Time again for Political Compass Test

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So, leaving $BNs in hardware in the ME wasn't a bad thing?

That's not "policy". 

And I don't know if it was a "bad" thing or simply conceding to a pragmatic necessity.  I don't know enough about the details.

Edited January 21 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sure they are dangerous. Two fr finges grab the bullhorn which amplifies and exacerbates divide. Not a good thing.

How much real control and power do the "progressive left" have on politics?

Both parties have extremes that used to be defined as the "tails" in a distribution curve.  The difference today is the extreme right represent the bell portion of the distribution curve in the Republican Party.  They are about to nominate Trump.  More and more you hear the Republican Party is now really the Party of Trump.

That's the difference.  In no way are "progressives" - much less extreme liberals - in the Democratic party analogous to the MAGAs in the Republican party.

Like I said, that is mythical portrayal by conservatives attempting to normalize   what their party has become - the Party of Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/08/1079191067/how-did-the-republican-party-become-the-party-of-trump

How did the Republican Party become the party of Trump? 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So Biden's inability to form full sentences doesn't make you cringe?

Biden's inability to climb a set of stairs doesn't give you pause?

 

Many things Biden has said over the past decades are cringe worthy. And did you notice Trump recently confused Nikki Haley with Pelosi in one of his lies?

The ability to climb stairs is not a critical requirement for a potential POTUS.  Even so, I would bet on Biden in a contest with Trump in a physical fitness contest.

And again, the election will be a choice. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

His looking like a pampers-wearing dolt before the rest of the world that never really respected him anyway? That doesn't make you stop and think?

His now perpetual "War through Proxy with the Russians" is costing $100BNs a year and going nowhere. 

 

I can assure you the "world" - at least the democratic free world - would greatly prefer Biden over Trump.  Do the research. 

And "pampers wearing dolt" simply puts you on the same intellectual level as IM_4 which is most certainly not a compliment.

The war in Ukraine is certainly important enough for us to support it. Have you not read any history at all?  Appeasement only leads to greater conflict in the near future.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

His petroleum policy that led to the first real inflation since Carter screwed over the entire US economy wasn't a bad thing. 

 

Pure Poppycock. 

The inflation was initiated and sustained by the Covid pandemic and supply chain interruption.  One could argue that Biden's avoided the recession than most economists predicted for 4th qtr 2023 and the gradual improvement in the overall economy ever since.

 

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Most people in the US don't want trump or Biden.

 

That appears to be true.  But as a pragmatist, I am willing to accept that reality.

You of course are free to cry and act like a spoiled child it you really think that will help.

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The fact that the intellectual dildoes in both parties are going to give the American People exactly what they do not want doesn't make you cringe?

How the **** are Biden and trump the real answer to anyone in the US? How? 

There you go again exercising your "intellectual" chops.

Whaaaaah! Whaaaaaah!  Stop your crying and get actively involved it you want effect change.  Bellyaching ain't going to solve anything.

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And forever more dwelling on a nickel's difference is why at this moment we seeing polling clearly saying that the vast majority of thinking people do not want either of these clowns on the ticket. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/few-u-s-adults-want-a-biden-trump-rematch-in-2024-ap-norc-poll-shows

Most U.S. adults overall (56 percent) would be “very” or “somewhat” dissatisfied with Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024, and a similar majority (58 percent) would be very or somewhat dissatisfied with Trump as the GOP’s pick.

Nearly 3 in 10 U.S. adults, or 28 percent, say they would be dissatisfied with both Trump and Biden becoming their party’s respective nominees – with independents (43 percent) being more likely than Democrats (28 percent) or Republicans (20 percent) to express their displeasure with both men gaining party nominations.

 

That has nothing to do with my post that you quoted.

Regardless of their respective popularity there are clear and dramatic differences between Biden and Trump as there are between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Edited January 21 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 4,914]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Pure Poppycock. 

The inflation was initiated and sustained by the Covid pandemic and supply chain interruption.  One could argue that Biden's avoided the recession than most economists predicted for 4th qtr 2023 and the gradual improvement in the overall economy ever since.

 

That appears to be true.  But as a pragmatist, I am willing to accept that reality.

You of course are free to cry and act like a spoiled child it you really think that will help.

There you go again exercising your "intellectual" chops.

Whaaaaah! Whaaaaaah!  Stop your crying and get actively involved it you want effect change.  Bellyaching ain't going to solve anything.

 

 

I agree. Covid disrupted the entire global supply chain. Mining, manufacturing, and agriculture. Supply - demand.  And while I disagree with much of Biden’s oil policy, to blame most of inflation on it is not really digging into or understand the problem.

[DKW 86 7,423]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Pure Poppycock. 

The inflation was initiated and sustained by the Covid pandemic and supply chain interruption.  One could argue that Biden's avoided the recession than most economists predicted for 4th qtr 2023 and the gradual improvement in the overall economy ever since.

That appears to be true.  But as a pragmatist, I am willing to accept that reality.

You of course are free to cry and act like a spoiled child it you really think that will help.

There you go again exercising your "intellectual" chops.

Whaaaaah! Whaaaaaah!  Stop your crying and get actively involved it you want effect change.  Bellyaching ain't going to solve anything.

I am not crying at all. I am asking that we do something other than accepting the terrible status quo. 

No thinking person in America wants either of these two. I think Newsom versus DeSantis, Haley or whomever is a real election. 

This one will again come down to who the American Public hates the least. whooppee!

[DKW 86 7,423]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

That's not "policy". 

And I don't know if it was a "bad" thing or simply conceding to a pragmatic necessity.  I don't know enough about the details.

So, before you leave, you blow it up. it's called scorched earth and has been an everyday military practice for hundreds of years. 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's the difference.  In no way are "progressives" - much less extreme liberals - in the Democratic party analogous to the MAGAs in the Republican party.

I agree that maga explicitly looks more unhinged. MTG  is a poster child for needing an intervention.  Nationalism and individual rights to the point of narcicism and chaos - a populist cancer. The extreme rights threat to democracy is … obvious.

Where you and I disagree is the threat of the extreme left. Grow government to try regulate and control everything,  fixate on race-gender-sexuality to the point it’s divisive, ignore border integrity, attack the US’s flaws to the point of contempt and almost hate, ect. The difference is that the left … thinks it means well. It sounds so reasonable. Protect and level the playing field. The problem is that it requires more and more control and gov dependence to achieve this.  American culture is strongly based on individualism, and the extreme left subtly rejects that culture.

Again  I don’t equate the 2 extremes - and they have very different motives- but imo both are dangerous.

 

Edited January 21 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

I am not crying at all. I am asking that we do something other than accepting the terrible status quo. No

No thinking person in America wants either of these two. I think Newsom versus DeSantis, Haley or whomever is a real election. 

This one will again come down to who the American Public hates the least. whooppee!

Do what, exactly?

All elections come down to who the voters hate the least.  The rest don't vote at all.

 

[Duder 238]

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I agree that maga explicitly looks more unhinged. MTG  is a poster child for needing an intervention.  Nationalism and individual rights to the point of narcicism and chaos - a populist cancer. The extreme rights threat to democracy is … obvious.

Where you and I disagree is the threat of the extreme left. Grow government to try regulate and control everything,  fixate on race-gender-sexuality to the point it’s divisive, ignore border integrity, attack the US’s flaws to the point of contempt and almost hate, ect. The difference is that the left … thinks it means well. It sounds so reasonable. Protect and level the playing field. The problem is that it requires more and more control and gov dependence to achieve this.  American culture is strongly based on individualism, and the extreme left subtly rejects that culture.

Again  I don’t equate the 2 extremes - and they have very different motives- but imo both are dangerous.

 

1) First, the use of hyperbolic language  does not promote useful debate.  It only accentuates division. Progressives certainly don't want to "regulate everything" - particularly individual rights or even proclivities.

2) I don't think progressives are fixated on race-gender-sexuality to the point it is divisive any more than conservatives denying historical systemic racism or restricting individual rights on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity is.  If anything, I'd say enacting reactionary legislation is more divisive. 

(I'd also suggest that openness to sexual/gender identity refutes the idea that "extreme left" rejects the concept of individualism - it's just the opposite.)

3) Addressing the nation's faults is a sign of love, not hate.  It's no different than addressing one's personal faults.

I suggest that the use of "dangerous" when applied generally to progressive ideas is based in the natural human psychological resistance - and fear - to change.  And I will certainly concede that progressives are the primary supporters of change (by definition.)  I don't apologize for that. Nature informs us that change is necessary for our survival.  

Finally, I recognize the ebb and flow of political activism on both sides is a natural and inherent characteristic of a democracy.  That doesn't mean it's necessarily dangerous, just the opposite, it's necessary to enact change for the positive. 

Fortunately, we typically become acclimated to this change and gradually start to lose our fear and resistance to the reality of that change. In my lifetime, the civil rights movement offers perhaps the best example of that.

Nevertheless, that ebb and flow of values naturally creates conflict. The key to a less divisive society is moderation on both sides, typically in the form of compromise.  Regrettably, both sides have activists or reactionaries that resist moderation.

IMO, the size and vehemence of today's reactionary conservatism - make American great "again" - represents the actual danger or risk. It activates the emotions and rationales that form the very foundation of fascism and authoritarianism.  It panders directly to the fear and resentment of change. It is antithetical to democracy which - in the final analysis - is the basis of our freedom.

So I suppose we do disagree.  But as long as we both respect the principle of moderation, that's OK.

 

Edited January 21 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 4,914]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

2) I don't think progressives are fixated on race-gender-sexuality to the point it is divisive any more than conservatives denying historical systemic racism or restricting individual rights on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity is.  If anything, I'd say enacting reactionary legislation is more divisive. 

Side note. My son was required to take a class at uga this semester on diversity.   It’s surreal - intended indoctrination at point blank range. Straight out of Hannity. Obviously the white is not good stuff. But beyond that - ALL that we are is defined by our race, gender, and sexuality. The ultimate simplistic definition of individualism. Ie what kind of car do you have? … A black one.  That was not mlk’s vision of being color blind.  IIMO it’s going backwards.

Btw my son, a moderate, says the class is actually having an opposite effect on students and pushing them to the right. 

[SaltyTiger 7,803]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

How much real control and power do the "progressive left" have on politics?

Both parties have extremes that used to be defined as the "tails" in a distribution curve.  The difference today is the extreme right represent the bell portion of the distribution curve in the Republican Party.  They are about to nominate Trump.  More and more you hear the Republican Party is now really the Party of Trump.

That's the difference.  In no way are "progressives" - much less extreme liberals - in the Democratic party analogous to the MAGAs in the Republican party.

Like I said, that is mythical portrayal by conservatives attempting to normalize   what their party has become - the Party of Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/08/1079191067/how-did-the-republican-party-become-the-party-of-trump

How did the Republican Party become the party of Trump? 

 

Just agreeing the extremes are dangerous. Obviously you feel otherwise.

[arein0 956]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just agreeing the extremes are dangerous. Obviously you feel otherwise.

I don't think he is saying when all things are equal, one is more dangerous than the other. I think what he is saying, right now the extreme right is more dangerous because they are in control of a major party.

[SaltyTiger 7,803]

23 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I don't think he is saying when all things are equal, one is more dangerous than the other. I think what he is saying, right now the extreme right is more dangerous because they are in control of a major party.

I know,  thanks away. 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

29 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I don't think he is saying when all things are equal, one is more dangerous than the other. I think what he is saying, right now the extreme right is more dangerous because they are in control of a major party.

I agree with that. The extreme left has influence but not a total kidnapping of their party like maga has. Ps the more extreme a persons ideology is, the higher their voter turnout - so their impact is greater than their numbers.

Edited January 22 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just agreeing the extremes are dangerous. Obviously you feel otherwise.

Not exactly. 

As a practical matter, I think extremism on the right is currently far more significant - and dangerous - than extremism on the left. 

I should think this is rather obvious considering recent history and the ongoing threat of Trump. If you fail to see that, I suggest you may be part of the problem.

Edited January 22 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Interesting. I'm usually ±1-2 spots from the center.

[DKW 86 7,423]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:57 PM, homersapien said:

Do what, exactly?

All elections come down to who the voters hate the least.  The rest don't vote at all.

 

The bottomline is that no one wants these two. No one.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

The bottomline is that no one wants these two. No one.

Preach.  It's like having a sequel to Caddyshack 2.  That movie blew ass, and there would have been no reason to think another one with the same cast would have been any better. 

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The bottomline is that no one wants these two. No one.

OK......

[SaltyTiger 7,803]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not exactly. 

As a practical matter, I think extremism on the right is currently far more significant - and dangerous - than extremism on the left. 

I should think this is rather obvious considering recent history and the ongoing threat of Trump. If you fail to see that, I suggest you may be part of the problem.

I am not debating who has the meanest big brother. You are repeating the same crap over and over. I said both are dangerous. 
 

Recent history includes the era/age of social media. Hopefully you limit outreach to this forum, otherwise you are a big participant in the “problem”.

[homersapien 11,373]

8 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am not debating who has the meanest big brother. You are repeating the same crap over and over. I said both are dangerous. 
 

Recent history includes the era/age of social media. Hopefully you limit outreach to this forum, otherwise you are a big participant in the “problem”.

As far as I can tell, you are not "debating" anything.

"Dangerous" is an inherently relative term.  I am referring to existential danger to our countries democracy/freedom. Apparently you are referring to your sensibilities.

I don't understand the second paragraph. You'll need to explain.