Greater Political Acrimony

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:05 pm

Is this part of the problem?
'This research suggests that the best way for people who disagree with each other to work out their differences and arrive at a better understanding or compromise is by talking to each other, as people used to do at town hall meetings and over the dinner table. But now that so many of our interactions take place over social media, chat, text message, or email, spoken conversation or discussion is increasingly uncommon. It's probably no coincidence that political disagreement and general acrimony have never been greater.

You Should Never, Ever Argue With Anyone on Facebook, According to Science
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Haruo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:33 pm

Certainly something to it, although there were feuds, civil wars, insurrections and whatnot in pre-electronic days, too, so social media shouldn't take all the blame.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12252
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Jim » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:04 am

Politicians and media-hacks/sycophants constantly use the term non-partisan to describe the ideal state of affairs, though they neither believe that nor act accordingly. Elections are supposed to promote one partisan cause(s) over another, thus actually changing government at a given time, usually when one party has run the nation to the edge of the proverbial cliff and it has to be rescued, as was the case in 2016, though the rescuer may have plenty of warts, as was/is the case. Trump is clearly a partisan, whereas Obama thought himself not the U.S. president but the president of the world, leaving his own country at cliff-edge in favor of establishing a stupid level-world-wide playing field. Hillary would have by now brought in 500,000 Muslims to guarantee a tilt, however, in favor of terrorism within the borders...beautiful world-wide non-partisanship...and deadly, as witness the Olde Europe countries in some city-neighborhoods of which the police eschew a presence.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:54 pm

Jim wrote:Politicians and media-hacks/sycophants constantly use the term non-partisan to describe the ideal state of affairs, though they neither believe that nor act accordingly. Elections are supposed to promote one partisan cause(s) over another, thus actually changing government at a given time, usually when one party has run the nation to the edge of the proverbial cliff and it has to be rescued, as was the case in 2016, though the rescuer may have plenty of warts, as was/is the case. Trump is clearly a partisan, whereas Obama thought himself not the U.S. president but the president of the world, leaving his own country at cliff-edge in favor of establishing a stupid level-world-wide playing field. Hillary would have by now brought in 500,000 Muslims to guarantee a tilt, however, in favor of terrorism within the borders...beautiful world-wide non-partisanship...and deadly, as witness the Olde Europe countries in some city-neighborhoods of which the police eschew a presence.


How do you explain that Trump would prefer a terrorist attack in order to make a GOP victory possible in November?
http://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/trump-says-privately-that-a-terror-attack-could-save-him-and-gop-from-2018-election-bloodbath-report/
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Haruo » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:48 pm

I'm just glad the US kicked out all the Italians and Irish before they caused intractable problems.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12252
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Sandy » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:17 am

Jim wrote:Trump is clearly a partisan, whereas Obama thought himself not the U.S. president but the president of the world, leaving his own country at cliff-edge in favor of establishing a stupid level-world-wide playing field.


Trump was a Democrat, then an Independent, now a Republican who is pushing an agenda that neither party sees as viable or reasonable. He's succeeded in getting just one piece of legislation passed through a congress his party controls. He is now on the verge of a major legislative failure that will add to the massive cost the GOP is paying and will pay at the ballot box in November. He is the major factor behind record fundraising for the DNC. I would not call that a partisan. A guy like Trump will never conform to the parameters of a political party under any circumstance. He's laid out what he wants to do, and the party goes along as far as their partisan bias will take them. He's already lost the advantage of a majority on major issues that will never see the light of day because too many Republicans are alienated, and they are going to be the minority (and a significantly small one) after the 2018 election cycle. He is not a partisan, he is, in fact, the very opposite of one.

The rest of your remarks are without any foundation in reality. Which fantasy television show did you get that load of crap from?

Jim wrote: Hillary would have by now brought in 500,000 Muslims to guarantee a tilt,


You extremist right wingers need to get your stories straight, though I guess when you have your admired and loved President who is a pathological liar with over 2,000 whoppers to his credit, your ethics and values are counterproductive to honesty and truth. This figure, often cited during the campaign, has varied from 10,000 to 60,000, neither of which was accurate according to what Hillary released and stated, which didn't actually give a figure, just the standards which would be employed. Most sensible estimates of her plan said somewhere around 10,000 refugees would qualify. A statement like this is just code language for "I have no credibility and I'm OK with that."
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8862
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Sandy » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:22 am

Dave Roberts wrote:How do you explain that Trump would prefer a terrorist attack in order to make a GOP victory possible in November?


9-11 saved the incompetent, inept George W. Bush from an electoral defeat in 2004, though he barely eked it out over John Kerry. But the problem with Trump is that the total incompetence and ineptness that has characterized every single thing he's done since he took the oath of office would more than likely magnify the misery and effects of a terrorist attack and make it worse for the American people. At any rate, he's been in office long enough now, with Republican control of both houses, that a major terror attack on US soil would be blamed on his lack of ability to provide security which he's bragged about doing, and it would further diminish his failing political fortunes.

The guy can't even get a continuing resolution through a Congress his party controls. If he can't even do that, how does he handle a terrorist attack? He's a buffoon with orange hair, and the fact that the security of this country rests on that is a disaster.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8862
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby William Thornton » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:35 am

"Greater political acrimony" is the best named topic I've seen on BL for quite some time.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12075
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:59 am

Good title, bad topic? (I don't see much discussion of the actual topic, but perhaps some demonstration of it!)
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:02 pm

Haruo wrote:Certainly something to it, although there were feuds, civil wars, insurrections and whatnot in pre-electronic days, too, so social media shouldn't take all the blame.
Certainly true, Leland. This is not something new, and I wouldn't want to put too much blame on social media. But I do believe the electronic nature and the anonymity adds fuel to the fire. There are some people I know who get downright ugly online, who don't and won't do so in person.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Sandy » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:22 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Haruo wrote:Certainly something to it, although there were feuds, civil wars, insurrections and whatnot in pre-electronic days, too, so social media shouldn't take all the blame.
Certainly true, Leland. This is not something new, and I wouldn't want to put too much blame on social media. But I do believe the electronic nature and the anonymity adds fuel to the fire. There are some people I know who get downright ugly online, who don't and won't do so in person.


This kind of acrimony, and the attitude that comes along with it came straight out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Here's a guy with a voice that used to announce the titles of records being played on the radio who found a niche to capitalize on people's political frustration. He realized there wasn't really a place for extremists on the right to get news that was slanted to their perspective, and started out on AM radio, because he couldn't afford anything else and built a network on mostly small town radio stations that were dying in the wake of music on the FM side. It took a while, but he connected with a daytime audience of mostly uneducated, politically inexperienced and frustrated listeners. The two attempts he made at making it on television bombed out big time because of his physical appearance, and because he had to compete with a much larger, more sophisticated audience. Compared to cable news or network news, his audience of dittoheads is small potatoes, but big enough to generate millions for his pockets. His approach appeals to people who don't understand why "the majority" isn't them, and why winning elections doesn't mean you can pummel the other side into submission through legislative tyranny. He promotes the idea of a white Christian America being all that matters, and that anyone or anything else is not worth remaining on the face of the earth, and he takes being called a Nazi as a compliment. His monetary success has generated a succession of "wannabees" who have smaller audiences but promote the same thing, some in an even more extreme style.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8862
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:53 pm

Well, that explains the acrimony on the right, and since there is none on the left, I guess we're done here. :o
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Sandy » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:21 pm

There doesn't always have to be an automatic "the left does it too," The right, especially the ultra-right that includes most of the Evangelical wing, is not objective or open minded enough to discern facts in media, and sees anything that doesn't gush with agreement as having a "left wing bias." Of course, you can find a few examples, here and there, to use as "proof", sort of like a Biblical prooftext, to support your claim that the entire media has a left wing bias, but virtually any examination of the facts from an unbiased, neutral position, doesn't produce any real evidence to support the claim. What happens, time and time again, is the affirmation that the media, especially the big "left" sources like the New York Times, and the Washington Post, goes out of its way to be fair to all perspectives, and because of the screeching, is doubly fair to the extremist right.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8862
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:48 pm

The reality is that social media make it almost impossible to escape the acrimony. We have new platforms for this rather than a way to compare it to the past. In my lifetime, the greatest spreader of political disinformation was Richard Nixon. It's hard to find a comparison now with electronic media.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Jim » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:15 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Jim wrote:Politicians and media-hacks/sycophants constantly use the term non-partisan to describe the ideal state of affairs, though they neither believe that nor act accordingly. Elections are supposed to promote one partisan cause(s) over another, thus actually changing government at a given time, usually when one party has run the nation to the edge of the proverbial cliff and it has to be rescued, as was the case in 2016, though the rescuer may have plenty of warts, as was/is the case. Trump is clearly a partisan, whereas Obama thought himself not the U.S. president but the president of the world, leaving his own country at cliff-edge in favor of establishing a stupid level-world-wide playing field. Hillary would have by now brought in 500,000 Muslims to guarantee a tilt, however, in favor of terrorism within the borders...beautiful world-wide non-partisanship...and deadly, as witness the Olde Europe countries in some city-neighborhoods of which the police eschew a presence.


How do you explain that Trump would prefer a terrorist attack in order to make a GOP victory possible in November?
http://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/trump-says-privately-that-a-terror-attack-could-save-him-and-gop-from-2018-election-bloodbath-report/


I got as far as the headline alluding to a private conversation reported by a Washington Post hack, which, of course, meant a made-up story either by the hack or somebody in the DNC. The stuff either overheard or referenced as an anonymous source is code for FAKE NEWS. I can't imagine being gullible enough to take it seriously.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Jim » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:28 pm

Sandy wrote:
Rvaughn wrote:
Haruo wrote:Certainly something to it, although there were feuds, civil wars, insurrections and whatnot in pre-electronic days, too, so social media shouldn't take all the blame.
Certainly true, Leland. This is not something new, and I wouldn't want to put too much blame on social media. But I do believe the electronic nature and the anonymity adds fuel to the fire. There are some people I know who get downright ugly online, who don't and won't do so in person.


This kind of acrimony, and the attitude that comes along with it came straight out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Here's a guy with a voice that used to announce the titles of records being played on the radio who found a niche to capitalize on people's political frustration. He realized there wasn't really a place for extremists on the right to get news that was slanted to their perspective, and started out on AM radio, because he couldn't afford anything else and built a network on mostly small town radio stations that were dying in the wake of music on the FM side. It took a while, but he connected with a daytime audience of mostly uneducated, politically inexperienced and frustrated listeners. The two attempts he made at making it on television bombed out big time because of his physical appearance, and because he had to compete with a much larger, more sophisticated audience. Compared to cable news or network news, his audience of dittoheads is small potatoes, but big enough to generate millions for his pockets. His approach appeals to people who don't understand why "the majority" isn't them, and why winning elections doesn't mean you can pummel the other side into submission through legislative tyranny. He promotes the idea of a white Christian America being all that matters, and that anyone or anything else is not worth remaining on the face of the earth, and he takes being called a Nazi as a compliment. His monetary success has generated a succession of "wannabees" who have smaller audiences but promote the same thing, some in an even more extreme style.


Never have I seen a greener, more profound example of JEALOUSY. I once played the records on small-town radio, did the play-by-plays of games, reported the news, and even wrote commercials. I was unbelievably ignorant at the time, like poor Rush, and certain, as you describe them (Hillary's deplorables), that the listeners were hopelessly condemned to an existence short of the top floor. Apparently, you're an avid Rush-listener (I'm not, though I can catch him at lunch if I so desire) and are better informed than me about his insanity. I'm sure you've compared your income to what you might imagine his is, so that tells you that some folks can work the angles and some, like me, just can't.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Greater Political Acrimony

Postby Jim » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:45 pm

The prexy had a physical, was pronounced more fit probably than anyone in this forum (certainly in better health than me) but CNN FOUND a Dr. Gupta who lectured solemnly about the prexy's heart disease, non-existent but threatening any thought of further gainful activity. I'm still laughing and have explained the circus here: http://ruckmaker.blogspot.com/2018/01/.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Haruo and 1 guest