US Politics V - now with 20% more echo chamber

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
i don't even understand why israel would want this at this point. if they somehow got the one state solution and legally annexed the west bank and gaza they'd either have to turn into a fascist apartheid pariah state or let the palestinians share real power somehow.
 
The only question that needs to be asked is this: will it annoy liberals?

If the answer is yes, Trump will do it.
 
i'm confused about why trump did this as well. it's not like his base is pro-semitic.



You sure about that?

I'd say it's a strange republican thing to be very pro-the Israeli state.

Why? My best guess is that they're a group of somewhat white people surrounded by arabs. There's always been the republican cries for "supporting our allies" of Israel.
 
You sure about that?

I'd say it's a strange republican thing to be very pro-the Israeli state.

Why? My best guess is that they're a group of somewhat white people surrounded by arabs. There's always been the republican cries for "supporting our allies" of Israel.

Evangelicals support Israel because they believe it's their obligation as Christians to support the Chosen People of God, regardless of how immoral or ass-backwards their actions may be. The rebirth of Israel is viewed as miraculous and ties in with Biblical prophecy.

Why secular Republicans would blindly support Israel I have less rationale for.
 
This is sort of what I was talking about in the earlier thread. Questioning people's motives for holding the political positions they do.

Why do Republicans support Israel? They hate Arabs! God told them to! It's like saying that progressives who are critical of Israel are simply antisemitic.

What a great conversation that is.

R: I support Israel. They're a strong US ally and the only free democracy in the region.
P: That's because you're an Islamaphobe. Israel is persecuting the Palestinians and stealing their land!
R: Antisemite!
 
Last edited:
This is sort of what I was talking about in the earlier thread. Questioning people's motives for holding the political positions they do.

Why do Republicans support Israel? They hate Arabs! God told them to! It's like saying that progressives who are critical of Israel are simply antisemitic.

What a great conversation that is.

R: I support Israel. They're a strong US ally and the only free democracy in the region.
P: That's because you're an Islamaphobe. Israel is persecuting the Palestinians and stealing their land!
R: Antisemite!
Well that's how every discussion about everything ever in America happens now.

We're a nation of extremes with zero ability to make rational compromise.
 
This is sort of what I was talking about in the earlier thread. Questioning people's motives for holding the political positions they do.

Why do Republicans support Israel? They hate Arabs! God told them to! It's like saying that progressives who are critical of Israel are simply antisemitic.

What a great conversation that is.

R: I support Israel. They're a strong US ally and the only free democracy in the region.
P: That's because you're an Islamaphobe. Israel is persecuting the Palestinians and stealing their land!
R: Antisemite!




I think you’re underplaying the role that the church plays in the political opinions some people hold and how they vote. It could be that many people hold opinions that aren’t terribly nuanced — my pastor tells me that Jews are god’s chosen people, they are a democracy, and Palestinians like to blow up kindergarteners on buses. Easy.

Now let me get on with my busy life.

I’d also point to the lobbying power of AIPAC and their ability to shape the opinions above. And when it comes to understanding a very, very complicated situation, easy clarity is appealing.
 
I like this bit from a recent countable discussion that Spielberg, Meryl Streep, Amy Pascal & others had in promoting The Post:

SPIELBERG: We've lost the majority of good listeners, that our conversations have turned into skirmishes. We live in an area where we don't know a lot of red-state voters. Well, I know a lot because I have friends and family in other parts of this country, and so at dinner-table conversations outside of California, I'm completely mute or I get into these huge rows. The gray and the blue have become the blue and the red. And it is as vast a chasm as our nation faced before the Civil War. I've never seen anything like it.

MERYL STREEP: We don't know where north is. People disagree on what actual facts are. Whether this table is really a table.

LIZ HANNAH: We need to see each other. We need to look each other in the eye and know you're not a villain, you are not evil.
 
Last edited:
Serious question: how do you debate with someone who disagrees with facts. Not your argument, but the facts themselves.

And don’t go post-modern and call into question the nature of objectivity and the subjectivity of reality.
 
People, and in particular political partisans, have a tendency to disregard or dismiss facts that don't fit their own biases. Similarly, they don't apply the necessary critical reasoning skills towards information which appears to confirm those biases. And even things they concede are factual are often rationalised or explained away.

I'll tell you where I see this a lot...when a cop shoots an African American. At the beginning, before the "facts" are even in, every time this happens a lot of people have their default positions they switch to. Either a presumption that the police don't kill someone without a good reason, or the presumption that police just like to kill black people. No matter what an investigation might show, or what the judgement of a jury might be, or whatever the facts really are, most people at the end of of these things are usually still where they were at the beginning. If facts mean something, how can that be? There's still only one set of facts (as they known), but everyone interprets those facts differently and has their own spin on what they mean. And they outright just ignore facts that don't support whatever conclusions they've already made.

I see people, across the political spectrum, get basic, basic facts on the issues of the day flat out wrong. Just stunningly ignorant stuff. And in no way do I find that this phenomenon is confined to one party or political ideology. If you think it only applies to one side you're not being critical enough of what your own side is saying.
 
Last edited:
while it's not confined to one side or the other, it is asymmetrical.

at least in the United States, the right wing has a much, much looser grip on reality than the left.

i don't see how that's debatable -- just take global warming.
 
[tweet]938160754490052609[/tweet]

And of course he's not running for re-election. Opening the door for the crazy Right Wing to come in and take his place.

Basically with the GOP we are left with two options:

Trickle Down Economics / Gut Regulations
Alt Right and/or Bible Thumper Crazies

I understand that the other side has it's own divide

Corporate / Establishment
BernieBro ;)

Difference is that on the Democratic side, some policies that help people get passed
 
And of course he's not running for re-election. Opening the door for the crazy Right Wing to come in and take his place.

If he were running for re-election, he would not be writing that check.

It'a amazing how much courage all these guy get when they're out of office or on their way out.
 
Last edited:
And of course he's not running for re-election. Opening the door for the crazy Right Wing to come in and take his place.



Basically with the GOP we are left with two options:



Trickle Down Economics / Gut Regulations

Alt Right and/or Bible Thumper Crazies



I understand that the other side has it's own divide



Corporate / Establishment

BernieBro ;)



Difference is that on the Democratic side, some policies that help people get passed



The right has adequately defined the rift in the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is behind if they're still identifying the rift as "corporate/establishment" versus "BernieBro ;)."

And the term BernieBro needs to die with a fire. People need to move past that obvious attempt to slander his campaign and admit that non-conventional politics and bigger expectations might be how elections will be won from here on out.
 
The right has adequately defined the rift in the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is behind if they're still identifying the rift as "corporate/establishment" versus "BernieBro ;)."

And the term BernieBro needs to die with a fire. People need to move past that obvious attempt to slander his campaign and admit that non-conventional politics and bigger expectations might be how elections will be won from here on out.



I don’t think that term was ever used to slander his campaign, but a certain populace of his voters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom