Wasn't there a survey where it showed that democrats have no understanding of conservative viewpoints at all, while vice versa republicans were rather accurate in describing liberal viewpoints?
Democrats don't hate republicans, democrats hate a bogeyman, a caricature that only exists in their own mind. And the reason they believe that caricature is, that deep down they would do all the things they accuse their enemy of, if they had the power. It's pure projection.
Wasn't there a survey where it showed that democrats have no understanding of conservative viewpoints at all, while vice versa republicans were rather accurate in describing liberal viewpoints?
That's because if you subscribe to mainstream media you will only ever hear a parody of conservative viewpoints, certainly nothing touching on the underlying principles, I suspect because the left doesn't really believe in principles.
Agreed on the response to this caricature they're presented with, though. Lefties who have fully bought-in to the philosophy are utterly hateful in the truest sense of the word - fully-indoctrinated lefties endorse a level of racism, for instance, that would make the KKK blush, when you actually look at what they state black people, for instance, are capable of. But they've got amazing PR.
Fully-indoctrinated lefties are horrified at the thought of conservatives gaining power because they are terrified of receiving the same treatment they enthusiastically endorse for their enemies.
I've seen this with family. He brought up the fact that part of Texas was talking about secession with the phrase:
"You want to secede from the union, dissolve the constitution, and start a civil war because you 'hate the gays'???"
Now, I staunchly oppose secession (you don't step back from an entangled gunfight), and for the most part it's all bluster anyway. But the mentality there speaks to the perception of reality that the indoctrinated masses have.
It's literally the "quick a child cried, burn the constitution" criticism we have on the left, thrown back: "quick a gay exists, burn the constitution".
They are pushing our mockery of them, as a strawman of us to their own supporters.
I don't honestly know which way the Texas secession thing will go in the end.
The issue, as I see it, is that (for example) Texas is baulking at the Federal policies that are possibly-designed at this point to inflate USD to worthlessness to make the national debt somewhat less crippling than it is now - and if that reduces most of the US population into poverty and dependence upon the government, that's a price the Biden administration is certainly willing to pay.
The problem being that somewhere like NY pretty much insists on stuff like this - and is counting on TX tax dollars to make it happen. NY cannot walk away without losing all those big chunks of other people's money that they are spending. So TX might eventually have to.
Thing is, that's exactly why Texas shouldn't leave. They have leverage over the feds, including most of the American oil refineries.
Texas leaving the US is not acceptable for that reason alone. From a strategic and geo-political standpoint, declaring war on Texas is a better decision than letting it go.
It's that need for Texas that allows Texas to have real bargaining power and control over the feds. It's New York and California's need for money, that makes Texas have leverage.
Don't walk away from an entangled gunfight, especially when you are winning the war of position.
Mainstream media (CNN, WaPo, spends more time hating on conservatives, as people, than it does articulating left-wing viewpoints. And a lot of time repeating their truth, ie propaganda, without any explanation. The attitude toward the 2020 election is a good example. They repeat over and over again that the election was free and fair, and Trump is a bad man for questioning it. They never really defend the electoral process itself. Just demonize anyone who questions it.
Probably you're think of Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory. His work showed that liberals more or less only use the care and fairness. Meanwhile, conservatives use all factors about equally (the others being authority, purity, and loyalty. He also showed that conservatives were better able to understand the viewpoint of liberals, since they use shared foundations, while liberals had trouble understanding conservatives because they involved foundations not shared.
"5% of Republicans said they wouldn't be friends with someone from the opposite party, compared to 37% of Democrats.
71% of Democrats wouldn't go on a date with someone with opposing views, versus 31% of Republicans. "
Sad to see that so many Republicans still foolishly want to try to be friends with leftists or date leftists.
Deluded Republicans think the left (the rank and file of the DP) is open to reason and the tools of reason, like fair debate and rational argument.
Clearly this isn't the case.
The D/R system is killing us. The only viable third party is the Libertarian Party but their years of compromise have soured many on their possibilities and motives.
Now that the Mises Caucus has taken over, the party is reforming and I think it can pose a credible challenge to the duopoly once it amasses enough good PR with enough credible and popular alternative media.
The alternative is more of the same. That way lies more madness and destruction.
The problem is public perception. Due to the media narrative that warps the nature of political demographic percentages, many on the right are willing to settle because they don't believe there's much chance to be that picky, when in reality it's more likely than they think.
That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a significant portion who vote left do so solely because it's popular, and not because of actual policy. There are probably plenty on the right that think they can sway those kinds of people which is why they would be willing to at least see if they're that kind of person.
Yeah I can't argue that. I couldn't deal with a friend going on about leftist crap. Albeit my threshold for friends is far higher than some people who would count their 1000 Facebook friends as real friends.
Found your problem. I think you're confusing democrats with Academia leftists.
What I learned is you cannot find common ground with people who utterly hate you and your way of life.
Most Democrats don't hate you and your way of life. I know because I hang out with plenty of Canadians who don't agree with my views on political stuff. However, we can discuss non-political things easily.
I hope young Republicans will learn the lesson
I hope they don't. They're not supposed to be leftists who want to hate the other camp. They need to keep trying to build bridges. That's how we'll get more folks to agree to compromise and common ground.
Yes, I'm friends with a few Americans who vote democrat.
Press X to doubt on "Most Democrats don't hate you and your way of life."
Dunno, they don't hate me and we have plenty of common things we share and like.
"Compromise and common ground" to them means the right capitulating to the left.
If you're principaled and think social cohesion and harmony is important, you don't become them. You'll keep trying.
Because the day you become bitter like that is the day you become a leftist basically. You will have compromised on a core principal.
Your compromise arguments sound like the inane drivel spewing from "bipartisan" Swamp snakes like Romney, Cornyn, Sinema and Manchin.
You'll never accomplish anything that requires collaboration without compromise. You'll never get 100% your own way when it involves other people. Don't be a spoiled child. Literally Trump was all about compromise. So are you including Trump in your list of Romneys ? That would be dumb AF.
At the end of the day being smug that atleast you kept your principles is worthless when it comes to preserving our constitutional liberties.
To preserve liberty, you cannot handicap yourself by forcing yourself to play with a different set of rules than the opposing side.
Social cohesion and harmony is not possible when the right still foolishly thinks they merely have a disagreement with the left and the left instead openly says that what they desire is all non-leftists lined up against the wall.
You are the epitome of the naive Republican that I pray will learn this important lesson without experiencing it firsthand and suffering the consequences.
If you're principaled and think social cohesion and harmony is important, you don't become them. You'll keep trying.
No, you don't keep trying to negotiate and make common ground with a schizophrenic. Because their brain is broken. Same thing with liberals who believe patently crazy things like pregnant men and who encourage mental illness and self-harm, they can't be reasoned with because their brain is broken.
What you do keep trying to do is get them to take their clozapine, or in this case their red pill, so they return to normal functional human beings just with different views from you.
Or in other words, the problem isn't the sick liberals it's what's making them sick; hollywood, reddit, google/facebook, NPR/NYT, public school, and so on. Your civic duty to "promote social cohesion and harmony" is to always keep trying to expose, harass, and ridicule the sick people working at these disease factories.
Then the vast majority are NPCs or they wouldn't sit still for the shit their "leaders" lay on us constantly. I hear zero voices of reform from rank-and-file Democrats. In fact, all reasonable people have abandoned the DP for independent status. Some are joining the Libertarian Party, but most remain non-affiliated.
The utter moral and rational bankruptcy of the DP is followed very closely by the RP and its sea-anchor neocons and others of that party who are opportunists and RINOs, with a few exceptions. The Rs are a paper tiger, an edifice rotten to the core with mercenary feckless war-mongers.
It's great to hear other points of view, but you can't be friends with people who hate you. Proper Twitter and MSNBC-fed leftists hate people that aren't like them. It would be hard to accidentally be friends with you because they'd shun you.
I am fully capable of putting politics aside and being friends on another level. The question is: are they?
If they preach about bipartisanship while advancing ideas like protecting children from LGBT grooming, all the better. Most Democratic voters agree with that, so it is bipartisan, as it should be.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019 but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
Trump underestimated what the left was willing to do to get him out and the entire country is now paying for it.
I have never advocated for fascism and never will. My entire point is merely that you cannot trust the left and that there can be no compromise with them.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies and not ceding an inch to the left.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019
And what are those?
but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
He was the first Republican to fight based on (not definitively proven) accusations of fraud. The mere fact that he tried to pressure Pence into taking the blatantly ridiculous action of declaring him the winner showed that he was a fighter, if not exactly one who picked his battles well.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
Now you're just confusing things. If a guy like Trump, ready to compromise couldn't even win over enough people to vote for him, then you have no chance to win anyone over.
In fact, attitudes like yours are losing me. I find this forum more and more extreme and frankly, I find I have less in common with you people now than in 2014 when Gamergate started.
I see upvoted Hitler worship here for cripe's sake.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies
Then do so.
and not ceding an inch to the left.
Except just in this thread, you've lost inches with the moderates by your extreme views. But the echo chamber here will validate you and you won't reflect on that.
Take Roe v Wade. You'll never have a 100% abortion ban. That's impossible. You lose the majority vote when you go for that. However, compromising to first term abortions only and medical/rape exemptions, you win a majority. If you can't do that, you'll never win.
I never even mentioned abortion and you created a strawman argument inferring my position.
Trump couldn't win because they "fortified" the election against him. You make it sound like he could have won if only he just "moderated" and "compromised" harder.
You fail to grasp the situation you are currently in.
You cannot compromise and find unity with people who want to erase you from the face of the planet. You are unable to accept this fact and thus it is pointless for me to continue.
"Independent" is the alternative, rejecting the 2-party system entirely. If there's a political party with anything at all like a rational platform --even a consistent and coherent one--it's the reforming Libertarian Party.
Why should the alternative to 2-party politics be "fascism"?
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
No it doesn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because I've seen what a waste of time it has been for the other people in this thread that have tried.
I gave a perfect example with the Abortion debate. That is something that will only get solved with compromise. Like the Texas law and leave it up to the States. If you don't want to compromise, you'll never win and never get what you want because abortions will never be illegal at the Federal level.
I want the right to stand up for what it believes in and not compromise civil liberties in a misguided attempt to reach unity with people who hate them.
That is not the same as forcing people to bend to your will.
Did you even bother asking what I want?
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
You cannot achieve this by ceding ground to the left.
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
That means that you would allow a state with 55% of wokies to oppress the 45% of the population that isn't. This is not exactly a viable strategy. They'll just bludgeon them into submission, and then export them to your state so you can be corrupted as well. The side that wants to win will always beat the side that is trying not to lose.
Independant will always imply taking a bit of both and taking a few other things. It just means you don't go full tribal defending what is often times the indefensible from a bunch of career politicians.
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
Agree with most of what you say here, but this is a stretch at best.
The problem with 'compromisers' is that they compromise not on issues like abortion, but where the right has overwhelming support from the population. Almost as if it's not a compromise but ruling class ideology.
"Independent" implies compromise. It implies taking from both sides to arrive at an acceptable solution for most.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
For example communists, fascists, or anarcho-capitalists would be types of Independents. By "reforming Libertarian Party" I assumed he meant the Mises Caucus, which isn't borrowing from any "side".
On the practical side I don't agree with him, however. The US election system is corrupt and in bed with the elite clubs of the Ds and Rs. It's not possible for third-parties to win on a grand scale. You have to take over the existing parties, which Trump started.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
Give me the 3rd side of the abortion debate please.
I don't think it's possible in the US, the way the system is set up. I support the Mises Caucus trying but think it would be more successful for them to take over the other parties from the inside the way Trump did with the GOP.
Someone of good character will maintain a consistent degree of tolerance, politeness and open-mindedness regardless of what other people do. If you let the behavior of others affect you then you're letting them control you.
Someone can be a raging lunatic but you don't beat them by matching their rage and insanity with your own. You don't win by becoming a raging lunatic yourself. You win by maintaining consistent standards and principles and standing by them, firm, refusing to budge. This doesn't require you to abandon civility.
Tolerance isn't weakness as long as it's principled. Politeness isn't weakness as long as it's honest and uncompromising. Open-mindedness isn't weakness as long as it's grounded in reality.
There is no situation where you're required to abandon your principles to win -- not even in all-out war. Without principles you're no different than they are.
Many people on the right are so blackpilled, desperate and angry they want to throw out everything and just become a mirror version of the enemy, albeit pointed in the opposite direction. This is a big mistake.
Politeness isn't weakness as long as it's honest and uncompromising.
Politeness is good if it brings you some benefit. If you come out straight and act rudely to someone, this can be an excuse to dismiss you because "you were rude". Far better to be polite and either force an answer, or admit that it is not about rudeness but the fact that this individual tolerates no dissenting views.
I don't despise people who are Democrats because the vast and sweeping majority of them are useful idiots who exist to be fed into the machine guns by their sociopathic leaders. They are regular people who are drowned and baptized in lies for the promise of a better tomorrow that never comes, for the purpose of it never coming, so that the leadership can take everything from them.
They are typically people who were already mostly normal until the political Left decided to either break them, or indoctrinate them.
Most young democrats are victims of an industrial scale abuse system arrayed against them, that every single person in their lives told them was normal.
I pity them, and I'm prepared to forgive them if they put down their arms, but I do not hate them. It is their leadership that I despise. The millionaire and billionaire socialists.
They still think decorum is a thing that can be had and it is a sad thing. They've ignored the boiling frog of the near 50 years of political caracatures, nightshow hosts, and educational and social indoctrination.You're not human to these liberals, you're a cartoon that swathes of pretty faces have told them to destroy at all costs, because you drive a big truck and walk around doing a fucking do-si-doe in your tight denims and cowboy shit-kickers. You shoot bambi for fun and have a very, very, small penis. You are responsible for every single war and every single problem from global warming to them breaking a nail and you've probably at some point said the "N" word. YOU are the bourgoise, not the guns above everyone's station comically (and pretty much overtly) sinking the ship with full clown theatrics.
This generation of liberals would rather you dead or ruined, and they really do think it's funny - they're just beating the silly mascot until he stops saying "GaRsH! CaNt We bE fWiEnDs?!", and stops moving altogether. They love themselves for doing it.
Most people who still identify as Republicans are inherently naive for thinking that the vast majority of the Republican politicians are anything less than controlled opposition.
The right has very few politicians actually fighting to preserve its values.
Swampmembers like John Cornyn, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham may have a R next to their name but they clearly show through their actions that they hate you just like the average leftist does.
Swampmembers like John Cornyn, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham may have a R next to their name but they clearly show through their actions that they hate you just like the average leftist does.
If I'm brutally honest, it's kind of hard to really expect anything less, and while establishment RINOs predates them, it's hard to see an alternative happening after the two Bush's were in office, considering just how blatantly they were shills for the establishment.
It's been decades since there was representation for the right, of any kind. Even the libertarian party had that fucking loser Gary whatever-the-fuck his last name was who shilled for more licensing.
It's enough to turn anyone sane against the whole fucking system.
This is because they are told continuously by their political leaders and the corporate press that they are the righteous defenders of the downtrodden (blacks, women, gays, troons, waterheads,and on and on). They believe they are spreading the ethic of Jesus Christ while shitting on Christianity at every opportunity. They are also told by the same shit-mouths that "the right" are irredeemable deplorable MAGA Nazis who belong in re-education camps. Their reform model is Pol Pot.
We all know the reality: the theoretical foundation is neo-Marxism ("identity politics" is a term that's outlived its usefulness). As unconscious neo-Marxists they advance the revolution of the marginalized against the white man (or "whiteness" as they put it to appear as if they attack something abstract).
Wasn't there a survey where it showed that democrats have no understanding of conservative viewpoints at all, while vice versa republicans were rather accurate in describing liberal viewpoints?
Democrats don't hate republicans, democrats hate a bogeyman, a caricature that only exists in their own mind. And the reason they believe that caricature is, that deep down they would do all the things they accuse their enemy of, if they had the power. It's pure projection.
That's because if you subscribe to mainstream media you will only ever hear a parody of conservative viewpoints, certainly nothing touching on the underlying principles, I suspect because the left doesn't really believe in principles.
Agreed on the response to this caricature they're presented with, though. Lefties who have fully bought-in to the philosophy are utterly hateful in the truest sense of the word - fully-indoctrinated lefties endorse a level of racism, for instance, that would make the KKK blush, when you actually look at what they state black people, for instance, are capable of. But they've got amazing PR.
Fully-indoctrinated lefties are horrified at the thought of conservatives gaining power because they are terrified of receiving the same treatment they enthusiastically endorse for their enemies.
I've seen this with family. He brought up the fact that part of Texas was talking about secession with the phrase:
"You want to secede from the union, dissolve the constitution, and start a civil war because you 'hate the gays'???"
Now, I staunchly oppose secession (you don't step back from an entangled gunfight), and for the most part it's all bluster anyway. But the mentality there speaks to the perception of reality that the indoctrinated masses have.
It's literally the "quick a child cried, burn the constitution" criticism we have on the left, thrown back: "quick a gay exists, burn the constitution".
They are pushing our mockery of them, as a strawman of us to their own supporters.
I don't honestly know which way the Texas secession thing will go in the end.
The issue, as I see it, is that (for example) Texas is baulking at the Federal policies that are possibly-designed at this point to inflate USD to worthlessness to make the national debt somewhat less crippling than it is now - and if that reduces most of the US population into poverty and dependence upon the government, that's a price the Biden administration is certainly willing to pay.
The problem being that somewhere like NY pretty much insists on stuff like this - and is counting on TX tax dollars to make it happen. NY cannot walk away without losing all those big chunks of other people's money that they are spending. So TX might eventually have to.
Thing is, that's exactly why Texas shouldn't leave. They have leverage over the feds, including most of the American oil refineries.
Texas leaving the US is not acceptable for that reason alone. From a strategic and geo-political standpoint, declaring war on Texas is a better decision than letting it go.
It's that need for Texas that allows Texas to have real bargaining power and control over the feds. It's New York and California's need for money, that makes Texas have leverage.
Don't walk away from an entangled gunfight, especially when you are winning the war of position.
Mainstream media (CNN, WaPo, spends more time hating on conservatives, as people, than it does articulating left-wing viewpoints. And a lot of time repeating their truth, ie propaganda, without any explanation. The attitude toward the 2020 election is a good example. They repeat over and over again that the election was free and fair, and Trump is a bad man for questioning it. They never really defend the electoral process itself. Just demonize anyone who questions it.
Democrats, and young ones, don't "understand". They "believe".
They "feel" and they "believe".
They also hate.
Themselves mostly, and you know how they love to project.
Probably you're think of Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory. His work showed that liberals more or less only use the care and fairness. Meanwhile, conservatives use all factors about equally (the others being authority, purity, and loyalty. He also showed that conservatives were better able to understand the viewpoint of liberals, since they use shared foundations, while liberals had trouble understanding conservatives because they involved foundations not shared.
"5% of Republicans said they wouldn't be friends with someone from the opposite party, compared to 37% of Democrats. 71% of Democrats wouldn't go on a date with someone with opposing views, versus 31% of Republicans. "
Sad to see that so many Republicans still foolishly want to try to be friends with leftists or date leftists.
Unlike what Impy believes, some "Taming Of The Shrew" needs to take place to maintain any civilization.
Trying to tame people who utterly despise you and your way of life is not feasible.
A decade ago I used to think it is possible for the left and right to bridge differences despite political ideology.
Take it from me, ANY dreams of unity shattered when I saw how they treated Trump and his supporters after he won in 16.
I worked in academia for the first few years of the Trump presidency.
I want nothing to do with these leftists.
Their hatred towards non-leftists is immeasurable and unending.
You won't be taming these shrews is the short answer I can give you.
Leftists can absolutely be tamed. But describing how is a rule 2 violation.
Most women aren't die-hard leftists. They are just innately allured by protectionism and paternalism.
All you have to prove is that you're a better provider than the government.
(you are)
[Bardolatry intensifies]
Deluded Republicans think the left (the rank and file of the DP) is open to reason and the tools of reason, like fair debate and rational argument.
Clearly this isn't the case.
The D/R system is killing us. The only viable third party is the Libertarian Party but their years of compromise have soured many on their possibilities and motives.
Now that the Mises Caucus has taken over, the party is reforming and I think it can pose a credible challenge to the duopoly once it amasses enough good PR with enough credible and popular alternative media.
The alternative is more of the same. That way lies more madness and destruction.
I think, realistically, you can't have a viable third party with our current voting system. You'll need to have a ranked voting system.
The problem is public perception. Due to the media narrative that warps the nature of political demographic percentages, many on the right are willing to settle because they don't believe there's much chance to be that picky, when in reality it's more likely than they think.
That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a significant portion who vote left do so solely because it's popular, and not because of actual policy. There are probably plenty on the right that think they can sway those kinds of people which is why they would be willing to at least see if they're that kind of person.
Yeah I can't argue that. I couldn't deal with a friend going on about leftist crap. Albeit my threshold for friends is far higher than some people who would count their 1000 Facebook friends as real friends.
Quite the opposite. It's nice to see one side isn't so deep into politics, they can't find common ground with others who don't fully agree with them.
Echo chambers suck and if your principals are strong enough, getting them challenged once in a while shouldn't be an issue for you.
You should ask yourself why you're so insecure, you can't tolerate any challenge or disagreement. You sound more like a leftist because of it.
This is the most amusing comment I read in a while.
Let me give you some context on my background.
I worked in academia for years.
If you think I have ever been in any echo chamber of my own views, you are mistaken.
I have managed to remain and defend my staunch anti-woke national populist views despite working for years in an echo-chamber of deluded leftism.
What I learned is you cannot find common ground with people who utterly hate you and your way of life.
You can find common ground with people if they are willing to debate in good faith.
That is sadly not what you will find on any college campus these days.
Wokeism is the new religion of the left and anyone who does not bend the knee will be treated as a subhuman.
I left academia because it is a festering homogenous cult.
I believe it is important to learn about opposing views.
That doesn't mean I am going to be foolish enough to date or maintain friendships with people who hate my way of life.
Being betrayed by friends over politics changes you.
I hope young Republicans will learn the lesson I learned without suffering permanent consequences.
Found your problem. I think you're confusing democrats with Academia leftists.
Most Democrats don't hate you and your way of life. I know because I hang out with plenty of Canadians who don't agree with my views on political stuff. However, we can discuss non-political things easily.
I hope they don't. They're not supposed to be leftists who want to hate the other camp. They need to keep trying to build bridges. That's how we'll get more folks to agree to compromise and common ground.
Have you met any Democrats lately?
Press X to doubt on "Most Democrats don't hate you and your way of life."
I am an Asian American and sadly many of my relatives are still Dems. I heard unfiltered what they think of the right. It is nothing but blind hate.
"Compromise and common ground" to them means the right capitulating to the left.
There can be no compromise and common ground when it comes to preserving our constitutional rights that the left is constantly trying to destroy.
Your compromise arguments sound like the inane drivel spewing from "bipartisan" Swamp snakes like Romney, Cornyn, Sinema and Manchin.
Yes, I'm friends with a few Americans who vote democrat.
Dunno, they don't hate me and we have plenty of common things we share and like.
If you're principaled and think social cohesion and harmony is important, you don't become them. You'll keep trying.
Because the day you become bitter like that is the day you become a leftist basically. You will have compromised on a core principal.
You'll never accomplish anything that requires collaboration without compromise. You'll never get 100% your own way when it involves other people. Don't be a spoiled child. Literally Trump was all about compromise. So are you including Trump in your list of Romneys ? That would be dumb AF.
At the end of the day being smug that atleast you kept your principles is worthless when it comes to preserving our constitutional liberties.
To preserve liberty, you cannot handicap yourself by forcing yourself to play with a different set of rules than the opposing side.
Social cohesion and harmony is not possible when the right still foolishly thinks they merely have a disagreement with the left and the left instead openly says that what they desire is all non-leftists lined up against the wall.
You are the epitome of the naive Republican that I pray will learn this important lesson without experiencing it firsthand and suffering the consequences.
There's massively more issues at play than just constitutional liberties. There's massive wiggle room for compromise on some issues.
You're being extreme. You're literally proving their views of the Extreme Right wing correct.
With your way of thinking, this will end in bloodshed. I hope you're ready for that if it comes to it.
No, I'm just a Trump supporter. I believe in the art of the deal.
shut the fuck up, foreigner.
Ok, as soon as you shut the fuck up about Justin Trudeau.
What's that ? We're allowed to discuss each other's political systems and realities ?
Good. Then you shut the fuck up.
No, you don't keep trying to negotiate and make common ground with a schizophrenic. Because their brain is broken. Same thing with liberals who believe patently crazy things like pregnant men and who encourage mental illness and self-harm, they can't be reasoned with because their brain is broken.
What you do keep trying to do is get them to take their clozapine, or in this case their red pill, so they return to normal functional human beings just with different views from you.
Or in other words, the problem isn't the sick liberals it's what's making them sick; hollywood, reddit, google/facebook, NPR/NYT, public school, and so on. Your civic duty to "promote social cohesion and harmony" is to always keep trying to expose, harass, and ridicule the sick people working at these disease factories.
Another hot take from one of my #1 fans.
It's not that he doesn't want to be around people of opposing views, it's that it's not good for his sanity.
These people are angry, bitter and twisted, taught to act nearly identical to feminist women in their subterfuge.
The vast majority aren't.
Not that you'd know, you probably also think they're all women.
Then the vast majority are NPCs or they wouldn't sit still for the shit their "leaders" lay on us constantly. I hear zero voices of reform from rank-and-file Democrats. In fact, all reasonable people have abandoned the DP for independent status. Some are joining the Libertarian Party, but most remain non-affiliated.
The utter moral and rational bankruptcy of the DP is followed very closely by the RP and its sea-anchor neocons and others of that party who are opportunists and RINOs, with a few exceptions. The Rs are a paper tiger, an edifice rotten to the core with mercenary feckless war-mongers.
But they are.
And honestly, that's not far from the truth either.
https://media.scored.co/post/qhAEJnqZuN16.jpeg
OK, so why do you hate 'women without degrees' (D+3) more than men with degrees (D+16)?
Don't tell me!
Because you can't ignore the trend just because of 60+ year olds and tradcon housewives.
Women with college is the vast majority of younger women, while women without is mostly older women.
So your hatred is directed not at people who vote for Democrats, but for a group that is moving towards voting for Democrats?
So why do you hate women without college?
Except you haven’t seen where the political headwinds have shifted in the last 20 years. They don’t want to debate us, they want to destroy us.
I don’t tolerate Communism. And I’m not going to have by intellectual sensibilities be taken advantage of by Communists to infiltrate our society.
That includes you.
Did you just call me a communist ?
Like when the left thinks everything left of Mao is the extreme right, you seem to think everything left of Milton Friedman is communism ?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
Yes, yes I did. Own it.
Congratulations on being an SJW I guess. Horseshoe theory is real.
Cope more faggot. Take your “both sides” theory and shove it up your ass.
ahhh, fed boy is mad other people don't glow as hard as he does.
You're saying it's nice that Republicans have no principles they won't discard for the sake of convenience?
Calm down Cathy Newman.
It's great to hear other points of view, but you can't be friends with people who hate you. Proper Twitter and MSNBC-fed leftists hate people that aren't like them. It would be hard to accidentally be friends with you because they'd shun you.
I am fully capable of putting politics aside and being friends on another level. The question is: are they?
This is the only attitude that will allow for our constitutional liberties to survive.
Too many naive fools on the right still think there can be compromise and unity.
If a Republican politician constantly preaches "bipartisanship", you must vote the traitor out.
Rhetoric is not the problem, actions are.
If they preach about bipartisanship while advancing ideas like protecting children from LGBT grooming, all the better. Most Democratic voters agree with that, so it is bipartisan, as it should be.
So Full Fascist it is.
Way to prove them right about you.
Choosing not to associate with the left and ensuring the protection of the first and second amendment is now muh fascism?
What a pathetic retort.
You can ensure that without going full Fascist. Trump did it splendidly.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019 but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
Trump underestimated what the left was willing to do to get him out and the entire country is now paying for it.
I have never advocated for fascism and never will. My entire point is merely that you cannot trust the left and that there can be no compromise with them.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies and not ceding an inch to the left.
And what are those?
He was the first Republican to fight based on (not definitively proven) accusations of fraud. The mere fact that he tried to pressure Pence into taking the blatantly ridiculous action of declaring him the winner showed that he was a fighter, if not exactly one who picked his battles well.
Now you're just confusing things. If a guy like Trump, ready to compromise couldn't even win over enough people to vote for him, then you have no chance to win anyone over.
In fact, attitudes like yours are losing me. I find this forum more and more extreme and frankly, I find I have less in common with you people now than in 2014 when Gamergate started.
I see upvoted Hitler worship here for cripe's sake.
Then do so.
Except just in this thread, you've lost inches with the moderates by your extreme views. But the echo chamber here will validate you and you won't reflect on that.
Take Roe v Wade. You'll never have a 100% abortion ban. That's impossible. You lose the majority vote when you go for that. However, compromising to first term abortions only and medical/rape exemptions, you win a majority. If you can't do that, you'll never win.
I never even mentioned abortion and you created a strawman argument inferring my position.
Trump couldn't win because they "fortified" the election against him. You make it sound like he could have won if only he just "moderated" and "compromised" harder.
You fail to grasp the situation you are currently in.
You cannot compromise and find unity with people who want to erase you from the face of the planet. You are unable to accept this fact and thus it is pointless for me to continue.
Just don't go over to the dark side. You can oppose some of the more absurd characters here without going full SJW.
"Independent" is the alternative, rejecting the 2-party system entirely. If there's a political party with anything at all like a rational platform --even a consistent and coherent one--it's the reforming Libertarian Party.
Why should the alternative to 2-party politics be "fascism"?
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
"Independent" implies compromise. It implies taking from both sides to arrive at an acceptable solution for most.
No it doesn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because I've seen what a waste of time it has been for the other people in this thread that have tried.
"You have to say Black Lives Matter!"
"No."
That's not fascism, you midwit.
I gave a perfect example with the Abortion debate. That is something that will only get solved with compromise. Like the Texas law and leave it up to the States. If you don't want to compromise, you'll never win and never get what you want because abortions will never be illegal at the Federal level.
Saying "BLM" is not a policy point.
You are making inferences on what i want.
I want the right to stand up for what it believes in and not compromise civil liberties in a misguided attempt to reach unity with people who hate them.
That is not the same as forcing people to bend to your will.
Did you even bother asking what I want?
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
You cannot achieve this by ceding ground to the left.
That means that you would allow a state with 55% of wokies to oppress the 45% of the population that isn't. This is not exactly a viable strategy. They'll just bludgeon them into submission, and then export them to your state so you can be corrupted as well. The side that wants to win will always beat the side that is trying not to lose.
By "independent" I mean those who reject both the D and R parties and see the duopoly as the dead-end it is.
You can never fully reject both D and R.
Independant will always imply taking a bit of both and taking a few other things. It just means you don't go full tribal defending what is often times the indefensible from a bunch of career politicians.
Agree with most of what you say here, but this is a stretch at best.
The problem with 'compromisers' is that they compromise not on issues like abortion, but where the right has overwhelming support from the population. Almost as if it's not a compromise but ruling class ideology.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
For example communists, fascists, or anarcho-capitalists would be types of Independents. By "reforming Libertarian Party" I assumed he meant the Mises Caucus, which isn't borrowing from any "side".
On the practical side I don't agree with him, however. The US election system is corrupt and in bed with the elite clubs of the Ds and Rs. It's not possible for third-parties to win on a grand scale. You have to take over the existing parties, which Trump started.
Give me the 3rd side of the abortion debate please.
What is it, replacing the kid with a cyborg ?
That's the plain truth.
Abandon 2-party politics, all ye who want to preserve some semblance of liberty or maintain the Constitution.
I don't think it's possible in the US, the way the system is set up. I support the Mises Caucus trying but think it would be more successful for them to take over the other parties from the inside the way Trump did with the GOP.
Someone of good character will maintain a consistent degree of tolerance, politeness and open-mindedness regardless of what other people do. If you let the behavior of others affect you then you're letting them control you.
Someone can be a raging lunatic but you don't beat them by matching their rage and insanity with your own. You don't win by becoming a raging lunatic yourself. You win by maintaining consistent standards and principles and standing by them, firm, refusing to budge. This doesn't require you to abandon civility.
Tolerance isn't weakness as long as it's principled. Politeness isn't weakness as long as it's honest and uncompromising. Open-mindedness isn't weakness as long as it's grounded in reality.
There is no situation where you're required to abandon your principles to win -- not even in all-out war. Without principles you're no different than they are.
Many people on the right are so blackpilled, desperate and angry they want to throw out everything and just become a mirror version of the enemy, albeit pointed in the opposite direction. This is a big mistake.
Politeness is good if it brings you some benefit. If you come out straight and act rudely to someone, this can be an excuse to dismiss you because "you were rude". Far better to be polite and either force an answer, or admit that it is not about rudeness but the fact that this individual tolerates no dissenting views.
I don't despise people who are Democrats because the vast and sweeping majority of them are useful idiots who exist to be fed into the machine guns by their sociopathic leaders. They are regular people who are drowned and baptized in lies for the promise of a better tomorrow that never comes, for the purpose of it never coming, so that the leadership can take everything from them.
They are typically people who were already mostly normal until the political Left decided to either break them, or indoctrinate them.
Most young democrats are victims of an industrial scale abuse system arrayed against them, that every single person in their lives told them was normal.
I pity them, and I'm prepared to forgive them if they put down their arms, but I do not hate them. It is their leadership that I despise. The millionaire and billionaire socialists.
They still think decorum is a thing that can be had and it is a sad thing. They've ignored the boiling frog of the near 50 years of political caracatures, nightshow hosts, and educational and social indoctrination.You're not human to these liberals, you're a cartoon that swathes of pretty faces have told them to destroy at all costs, because you drive a big truck and walk around doing a fucking do-si-doe in your tight denims and cowboy shit-kickers. You shoot bambi for fun and have a very, very, small penis. You are responsible for every single war and every single problem from global warming to them breaking a nail and you've probably at some point said the "N" word. YOU are the bourgoise, not the guns above everyone's station comically (and pretty much overtly) sinking the ship with full clown theatrics.
This generation of liberals would rather you dead or ruined, and they really do think it's funny - they're just beating the silly mascot until he stops saying "GaRsH! CaNt We bE fWiEnDs?!", and stops moving altogether. They love themselves for doing it.
Most people who still identify as Republicans are inherently naive for thinking that the vast majority of the Republican politicians are anything less than controlled opposition.
I agree completely with you on this.
The right has very few politicians actually fighting to preserve its values.
Swampmembers like John Cornyn, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham may have a R next to their name but they clearly show through their actions that they hate you just like the average leftist does.
If I'm brutally honest, it's kind of hard to really expect anything less, and while establishment RINOs predates them, it's hard to see an alternative happening after the two Bush's were in office, considering just how blatantly they were shills for the establishment.
It's been decades since there was representation for the right, of any kind. Even the libertarian party had that fucking loser Gary whatever-the-fuck his last name was who shilled for more licensing.
It's enough to turn anyone sane against the whole fucking system.
Hard to hate lunatics, unless you have to deal with them personally...
thatll do it too, lol
This is because they are told continuously by their political leaders and the corporate press that they are the righteous defenders of the downtrodden (blacks, women, gays, troons, waterheads,and on and on). They believe they are spreading the ethic of Jesus Christ while shitting on Christianity at every opportunity. They are also told by the same shit-mouths that "the right" are irredeemable deplorable MAGA Nazis who belong in re-education camps. Their reform model is Pol Pot.
We all know the reality: the theoretical foundation is neo-Marxism ("identity politics" is a term that's outlived its usefulness). As unconscious neo-Marxists they advance the revolution of the marginalized against the white man (or "whiteness" as they put it to appear as if they attack something abstract).