Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way you're tracked and fed increasingly only articles that the computer finds of "interest" to you leaves you with a very shallow view.
I think Trump supporters overestimate the level of support he has. Most of them live in conservative areas, watch Fox News, and interact almost exclusively with other Trump supporters. The stuff they see on social media re-enforces the bubble mentality. In their world, Trump is the new JFK and is one of the most beloved, popular Presidents we ever had. The only problem is the "liberal media" and the polls that show Trump has low approval ratings but hey, polls were wrong before the election so Trump probably has a 70-80% approval rating and will win every state but California in 2020!
This also exists on the Left, though I wouldn't say quite to the same extent. People in major metropolitan areas aren't around people who support Trump and their social media is mostly anti-Trump. They have trouble understanding how anybody could support him. They don't "get" the tribal mentality that's at the core of Trump's base and why that no matter what Trump does, they remain as loyal to him as they do to their version of Jesus and their college football team.
As a non-Trump supporter who lives in a very conservative area around people who mostly do support Trump, I think I can see a pretty accurate picture of where we are in this country. What we really need at this time is a populist movement on the Left to counteract the narrative of the Trump supporters. #Resist and whining on social media isn't cutting it. Trump and his supporters are currently dominating the narrative in our country and the whining from the Left, in the grand scheme of things, might as well be the world's smallest violin. We need an organized, liberal version of the Tea Party. Unfortunately it seems like liberal populist movements are much harder to organize than conservative ones.
I didn't hate Obama, didn't think he was great. I was excited to get a black (mixed) president, and will be happy when we get a woman, and any other minority group. If I like their policies even better.
Basically, no matter who is in office and/or congress, my life never changes that much.
Society seems to rubber band on issues, so hopefully the "click bait" mentality will rubber band into "verify facts before speaking".
I hate the media when they ALWAYS agree (whether with Obama or Trump). That is IRRATIONAL you can't always agree or always disagree, even people I don't like will do something I agree with.
I was in San Francisco once on Dias de la Muertas (sp?!!), and we shared a table with a group younger than me and started talking. I freely said I am Republican, and literally saw the table recoil. I mean, like they were going to get up and leave. I explained "my" version of R, and they sat back down, and we had a nice evening.
I don't even understand why we need parties. Why can't we just listen to what an individual stands for and vote the one we agree with the most? Look at all the BILLIONS of dollars that go to campaigns and PACs....... it is a mess.
It's always being funded and controlled by rich people behind the scenes.....
I'm just fed up with it all.
I wish we could eliminate political parties as well, it just encourages dumb voters. What’s even worse is in my state we have straight ticket voting, so basically at the top of the ballot you just check ‘straight democrat’ or ‘straight republican’ and you don’t even have to fill out the rest of the ballot. People don’t even understand where the candidates stand on issues, just that they’re D or R.
The cable news industry is setting a great example. The butthurt displayed has the unhinged on the edge of their seats awaiting Trumps every tweet, move. Its a disease.
You realize it is a business and they produce a product that keeps them in business. Is it them -- or the consumer to blame?
I wish we could eliminate political parties as well, it just encourages dumb voters. What’s even worse is in my state we have straight ticket voting, so basically at the top of the ballot you just check ‘straight democrat’ or ‘straight republican’ and you don’t even have to fill out the rest of the ballot. People don’t even understand where the candidates stand on issues, just that they’re D or R.
I think the great flaw in our democractic system is that it only takes 50% + 1 in the House, and 60% in the Senate to pass legislation. Those low thresholds ensure that our country will be severely divided on every major issue. The bar should be much higher in my opinion, like 80-90% in both chambers. We got off to a nice start because 100% of states agreed to the Constitution. Over time we have slowly but surely become more divided with every new piece of legislation. If the bar was much higher, then it would be nearly impossible to pass controversial legislation. Also, states would have retained their rights because it would have been too difficult to centralize power. We were pretty much set up to be divided. A lot of it has to do with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause. The federal government has been allowed to involve itself in virtually every aspect of our lives. Our founders tried to protect us by limiting the federal government to delivering the mail, maintaining a military, etc. But they really failed by making it too easy to pass laws.
In 1952, with the last of the great totalitarian butcher-states of the 1930's. still functioning, and fated to endure for another fifty years, author (Janet) Taylor Caldwell produced The Devil's Advocate, a dystopian novel of a future in which parliamentary democracy and pluralism has been driven from the face of the earth. Since the material is copyrighted, I can't post the introduction here, but will link it:
Admittedly, it would take a pretty long stretch of the imagination to view the Tweeter-in-Chief as capable of a strategy along the lines of Caldwell's Andrew Durant, but the snake oil peddled by Obama and the Clintons follows a similar pattern of catering to the unrealistic expectations of an economically-ignorant core clientele, led around by a group of would-be elite -- some merely young and/or simplistic, but some obviously power-obsessed, while a less-vocal, but better-grounded center offers more-subtle resistance.
And in fairness, the principle, as opposed to the practice of freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise, and the rule of law in day-to-day life, isn't as much under siege as was the case fifty years ago., albeit from a global, rather than a national perspective. But as the open exchange of both economic goods and opinions expands elsewhere, the rights of the non-conforming individualist are slowly being suppressed in some of the most successful tested democracies, via a collection of inconsistent absolutes disguised (and designated) as Political Correctness.
We have a long way to go before Mr. Trump's strategy will cause his role to be lionized, demonized, or something in between; and very few of us over age 30 can expect to see much of the outcome; but he has succeeded in impeding a cycle which many of us viewed as a serious threat to the principles which evolved in our nation nearly 250 years ago.
Sure wish I could view Trump as succeeding or impeding anything as consequential as you seem to believe, but I see more of pretty much the same or worse. Not sure exactly what all this "practice of freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise, and the rule of law in day-to-day life" might look like in real terms, but also seems to me that freedom of expression is at least certainly alive and well, in part thanks to our Tweeter-in-Chief!
People don’t even understand where the candidates stand on issues, just that they’re D or R.
That and they don't care all that matter is that as long as the opposing party doesn't get into office they could care less about the issues and care more about the hate for said party.
It's not unique to politics (although it may be more intense in political discussions online). The anonymity of posting online has made many posts on the fishing and golfing forums I belong to somewhat rude and confrontational as well.
Exactly. I see this in fragrance forums. There are some posters that just attack attack and attack or post things that just aren't true. It is regardless of topic. Me I try to be truthful or give an informed opinion and if not devil's advocate to the situation. All of which I do in real life.
But I do not agree with either party. Both are unreasonable (too me). Neither seem to want to solve problems by compromise.
I worked in local politics for awhile. The legislature would agree with a bill, and not pass it. Why in the world would that ever happen? Because it came from the other side. They didn't want to give them positive press.
Think about that. They would (and frequently do) do something they don't believe in, out of spite and competitiveness, and hurt the public.
This type of stuff happens ALL the time.
If you look at only the negative and not the positive, you'll see only the negative and of course there's plenty enough of that for anyone to feel disappointed and frustrated, but not all is as bad or futile as you suggest. Simply look at what legislation DOES get passed; past, present and future, and you begin to see where it seems some progress has been made. Not always, not always good, but there's where you can begin to see other than all you describe to the contrary.
When both sides feel so strongly they are right and the other side wrong, compromise is seen as settling for what you don't think is right. There really is nothing wrong with that position when appropriate, and what is "unreasonable" is highly subjective. We would have to get into the specifics as to why the votes go the way they do, and if it is because both parties aren't involved initiating a bill, then maybe part of the solution is to have both parties begin crafting legislation together rather than apart.
Something like a couple talking about having a baby before ending up making one...
America is divided in many ways for many reasons...
For example, there are Americans who can discuss their political/ideological differences in an adult, intelligent and civil manner. On the other hand there are Americans who can only do so by belittling, insulting and being childish.
Which is Trump? Which is Obama? Who are you?
Any discussion that begins with any combination of the following words is nothing but a flame war: Dotard, cheeto, orange face, tiny hands, sexual predator-in-chief, traitor, thief, liar, Nazi, racist, anti-Semite. Sadly the vast majority of people opposing Trump can't have a debate without injecting the childish insults listed above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean, like they were going to get up and leave. I explained "my" version of R, and they sat back down, and we had a nice evening.
They didn't want to give them positive press.
