Who are you voting for?

[Lisnpuppy]

 

It is also unfortuate as there are many "liberals" ...

If you are taking exception to the term 'liberal' being applied to Sanders' socialist-democrats, anti-American radical liberals, liberal racial bigots, misandry-advocate feminists liberals, and other social misfit liberals who are polluting your party, then could you please come up with a term to describe them that is acceptable to you? Pick a descriptive word for people who identify as liberals but don't share your liberal ideals and I'll use it from now on. Make it something catchy though.

 

 

No, I am taking exception that there are people who consider themselves liberals, call themselves liberals, that don't act like freaking morons and rush stages and look like complete idiots. Are there liberals as you describe? I am sure there are. Are there people that consider themselves liberal and associate as liberal that go through the peaceful process of civil protest or even allowed and accepted civil disobedience? Yes, there are and no one hears about them. And no one hears about the conservatives on the same side of the coin. The media for reasons of their own only show the extremes and the American people only seem to feed on that.

 

Why you chose to assume all these other things about my post and make all these demanding suppositions I do not know. I personally tire of your broken record posts about social misfits, liberal bigots and misandry-advocate feminists. I am none of these things nor are the people which I associate. The fact that how I think people should be treated and society should look and care to those that are in need gives me a title of "liberal" is something that is of little significance. I am far more moderate than much would suggest. I live in a state where Welfare is generational and a insurance claim is considered a lottery win. But my parents raised me to not only be a caring, forth-right respectful person, they taught me to think for myself and work hard. They taught me that there are no easy answers, no blanket names to fit all situations, all people. Every person, event and action must be judged of its own information and merit.

 

Because I don't have enough information on you I am not even going to try to make assumptions about your posts or you as you seems to have done me. I also don't plan to respond to any more of this nature. Not because I don't enjoy a good lively debate, which this was not. But because you were so far off the mark on this one it wasn't funny. You are typically far more astute. And though I often do not agree with you, you do have a knack of getting to the heart of the matter. You however missed what I was referring to by a wide margin. In my brief post I am sure it was more clear to me in the context of the discussion than obvious to others, but even without a clear understanding I do not think I asked for nor deserved your response.

[WursWaldo]

My reasoning was sound. You have previously taken exception to my use of the word 'liberal' to describe 'liberals'. You even went as a far as to state that you identify as a 'liberal' in this post and you then questioned my use of the term when talking about 'liberals' in this post. You then used the word "liberal" with the emphasis of added quotation marks, alluding to the previous linked exchanges concerning the use of 'liberal' and the word itself. I was spot on with my assertion and not "off the mark".

 

Clarification: I have never used the phrases "social misfits", "liberal bigots" or "misandry-advocate feminists" prior to the post you quoted. Feel free to quote my prior usage verbatim and I will recant. Otherwise, your "broken record" doesn't exist and that statement was a literary liberty on your part to silence me or to insert a fallacious narrative; quod si facere.

 

Talking about American politics without using the words conservative or liberal is impossible; unless people start performing linguistic gymnastics in a fruitless effort to avoid offending someone. That is an unreasonable expectation. Both Parties have unsavory elements and it is up to individuals to come to grips with that brutal reality. If you identify as a liberal and there are liberals you do not agree with, then attempting to regulate my speech won't alter that reality. Truthfully that tactic is used by the subset of liberals you profess to not identify with, yet you are attempting to do what they do.

 

The Erebutian Titan in the room is there are nefarious people who identify as 'conservative'. I whole-heartily disagree with them on moral and ethical grounds and I do not recoil in abject terror at the prospect of being called a conservative simply because those people exist and contaminate the party I Identify with. They come with the territory. Do you get what I'm saying?

 

So I will reiterate; provide a descriptive for liberals who do not share your (moderate) liberal stance and I will use it hence forth. This will avoid any future misunderstandings. Otherwise they will remain 'liberals' and any mental stigma that might bear will be self-inflicted by you. The offer is for your benefit, not mine. If you choose not to communicate with me, so be it.

 

edited for spelling and type-o's

Edited March 17, 2016 by WursWaldo

[Lisnpuppy]

Again, as you seem to be missing or ignoring my point as I did not take exception to your word I too exception to THE MEDIA..I am talking about the media and the types of things they show both liberal and conservative by any definition of the word. I have no need for anything else here as I am not trying to make a specific definition other than there are stories about people (even ones that don't define themselves as any of these words) that do not act in the way that man did and do not get reported about. I used your word and then my "liberal" only as a springboard to give a outline of opposite, not to argue your definition but to give a foil. A mistake in retrospect but again there was nothing there about you which I took exception.

 

I did not make a post to define liberals. I used "liberals" in quotes only because you made reference to that man in the media news as liberal and there are those that call themselves liberal that protest at political rallies and at political candidates speeches and act and think in a million different ways and think a million different things and still call themselves liberal. Just like the distinction I made in Marxist thread and here. I was defined liberal based on some questions I answered and I felt I was not so far left as the questions represented. Liberal and conservative is a far sweeping terminology that is used and misused by all sides and the media and by those who call themselves such. It has changed since its inceptions and unknown to those that are not students of history their extremes are painful and dangerous things.

 

Since my original post has nothing to do with your need for re-definition I see no reason to attempt more than I have. You will continue to call your spades spades regardless. I will not attempt to sub-categorize every type here. People will will continue to ally themselves how they will if I agree with their definition or not, if you agree with it or not.

 

I did not make my post in order to discuss not offending someone, I made my post to discuss the unbalance in reporting. The media as the forth estate is supposed to show the complete side not give titillating soundbites and incomplete stories. As you said they seemed to be changing the dialogue of that man's story. They were not giving his entire story and they do not give the entire story of what is happening in the political protesting of these rallies because it is not exciting. I never in any way said I was limiting their speech or wished to...I want them to do MORE stories. To say MORE. Why do you assume because I don't like something that I must end it and crush it into the ground? I don't like the many things protected as free speech but it is just that, free speech and the moment I don't defend that is the moment I need to grab my hat and leave. Personally I think that offending someone is the very first thing that sometimes needs to happen to effect change in the world. The truth shall set you free but first it will piss you off.

 

And were this debate me shoving in calling myself a liberal, tossing around my views of it and my post was about that and how all liberals were this and not that and you pointed out, no matter how offensive otherwise then I would have to drink that koolaid and fight back and show how you were incorrect or go home.

 

But that was not what my post was about. If you wish to discuss my irritation with mainstream media today and what they choose to show and how they choose to show it on ALL the different channels then I'd be pleased as punch as I don't think their is a single one that doesn't give their own sided-view. If you want me to give textbook definitions of liberals (and the degree is in history and not poly sci so yeah I don't enjoy that as much truth be told) then it isn't going to happen. My use was in response to your definition only as it existed in that single post about the man in the story, as to the media bias. It was in " " only to differentiate it from your meaning of the what you defined that man as and in what you seemed to imply the press were defining him as, to those others who defined themselves as liberals (by their own accounting not mine) and held what I viewed as a more reasonable protest (which as said does not get discussed in the media cause it is boring.) That is what it was about, simple as that and not this big thing about me defining and re-defining the modern liberal.

 

And if I do not ally myself and have to look at these folks that have distasteful view, like some Uncle who comes to Thanksgiving that hugs the women just a bit to long and talks embarrassing things at dinner, it is not because I do not wish to call him family. It is because my ideas and ideals are more that can be put on the 4 section block test of political views, more than what can be explain here. I have changed with time, age, being a parent and being a spouse. I really don't think about "am I a liberal" because it really isn't important. I don't define myself as a political party or any of that. Do I have ideas than lean one way or another at times, yes. But people may be surprised on each topic given my views and how I think an outcome could happen. So I do not find these things important. I do not see the benefit and to be honest I don't really think I would change your beliefs. I don't think perhaps that it the intent of the request.

 

That being said I think this had been driven off topic more than enough. If there is to be a discussion about the defining these things perhaps another threat would be best.

[Harbringe]

Keeping up with the times.

 

 

[WursWaldo]

@Lisnpuppy

Excellent. Conservatives will remain conservatives and liberals will remain liberals. Glad this has been settled. Let the 'Who are you voting for?' discussion continue. Welcome back to the fold. :D

[sunshinenbrick]

Politics is more than a two dimensional paradigm anyway - this is a neat little diagram (although things tend to be a little more organic/spiritual than this represents and is relative to the people around you, obviously). In fact, the more multi-dimensional you can be then the more likely your are to win power.

 

Furthermore, while the incentive of a policy may be different, the results can effectively be the same i.e. a fascist regime would share many of the same attributes as a communist one, for example.

 

But then we are all just actors on our own little stage and it is the pure, visceral, unfettered reality of nature that will govern our futures.

 

 

Seriously though... I'm always giving myself such a downer!!

 

(and as for a word that describes people who blatantly believe what they wanna believe even with the facts staring then in the face, the word 'militant' springs to mind - although I like to take things on a person by person, case by case basis as much as possible myself)

[HeyYou]

Politics is more than a two dimensional paradigm anyway - this is a neat little diagram (although things tend to be a little more organic/spiritual than this represents and is relative to the people around you, obviously). In fact, the more multi-dimensional you can be then the more likely your are to win power.

 

Furthermore, while the incentive of a policy may be different, the results can effectively be the same i.e. a fascist regime would share many of the same attributes as a communist one, for example.

 

But then we are all just actors on our own little stage and it is the pure, visceral, unfettered reality of nature that will govern our futures.

 

 

Seriously though... I'm always giving myself such a downer!!

 

(and as for a word that describes people who blatantly believe what they wanna believe even with the facts staring then in the face, the word 'militant' springs to mind - although I like to take things on a person by person, case by case basis as much as possible myself)

I am more of the opinion that politics is indeed two-dimensional, after all, that's all you hear on the media, it's either the liberals, or the conservatives, rarely anything in between.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

Politics is more than a two dimensional paradigm anyway - this is a neat little diagram (although things tend to be a little more organic/spiritual than this represents and is relative to the people around you, obviously). In fact, the more multi-dimensional you can be then the more likely your are to win power.

 

Furthermore, while the incentive of a policy may be different, the results can effectively be the same i.e. a fascist regime would share many of the same attributes as a communist one, for example.

 

But then we are all just actors on our own little stage and it is the pure, visceral, unfettered reality of nature that will govern our futures.

 

 

Seriously though... I'm always giving myself such a downer!!

 

(and as for a word that describes people who blatantly believe what they wanna believe even with the facts staring then in the face, the word 'militant' springs to mind - although I like to take things on a person by person, case by case basis as much as possible myself)

I am more of the opinion that politics is indeed two-dimensional, after all, that's all you hear on the media, it's either the liberals, or the conservatives, rarely anything in between.

 

 

Indeed I think you hit the nail on the head there! This is what we are tunneled into believing - increasingly rarely do you find a deep political debate that slices through all the rhetoric. Yet, politicians change their minds and stances on things all the time, however the general public buy into this sort of endless game. It's really rather clever, but also somewhat natural because most of us like to feel the sheppard is watching over us.

 

Having only two sides, or rather a purely digital micro view of the world/universe, also has tended to be the most economic way in which to make decisions. However, with the new discoveries in science and revolutions in technology (Internet for example) it is completely throwing everything we 'know' up in the air and thus we are in a right pickle. As with most things in our limited view of the world, only time will tell - or perhaps instinct/faith gives some other resolve to the inherently inexplicable.

 

Sorry, just rambling a bit now as I am being very lazy today cuz I've been feeling ill as of late :yucky:

[HeyYou]

Hope you feel better soon. :)

 

The easy availability of any sort of information you could wish is one of the things that makes me believe that having political campaigns stretch out YEARS ahead of the election is simply a waste of time, money, resources, and effort. Folks are spending millions to get a job that pays 400k per year. What a waste. Political campaigns should therefore be limited to within three month of the election for which they are running. Back in the day, when the only news source we had was newspapers, no radio, no tv, no internet, etc, I could see it, but, not anymore.

[WursWaldo]

Trump is playing hard ball with the 'New World Order' and 'The Global Conspiracy'. He wants to stop the internal audits of the Federal Reserve so there will be a real accounting for the nation's wealth. He wants access to the information about the interest made by IMF from American contributions that are held on demand. He wants to speculate against Chinese trade and speed up their housing bubble so it will burst before 2020, and crash their contrived economy. He wants to build a wall and cut off corporations from cheap labor.

The last person to talk this way was Lyndon Larouche and some how he was deemed insane and committed for a few years to calm him down. Before that it was JFK and his plan to place America back on the Silver Standard and scuttle deficit spending.

 

No doubt the 'Big Two' parties want Trump gone. He's ready to knock down the house of cards and force us all into a hard reset where the money in our pockets is worth what's printed on it. Imagine a $1.50 candy bar that costs 25 cents, or a gallon of gas for less than a dollar. Trump must be stopped, but I hope he's not.