RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 64,484
- 193,910
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Sure buddy***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
Sure buddy
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
This thread runs like a well oiled cesspool when everyone is in agreement, simply fussing over
inconsequential details.
The closets I've seen to a true political exchange on NT was outside this thread...when politics find
their way into another thread where everyone doesn't already think the same way. Does that blow anyone's mind?
inconsequential details.
The closets I've seen to a true political exchange on NT was outside this thread...when politics find
their way into another thread where everyone doesn't already think the same way. Does that blow anyone's mind?
- 14,504
- 34,974
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- 14,504
- 34,974
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
Stop it. There was just a couple of long *** posts by Rusty and Rex over Obama's exercise of presidential pardon. They didn't seem to agree with each other either.
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 64,484
- 193,910
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
This is complete nonsense
You attack me for always arguing with someone, yet this thread is a cesspool with everyone in agreement.
Everyone in here has probably debated someone else on a topic. This was especially true during primary season. Most of us are liberals, but very different varieties of liberal.
We were going back and forth once and you wanted someone else to come fight your fight. Your problem seem to be that you can't handle yourself in a debate so you resort to playing victim, **** posting and throwing your hands up.
Your issue is not that most people in this thread agree in the major topics or lean left. It is that we do not agree with you.
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
Rusty, how do you feel about most people with differing political views actually having more in common than
with the politicians they defend?
I think the population is kept at each others throats as a means of control and that the hate is not always inherent
but is conditioned into people. I find this very sad.
with the politicians they defend?
I think the population is kept at each others throats as a means of control and that the hate is not always inherent
but is conditioned into people. I find this very sad.
- 43,168
- 28,292
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
I find that an ironic post after continually calling this thread a cesspool and veiledly insulting people in this thread for no real reason.
Either you want to engage in civil discourse or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Either you want to engage in civil discourse or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
- 140,719
- 166,454
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
Word
No to mention the Dem primaries and the aftermath was a bloodbath in here
Da libbies aren't a monolith here
- 68,764
- 104,562
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Wash, rinse, repeat, play the victim despite opening the floor to you. I see no progress here, best of luck to you.
YOU'RE the one decided how you're being perceived.
YOU'RE the one decided how you're being perceived.
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
So what do you think about what I actually wrote though?
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
Thoughts on the content of my last post? How do you feel about that stuff? If the floor is open so to speak...
- 68,764
- 104,562
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Answered that a few posts ago.
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
How do you feel about most people with differing political views actually having more in common than
with the politicians they defend?
I think the population is kept at each others throats as a means of control and that the hate is not always inherent
but is conditioned into people.
Ask you this, not asking about what you think my motivation is.
- 43,168
- 28,292
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
I think the way you’re going about engaging is feeding right into that type of vitriol that you’re referencing, and I don’t think you’re even conscious of it.
The two party system promotes just the tribalism that already had you diving into this thread feeling like an outsider. The fact of the matter is that we are all Americans (most*) and I’m sure we can all agree we want what’s best for us. The problem I see is when ‘what’s best for us’ doesn’t translate to the overall population, and people become more interested and concerned with their own bubble than the greater good of the country and all its people as a whole. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature of the system. My hope is that the ease of access to information now helps us all be more conscious and involved in changing a system that isn’t made to benefit us (and ‘us’ more specifically in reference to disenfranchised communities in this country.)
- 22,970
- 33,532
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
Great response and post in general. I agree with all of it.
You rarely think about how the two party system causes people who don't subscribe to it to form their own combative bubble against both groups. I was a victim of that thinking a long time ago and still let it seep in sometimes depending on the subject, especially with issues like race and civil rights.
That's why I see where dude is coming from when he posts some of the **** he posts. Sometimes people are too woke for their own good.
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
I must be aware since I posed the question.
But thank you for your opinion.
To use your word disenfranchised, I think most people are that just to varying degrees so I am looking at the problem differently.
- 68,764
- 104,562
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Like I said before I agree, citizens have more in common than politicians. it's a bit of tribalism as h2b stated as well as a form of control to an extent, just like any other establishment that requires a large following, ie religion. Doesn't mean they're wholly ineffective or you're a drone for aligning yourself along certain party lines, especially if you're informed and actually care about the effects of decisions on you, your family and community.
- 43,168
- 28,292
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
For the record, I’m not just speaking to disenfranchised groups. I think the problem is wide ranging, I just think those groups are generally the losers in the system, because they/we are the least informed and least educated in how the system works, and what can be done to impose their own will. Those who stand to benefit from this broken system aren’t eager to change it, and the losers are either to busy surviving or just lack the knowledge and understanding to have a positive impact.
How exactly are you looking at it in a different way? What exactly is your criteria for ‘disenfranchised’ if you say everyone is to varying degrees.
- 68,764
- 104,562
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
For the politics heads, how do you think a no party system would fare?
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
You played yourself Vol.277988282636382
- 48,432
- 28,533
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
"busy surviving"
i think this notion taps into a lot of things that prevent folks from achievement
something a lot of people are effected by, not just those who are quickly identified as economically or politically disenfranchised
i think this notion taps into a lot of things that prevent folks from achievement
something a lot of people are effected by, not just those who are quickly identified as economically or politically disenfranchised
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
System would be even more dysfunctional. From a historical context, the most we can do is have three parties in Congress.
Having no parties would be impossible to have given the size of our country.
- 14,504
- 34,974
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
On the surface, people appear to want the same things. It's only when you engage them and dig deep that their true motivations appear, and there is a lot more variance at that point.
The structure of the political system play a large role in the fact that most Americans don't recognize themselves in it: choosing representatives is binary; as a result, politicians' positions on issues are often reactionary (if opponent supports, I'll oppose) and seldom nuanced (because nuance doesn't excite the base). Had we not elected Trump, and had someone like him not had a clear path to the presidency through the extremist Right, I would be supporting whoever would blow up the electoral system to allow for more representation. I have my doubts about the Democratic party reaching or even setting that goal (campaign finance reform is good and in the Dem platform, but it is not enough), but it is the best option we've got for now, so I'll support whoever ends up on the Dem ticket until something better materializes.
- 22,970
- 33,532
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
It would end up becoming a party system again I think. Humans play teams instinctually it seems.
Similar threads
