• 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!

Tribalism on DP/in real life

haymarket said:
You cannot have a direct democracy in a nation of over 300 million people due to real world practical considerations of time and space which would not make it practical nor even possible.
Click to expand...

So why do you object to the electoral college?

The founders had cities in their time, they knew that a checks and balance between the electorate in the cities and the electorate in country side was needed, else the electorate in the country side would be enslaved by the electorate in the cities by mere count of votes, hence, the electoral college, and the checks and balances that it formalized.

I would suggest:
The former CEO of NPR set out for conservative America to find out why these people are so wrong about everything. It turns out, they weren't.

Ken Stern watched the increasing polarization of our country with growing concern. As a longtime partisan Democrat himself, he felt forced to acknowledge that his own views were too parochial, too absent of any exposure to the ''other side.'' In fact, his urban neighborhood is so liberal, he couldn't find a single Republican -- even by asking around.

So for one year, he crossed the aisle to spend time listening, talking, and praying with Republicans of all stripes. With his mind open and his dial tuned to the right, he went to evangelical churches, shot a hog in Texas, stood in pit row at a NASCAR race, hung out at Tea Party meetings and sat in on Steve Bannon's radio show. He also read up on conservative wonkery and consulted with the smartest people the right has to offer.

What happens when a liberal sets out to look at issues from a conservative perspective? Some of his dearly cherished assumptions about the right slipped away. Republican Like Me reveals what lead him to change his mind, and his view of an increasingly polarized America.
Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right
Click to expand...

Take a look from the perspective of what liberals deridingly call 'Fly Over Country'.
 
eohrnberger said:
So why do you object to the electoral college?
Click to expand...

It violates several basic principles of our nation including

*** one person/one vote with no person having any more weight or power behind their vote than any other citizen, and
*** a government of the people , by the people and for the people

Aside from that it gives an obvious political advantage to one party over the other and that is inherently unfair.
 
calamity said:
Well, my solution is let the Trumpians form their own country and live in Trumpland. The rest of us want our country back.
Click to expand...

Them, what got into y'all, giving him the job like that? Can't you make up your minds?
 
haymarket said:
It violates several basic principles of our nation including

*** one person/one vote with no person having any more weight or power behind their vote than any other citizen, and
*** a government of the people , by the people and for the people

Aside from that it gives an obvious political advantage to one party over the other and that is inherently unfair.
Click to expand...

And if there were no electoral college it would be even more unfair. At least with the electoral college it is MORE fair.
 
eohrnberger said:
And if there were no electoral college it would be even more unfair. At least with the electoral college it is MORE fair.
Click to expand...

Why is the EC more fair?
 
haymarket said:
Why is the EC more fair?
Click to expand...

It prevents high population density cities from dictating to the rest of the nation, and gives those not in high population density cities their voice in government and elections.
 
Lutherf said:
"Left wing" isn't an identity. It's a spectrum of political ideology. Identity is picking out a specific demographic such as Blacks or Homosexuals or Rural Americans. It's identifying a group based on a given characteristic.
Click to expand...

You think people don't "identify" as left wing...?

... You selected the group based on their shared identity...
 
Lutherf said:
"Left wing" really can't be an identity because it's a relative term. Whether or not a political ideology is "left wing" is wholly dependent on where all the other political ideologies lie on the spectrum. Democrat, for example, is an identity that likely includes some left wing ideologues. "Democrat" defines the identity and "left wing" describes the likely ideology held by the identified group.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You used it as a black/white term where the "left wing" is to blame for "identity politics".
 
eohrnberger said:
It prevents high population density cities from dictating to the rest of the nation, and gives those not in high population density cities their voice in government and elections.
Click to expand...

Why are you prejudiced against people based on where they exercised their liberty to live?
 
haymarket said:
Why are you prejudiced against people based on where they exercised their liberty to live?
Click to expand...
Not prejudiced. Just wanting fair representation.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
So the question is, has it always been this bad on DP?
Click to expand...

Not like this. In the early years, Conservatives supported Bush no matter what and Liberals criticized Bush no matter what, but there was conversation that went back and forth; and many Conservatives and Liberals got along. I had been away from this site for four years. In that time, the average Conservative seems to have become very extreme and very angry. It stems from eight years of Fox News pessimism and it began when the GOP started pushing birther bull crap and encouraging the idea that Obama may be a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. My very devout Christian parents, who are habitual Fox News watchers, are also not who they used to be.

NeverTrumpGOP said:
In your life?
Click to expand...

- Once upon a time, Republicans and Democrats acknowledged science together and worked to seal the hole in the ozone layer. Today, because Liberals acknowledged the science of Global Warming under Obama, Republicans and Conservatives decided that science was wrong.

- Once upon a time, Republicans and Conservatives demanded evangelists like Swaggart and Bakker atone for their sexual misconduct and other sins. That moral code was strengthened as Bill Clinton was held accountable for his sexual misconduct in the White House (even as feminists defended him?!). Today, Trump's case is just a matter of "locker room talk" and Roy Moore serves a God that banged out a teenage Mary.

- Once upon a time, Republicans pushed the theory of Trickle Down economics to a Conservative base that wholeheartedly believed that showering the rich with ever more tax breaks meant that they would create them jobs. Today, with the Great Recession proving otherwise, and the creation of the 1% (now a .1% too), the GOP doesn't even try to hide the con game under the false theory.

Ultimately, Conservatives have witnessed the revelation of their false economic belief system. Since choosing not to believe in Global Warming, simply because the Liberals did, Conservatives look like they refuse science (which they do not), while the more religious push for Noah's Ark in public school history curriculum. Conservatives have been made to feel attacked by the mere existence of "Black Lives Matter," to which the response to a wave of bad and petrified cops' conduct defaulted to "White Lives Matter." Kneeling at football games was turned into purely a disrespect issue, by which Conservatives felt that their nationalism was under personal attack (as they sway, talk to their neighbors, and take bites out of hot dogs during the Anthem).

Conservatives have been set adrift in bitterness by a GOP that had no plan and nowhere to go after abandoning reason, science, and good policy. Trump is the unprofessional, unstatesmen-like, hateful, and mean spirited result. As for the leadership, the GOP can't even get on the same page to repeal Obamacare after whipping its constituency into an angry mob. So, no, this is a very bad time.
 
MSgt said:
Not like this. In the early years, Conservatives supported Bush no matter what and Liberals criticized Bush no matter what, but there was conversation that went back and forth; and many Conservatives and Liberals got along. I had been away from this site for four years. In that time, the average Conservative seems to have become very extreme and very angry. It stems from eight years of Fox News pessimism and it began when the GOP started pushing birther bull crap and encouraging the idea that Obama may be a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. My very devout Christian parents, who are habitual Fox News watchers, are also not who they used to be.



- Once upon a time, Republicans and Democrats acknowledged science together and worked to seal the hole in the ozone layer. Today, because Liberals acknowledged the science of Global Warming under Obama, Republicans and Conservatives decided that science was wrong.

- Once upon a time, Republicans and Conservatives demanded evangelists like Swaggart and Bakker atone for their sexual misconduct and other sins. That moral code was strengthened as Bill Clinton was held accountable for his sexual misconduct in the White House (even as feminists defended him?!). Today, Trump's case is just a matter of "locker room talk" and Roy Moore serves a God that banged out a teenage Mary.

- Once upon a time, Republicans pushed the theory of Trickle Down economics to a Conservative base that wholeheartedly believed that showering the rich with ever more tax breaks meant that they would create them jobs. Today, with the Great Recession proving otherwise, and the creation of the 1% (now a .1% too), the GOP doesn't even try to hide the con game under the false theory.

Ultimately, Conservatives have witnessed the revelation of their false economic belief system. Since choosing not to believe in Global Warming, simply because the Liberals did, Conservatives look like they refuse science (which they do not), while the more religious push for Noah's Ark in public school history curriculum. Conservatives have been made to feel attacked by the mere existence of "Black Lives Matter," to which the response to a wave of bad and petrified cops' conduct defaulted to "White Lives Matter." Kneeling at football games was turned into purely a disrespect issue, by which Conservatives felt that their nationalism was under personal attack (as they sway, talk to their neighbors, and take bites out of hot dogs during the Anthem).

Conservatives have been set adrift in bitterness by a GOP that had no plan and nowhere to go after abandoning reason, science, and good policy. Trump is the unprofessional, unstatesmen-like, hateful, and mean spirited result. As for the leadership, the GOP can't even get on the same page to repeal Obamacare after whipping its constituency into an angry mob. So, no, this is a very bad time.
Click to expand...

Wow.... 100 likes...^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Lutherf said:
That's the way identity politics is designed to work. The whole purpose of identity politics is to divide people who would otherwise seek common ground, isolate them and encourage them to insulate themselves from everyone that isn't the party. It's the exact same method that cult leaders use to break off people from society and keep them cloistered. The idea is to crush the very concept of free will and replace it with reliance on the ruling body. The perpetrators of such schemes ALWAYS see themselves as saviors rather than oppressors. Jim Jones, Kim Jong Un, Charles Manson....all cut from the same cloth.

Think about what you're saying. You don't like the idea of "tribal politics" but you guys on the left are the ones targeting racial divides, gender divides, ethnicity divides, economic divides, etc. You guys THRIVE on that stuff and rail against the rest of us when we oppose it. It is anti-liberty ideas that create, manipulate and perpetuate these divides.
Click to expand...

If you don't think Trump ran a campaign of identity politics, then you are delusional. He is not the first right winger to do that either. Look at the infamous "Southern Strategy" and the Religious Right. Both sides have been engaging in identity politics for decades.

To quote scripture:

Matthew 7:5 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how [a]can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." ;)
 
eohrnberger said:
Not prejudiced. Just wanting fair representation.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How is rewarding some areas for smaller populations and punishing other areas for larger populations FAIR REPRESENTATION?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Wow.... 100 likes...^^^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...

I even met my wife (Kelzie), a Liberal, on this site back in 2005 when I more defended Conservatives and she was anti-Iraq (I converted her). We were both Mods together. In fact, I would add that the results of the Iraq War and the MENA mess has also added to this bitterness of the day.

- The long held Neo-Con argument that removing dictators and installing democracy would fix all problems in the Middle East was accompanied with a poorly made ideological argument by the Bush administration. Conservatives placed all their faith in the false notion that Democracy was simply going to spring forth like a flower and that this generations-long experience was just going to take a few years. They also placed their faith in probably America's worst SECDEF in history, as he went on to dismiss the Generals' guidance and military planning. In the mean time, Liberals bashed and criticized everything and anything because they too lacked understanding and heard the same poorly made arguments about Democracy.

- By the time of the Arab Spring, a movement that was about socioeconomic and political justice, dignity, and democracy, Conservatives chose to err on the side of the dictators as all blame for IS and other issues went towards Obama as he sat on the fence not knowing what to do under his embarrassing and hypocritical "wait-and-see" foreign policy.

This back-and-forth in ideology was largely based on ignorance and an inability to make the proper arguments for what was happening. Because Conservatives believed in the bad arguments, they felt let down while refusing to acknowledge that Liberals may have been right. Because Liberals believed in those same bad arguments, they felt that they were right and rubbed it in. But again, this is based on both sides making poor arguments and not understanding what was (is) happening. Either way, it wasn't Liberals who felt that they had to face the notion that they were "wrong" all along, leaving Conservatives angry and on the defense to oppose even the word "democracy" in the Middle East.

The mood on this site has definitely changed.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
How is rewarding some areas for smaller populations and punishing other areas for larger populations FAIR REPRESENTATION?
Click to expand...

If the EC didn't exist, the cities would be dictating to, and thereby enslaving, the broader country sides with their edicts enacted by the power of the federal government, essentially mob rule.

That may go for a time, but those in the broader country side would catch on, find their interests weren't being represented, come to the conclusion of 'why both being a nation with the cities?', leading to a fracturing of the union.

As I said, the founding fathers saw this coming, heck it may have already been present in their time - they had densely populated cities in their time as well, and put the EC in place. For a more directly proportional to population representation you just have to look to the congressional House, and that too has a check and balance in the Senate, where there are only 2 representatives for each state.

The EC only applies to the presidential election, and no others. So why are you so bound up over this? The population of the cities are fairly represented in the House.
 
eohrnberger said:
If the EC didn't exist, the cities would be dictating to, and thereby enslaving, the broader country sides with their edicts enacted by the power of the federal government, essentially mob rule.
Click to expand...

Please look up the dictionary definitions of both ENSLAVE and MOB RULE. You will find your use of both is dead wrong. So you have a false premise which dooms anything which comes after.
 
haymarket said:
Please look up the dictionary definitions of both ENSLAVE and MOB RULE. You will find your use of both is dead wrong. So you have a false premise which dooms anything which comes after.
Click to expand...

en·slave
inˈslāv,enˈslāv/
verb
  • make (someone) a slave.
    synonyms:subjugate, suppress, tyrannize, oppress, dominate, exploit, persecute; More

    • cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action.
Click to expand...

Without the EC, the people not in the densely populated cities would be enslaved by the presidential election results of the densely populated cities, and not have a significant voice in the selection of their president.

mob rule
ˌmäb ˈro͞ol/
noun
!important]
  • control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.
Click to expand...

In the example above, where the people not in the densely populated cities would be enslaved by the presidential election results of the densely populated cities, and not have a significant voice in the selection of their president, is an example of mob rule by direct democracy.
 
Last edited:
NeverTrumpGOP said:
A lot of the analysts keep saying Tribal politics is ruining america, or tribalism is worse than it's ever been. After the election Tuesday, which actually felt like a national election, I would tend to agree, especially on the internet.

I have seen more extreme comments than ever before online and underneath all of the hate and all of the rhetoric politics in America has boiled down to, "Na Na Na Na." or "I was right." There is no more discussion about issues. If there ever were and if you do talk about certain hot button topics. EX: Gun Control, Abortion, Global Warming and go in with a different point of view, people don't debate your view. They just call you an idiot.

So the question is, has it always been this bad on DP? In your life?

*Yes I realize I do this too.
Click to expand...

IMO, tribalism exists under the surface, anonymously. It comes out in places like this where no one knows you. I can’t imagine people in Meatworld treating people like they do to each other here!
 
eohrnberger said:
Without the EC, the people not in the densely populated cities would be enslaved by the presidential election results of the densely populated cities, and not have a significant voice in the selection of their president.



In the example above, where the people not in the densely populated cities would be enslaved by the presidential election results of the densely populated cities, and not have a significant voice in the selection of their president, is an example of mob rule by direct democracy.
Click to expand...

FALSE. According to the definition MOB RULE occurs outside of the lawful and involves violence and intimidation. If we adopted popular vote it would be lawful and the same convention method that all other elections in this nation are decided by and would involve no violence or intimidation. So you fail on that account.

As to ENSLAVE - every American regardless of where they use their freedom of choice to live would have the same vote and the same weight and power behind their vote for president. So that fails also.

Now you need to look up DIRECT DEMOCRACY. You will find out you are misusing that one also
 
haymarket said:
See nothing there which justifies giving some Americans three to four times the weight behind their vote as compared to other Americans simply because you want to penalize people for exercising their freedom to live where they want to live.
Click to expand...

I figured not. Still butt hurt for Hillary going down in defeat, eh?

Well, if you can get enough votes for a constitutional amendment, who knows, you may get your wish.
 
eohrnberger said:
I figured not. Still butt hurt for Hillary going down in defeat, eh?

Well, if you can get enough votes for a constitutional amendment, who knows, you may get your wish.
Click to expand...

Your reply is nonsense and does NOT speak to my post that you were pretending to be replying to. It seems you were refuted and now simply have resorted to insults.

I had hoped for better from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom