- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,133
- Reaction score
- 15,017
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
He probably died because his tank was full of piss n' vinegar. :2razz:
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Frontline: "The Divided States of America."
- Thread starter Cardinal
- Start date
He probably died because his tank was full of piss n' vinegar. :2razz:
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,133
- Reaction score
- 15,017
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,133
- Reaction score
- 15,017
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Jesus christ, watch for yourself. :doh
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,214
- Reaction score
- 49,274
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Could very well be. There's probably some truth to the old quote "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain".
However, is you look at all the liberal social agenda, much of which the Democrats support, isn't that a movement to the left on their part?
Whatever is it, it isn't working for the Democratic party, that is without question.
Anyway you cut it, any way you look at it, the Democrats have lost, and continue to lose, ground in significant fashion. It may be related to the SJW agenda. I'm not 100% sure.
This also seems to be related to the problem, from an anecdotal perspective.
I Hope the Democratic party regains its footing. I really do.
The founders in their wisdom set up a system of self-governance which was built on the concept of checks and balances, hence the 3 branches of government with enumerated powers and limitations, and what evolved into a two-major party system. Checks and balances.
I don’t believe that its best for the nation to have a major party and a minor party, such as what the graph above would indicate, with one party having so much control where they could almost pass constitution amendments on their own. That much political power, that much control, is counter to the wisdom of check and balances.
Yes, I do hope the Democratic party regains its footing to restore checks and balances between the major political parties. It’s my opinion they won’t be able to do that continuing their careering ever further left. They need to come back to the center, as America is a center-right country.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,214
- Reaction score
- 49,274
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
It's true. The big cities on both coasts are largely Democratic party dominated (and a few other large cities in the center of the country). Something on the order of couple of hundred counties as opposed to like 3,500 counties in the country.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,844
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Since it's PBS....none.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
- Messages
- 8,857
- Reaction score
- 3,555
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No. The alternative facts where the ones the other person was spewing. What you quoted was reality being pointed out to him.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,844
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Bingo
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Very good documentary that I think did a pretty decent job of being fair and provided some interesting information I didn't know before while also reminding me of some info that I had kind of forgotten. My quick notes that I took through watching it are below:
Palin speech = Trump. It's funny how much her speech at the RNC in '08 hit on a lot of the things people liked about Trump; outsider, not talking like a typical politician, seeming unscripted. An early missed indication of how much that could appeal to a part of the electorate.
Not caring about DC/New York/Boston/LA/Chicago focus. This also goes back to Palin, but highlights one of those things that is part of the Trump base, and it was shown through the newspaper question to a point. There's a dissatisfaction for many of those across America about this notion that those sitting in one of the 5 big cities are the arbiter's of what news is, what culture is, what your opinions should be, etc. The notion of not reading the Washington Post or watching the NBC Nightly News is not something that seems appalling or to be mocked.
Step too far with McCain = fear != racism. People were speaking their fears about an Obama Presidency to McCain. And while some of those fears may've been born from racism, not all of them were. Yet often McCain's responses was not simply trying to deal with the idea of fear and belaying their worries about that, but immediately went into race. So it went from a mild defense that said trust the system, to almost an attack on his constituents. And that's not going to go over well with voters.
Obama can't be as popular as he was without whites. They didn't suddenly stop being racist then suddenly become racist. This was my issue not with the documentary, but with some of the people speaking in it. This is the funny thing that is present with the whole "racist" notion as it relates to the opposition of Obama. Obama was swept into office with a significant popular vote. Polls showed he had managed to even get 10% of the REPUBLICAN vote on his side. A higher percentage of whites voted for him in '08 than for any Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter went against Gerald Ford in 1976. While undoubtedly there were racial backlash against him by some segments of the population, it was not growing racism but growing disappointment in his administration and his message that led to those who previously voted for him turning away (or not turning out).
Palin speech = Trump. It's funny how much her speech at the RNC in '08 hit on a lot of the things people liked about Trump; outsider, not talking like a typical politician, seeming unscripted. An early missed indication of how much that could appeal to a part of the electorate.
Not caring about DC/New York/Boston/LA/Chicago focus. This also goes back to Palin, but highlights one of those things that is part of the Trump base, and it was shown through the newspaper question to a point. There's a dissatisfaction for many of those across America about this notion that those sitting in one of the 5 big cities are the arbiter's of what news is, what culture is, what your opinions should be, etc. The notion of not reading the Washington Post or watching the NBC Nightly News is not something that seems appalling or to be mocked.
Step too far with McCain = fear != racism. People were speaking their fears about an Obama Presidency to McCain. And while some of those fears may've been born from racism, not all of them were. Yet often McCain's responses was not simply trying to deal with the idea of fear and belaying their worries about that, but immediately went into race. So it went from a mild defense that said trust the system, to almost an attack on his constituents. And that's not going to go over well with voters.
Obama can't be as popular as he was without whites. They didn't suddenly stop being racist then suddenly become racist. This was my issue not with the documentary, but with some of the people speaking in it. This is the funny thing that is present with the whole "racist" notion as it relates to the opposition of Obama. Obama was swept into office with a significant popular vote. Polls showed he had managed to even get 10% of the REPUBLICAN vote on his side. A higher percentage of whites voted for him in '08 than for any Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter went against Gerald Ford in 1976. While undoubtedly there were racial backlash against him by some segments of the population, it was not growing racism but growing disappointment in his administration and his message that led to those who previously voted for him turning away (or not turning out).
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
"elections have consequences, and I won" - A seminal moment for establishing how things were going to occur for the rest of the Presidency. This is not the diplomatic approach of a "unifier".
assumed what Republicans wanted, rather than WORKING with republicans. Token. This likely went back to his naivety of politics early on, that was talked about repeatedly by the documentary. Though this is less politics and more negotiating. If you want to work with people you need to listen to them and respond back in a way that clearly shows you're hearing, even if you're not agreeing. When you start dictating to people what they want or what's best for them or what they think, you are likely to have an unreceptive audience. Even if your assumptions are correct, the fact that you're telling them what THEY think/want instead of the other way around, it is often going to be viewed at negatively.
Insider advisers led him to disregard "not crazy" republican plan. Here is where I think he ran into a bit of problems. Obama ran as an outsider himself to a certain degree, ran as a "Change" candidate, ran as someone who was going to do things different than the "norm" with Washington. He invites the Republicans to make a pitch, and they do so with gusto. And whether than capitalizing on that and using it as the baseline to begin negotiations, he listens to long time Washington insiders that were advising him, and disregards it for fear that Cantor was trying to get too much and steamroll things. Rather than actually TRYING to change Washington by doing things in a way that wasn't "business as usual", he listened to advisers, went with "business as usual", and the stonewalling began.
Just expected people to get on board; regardless of their views, regardless of their constituents. This goes back to the naivety. Obama felt like he was right, felt like what he wanted was just common sense, and that by the very fact that he was presenting it and that it was so clear and obvious that people would just get on board. It seemed the "right" thing for him, it seemed he was offering the "right" concessions, it should just happen because he felt it should happen. Rather than honestly empathizing with the other side and understanding the realities of constituents, he simply acted as if everyone he was trying to get on board with his agenda were just going to see it in the same clear light as he did.
I think this is was the tone setter for the rest of the time in office. Obama, in his inexperience, made a mistake on how to handle the Republicans. While they were not looking to massively "compromise", they were open to working with him, and a skilled negotiator can take that and mold it to their purposes. Obama did not do this, and did not do it in a way that they came out of it feeling insulted. And after that point, stubbornness and obstinance took over for the Republicans, that would simply linger going forward.
Is too real with Gates reaction, leads to backlash. To fabricated after, leads to backlash. This is where I think Obama began to realize the trouble with the Presidency and how difficult bridging the gap was going to be. He tried to be real in his initial reaction, and in doing so he came off as being different than what his presentation had been at the time in terms of a unifier, leading to a backlash. Then the "beer summit" was more fabricated, and it also led to backlash as it came off as being out of step with his presentation of being "real" and not "phony". I kind of felt for him with his moves through this saga.
assumed what Republicans wanted, rather than WORKING with republicans. Token. This likely went back to his naivety of politics early on, that was talked about repeatedly by the documentary. Though this is less politics and more negotiating. If you want to work with people you need to listen to them and respond back in a way that clearly shows you're hearing, even if you're not agreeing. When you start dictating to people what they want or what's best for them or what they think, you are likely to have an unreceptive audience. Even if your assumptions are correct, the fact that you're telling them what THEY think/want instead of the other way around, it is often going to be viewed at negatively.
Insider advisers led him to disregard "not crazy" republican plan. Here is where I think he ran into a bit of problems. Obama ran as an outsider himself to a certain degree, ran as a "Change" candidate, ran as someone who was going to do things different than the "norm" with Washington. He invites the Republicans to make a pitch, and they do so with gusto. And whether than capitalizing on that and using it as the baseline to begin negotiations, he listens to long time Washington insiders that were advising him, and disregards it for fear that Cantor was trying to get too much and steamroll things. Rather than actually TRYING to change Washington by doing things in a way that wasn't "business as usual", he listened to advisers, went with "business as usual", and the stonewalling began.
Just expected people to get on board; regardless of their views, regardless of their constituents. This goes back to the naivety. Obama felt like he was right, felt like what he wanted was just common sense, and that by the very fact that he was presenting it and that it was so clear and obvious that people would just get on board. It seemed the "right" thing for him, it seemed he was offering the "right" concessions, it should just happen because he felt it should happen. Rather than honestly empathizing with the other side and understanding the realities of constituents, he simply acted as if everyone he was trying to get on board with his agenda were just going to see it in the same clear light as he did.
I think this is was the tone setter for the rest of the time in office. Obama, in his inexperience, made a mistake on how to handle the Republicans. While they were not looking to massively "compromise", they were open to working with him, and a skilled negotiator can take that and mold it to their purposes. Obama did not do this, and did not do it in a way that they came out of it feeling insulted. And after that point, stubbornness and obstinance took over for the Republicans, that would simply linger going forward.
Is too real with Gates reaction, leads to backlash. To fabricated after, leads to backlash. This is where I think Obama began to realize the trouble with the Presidency and how difficult bridging the gap was going to be. He tried to be real in his initial reaction, and in doing so he came off as being different than what his presentation had been at the time in terms of a unifier, leading to a backlash. Then the "beer summit" was more fabricated, and it also led to backlash as it came off as being out of step with his presentation of being "real" and not "phony". I kind of felt for him with his moves through this saga.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Last 2 years of Bush left Republican base feeling burned. The base of the Republicans were in an unhappy state; not just with Democrats, but with Bush. The stimulus and immigration reform had them angry, as did the economic situation itself. But tribalism, by its nature, leads you to not want to go after "your own". So it was this seething amount of anger and disgust that was bubbling like a pot boiling with a lid on it. Obama coming in, and continuing (or ramping up) some of the things they were mad at Bush about, allowed them to take the lid off and finally vent all that steam. But the damage was also done in terms of their view towards Republicans, and after the steam vented their anger simmered not just towards Democrats but their own. Indeed, it was the last 2 years of Bush that slowly started to allow that part of the base to begin the process of ceasing to see the Republican Party as "their own" tribe, but rather seeing them as an outsider as well.
Joe Wilson outburst being held up as a GOOD thing encouraged BAD forms of fighting back. I agreed with the documentaries point on this. People were angry, people wanted a fighter, but instead they got Joe Wilison. He wasn't fighting, he was being a petulant child, but because so few were truly fighting back in an animated or emotional way through proper venues, he was lauded. And this gave rise to the tactless, low class form of "fighting back" that became so popular within a segment of the base and encouraged others to use it as a means of attracting them.
Democrats were the holdouts that caused compromise, like no public option. I always knew and remembered that the delay on Obamacare was not really Republicans, it was Democrats being unable to get their OWN party to get in line. What I completely forgot was that the removal of the public option was itself a compromise made with, and to get, a DEMOCRATIC senator, not Republicans.
Cantor went from tea party favorite to pariah. It's kind of amazing how he went from one of the bigger stars of the movement in Washington to a pariah. Though part 2 kind of documented this
2010 showed that not "being like a politician" had some appeal. This was the next canary in the coal mine for 2016. This showed, at least on a localized level, that people were willing to overlook...and even were excited...by the lack of experience in exchange for someone more "real".
Ryan invited and given front row seat, giving appearance it's about to be the start of the path to compromise. Instead, just insulted. This was likely the death knell for anything useful after 2010, and frankly I believe it's why that segment of Republicans were so obstinent after 2012 despite the claims of a Democratic "mandate". Republicans thought they had a "mandate" following 2010, and their first big signature thing doesn't just get shut down...it gets shut down in blistering and insulting fashion, in a partisan charged speech, while the person who is largely being dressed down is sitting right there in the front row. Obama's people recognize what a costly mistake that was, and I absolutely agree.
Birther issue by Trump calculated. I thought it did a great job of showing how calculated the move into the "birther" space was, and that it wasn't likely simply an accident by Trump.
Obama having buyers remorse helped to kill his relationship with boehner, his best hope for compromise. The increased number by Obama poisoned the well with Boehner getting Republicans on board. Partisan press conference full of anger, with no self reflection. Everyone who's made deals has experience this; you make a deal, you agree on it, then you find out a better offer comes by. It's a tricky situation. I was shocked a bit to hear about how Boehner went about making the deal with Obama, or how close the deal was actually to getting done. But ultimately, the request for more money seemed to poison the well. It seemed, based on the broadcast, that the very STRONG opposition by the likes of Ryan and Cantor didn't come until the increase was attempted. Which makes sense, they didn't like the first one, but Boehner likely bought into that one FAR more (having helped craft it) and could likely sell it better. But after being sold one thing, then coming back and trying to sell them even more, and likely not really believing what he (Boehner) was selling himself? Wasn't going to happen. As someone DIRECLTY affected by the closure in 2012, I'm really curious what would have happened and what the next 4 years would've looked like had the original deal agreed upon by both of them simply been kept, and if Boehner could have whipped his side into support.
Joe Wilson outburst being held up as a GOOD thing encouraged BAD forms of fighting back. I agreed with the documentaries point on this. People were angry, people wanted a fighter, but instead they got Joe Wilison. He wasn't fighting, he was being a petulant child, but because so few were truly fighting back in an animated or emotional way through proper venues, he was lauded. And this gave rise to the tactless, low class form of "fighting back" that became so popular within a segment of the base and encouraged others to use it as a means of attracting them.
Democrats were the holdouts that caused compromise, like no public option. I always knew and remembered that the delay on Obamacare was not really Republicans, it was Democrats being unable to get their OWN party to get in line. What I completely forgot was that the removal of the public option was itself a compromise made with, and to get, a DEMOCRATIC senator, not Republicans.
Cantor went from tea party favorite to pariah. It's kind of amazing how he went from one of the bigger stars of the movement in Washington to a pariah. Though part 2 kind of documented this
2010 showed that not "being like a politician" had some appeal. This was the next canary in the coal mine for 2016. This showed, at least on a localized level, that people were willing to overlook...and even were excited...by the lack of experience in exchange for someone more "real".
Ryan invited and given front row seat, giving appearance it's about to be the start of the path to compromise. Instead, just insulted. This was likely the death knell for anything useful after 2010, and frankly I believe it's why that segment of Republicans were so obstinent after 2012 despite the claims of a Democratic "mandate". Republicans thought they had a "mandate" following 2010, and their first big signature thing doesn't just get shut down...it gets shut down in blistering and insulting fashion, in a partisan charged speech, while the person who is largely being dressed down is sitting right there in the front row. Obama's people recognize what a costly mistake that was, and I absolutely agree.
Birther issue by Trump calculated. I thought it did a great job of showing how calculated the move into the "birther" space was, and that it wasn't likely simply an accident by Trump.
Obama having buyers remorse helped to kill his relationship with boehner, his best hope for compromise. The increased number by Obama poisoned the well with Boehner getting Republicans on board. Partisan press conference full of anger, with no self reflection. Everyone who's made deals has experience this; you make a deal, you agree on it, then you find out a better offer comes by. It's a tricky situation. I was shocked a bit to hear about how Boehner went about making the deal with Obama, or how close the deal was actually to getting done. But ultimately, the request for more money seemed to poison the well. It seemed, based on the broadcast, that the very STRONG opposition by the likes of Ryan and Cantor didn't come until the increase was attempted. Which makes sense, they didn't like the first one, but Boehner likely bought into that one FAR more (having helped craft it) and could likely sell it better. But after being sold one thing, then coming back and trying to sell them even more, and likely not really believing what he (Boehner) was selling himself? Wasn't going to happen. As someone DIRECLTY affected by the closure in 2012, I'm really curious what would have happened and what the next 4 years would've looked like had the original deal agreed upon by both of them simply been kept, and if Boehner could have whipped his side into support.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Obama doesn't normally speak off the cuff, and that seems to be when he gets into issues. Trayvon Martin issue example. This just highlighted that I don't think Obama is a gifted politician speaking off the cuff. He's a fabulous orator and a compelling one, but he's prone to giving plenty of red meat for people to latch upon each time he seems to go off script and give his personal view on things.
Trump planning all the way back to 2012. I was flabbergasted seeing "make America great again" was trademarked that far back, as I honestly didn't think his planning had gone back that far originally.
Credit to Obama not mentioning gun control in immediate aftermath press conference of newtown. Yes, that's the direction he ultimately went, and fast, but when they reshowed the press conference I was glad to see it wasn't immediately used to make a gun control point.
Tried going bipartisan with A+ NRA Dem and republican, reps set tone not going with it. This time, the Republicans definitely set the tone for how the rest of the Presidency was going to go. Again, I think this goes back to them reacting with stubbornness to 2 particular snubs; the 2009 and 2011 budget talks. THIS was the kind of good faith effort that Obama likely would've been successful with earlier on, but not with the current state of relations due to past actions.
No response to the Republican mandate in 2010, so no response to the Obama mandate in 2012. See the above point. The tone deaf response to the 2010 elections by Obama likely precipitated the arguably tone deaf response to the 2012 elections by the Republican congress.
Cantor was calculated, not principled. At least, that's how the documentary explained his sudden fall. He wasn't legitimately in line with the angry, fed up, staunch conservative part of the base, he was simply leveraging them for his own ambitions and his own fiscal views. I'm not sure how much that may be the case or how much he was simply a bit more pragmatic or honestly changed. But it's still a stunning fall from grace.
Cantor's loss showed the desire for anger/fighting. Possibly the final true canary. For this rising group of voters, they wanted someone they truly felt was speaking for them, not simply someone who had the experience to be ABLE to theoretically speak for them but seemingly never did (in their eyes).
Trump planning all the way back to 2012. I was flabbergasted seeing "make America great again" was trademarked that far back, as I honestly didn't think his planning had gone back that far originally.
Credit to Obama not mentioning gun control in immediate aftermath press conference of newtown. Yes, that's the direction he ultimately went, and fast, but when they reshowed the press conference I was glad to see it wasn't immediately used to make a gun control point.
Tried going bipartisan with A+ NRA Dem and republican, reps set tone not going with it. This time, the Republicans definitely set the tone for how the rest of the Presidency was going to go. Again, I think this goes back to them reacting with stubbornness to 2 particular snubs; the 2009 and 2011 budget talks. THIS was the kind of good faith effort that Obama likely would've been successful with earlier on, but not with the current state of relations due to past actions.
No response to the Republican mandate in 2010, so no response to the Obama mandate in 2012. See the above point. The tone deaf response to the 2010 elections by Obama likely precipitated the arguably tone deaf response to the 2012 elections by the Republican congress.
Cantor was calculated, not principled. At least, that's how the documentary explained his sudden fall. He wasn't legitimately in line with the angry, fed up, staunch conservative part of the base, he was simply leveraging them for his own ambitions and his own fiscal views. I'm not sure how much that may be the case or how much he was simply a bit more pragmatic or honestly changed. But it's still a stunning fall from grace.
Cantor's loss showed the desire for anger/fighting. Possibly the final true canary. For this rising group of voters, they wanted someone they truly felt was speaking for them, not simply someone who had the experience to be ABLE to theoretically speak for them but seemingly never did (in their eyes).
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 24,353
- Reaction score
- 14,925
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
It has long been said that facts have a liberal bias.
But, hey. You now have your "alternate" facts so quit whining.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 12,049
- Reaction score
- 2,089
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I know how much you are devoted to the lib snobs at NPR but they have no more facts than anyone else does.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,133
- Reaction score
- 15,017
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yes, he does. You should give it a try.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 12,049
- Reaction score
- 2,089
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative