|
Replies: 67
| visibility 4805
|
Clemson Icon [24856]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
7
7
Jul 23, 2024, 11:22 AM
|
|
What is it about Politics now that keeps everybody foaming at the mouth? How did it get this way? I remember the table top discussions at my mom's restaurant in the 60s. I was just a kid but cops, truck drivers, business owners, CFOs, everybody could sit and discuss politics over coffee and smokes. And nobody was rude. Everyone listened to the other person's opinion, agree or disagree.
So I go back and watch the first 5 minutes of the movie Idiocracy. Then it all makes sense.
|
|
|
|
 |
TigerNet Immortal [176673]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 72623
Joined: 2013
|
Divide and conquer strategies spread by social media
7
7
Jul 23, 2024, 11:30 AM
|
|
We used to be able to realize that most of our ideological opposites still loved their country and community and wanted to live and raise a family in a nice world just like you did. Once that was removed, so did the need to be courteous and empathetic to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24856]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
That's probably about as good a reason as I'll get. It still makes me sad.
2
Jul 23, 2024, 12:03 PM
|
|
Seems like it happened so quickly, in one generation. As Americans we should strive to do better, right? But I'm not holding my breath. I already see foaming mouth comments below. So I'm done. Again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [51053]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 25078
Joined: 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [52193]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 46348
Joined: 1998
|
Politics in America has never been nice
1
Jul 23, 2024, 3:15 PM
[ in reply to Divide and conquer strategies spread by social media ] |
|
The difference now is that we can spread that animosity far more easily. The 1960s were volatile. Post Nixon, people calmed down a bit, but it also took a very popular president to do that. WW II was a political strife wash. But we once had a civil war out of an election (Southern states vowing to seced if Lincoln won).
American democracy has always been messy, volatile, and often violent. It's a testament to the structure that our founders created that it hasn't collapsed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [176673]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 72623
Joined: 2013
|
I agree that we arent at an all time low,
Jul 23, 2024, 3:40 PM
|
|
But in the modern era are we at a definitive low point for how each side views (and treats) the other? I’d have to say yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [52193]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 46348
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Politics in America has never been nice
Jul 23, 2024, 3:51 PM
[ in reply to Politics in America has never been nice ] |
|
It's just 'louder' now with Internet and 24 hour news and more people throw in their 2 cents. I think some folks need to go outside and touch the Earth and smell some air. I feel like there is the real world and cyber world. Maybe it's just where I live, but overall the real world seems pretty good.
The thing is, I rarely talk about politics outside of this board. Not really even sure why I do it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [92144]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 49119
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32471]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 24184
Joined: 2002
|
Communism is always smoldering ... sometimes it flares up
2
Jul 23, 2024, 11:30 AM
|
|
Freedom has to rise up occasionally and stamp it back down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24728]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 19228
Joined: 1998
|
Be sure to check under your bed and in the closet!***
Jul 23, 2024, 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32471]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 24184
Joined: 2002
|
Excellent retort ... well thought out.***
Jul 23, 2024, 1:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21730]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 19118
Joined: 2012
|
Media and Money
3
Jul 23, 2024, 11:33 AM
|
|
Media and Money
Now people can find like-minded individuals no matter what one thinks.
And once connected, you can get into as comfortable/safe echo chamber as you like!
And the media - tv, radio, social, etc will cater to the echo chamber you sit in to reinforce your views, stress you out, and keep you clicking. This goes from the MSNBCs and Fox News down to your individual citizen journalist on YouTube or X or....
Message was edited by: ninetytwotiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50831]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 20640
Joined: 2015
|
It started with Obama. Many budding MAGAs couldn't handle a black man
1
9
9
Jul 23, 2024, 11:36 AM
|
|
being elected.
Then a woman was up for election. These same people vowed to NEVER let that happen so they began developing strong resolve for a corrupt and shady reality show business con man with no experience from NY that was a Democrat who decided to campaign as a Republican on a platform that would really stir up this particular voting base.
He became their identity. They owned flags, turned to social media, and followed his "everyone is out to get me" mantra.
The entire thing has been wind-aided by the rise of social media and an aging group of lightbulb bill types and unfortunately during the process have spawned another generation of 18-25 yr olds that have zero life experience, live on their parent's teet, yet somehow have become rabid of the same bewlshid they've heard their parents chant for the past 12 or so years....so it's all they really know.
It is a cycle of sadness with unfortunately no end in sight. No matter WHO is elected this upcoming cycle, the next 4 yrs will be that of just vile hatred by about 50% of the US towards whomever is in office.
No wonder our country's best won't even consider putting themselves through this polical climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32471]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 24184
Joined: 2002
|
Or ... just perhaps ... it was their globalist agenda & America last policies
1
1
Jul 23, 2024, 11:38 AM
|
|
that people were opposed to.
Tomato ... Tomaaaato.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50831]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 20640
Joined: 2015
|
I think some probably voted for policies and from a somewhat place of
4
Jul 23, 2024, 11:51 AM
|
|
educating themselves.
Not most though. You ever met these people that ride around in boats with FJB, MAGA, or Trump flags? They certainly aren't the smartest nor most open minded people, and most certainly can't think critically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [176673]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 72623
Joined: 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50831]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 20640
Joined: 2015
|
Yep, I was. Took a more tiggity-eque approach though.***
Jul 23, 2024, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19044]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 20414
Joined: 2015
|
This is the laziest ### I've seen today, and that is saying something.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 11:59 AM
[ in reply to It started with Obama. Many budding MAGAs couldn't handle a black man ] |
|
Pulling the race card or the misogyny card is so fk stupid. Nope, not their socialist policies or their promise to "transform America"; whatver that means; IT HAS TO BE THEIR RACE OR GENDER.
You are the ignorant voter that the Dems love to control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50831]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 20640
Joined: 2015
|
I know you aren't one to ever let a good fact get in the way but I'll present
4
Jul 23, 2024, 12:09 PM
|
|
one to you for consideration:
I've never not once voted for a Democratic POTUS candidate.
My observations are anecdotal. I live in an area filled with, socialize with, and work with many that fit the aforementioned description.
And sadly no, it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THEIR RACE OR GENDER but many make it out to be that way. And yes it does come from both sides. In fact, most can't even articulate what a "socialist policy" is.
Same people blame Democratic operatives for the attempt to kill DJT because the SS wasn't even there to protect orangeman (they were plants), the head of SS couldn't possibly be qualified because female that worked for pepsi, and the reason the SS wasn't present was because they abandoned Trump to go protect Harris and Jill Biden at other locations. Also, shooter was a Democrat in spite of his voter registration.
But hey, Obama was coming to get their guns and by now we were supposed to be under complete socialism. Also, Trump will lower your grocery bill and give you better prices at the gas pump.
That type of dumbassery. And no, not ALL republicans. No sir, that would not be fact. We are talking a subset of the MAGA types that have taken on MAGALYFE as their identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1715]
TigerPulse: 94%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15672]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2013
|
Re: It started with Obama. Many budding MAGAs couldn't handle a black man
1
Jul 23, 2024, 3:32 PM
|
|
Thank you for pointing that out.
It’s like some of the above posters want to believe this mess started in the last 12 years.
Nope, Reagan was a fascist 40 years ago according to some In the media and many dems. Some of us can remember. Now, it wasn’t as widespread as it is now but it happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50831]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 20640
Joined: 2015
|
Yeah I dunno. Don't remember that, but there again I was probably outside
Jul 23, 2024, 4:17 PM
|
|
playing during most of the Reagan era.
I just don't recall politics being quite this vile during Regan, Sr, Willy, or Dubya. Maybe the exception was Willy getting his Willy Willied.
Again I'll add that the rise and popularity of the internet as well as social media has not done us many favors on this topic either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12425]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 13377
Joined: 1999
|
The problem I've always had with that argument is that for every person who
Jul 23, 2024, 1:37 PM
[ in reply to It started with Obama. Many budding MAGAs couldn't handle a black man ] |
|
wouldn't vote for Obama because he was black - there had to have been someone who voted for him solely because he was black.
Same with Hillary - I'm sure many people voted for her solely because she was female.
I guess it's just the circle that people live in and associate with - but I don't know anyone who would who hold race/gender as their primary voting measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13396]
TigerPulse: 94%
48
Posts: 16466
Joined: 2021
|
BS. Anti-democracy Obama & Biden tried to weaken the Supreme Court
Jul 23, 2024, 9:52 PM
[ in reply to It started with Obama. Many budding MAGAs couldn't handle a black man ] |
|
The Democrat party loves you. Judging from your post, you swallowed the most simplistic fake narrative … racism … to defend Obama’svdisdain for the third leg of our Constitutional republic; the judiciary (Supreme Court). The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of the government, with the Executive branch (President) and Congress (House of Representative and Senate) being the other co-equal branches.
Following is a very long C&P from a Politico article about “court packing,” recent history of Democrat president’s ambitions to diminish the independence of this co-equal branch of our government. To summarize, non-leftists (e.g., people who don’t vote for the Democrat party) are deeply worried about Democrat presidents’ past and recent history of endeavoring to weaken the Supreme Court.
As if my suspicions about the sincerity of Democrat cries to ‘save democracy,’ were not already strong, the Biden administration desire to weaken the independence of the Supreme Court by imposing ‘lifetime appointment’ time limits for a Supreme Court justice to serve removed all doubt. The Democrat party despised America’s system of government; they want authoritarianism … with them calling all the shots.
I’m not likely to ever vote for a Democrat presidential candidate again. They are committed to politicizing our government’s courts.
OK, below is the very long C&P (which does not cover the entire article. The article provides opinions that defend court packing and opinions that oppose court packing. (Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, both being in the Supreme Court’s so called ‘liberal’ wing, opposed “court packing.”)
xxxxxxxxx
Politico
“The continuing battle over 'court packing' and the Supreme Court.”
By Louis Jacobson
April 23, 2021
• Democratic lawmakers have introduced a measure to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13. They say this is necessary to counter “court packing” by Republicans in the past few years, but Republicans say the Democrats’ bill is itself a clear example of court packing.
• Most experts told PolitiFact that the Democratic bill does qualify as court packing, though some said it was justified given the Republicans’ earlier actions.
• Many experts said they would prefer an overhaul that sets an 18-year term limit on justices, but that would require a constitutional amendment, which would be difficult to enact.
The latest political battle over the Supreme Court is not about filling an open seat, but about how many seats there should be. Several Democratic lawmakers in Congress have introduced legislation to expand the court to 13 justices, up from its current nine.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., told PolitiFact that Republicans’ recent actions on the Supreme Court amounted to a "subversion of our democracy."
"To unpack the Court, restoring balance and integrity, we can, and must, expand it," Jones said.
Republicans, meanwhile, have counter-attacked using precisely the same language: They say the Democratic bill is itself "court packing."
"They’re introducing a bill to add four new seats to the Supreme Court so that Democrats can pack the Court, destroy its legitimacy, and guarantee the rulings liberals want," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
McConnell pointed to remarks by Justice Stephen Breyer and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg against expanding the court. Both Breyer and Ginsburg were considered part of the court’s liberal wing.
With both proponents and opponents of the bill accusing the other side of court packing, we thought it would be a good time to dive into the meaning of the term, and the larger debate about reforming the Supreme Court.
What is court packing?
The Constitution doesn’t specify the maximum number of Supreme Court seats. It started at six in 1789, briefly fell to five in 1801 before returning to six in 1802. It rose to seven in 1807 and nine in 1837. It rose to 10 in 1863, then shrank to seven in 1866 before stabilizing at nine in 1869.
Initially, the nation was growing geographically, which required more justices, and the increase in 1863 can be explained by the Civil War, which left the court with several justices from states in rebellion.
But experts say "court packing" is different. That involves a party stacking the court with supporters for politically motivated reasons, typically through a departure from ordinary processes. It usually involves adding judicial seats, but has sometimes included strategic shrinkages.
Historians usually point to several specific battles since the nation’s founding that exemplify court packing:
• The "midnight judges." In 1801, following a contentious election, President John Adams sought to stymie the incoming President Thomas Jefferson by adding six new federal circuits with 16 judges, all appointed by Adams. The last-minute appointees came to be known as "midnight judges." Jefferson’s team sought to abolish the new courts, and in 1803, the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so.
• The post-Civil War era. After President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson was elevated to president. When he clashed with Congress, they shrank the Supreme Court from 10 seats to seven, effectively denying Johnson any appointments. After Johnson was succeeded by Ulysses S. Grant, Congress restored the Supreme Court to its current nine.
• President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 proposal. Frustrated with the justices’ opposition to his New Deal programs, Roosevelt threatened to increase the size of the court by as many as five justices. The scheme was widely seen as a power grab, and it ended up in history’s dustbin.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt talks to the nation in a fireside chat from the White House in November 1937. (AP)
For decades after the failure of Roosevelt’s proposal, the term "court packing" became so toxic that presidents steered clear of such efforts. "It is generally used as a pejorative term, to denounce something that one’s political opponents are engaged in," said Thomas M. Keck, the chair of constitutional law and politics at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs.
Recent battles over the court
As battles over the Supreme Court have intensified in recent years, the term has reemerged as a focus of both sides’ rhetoric.
Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, arrives for a meeting with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on April 14, 2016.
Just weeks before the 2020 election Republicans, led by McConnell, raced to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the court. That was four years after Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s pick for the court, Merrick Garland, for more than a year, arguing that the American public had a right to weigh in first. (Garland is now serving as Biden’s attorney general.)
In particular, McConnell’s divergent approaches to the Garland and Barrett nominations led Democrats to charge that his actions were tantamount to court packing.
As the Barrett nomination was under consideration, PolitiFact gave McConnell a Full Flop for changing his position between 2016 and 2020.
"In both cases, McConnell offered a justification that confirmations have proceeded when the presidency and the Senate are in unified control and have stalled when the two are under divided control," we wrote. "However, this isn’t a higher principle that led McConnell to his decision; it’s a cherry-picked, after-the-fact justification for the raw exercise of power he undoubtedly has."
Paul M. Collins Jr., a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said the actions on Garland and Barrett were "a form of court packing, because it involved an effort to temporarily alter the size of the court to advance the agenda of the Republican Party."
Paul Finkelman, a legal historian who is currently president of Gratz College, agreed. "That is court packing, a political manipulation of the system," he said. "And that is not how it’s supposed to work."
Is the Democratic bill an example of court packing?
As for the Democratic bill, which increases the number of justices from nine to 13, we found widespread agreement among experts that it meets the definition of court packing.
"That’s what ‘court packing’ has long meant — increasing the size of the court to change the likely outcomes of the cases," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles.
"I think it's clear that there's a political motivation for the change," said Sara C. Benesh, a political scientist at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "There's no legal or decision-making reason to want more rather than fewer justices."
The Democratic bill "is raw politics at work," said Stephen B. Presser, an emeritus professor of law at Northwestern University.
We found less consensus among experts about whether the Republicans’ prior treatment of Garland and Barrett justified the Democratic move.
Keck said a court expansion can be justified.
"If it’s the case that Sen. McConnell and other Republican leaders engaged in illegitimate court packing of their own from 2016 to 2020, then from the Democrats’ perspective, an additional round of court reform is necessary to correct for those earlier rounds," he said.
But others said that, even if the Republicans’ actions were questionable or worse, there are practical reasons why a Democratic-backed expansion would be ill-advised.
Volokh expressed concern about a "tit-for-tat pattern — the Republicans did these things to influence the composition of the court, so we the Democrats should do this even bigger thing to compensate. If the Democrats succeed here, then the next time the Republicans take control, it’s a sure bet they’ll likewise play tit-for-tat and expand the Court so that they take it over again. It doesn’t seem like a good long-term solution."
And Ilya Shapiro, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said that "court packing always detracts from the court’s legitimacy by taking away the idea it’s a court of law rather than just another politicized legislative body."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13396]
TigerPulse: 94%
48
Posts: 16466
Joined: 2021
|
Re: BS. Anti-democracy Obama & Biden tried to weaken the Supreme Court
Jul 23, 2024, 11:23 PM
|
|
Ooops … PolitiFact, not Politico.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7943]
TigerPulse: 89%
42
Posts: 10600
Joined: 2001
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 11:42 AM
|
|
Your experience of the good ole days was different than mine. Most of my entire family are/were hard core Christian/conservatives who would shake their finger at me and tell me that the moral decay in this country was because of liberals and "the coloreds" (N word was also used). They always stressed it to me to "vote republican" and disagreement was not tolerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15672]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2013
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 3:35 PM
|
|
Mine was different than yours although I grew up in a Christian/conservative home, I never heard the N word and that was in backwoods SC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5935]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 4:14 PM
|
|
I don’t believe you 😏 I’ve heard it many times in my life from family, friends and acquaintances. I’m 60 years old and grew up in Greer, SC. If you were ever around old people when you were young you MOST certainly heard it. They are pretty racist because of the generation they grew up in. I’m not defending their behavior but it is what it is. I have some family friends that use the N word all the time now. I’m offended by it and it makes me cringe. I don’t say anything because several are over 80 years old. I just change the subject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15672]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2013
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 4:42 PM
|
|
I’m referring to my home life, not anything else. I never heard my parents say that word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36428]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 34767
Joined: 1999
|
It's just gone more mainstream.
Jul 23, 2024, 11:43 AM
|
|
The P&R Board (formerly Le Lunge) of Tnet has had its rabid crazies since it was formed. In fact, it was formed (in, what, 1999?) precisely to keep the rabid political crazies off the Mange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Champion [113061]
TigerPulse: 100%
65
Posts: 73084
Joined: 2002
|
It's odd, because I've completelty backed off of politics.
5
5
Jul 23, 2024, 11:46 AM
|
|
I was once very political. I thought the dems would ruin the country, and the pubs would save it. in reality, both are more than capable, and prone to ruin it.
It took many years to really understand the problem because no one talks about it. no one mentions it. no one solves it. And I started really thinking, what difference does it make if dems and pubs are both going to spend more, drive up the debt, still allow illegals in, refuse to raise the minimum wage, etc. You know dems have to be just as frustrated as pubs with their party's lack of results, or any meaningful changes made.
And then it dawned on me. None of our problems are political. We choose to make them political, as that implies a solution to the problem exists. What we are not conditioned to do is acknowledge that our perfect little democracy, our system of governance, is in fact flawed, and we're not addressing the flaws, but are instead arguing over meaningless political strawmen, that rotate daily with the news cycles.
Donald Trump is not going to save America. Joe Biden is not going to save America. Even Nikki Haley, whom I voted for grudgingly, won't save America. No politician ever tells us the truth about anything, as it's not in their (or our) interest really. Some people know it, a few, but the vast majority don't know the truth, and frankly are incapable of understanding it. So they blame a dem or a pub. I mean coot logic dictates that if something is a problem, and a dem is running the show, then electing a pub would necessarily HAVE TO FIX IT. Not so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 64507
Joined: 2004
|
Nobody will get elected by saying they'll raise taxes, cut entitlements
5
5
Jul 23, 2024, 11:48 AM
|
|
and cut spending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24158]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 13641
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1715]
TigerPulse: 94%
31
|
Re: Surely these two deserve some credit
Jul 23, 2024, 12:27 PM
|
|
It actually started with the attacks of the nomination of Robert Bork for a supreme court position-that was before Newt or Rush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26071]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 34127
Joined: 1998
|
Bork illegally fired Archibald Cox to protect Nixon from an investigation
1
Jul 23, 2024, 12:36 PM
|
|
into his Watergate criminality after Nixon promised to nominate him for the SCOTUS if he would do so.
That's where you think it started?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1715]
TigerPulse: 94%
31
|
Re: Bork illegally fired Archibald Cox to protect Nixon from an investigation
Jul 23, 2024, 1:03 PM
|
|
No, with his nomination for Supreme Court, it is fine to vote to not approve him for the Supreme Court but the attacks on him during the nomination was beyond ugly-that is where the term "borking" someone came from
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26071]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 34127
Joined: 1998
|
You seem to be missing the context that I provided you.***
Jul 23, 2024, 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 12:21 PM
|
|
When confirmation bias became a business model
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4700]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
Jul 23, 2024, 12:25 PM
|
|
Obama changed all of that. Radical leftist who can’t define what a woman is took over the party. Radical leftists that are fine with cross dressing men reading to kids. Radical leftist that believe white people are inherently racist. Radical leftist who are fine with abortion as a means of birth control. Radical leftist that are fine with minors getting their nuts chopped off.
Back in the 60’s no democrat or republican would’ve allowed this bull #### in their parties. Thats the difference. The left vilified the right as racists, bigots, and facists. Kind of hard to carry a conversation with someone who thinks you are evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7943]
TigerPulse: 89%
42
Posts: 10600
Joined: 2001
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
Jul 23, 2024, 12:48 PM
|
|
Things were better pre-CRA, correct? 😆
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [160485]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 70618
Joined: 2000
|
When we say "Make America great again"....
1
Jul 23, 2024, 1:01 PM
|
|
you know what we're talking about. *wink* *nudge*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4700]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7943]
TigerPulse: 89%
42
Posts: 10600
Joined: 2001
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
Jul 23, 2024, 3:15 PM
|
|
I'll give you a history lesson. Dems were for the CRA and Pubs were against it. It marked the switch of the deep south voting solid blue to solid red.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 5:36 PM
|
|
A higher percentage of of Pubs voted for the '64 CRA than Dems
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13396]
TigerPulse: 94%
48
Posts: 16466
Joined: 2021
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
Jul 23, 2024, 9:54 PM
|
|
Ooooops for Birmy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
Jul 23, 2024, 10:01 PM
|
|
Checkers feller
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24728]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 19228
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4700]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Geez one would have thought you think Radical Leftist are evil?
1
Jul 23, 2024, 1:55 PM
|
|
I think radical leftists are evil. Not liberals or democrats. The problem is radical leftists have taken over the democrat party. Radical right wingers have not taken over the Republican Party.
I know Kamala and the leftist media want you to think Trump is a nazi and is going to implement project 2025 but that’s not true.
He has publicly stated multiple times and that he is not associated with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13351]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 12029
Joined: 2001
|
35 trillion
1
Jul 23, 2024, 1:06 PM
|
|
in debt and 25 to 30 million illegals would represent a couple of reasons rational people are near a 1776 type turning point. As someone once observed, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12425]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 13377
Joined: 1999
|
Is it possible all of these folks shared the same
1
Jul 23, 2024, 1:25 PM
|
|
political leanings, so they got along fine?
But yeah - people are just nasty now - from all sides of the spectrum.
Honestly, the fear of the race card prevents me from talking politics.
"I think we should control the border and control who comes in"
"Well, that because you're a racist and don't want POC's coming in the country"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [52193]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 46348
Joined: 1998
|
Putting aside the fact that volatility in America over politics is nothing new
Jul 23, 2024, 3:20 PM
|
|
We are arguably far less violent and angry than in the past...
A lot of factors have led here, but this blame rests solely on the shoulders of Trump and his loyalists and I mean that good and hard. They have chosen a man they have raised up as a demigod and someone they worship and love far more than America. A man they are willing to let get away with anything. A man who they think spoke to them. The core of his hardest loyalists are very, very, very stupid people--people no one listened to (like a Tom or Keowee or RTD) before in those scenarios you described, but social media has now given them a mic.
And for all of them, if you don't adore Trump and love his every action and move, you're evil. You're the enemy. You're a "shitlib". They want you jailed or worse.
And after that, you can understand how you get the exact opposite pushback from others.
So this man and his group of overzealous loyalists have amplified the political hatred and rhetoric. Until he--and other politicians who imitate him--are out of the picture, it will continue.
This post will generate some butthurt rage from his very loyalists, but I remind everybody: It's them that are labeling all of you who don't love Trump as America's enemy and calling for civil war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Putting aside the fact that volatility in America over politics is nothing new
2
Jul 23, 2024, 3:24 PM
|
|
Dems have been nasty for a while - Pubs just finally started acting like Dems. Trump probably ignited that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [52193]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 46348
Joined: 1998
|
Dems have been stupid for a while
1
Jul 23, 2024, 3:26 PM
|
|
Nasty? Maybe. Before Trumpism, I put Dems and Pubs on the same level with their shenanigans. Just simple shady politics.
It wasn't until Trump did we start getting people labeled as evil or enemies of our nation and people suggesting civil war to eliminate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Dems have been stupid for a while
4
Jul 23, 2024, 3:30 PM
|
|
Dems have been calling pubs racist and sexist for years now. Trump just came up with more ludicrous names for name calling. Pubs used to be the adult in the room. Now they're basically Dems in demeanor.
People have been attacked just for wearing Trump hats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13351]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 12029
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [176673]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 72623
Joined: 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32042]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 10257
Joined: 2003
|
I'll give a simpler explanation of the root cause of the problem.
2
Jul 23, 2024, 3:37 PM
|
|
I recognize I am in a distinct minority. I'm not really interested in trying to convince anyone else I am right. So, feel free to disagree with me. Just don't expect me to get into a protracted debate with you. If you disagree, there is nothing I can say to change your mind.
So, here goes.
The root cause is the large majority of Americans - conservatives, liberals, progressives, whatever label you choose - have decided that we are smarter than God. We no longer look to Him for guidance. We either openly say He has no place in the public square or we claim He does, but when it comes to politics we don't ask Him for guidance. Instead we say, "Hey, God, you just don't understand politics. It's too complex and complicated. We'll pick our candidate and then tell You to bless Him. We'll let You know who should be our president/governor/senator/etc."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [52193]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 46348
Joined: 1998
|
Re: I'll give a simpler explanation of the root cause of the problem.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 3:58 PM
|
|
The root cause is the large majority of Americans - conservatives, liberals, progressives, whatever label you choose - have decided that we are smarter than God. We no longer look to Him for guidance. We either openly say He has no place in the public square or we claim He does, but when it comes to politics we don't ask Him for guidance. Instead we say, "Hey, God, you just don't understand politics. It's too complex and complicated. We'll pick our candidate and then tell You to bless Him. We'll let You know who should be our president/governor/senator/etc."
Some may argue the problem is that there is too much God brought into politics when there are quite a few Americans who think that has no place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32042]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 10257
Joined: 2003
|
I agree with you.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 4:36 PM
|
|
There are millions of Americans who think that God has no place in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13396]
TigerPulse: 94%
48
Posts: 16466
Joined: 2021
|
Re: I agree with you.
Jul 23, 2024, 10:07 PM
|
|
Hid represents a power that no earthly entity (including wannabe rulers) can overcome.
Therefore, the political parties with the strongest ambition to be the controlling authority must diminish the influence of God in order to achieve their objectives.
After decades of (initially) de-emphasizing religion and (more recently & ongoing) to vilify the beliefs of Christians in particular, the current ‘God has no relevance’ environment has achieved (to a large degree) social acceptance.
The degradation of political discourse is directly proportional to the de emphasis of God in our society. This trend continues to be bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [43300]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 14500
Joined: 2015
|
I have an unpopular opinion.
3
Jul 23, 2024, 3:59 PM
|
|
American politics sucks so bad because 1. It’s been turned into entertainment and 2. Everything has to be dumbed down for John Q Public.
Think about it. How often are actual issues or policy debated? Almost never. It’s just “this dude is fascist prick” or “the globalists hate you and don’t love freedom.” It’s like WWE depth story lines.
Complicated topics like governance, economics, healthcare, immigration, etc should be handled by people who are educated and experienced in those fields. Used to be the politicians at least tried to understand and navigate issues and the public just squabbled, but now the squabblers are getting themselves elected, compounding the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [37223]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 18963
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I have an unpopular opinion.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 4:04 PM
|
|
100 percent.
The Senate has been called the most deliberative body in the world - there's a reason for that decorum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [43300]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 14500
Joined: 2015
|
Re: I have an unpopular opinion.
1
Jul 23, 2024, 4:09 PM
|
|
I think the senate and the filibuster may be the very last things holding the US government together from complete pendulum swinging chaos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13396]
TigerPulse: 94%
48
Posts: 16466
Joined: 2021
|
Re: I have an unpopular opinion. Me too.
Jul 23, 2024, 10:20 PM
[ in reply to I have an unpopular opinion. ] |
|
The criminal behavior and the legalized self-enrichment of elected officials and high level bureaucrats had been concealed from the general public for most of America’s existence. With the gradual increase in corruption in the news media (any last doubts about that have been quashed by the media’s propagandizing America about Biden being “sharp” for 4 years, only to be exposed as pure propaganda after the Biden / Trump debate), the government’s crimes are known more definitively than ever before.
America’s government has betrayed us by lying to us. There is no reason to implicitly trust our government until they prove that they have reformed themselves.
Forgiveness in the Christian sense requires repentance as the precursor.
Our government has never repented for their outrageous crimes, even those which have taken place as recently as within the past 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2867]
TigerPulse: 99%
33
|
Because the candidates themselves have gotten worse
Jul 23, 2024, 5:24 PM
|
|
and more extreme. Politics discussions before were most around different policies and how they would affect people. Now some of the candidates themselves are truly awful people, so it’s hard to even have the politics discussion because people are outraged that others would support someone they see as morally bankrupt. Also the policies have gotten more and more extreme, so that brings out more outrage than policies more aligned to the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13742]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 16995
Joined: 2010
|
Three things
Jul 23, 2024, 10:50 PM
|
|
1) identity politics - the left gins up minority animosity to coalesce their voters around candidates/causes. This creates hatred on both sides. It’s impossible to have a mature political discussion among friends when one side’s argument consists of “you’re literally Hitler”
2) alinsky’s rules have been fully adopted - initially by the left but now by both sides. They are fundamentally dishonest and truly satanic and remove the ability to have mature honest disagreements about politics.
3) lack of transparency from the government along with a constant manufactured crisis situation - the government lies about literally everything and simultaneously they are constantly in a state of emergency “saving us” from whatever it is they invented last. Rather than people having a polite political difference over energy policy, the discussions are “you are literally killing the earth!” Etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [801]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
Re: I mean this in a nice way. I'm truly just curious because I don't understand.
1
Jul 24, 2024, 1:51 AM
|
|
The recent animosity in our politics is based upon the changing demography of our nation. Soon the % of white folks will be less than 50% for the first time ever.
So what? Well … for 235 years the white folks majority has been able to stand and proclaim “We do Democracy … and you can too”. While we have done this we have been discriminating against essentially anyone with melanin … meaning we white folks have not been practicing actual democracy.
Now that being a minority is inevitable the white folks … a significant portion anyway … are not liking this democracy thing quite as much. Basically we white folks are hoping the new majority will treat us far better … more like equal citizens … than we did to them.
It’s quite a challenge. Can democracy withstand the violence of the dispossessed?
Message was edited by: Willyumyum®
Message was edited by: Willyumyum®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 67
| visibility 4805
|
|
|
50
