Sign in to follow this  
Gouvernail

How Real Politicians Interact

Recommended Posts

  Imagine what Goldwater and McGovern might say about:
 

*name calling by the POTUS

* Fox, MSNBC, Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, 

*Your posts in this forum 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

  Imagine what Goldwater and McGovern might say about:

*Your posts in this forum

They'd say "That is one fuckin' smart guy and you should pay attention to what he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interesting to show this in all senior high school history and english classes.

Reasonable people debating civilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Reasonable people debating civilly.

Huh?  I don't understand.  You mean no name calling or whataboutism? 

How did they ever get anything done back then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice how eagerly Goldwater agreed with those portions of McGovern’s statements with which he agreed??

 

Today  people regularly say, with great pride, “I disagree with everything _______ says.”

and they don’t!!!

Whatever  happened to:

“I agree with you about almost everything and we share the same facts but I disagree about the best path forward.”

”In many ways I love your idea but I have some adjustments which I believe could improve the results.”

I like the second one because the slight improvement can result in a 180 degree shift from the original gentleman’s proposed solution. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not going to work here - the sides are convinced that there's no way that anyone on the other side could be correct about anything - and if they DO agree, they question their own understanding.   There's a whole lotta hatin' going on - and people give me a load of crap when I suggest that the 1st step in making things better is to stop calling each other assholes for having different ideas/experiences/priorities. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's not going to work here - the sides are convinced that there's no way that anyone on the other side could be correct about anything - and if they DO agree, they question their own understanding.   There's a whole lotta hatin' going on - and people give me a load of crap when I suggest that the 1st step in making things better is to stop calling each other assholes for having different ideas/experiences/priorities. 

I think it's important to acknowledge that many of the posters are actually here TO PROVOKE.  They don't want dialog or understanding - they want entertainment and diversion.  Those folks have zero interest in 'stop calling each other assholes' - that's LITERALLY why they're here - to call and be called an asshole.  That's why I say there are no 'noble savages'.

PA is a bare knuckle shit fight where occasionally, a meaningful dialog or might break out, not the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I think it's important to acknowledge that many of the posters are actually here TO PROVOKE.  They don't want dialog or understanding - they want entertainment and diversion.  Those folks have zero interest in 'stop calling each other assholes' - that's LITERALLY why they're here - to call and be called an asshole.  That's why I say there are no 'noble savages'.

PA is a bare knuckle shit fight where occasionally, a meaningful dialog or might break out. 

You mean like AGITC who says liberal posters deserve to be insulted, demeaned, bullied and trolled by his rightwing gunnut buddy’s? JFC he’s outright said “they on the other side deserve iT, but my sides trolls are right”. He’s fine calling people assholes, because he thinks his assholes (like Tomballs, jeffreaux, et al) aren’t assholes.

The only thing more tedious than the trolls of PA is the good faith geezers that can’t grasp... they are the fucking problem. Own your bias, live with it, and your epistemological failures, and the privilege you have of being a dumbass that’s not destitute 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I think it's important to acknowledge that many of the posters are actually here TO PROVOKE.  They don't want dialog or understanding - they want entertainment and diversion.  Those folks have zero interest in 'stop calling each other assholes' - that's LITERALLY why they're here - to call and be called an asshole.  That's why I say there are no 'noble savages'.

PA is a bare knuckle shit fight where occasionally, a meaningful dialog or might break out, not the other way.

Point taken - I suppose I need to consider that a lot more often than I do.  It's not in my nature to start shit w/someone just to start shit - there's too much real shit to deal with in life to manufacture more for fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change has to start from the top.  We currently have a Divider in Chief, who has already declared the press to be the 'Enemy of the people'.  How long  before he proclaims the same about Democrats?  Or maybe the Senate leadership who says "We will kill every bill because they are 'D' sponsored.  Compromise is not winning (que Ricky Bobby)

We're set up for the pattern that's repeated many times since Reagan; the R;s fuck up the economy and leave a mess for the D's to clean up.  I almost hope Trump wins so he has to own the inevitable recession. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

Change has to start from the top.  We currently have a Divider in Chief, who has already declared the press to be the 'Enemy of the people'.  How long  before he proclaims the same about Democrats?  Or maybe the Senate leadership who says "We will kill every bill because they are 'D' sponsored.  Compromise is not winning (que Ricky Bobby)

We're set up for the pattern that's repeated many times since Reagan; the R;s fuck up the economy and leave a mess for the D's to clean up.  I almost hope Trump wins so he has to own the inevitable recession. 

 

I understand your point, but, I'd ask you to consider how we got from the guys above/Walter Cronkite to Trump/RNC/DNC/MSNBC/FOX.    Do you think that was "change from the top", or catering to what those folks thought others wanted to buy?    How many people are campaigning now not on ideas, but on "Anyone but another R"?  Don't you think that that approach impacts perceptions?  Where's the idea of compromise there?   To be fair - I've heard Pete B and Amy K share their ideas and priorities in a way that makes me think that there are some candidates who get it.  Bloomberg and Bernie?  Their comments indicate that they want their turn at the wheel, and they'll steer us where THEY want to go.  

I'm ready to support whoever acts like they're going to put the country's needs in front of party wins - and so far, Pete and Amy are the only ones I hear saying anything that sounds remotely like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Point taken - I suppose I need to consider that a lot more often than I do.  It's not in my nature to start shit w/someone just to start shit - there's too much real shit to deal with in life to manufacture more for fun. 

It's not in mine either :) 

Honestly, i  find PA to be a reasonably good news feeder from a range of sources.  And I like to hear other perspectives.  Just ignore the insults.

For a while, i was curious to see HOW people argued - what tactics they used.  To me, that's one of the aspects that I kind of miss - years ago, there seemed to be wider and more varied tactics and there seemed to be a tiny bit more humor.  The rhetoric is pretty predictable..but that also may just be old man glasses.

Hey.. GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand your point, but, I'd ask you to consider how we got from the guys above/Walter Cronkite to Trump/RNC/DNC/MSNBC/FOX.    Do you think that was "change from the top", or catering to what those folks thought others wanted to buy?    How many people are campaigning now not on ideas, but on "Anyone but another R"?  Don't you think that that approach impacts perceptions?  Where's the idea of compromise there?   To be fair - I've heard Pete B and Amy K share their ideas and priorities in a way that makes me think that there are some candidates who get it.  Bloomberg and Bernie?  Their comments indicate that they want their turn at the wheel, and they'll steer us where THEY want to go.  

I'm ready to support whoever acts like they're going to put the country's needs in front of party wins - and so far, Pete and Amy are the only ones I hear saying anything that sounds remotely like that. 

My theory is that the world needs X number of good news people like Cronkite.  However there are 50X people vying for those TV/radio (and now internet) spots.  Somewhere along the way, those people found they could get jobs in the Opinion section of the channel.  'And the networks found that at least a solid number of viewers would be faithful.  The repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in '87 (hmmm, there's Ronny again) really enabled the networks to polarize into camps.  Add in human nature; People tend to believe sources that confirm their established views, and it's a straight shot to where we are today.  

And I agree, it'd be nice to have someone who puts country before party, constituents before PAC's, and legislating before fundraising.... heh.. want some of what I'm smoking?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this