Football and politics

[LPTiger 5,166]

I'm a lawyer but unlike many my undergraduate degree is not in political science.   I've never cared much for politics.  I usually vote for republicans, but I voted for Doug Jones over Roy Moore.  I know Doug and even though we disagree on just about all of his policy stances, he is a very honorable person and I believed Roy Moore was not.  I'm not a bigot or whatever it was Homersapian called me earlier today.  I love Auburn and I assume Homersapian does as well since he is an Aufamily member.  So he and I have at least one thing in common -- our love of Auburn which one might think accounted for something.   On the football and recruiting forums, many posts, particularly leading up to and after BCW are positive.   And everyone, for the most part, gets along very nicely with lots of running inside jokes.   People get snarky once in awhile.   But all in all it is a fun place to visit, read and connect.   BUT NOT THIS FORUM.  Here, there is a lot of name calling by people who don't really know the person they are calling names.  Not names like butthead, numnutts (which make me chuckle) but names like racist, cultist, bigot.   Why is that?   Why when people (who love the same university) discuss a topic like politics do some go to the least common denominator, like we did when we were kids, and call people names?   Maybe it is because of our respective leaders Trump (too many to name). Biden (called a Fox reporter a son of a bitch, called some guy a horse faced donkey soldier or some other nonsense) Maxine Waters (too many to name).   Maybe it is just inherent in political discussions.   I don't know the answer but it feels really, really wrong.   And it feels like a large part of what our problem is today as Americans.    Some of us simply can't treat our fellow Americans with dignity and respect unless we all agree on all things.   WE have lost the ability to respectfully disagree.   

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Your "inherent in political discussions" point is generally correct.  Politicians have been a**holes to each other going back centuries, but they seemed more eloquent in their descriptions of their enemies.  They also sometimes got the hell beaten out of them while on the job.  It's just infinitely easier to be an a**hole now.  Our last two presidents have been very unlikable people, in my view.  Biden just has the veneer of "good ol' Joe from Scranton, fightin' for the common man."

It would be an interesting "blind test" scenario to get everyone together who posts here and just see who gravitates toward who, and who could identify posters by name after some time around each other...those of us who are more introverted (raises hand) might tend to let the more powerful voices dominate things (I certainly tend to be one who lets other people talk...saves me the trouble).  

The written forum is a different animal. 

One, there is at least a thin veil of anonymity.  I figure there are a fair number of people on this site who know each other.  I have had brief PM exchanges with a couple of people here, but I have never knowingly met anyone who posts here.  All I know of any of you is the persona that I see here, which may or may not be what someone is like in their day-to-day lives.  There may be some of you that I'd like a whole lot better compared to your username after an hour at a tailgate or something, and the opposite could also be true.

Two, some people express themselves more thoroughly via writing compared to talking.  If some of the topics that are being posted here were being discussed verbally, I would probably just sit back and listen...it would take something pretty outlandish to get me to chime in. On here, people can take their time to read and decide if it's worth responding to, and can do some self-editing before responding.

This is pretty much the only place I'll engage in any political discussion.  I certainly don't do it at work, and usually stay away from it at home.

I also freely admit to being something of a prickly pear on this forum, but I don't hold any grudges or wish anyone harm.  I can't say the same about everyone else here, based on posting histories.

Edited August 8, 2023 by SLAG-91

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

3 hours ago, LPTiger said:

I'm not a bigot or whatever it was Homersapian called me earlier today.

He called you an “ignorant cultist” that gets information from Fox. Keep doing what you do. Brother Homer is harmless. 

 

[AU9377 4,935]

None of us are perfect.  It is very easy sometimes to take a written comment the wrong way or for frustration to take over when someone is exhausted.  I honestly believe that most everyone that posts on here is intelligent enough to be reasoned with on most any issue. 

One of the biggest obstacles to progress in this country is the fact that there is less profit in the ethical reporting of facts than in opinion journalism that panders to fears and builds loyalty by division.  People tune in every day when they are angry & need to justify that anger with examples of why they themselves are righteous while others are evil.  Something is being taken from them and they need to stop it from happening.  This does happen on both ends of the political spectrum.  Even so, the extent to which Fox uses this practice as its business model is striking.  They have always claimed that they have a news division and an entertainment division and that their prime time lineup is for entertainment purposes only and not news.  Unfortunately, that goes unnoticed by most and what we are left with are little more than Charlatans telling their viewers what they should and should not be concerned about.

[LPTiger 5,166]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

He called you an “ignorant cultist” that gets information from Fox. Keep doing what you do. Brother Homer is harmless. 

 

Thanks Salty!!!   I'm just curious about what causes such a reaction.

[Mikey 16,605]

42 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Thanks Salty!!!   I'm just curious about what causes such a reaction.

Such a reaction from Homer is because you have a differing opinion. In his case, that's all it takes to bring forth the insults.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

16 hours ago, LPTiger said:

I'm a lawyer but unlike many my undergraduate degree is not in political science.   I've never cared much for politics.  I usually vote for republicans, but I voted for Doug Jones over Roy Moore.  I know Doug and even though we disagree on just about all of his policy stances, he is a very honorable person and I believed Roy Moore was not.  I'm not a bigot or whatever it was Homersapian called me earlier today.  I love Auburn and I assume Homersapian does as well since he is an Aufamily member.  So he and I have at least one thing in common -- our love of Auburn which one might think accounted for something.   On the football and recruiting forums, many posts, particularly leading up to and after BCW are positive.   And everyone, for the most part, gets along very nicely with lots of running inside jokes.   People get snarky once in awhile.   But all in all it is a fun place to visit, read and connect.   BUT NOT THIS FORUM.  Here, there is a lot of name calling by people who don't really know the person they are calling names.  Not names like butthead, numnutts (which make me chuckle) but names like racist, cultist, bigot.   Why is that?   Why when people (who love the same university) discuss a topic like politics do some go to the least common denominator, like we did when we were kids, and call people names?   Maybe it is because of our respective leaders Trump (too many to name). Biden (called a Fox reporter a son of a bitch, called some guy a horse faced donkey soldier or some other nonsense) Maxine Waters (too many to name).   Maybe it is just inherent in political discussions.   I don't know the answer but it feels really, really wrong.   And it feels like a large part of what our problem is today as Americans.    Some of us simply can't treat our fellow Americans with dignity and respect unless we all agree on all things.   WE have lost the ability to respectfully disagree.   

I agree with much of what you say, but found you leapt from “respectfully disagreeing” with me yesterday pretty quickly. When I listed the cut in funding as a percentage of the total budget, you immediately accused me of being “cute with numbers” suggesting I was being deceptive. I just posted the total budget number I found— I didn’t study it and hadn’t seen a break down. It wasn’t inaccurate and total budget numbers are often used. It’s not a trick. All you had to do was say you believed the operating budget— sans the pension funding— was the better number to use. I didn’t push back on that number — I didn’t know what it was. You offered it and I took you at your word it was correct. You failed to see a problem with how you responded to me. Perhaps you still do. But I’d suggest respectfully disagreeing with folks includes not making snippy comments that are unnecessary. I get that in adversarial “lawyer world” “cute with numbers” may be fairly tame. But when two folks are getting to know each other it sets a tone and impression. 

Most folks on this forum have engaged in considerable exchanges and impressions have been formed and patience has already been tested. I find when I engage someone for the first time I generally try to start with an open mind and assume they can be reasoned with. That’s perhaps harder to do when someone trots out common talking points that show little original thought. 

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

1 hour ago, LPTiger said:

Thanks Salty!!!   I'm just curious about what causes such a reaction.

You admitted voting for Trump twice. Something few have confessed here. You also brought up Fox News. You are now one of the “unwashed” in the mind of some folks.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

I think if the football forum had both AU and bama fans it’d be a little… feistier. And that’s the challenge with politics  - more than one “team” and every day has become the iron bowl. Plus, yes, the current party leaders/ “coaches” of  these teams are very poor talents and are dangerously divisive. Much more time is spent defending or attacking these leaders than issues themselves. (Ps defending these guys requires a lot more rationalizing, blind following, and creativity then attacking them). Imo we have to have the courage to fire the current coaches - to save and improve the sport.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

15 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

You admitted voting for Trump twice. Something few have confessed here. You also brought up Fox News. You are now one of the “unwashed” in the mind of some folks.

At this point, I’ll give someone a pass on the first two if they’ve sworn off doing it a third time after all they’ve seen since.

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

23 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

At this point, I’ll give someone a pass on the first two if they’ve sworn off doing it a third time after all they’ve seen since.

Problem is that no one votes for Trump in the primaries that he wins then the opposition does not offer a decent candidate. 

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

36 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

And that’s the challenge with politics  - more than one “team” and every day has become the iron bowl.

Nothing over here is as important as winning the iron bowl. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Problem is that no one votes for Trump in the primaries that he wins then the opposition does not offer a decent candidate. 

It's so mysterious how Trump keeps winning these primaries when so many Republicans say they don't really like him and would prefer other people. 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

18 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Problem is that no one votes for Trump in the primaries that he wins then the opposition does not offer a decent candidate. 

Trump’s beyond unacceptable. Find a third party if you need to or don’t vote.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Politics should be driven by issues, not some fanatic idea of supporting your "team".  Most partisan politics (particularly the "social issues") is ignorance and, should be called out for what it is. 

Good politics is balancing the interests of society and capital.  One having control over the other is destructive, futile.  Bad politics is the extension of economic power in order to achieve control.  It inherently favors the few at the expense of the many.

We have all of the resources we need to create a happier, more peaceful, more productive society.  We lack the basic humanity required in order to make that happen.  Our guiding star, our god is money.

The best government I have seen in my life is progressive in its policies and, conservative in their implementation.

[auburnatl1 4,935]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Good politics is balancing the interests of society and capital.  One having control over the other is destructive, futile. 

I think to fully appreciate the concerns of many on this forum you need to also include in your balancing - individualism.  I understand you fixate of the barons of greed being at odds with societal well being - that’s another debate - but there’s also personal choice thinking being at odds with greater good thinking. Gun control, environmental considerations, health care, the list is endless of where these 2 beliefs don’t coexist well. A balancing act. What you might see as harmony others will see as Orwellian. 

[homersapien 11,379]

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

Such a reaction from Homer is because you have a differing opinion. In his case, that's all it takes to bring forth the insults.

No it's because he continued to lie about what constitutes "defunding".

Look it up.

[homersapien 11,379]

5 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

You admitted voting for Trump twice. Something few have confessed here. You also brought up Fox News. You are now one of the “unwashed” in the mind of some folks.

I judge people by what they say Salty, and - by extension - what they believe.

And last I checked, this is the "trash talk" forum.

[homersapien 11,379]

18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

He called you an “ignorant cultist” that gets information from Fox. Keep doing what you do. Brother Homer is harmless. 

 

Serious question Salty:

Do you think Democrats are trying to "defund" the LAPD - as LP asserted and continued to assert - after being politely corrected?

Is stubborn adherence to such a mindless political meme in the face of the actual meaning of the word - as well as rational/logical thinking - not a sign ignorance or cultish behavior?

I think it is.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,379]

7 hours ago, LPTiger said:

Thanks Salty!!!   I'm just curious about what causes such a reaction.

See my response to Salty above.

[homersapien 11,379]

22 hours ago, LPTiger said:

......And it feels like a large part of what our problem is today as Americans.    Some of us simply can't treat our fellow Americans with dignity and respect unless we all agree on all  things.   WE have lost the ability to respectfully disagree.   

Well it didn't work with you when I tried it.  You just doubled down like an ignorant cultist.

So spare us the self-righteousness.

(And I would have thought that someone with a law degree would know the definition of "defund". )

Edited August 8, 2023 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

25 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think to fully appreciate the concerns of many on this forum you need to also include in your balancing - individualism.  I understand you fixate of the barons of greed being at odds with societal well being - that’s another debate - but there’s also personal choice thinking being at odds with greater good thinking. Gun control, environmental considerations, health care, the list is endless of where these 2 beliefs don’t coexist well. A balancing act. What you might see as harmony others will see as Orwellian. 

Yeah.  I'm so lost in conspiracies that,,, I cannot see the fundamentals.  Thank you.

What do you believe, who do you believe, is driving the debate over these issues?  Sure, we need greater access to guns, guns with more killing potential.  Sure, global warming is a hoax and, the green initiatives are crippling our ability to compete.  Sure, healthcare needs to be limited to those who have corporate insurance plans.  Indeed.  We have entered into the "Orwellian" world of too much government, too much "socialism".

Greed is good.  It is serving our interests.  Utterly stupid.

The government is NOT the source of power.  It has become the extension of, the tool of,,, capital.  If the lobbying, the concentrated campaign finance sources, the extreme and growing inequality don't convince you,,, I certainly cannot.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Serious question Salty:

Do you think Democrats are trying to "defund" the LAPD as LP asserted - and continued to assert - after being politely corrected?

Is stubborn adherence to such a mindless political meme in the face of the actual meaning of the word - as well as rational/logical thinking not a sign ignorance or cultish behavior?

I think it is.

I know nothing about the LAPD budgets, cuts, etc… and I do not believe anyone is trying to do away with police departments. I do believe many leftist activists embraced “defund” as literal and supported it. 
 

As Tex explained previously. Kinda shoddy when a definition involving a movement has to be defined. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

(And I would have thought that someone with a law degree would know the definition of "defund". )

Ideological thinking is how one becomes an ideological idiot.  "Thinking" with absolute bias isn't thinking at all.  It is merely reacting to well constructed propaganda.

[homersapien 11,379]

11 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I know nothing about the LAPD budgets, cuts, etc… and I do not believe anyone is trying to do away with police departments. I do believe many leftist activists embraced “defund” as literal and supported it. 
 

As Tex explained previously. Kinda shoddy when a definition involving a movement has to be defined. 

Well, at least you are more honest than LP is - and express yourself more precisely.  (And he's a lawyer!) 

Now, would you also agree that "many" right wing "activists" are White Nationalists and/or nazis  and would vote for an authoritarian leader for the purpose of enacting their beliefs in our country?