Jump to content
270soft Forum
NYrepublican

Thank you Anthony for posting this

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I believe (as I have pointed out quite a few times here before, to mostly deaf ears, with only a few really listening) that the fact U.S. politics, society, culture, economics, and many others - including areas which shouldn't really be touched - have actually come to the point where everything is about "two sides." Two sides with irreconcilable goals whose political and cultural leaders, pundits, and ideologues egg on their followers to greater and greater intolerance, sabotage, harsher rhetoric, obstructionism, and even violence against each other solely out of spite and a team sport mentality that "the other side must not score, no matter what." This attitude has become extremely on both sides - though each side also blames the other entirely for this phenomenon (when they even address it), mitigating their own side's part in it, or even saying it's pure "in response to the other side's hate" or "defending against attacks from the left/right"). This division, make no mistake, is the Achilles heel of an otherwise great nation, and is the reason I said, for instance, one of Donald Trump's biggest campaign promises, "to Make America Great Again," was literally impossible to fulfill in the current environment, or by a President like Trump and any other President who is not a unifying national leader - of which there has not been one for decades and I don't see a realistic or viable one coming on the horizon. This internal division, this festering wound, this growing cancer, is THE greatest to the United States today - greater than any foreign nation, foreign ideology, or terrorist group. Remember also that the Roman Empire, too, had died from within, of it's devices, decades before barbarians arrived at the gates of Rome.

"A house divided upon itself cannot stand," Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great post by @admin_270

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per usual our benevolent  overlord(lol) @admin_270 has offered some sanity to a rather chaotic time. 

I think he hits the nail on the head with the  balkanization within the media, and how if you're a conservative or a liberal you will have a set pattern in consuming media. Think: favorite tv shows, music, places to eat out at, and so on. And while there is nothing wrong with a preference, I feel- much like Anthony- that we are perpetually in an echo chamber; Where we have little idea what is going on- not just politically, but socially- within our own nation. 

When I was in debate in high school, my teacher made us-the debate team- read magazines such as: "The National Review", "Time", "Newsweek", "NY Times Editorials". Not because he was allover the place politically, but because- in his words- "an honest debate is when both sides have a basic understanding of the facts. "And without trying to come across as sucking up to the forum, but I feel we have an honest understanding of the debate at hand- as we see from the bipartisan support for this post.

But, we are the minority, that spends its free time on a niche forum, where we are able to debate politics civilly(with some exceptions that we are guilty of). But again, we are the minority. There is no economic incentive for Fox, or MSNBC to start catering towards the otherside. And the days of only having 3 broadcasts networks, and everyone gets their news from Peter Jennings are long gone. And this gulf will only widen, as there is no real solution on combating this in the age of the internet. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

As per usual our benevolent  overlord(lol) @admin_270 has offered some sanity to a rather chaotic time. 

I think he hits the nail on the head with the  balkanization within the media, and how if you're a conservative or a liberal you will have a set pattern in consuming media. Think: favorite tv shows, music, places to eat out at, and so on. And while there is nothing wrong with a preference, I feel- much like Anthony- that we are perpetually in an echo chamber; Where we have little idea what is going on- not just politically, but socially- within our own nation. 

When I was in debate in high school, my teacher made us-the debate team- read magazines such as: "The National Review", "Time", "Newsweek", "NY Times Editorials". Not because he was allover the place politically, but because- in his words- "an honest debate is when both sides have a basic understanding of the facts. "And without trying to come across as sucking up to the forum, but I feel we have an honest understanding of the debate at hand- as we see from the bipartisan support for this post.

But, we are the minority, that spends its free time on a niche forum, where we are able to debate politics civilly(with some exceptions that we are guilty of). But again, we are the minority. There is no economic incentive for Fox, or MSNBC to start catering towards the otherside. And the days of only having 3 broadcasts networks, and everyone gets their news from Peter Jennings are long gone. And this gulf will only widen, as there is no real solution on combating this in the age of the internet. 
 

Actually, I was never limited to those three broadcast networks (and they only came via cable in my youth). And I ALWAYS preferred Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson as newscasters myself. :P

But, that being said, the Internet is an invention like cell phones or peaceful civilian nuclear power, for instance - created with the best of intentions and too revolutionize and advance many aspects of human society and living standards. But the toxic, destructive, and entropic elements of these kinds of inventions only become fully apparent when they've become thoroughly in everyday usage and become dependent upon by so many. The fact that I can look up and watch vile, xenophobic, hate-filled speeches and incitements to violence by Pat Robertson, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, AND Timochenko, among many others, on the SAME Internet, is kind of frightening. Plus, there is also overexposure and overdetail of - well, everything considered newsworthy, unlike before. As a very good point here - he, statistically, live in one of the very most peaceful, politically stable, and safest periods of time in recorded history. You would NEVER from following today's news and Internet feeds, not even remotely so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @admin_270 gives a mostly good response to this. I think Rep. Waters went a little over board. However, I can clearly sympathize with her anger and those wishing to shun the Trump Administration. We haven't seen anything like this before. There are some that think that these businesses and anti-Trump supporters should be allowed to shame, shun, and non-violently protest against Trump administration officials (even in Restaurants), if anti-Abortion protesters (and similar protesters) are allowed to shame, shun, and non-violently protest against women that walk into Planned Parenthood--the grand majority of whom are not going in for an abortion; yet, they smeared as if they are. The protests that Waters is reacting to is not new in itself. It's just the usual 21st century protest directed at an entire administration, and not just the president, as was usually done. The only reason I don't support Waters's statement is that I don't think it is helpful for the Midterms or 2020 Election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think @admin_270 gives a mostly good response to this. I think Rep. Waters went a little over board. However, I can clearly sympathize with her anger and those wishing to shun the Trump Administration. We haven't seen anything like this before. There are some that think that these businesses and anti-Trump supporters should be allowed to shame, shun, and non-violently protest against Trump administration officials (even in Restaurants), if anti-Abortion protesters (and similar protesters) are allowed to shame, shun, and non-violently protest against women that walk into Planned Parenthood--the grand majority of whom are not going in for an abortion; yet, they smeared as if they are. The protests that Waters is reacting to is not new in itself. It's just the usual 21st century protest directed at an entire administration, and not just the president, as was usually done. The only reason I don't support Waters's statement is that I don't think it is helpful for the Midterms or 2020 Election. 

Well I've never been a huge fan of people standing outside of Planned Parenthood and screaming at people going in. I consider it a close cousin of harassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that there's ever been civility in US politics is ridiculous.

John Jay said he could travel from Boston to Philadelphia by the light of his own burning effigies. 

In the election of 1800, the Connecticut Courant said if Thomas Jefferson was elected "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." 

John Quincy Adams supporters spread rumors that Andrew Jackson's mother was a prostitute in 1824 and again in 1828.

In 1884 Grover Cleveland was taunted at every campaign stop by James Blaine supporters singing "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" in an effort to bring attention to an alleged illegitimate child. 

In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt called President Taft a "fathead" with the "brains of a guinea pig".

Dwight Eisenhower's enemies suggested he was a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist conspiracy."

Shortly before John Kennedy arrived in Dallas in November 1963, where he was assassinated, an ad ran in the local newspaper with his picture over the legend, "Wanted for Treason."

The haters hung George Washington in effigy. They called Abraham Lincoln a dictator. They said Franklin Roosevelt was a Bolshevik.  There's really nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pilight said:

The notion that there's ever been civility in US politics is ridiculous.

John Jay said he could travel from Boston to Philadelphia by the light of his own burning effigies. 

In the election of 1800, the Connecticut Courant said if Thomas Jefferson was elected "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." 

John Quincy Adams supporters spread rumors that Andrew Jackson's mother was a prostitute in 1824 and again in 1828.

In 1884 Grover Cleveland was taunted at every campaign stop by James Blaine supporters singing "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" in an effort to bring attention to an alleged illegitimate child. 

In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt called President Taft a "fathead" with the "brains of a guinea pig".

Dwight Eisenhower's enemies suggested he was a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist conspiracy."

Shortly before John Kennedy arrived in Dallas in November 1963, where he was assassinated, an ad ran in the local newspaper with his picture over the legend, "Wanted for Treason."

The haters hung George Washington in effigy. They called Abraham Lincoln a dictator. They said Franklin Roosevelt was a Bolshevik.  There's really nothing new here.

Awesome post,It has happened throughout history,and you are right nothing new 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - tremendous post @admin_270 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoped that post made some sense.

I agree with @vcczar , I don't think that sort of rhetoric (or forming mobs around Cabinet members) will help Dems in the mid-terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 1:39 PM, Wiw said:

A civil war is, frankly, unavoidable at this point.

What sides? North, and South? East and West? Right and Left? An actual war or a metaphorical one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

What sides? North, and South? East and West? Right and Left? An actual war or a metaphorical one?

Maybe a messy one, with no factional borders, no battlelines, no uniforms, etc., like Iraq degenerated into after George W. Bush put on a jock strap, danced and pranced across the deck of that aircraft carrier, and chanted "mission accomplished."

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

×