds, then rush to an opinion. Acadia’s response was a perfect example of this. Whether it reflects a lack of intellectual horsepower or mere intellectual laziness, or simply the desire for instant gratification, I cannot say. What I can say is that a great many people struggle with taking a couple of minutes to fully understand a problem before jumping to an opinion, much less one that takes hours or days to properly understand. If a person cannot still their mind long enough to properly digest your post, how can one expect them to have any perspective on health care or wealth disparity or immigration beyond what they can absorb in a 20 second CNN or FOX soundbite?

I think we got here through instant gratification culture - internet, instant everything, 20 second news clips and 60 word tweets and social media posts. I don’t know how we can recover from this except to make sure the next generation carries more critical thinking ability into adulthood.
 
I go back to Nixon who broke the trust of many americans with our government and then came Reagan who told us government isn't the solution to your problems, the government is the problem.

That wasn't good enough so he added, the ten scariest words in the english language...I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Imagine that, our government helping we the people. And it just continues with the choices the gop inflicts on us with their choices for president.
Good for you. If there was anything that exemplified Reagan's toxic politics, it was that ignoramus comment. My folks got fed through some form of government relief when my dad lost his job during the depression while mom was pregnant with my sis. They should have recoiled in horror instead of accepting relief, as should victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
 
Link please.

BTW, to mention Tucker and AOC in the same breath is misleading at best.
Tucker often uses hyperbole and irony.
AOC is NEVER being ironic. NEVER. Nor is she ever being hyperbolic.
She is being 100% serious.

Shame his audience isn’t in on the joke.
 
It’s gotcha / instant gratification culture. Most posters will read your post, zoom in on the one item in it that jumps out to them in the first few seconds, then rush to an opinion. Acadia’s response was a perfect example of this. Whether it reflects a lack of intellectual horsepower or mere intellectual laziness, or simply the desire for instant gratification, I cannot say. What I can say is that a great many people struggle with taking a couple of minutes to fully understand a problem before jumping to an opinion, much less one that takes hours or days to properly understand. If a person cannot still their mind long enough to properly digest your post, how can one expect them to have any perspective on health care or wealth disparity or immigration beyond what they can absorb in a 20 second CNN or FOX soundbite?

I think we got here through instant gratification culture - internet, instant everything, 20 second news clips and 60 word tweets and social media posts. I don’t know how we can recover from this except to make sure the next generation carries more critical thinking ability into adulthood.
I can understand how we posters can do this in the political playground that is DP, but what I don't get is how those with a public platform do it. Is it just laziness? What is accomplished if I am a commentator on say, cable news, makes one of the attacks I listed in the OP? Will legislation pass or fail because of it? Journalistic ethics require at least approaching AOC or Trump for clarification of their statements one finds problematic. Or is someone like Carlson so cynical that the number of eyeballs viewing his show is all that matters? Where and when does true patriotism, theclove of the people of our country and its ideals play a role? I can see politicians doing this so much more easily to get votes, but what's in it for news folk?
 
It all goes back to Barry Goldwater realizing the Southern Democrats are aliens in their own party and there is potential for the Republicans in the South.
 
It all goes back to Barry Goldwater realizing the Southern Democrats are aliens in their own party and there is potential for the Republicans in the South.

Sure, you could see it in the voting results concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Here's the breakdown by party and by region:

First, the South

House:

Southern Democrats: 8 in favor, 83 against
Southern Republicans: 0 in favor, 11 against

Senate:

Southern Democrats: 1 in favor, 20 against
Southern Republicans: 0 in favor, 1 against

In short, the numbers against the CRA by Southerners of any political party of 1964 were nothing short of a landslide.

Second, the North

House:

Northern Democrats: 145 in favor, 8 against
Northern Republicans: 136 in favor, 24 against

Senate:

Northern Democrats: 45 in favor, 1 against
Northern Republicans: 27 in favor, 5 against

The voting results show without any doubt that the voting boiled down to the North versus the South, and not the Republicans versus the Democrats.

The South overwhelmingly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regardless of party.

The North overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regardless of party.

But from those results, it wasn't difficult for a Republican strategist or two to use race to create the Southern Strategy and through black fear to transform the South into a Republican stronghold for half a century and running.
 
She runs circles around the right daily. She’s only getting more and more popular.

Young, smart, hot. Badass bitch.

Knows how to use social media while they're struggling to get a five-minute segment on Tucker.

She's crushing them. She tweets in ten seconds and reaches 8 million whenever she wants.

They get their faces powdered and sit and wait so they can reach 2-3 million on Tucker at prime time.

They don't understand how information is disseminated anymore.
 
You are correct that AOC is serious. Tucker isn't serious.
Daily chuckle.
thanks for the laugh.
"Our guarantee to having a home comes before someone else’s privilege to earn a profit.”-


7wkn57w2d7i21.jpg
 
She'd crush any Trump supporter here in a debate on any political topic.

#LAFFRIOT
 
Warning, as a lefty, what follows will reflect my own biases, but I will try to insert some exampkes folks on the right might appreciate. The purpose of the title of this thread was to highlight the following things past and present that seem to define our gotcha political culture:

- Today FOX is apparently backtracking on the false story that Biden says we can't eat meat; this, after a GOP freak out
- Kudlow talks about plant based beer in response to the phony "no meat" story; makes a bit of a fool of himself, and people jump on him, pretending to miss his sarcastic point
- AOC said we should cut back on air travel and push trains, and people remind her about oceans, as if she was talking about taking a train from NY to London instead of Chicago to St. Louis
- Tucker Carlson says having kids wear masks is the equivalent of beating them
- Romney says corporations are people too, and people make fun, pretending they don't know what he was talking about
- AOC says that young people believe the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and people insist on taking her literally
- Dr. Fauci, like a good scientist, adjusts his advice as new information about the pandemic appears or new patterns of infection occur, "Fire Fauci" becomes a battle cry for some on the right
- Republicans toggle between "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and "O Lordy, Lordy, the debt!", with the key to understanding why they take one side or another at a particular time being who's holds the presidency
- A strong criminal case is made against what Chauvin did to Floyd in Minneapolis and people seem to blame rioters in Portland for the verdict
- The response to the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is a valid "Blue Lives Matter" one, but also a lets-miss-the-point-on-purpose "All Lives Matter."
- Rush Limbaugh says a woman who testified about birth control pills as useful to regulate an erratic menstrual cycle is having so much sex it's amazing she can walk. Trump gives him a Medal of Freedom (no one seen gagging); she has to go through life hearing people say "aren't you the slut?"

Here is where a form of "what aboutism," (otherwise disparaged in DP) would actually be useful, if critics asked "what about?" questions relating to each of the above, to allow the person making the statement to respond. (This probably wouldn't work with Trump, as his reflexive response seems to be to double down rather than walk back.) But current toxic political culture won't allow this.

But the larger question is how this came to pass. Some say it started years ago with the "bomb throwing" by Gingrich, who opposed things he supported just because democrats supported them too. Others, me among them, blame the GOP for not having an agenda, other than hoping for failure. We are not being served well by these ways of non-thinking. How did it come to this?
As best as I can tell, it started with Rush Limbaugh, who conditioned half the country to see the other half of the country as domestic enemies rather than mere political foes. If somebody is your enemy and you see yourself as being at war, then you can quite easily justify a disinformation campaign to demoralize, isolate or wear down your enemy. It's no less than what we'd do to a foreign enemy in war, and it's exactly what Republicans have been doing since Limbaugh first went on the air.

It's not so much that Republicans lie, it's that they don't care because, well, they're at war.
 
The right doesn't really have any ideas that the American people are interested in hearing. They don't have solutions to poverty, healthcare, income inequality, ...anything really. Any problems that appear in their laps, such as the deadliest pandemic in the last 100 years, they pretend do not exist. They make bad, selfish, short sighted decisions at every turn. Trump was able to fool some people for awhile by pretending to be an economic populist, but even that didn't really last.
 
Back
Top Bottom