US Politics VI

[Irvine511]

what?

 

[Gzusfrk]

what?

Not really that difficult to understand. More times the far left, and this forum is a strong example of it, do not like to address their own possible shortcomings or culpability.

Hence, "this is not a both sides issue." To the far left, there's NO chance that they could possibly be wrong or make a mistake.

I think you're passive aggressive condescending response proves my point.

 

[DaveC]

the far left, and this forum is a strong example of it

 

[Nick66]

The reason "both sides do it" has proved such an enduring meme in American politics is because in politics both sides do almost everything. Including insisting their side doesn't do it but the other side does. Both sides do that also. Most people realise this. Extreme partisans don't, for obvious reasons.

There was a study a while back that demonstrated that the stronger someone felt about a political issue, the more likely they were to discard any information that would challenge their assumptions...just as they were likely to be less critical about information that confirmed their biases. And even when people are definitively shown that what they believe isn't factually true, they're still resistant to accept it, and likely to find a way to rationalise their own beliefs aligning with the facts.

Similarly, researchers have found, via functional neuroimaging, that the more strongly people feel when arguing about politics, it's the limbic system (the part of the brain that process emotions) that's being most stimulated rather than the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (the reasoning part of the brain). For example, information that contradicts strongly held beliefs causes the parts of the brain that control things like stress and frustration to light up. But once a partisan discards contradictory information and comes to a biased conclusion that confirms their own beliefs, the circuits in the brain that mediate things like stress, frustration and sadness tend to shut off, allowing a temporary feeling of satisfaction. So it's literally almost like a drug to have your own beliefs reinforced, and negative experience to have them challenged. Of course, we all experience this, but it's much more pronounced the stronger we feel about something, and especially pronounced in people who describe themselves as very partisan.

In other words, if you're very partisan, the stronger you feel about an issue you're invested in, the more likely you're thinking about it using emotion and not reason. It's why political arguments quickly become so heated and many people aren't able to discuss politics rationally. It's also why political ads, and the politicians who make them, try to appeal to our emotions and rather than our reason. Oh, and both sides do this also, in case there was any question.

I highly recommend The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation by Drew Weston, a psychologist at Emory (and a Democrat, if that matters), for anyone interested in this subject.

 

[Gzusfrk]

Yeah, I find the far left rather amusing myself. Now by far left, these days, what is centrist used to be considered far left.

I mean JFK wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party these days.

So I will amend my statement and say the left......because the point is the same.

 

[Gzusfrk]

The reason "both sides do it" has proved such an enduring meme in American politics is because in politics both sides do almost everything. Including insisting their side doesn't do it but the other side does. Both sides do that also. Most people realise this. Extreme partisans don't, for obvious reasons.

There was a study a while back that demonstrated that the stronger someone felt about a political or religious issue, the more likely they were to discard any information that would challenge their assumptions...just as they were likely to be less critical about information that confirmed their biases. And even when people are definitively shown that what they believe isn't factually true, they're still resistant to accept it, and likely to find a way to rationalise their own beliefs aligning with the facts.

Similarly, researchers have found that the more strongly people feel when arguing about politics, it's the limbic system (the part of the brain that process emotions) that's being most stimulated rather than the cerebrum. In other words, if you're very partisan, the stronger you feel about an issue you're invested in, the more likely you're thinking about it using emotion and not reason. It's why political arguments quickly become so heated and many people aren't able to discuss politics rationally.

I highly recommend The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation by Drew Weston, a psychologist at Emory, for anyone interested in this subject.

Sounds like an interesting read!!

 

[Irvine511]

Not really that difficult to understand. More times the far left, and this forum is a strong example of it, do not like to address their own possible shortcomings or culpability.



Hence, "this is not a both sides issue." To the far left, there's NO chance that they could possibly be wrong or make a mistake.



I think you're passive aggressive condescending response proves my point.

This is so sweeping and generalized and confused that I don’t even know what to respond to.

 

[DaveC]

Yeah, I find the far left rather amusing myself. Now by far left, these days, what is centrist used to be considered far left.

I mean JFK wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party these days.

So I will amend my statement and say the left......because the point is the same.

 

[Irvine511]

Vlad is going to be soooooo upset.

 

[Popmartijn]

Yeah, I find the far left rather amusing myself. Now by far left, these days, what is centrist used to be considered far left.

I mean JFK wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party these days.

So I will amend my statement and say the left......because the point is the same.

I was going to make a comment regarding the "both sides do it" arguments that in the US the political center has shifted a lot in the last 2 decades or so. One of the developments has been for the hard right to declare even the center-left to be extreme, this to make themselves appear more mainstream. And then the center-right was declared to be far-left.
I mean, from an international perspective Obama and Hillary Clinton were both on the center-right part of the political spectrum (with Obama being a bit more to the center). And solely based on his political ideas, Reagan would likely be branded a leftist too these days.

And then this comment comes along...
You could say that it proves my point.

 

[PhilsFan]

Yeah, I find the far left rather amusing myself. Now by far left, these days, what is centrist used to be considered far left.

I mean JFK wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party these days.

So I will amend my statement and say the left......because the point is the same.

The Democratic Party is a center-right party. This forum is a slightly left of center forum.

Speaking as a far leftist, your concept of the political spectrum sucks major ass.

 

[Nick66]

I was going to make a comment regarding the "both sides do it" arguments that in the US the political center has shifted a lot in the last 2 decades or so. One of the developments has been for the hard right to declare even the center-left to be extreme, this to make themselves appear more mainstream. And then the center-right was declared to be far-left.

I think "both sides do it" is more about things like political tactics, strategy, and ability to engage in hypocrisy...not about substance.

I don't think anyone would suggest that Democrats, for example, would introduce a bill outlawing abortion, nor would Republicans introduce legislation mandating the Federal Government pay for all abortions. The parties are in fact different, and have different values and priorities.

But in terms of the mechanisms in which politics operates, and all the things that entails, I think both sides do most things.

 

[Irvine511]

my real contention with the "both sides do it" is more to do with whatever individual is making that comparison, because it's actual intention is to position the maker of said comparison as some sort of honest broker who calls out both sides when it's called for. it's self-flattering, Mike Rowe, "i tell it like it is" bullshit, and this search for some sort of middle ground upon which to stand dilutes differences to the point where Antifa becomes the same as neo-Nazis.

while the truth is that while one can call shenanigans on both sides, the two parties are not the same, in either substance or style or shamelessness. likewise, CNN is not left in the way that Fox is right, nor is "the media" or "the resistance" worthy of direct comparison to an elected party tasked with governing.

it also ties into the notion that the two parties are somehow how the same, so, really, if you're going to vote for Hillary you might as well vote for Trump because millionaires and billionaires, blah blah blah, the end.

 

[Irvine511]

But in terms of the mechanisms in which politics operates, and all the things that entails, I think both sides do most things.

can you see a scenario where majority leader Chuck Schumer refuses for an entire year to consider a Trump SCOTUS nominee to replace a liberal justice?

(i mean, now, you could, because McConnell already did it)

 

[Nick66]

In substance, I agree the parties are different. The meme pushed by the Bernie supporters that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton was nonsensical. Elections have substantive consequences, we're seeing that now. I also agree that the parties are different in style.

That said, I frankly think both parties are equally shameless, capable of putting party before country, captive to their own special interests, and put winning the next election over everything.

That's not to say everything exists on a 1:1 basis, and each set of facts had distinctions. But more or less if there's something one party did in terms of playing politics, I'm pretty sure you could find a roughly analogous example for the other side.

The caveat to this is Trump is sort of resetting the board, the US has never had someone like this as President and we're seeing a lot of unprecedented crap.

 

[Irvine511]

In substance, I agree the parties are different. The meme pushed by the Bernie supporters that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton was nonsensical. Elections have substantive consequences, we're seeing that now. I also agree that the parties are different in style.

That said, I frankly think both parties are equally shameless, capable of putting party before country, captive to their own special interests, and put winning the next election over everything.

That's not to say everything exists on a 1:1 basis, and each set of facts had distinctions. But more or less if there's something one party did in terms of playing politics, I'm pretty sure you could find a roughly analogous example for the other side.

The caveat to this is Trump is sort of resetting the board, the US has never had someone like this as President and we're seeing a lot of unprecedented crap.

i agree with most of this, although i differ on the degree of shamelessness.

 

[DaveC]

it also ties into the notion that the two parties are somehow how the same, so, really, if you're going to vote for Hillary you might as well vote for Trump because millionaires and billionaires, blah blah blah, the end.

but you yada yada'd over the best part!

 

[Nick66]

can you see a scenario where majority leader Chuck Schumer refuses for an entire year to consider a Trump SCOTUS nominee to replace a liberal justice?

(i mean, now, you could, because McConnell already did it)

Sure I can. Actually, handling of Federal Judges is an excellent example.

When Democrats controlled the Senate, they did away with the filibuster for all Federal Judges except Supreme Court Justices. This was because Republicans had filibustered a number of Obama nominees...which in turn they feel was tit for tat because Dems had held up Bush nominees (more on that below). At the time, Reid getting rid of the filibuster for Federal Judges was unprecedented.

So when Republicans took over, McConnell just took it one step further and ditched the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees as well. Basically because Dems would filibuster any Trump nominee, and because Reid already did away with the filibuster for the entire rest of Federal judiciary. Again what McConnell did, like Reid before him, was unprecedented, except Reid had already gone most of the way.

Both sides do it.

Similarly, it's true McConell blocked even considering Obama's Supreme Court nominee, something Dems had never done. There was shock and outrage that McConnell wouldn't even allow it to come up for a vote! It was breaking the Senate! (already broken). The nominee at least deserves a vote! (Garland did deserve a vote) It's unconstitutional! (bullshit).

Except during the Bush years, when Democrats controlled the Senate they blocked dozens of Bush judicial nominees...not a filibuster, just blocked them altogether. Didn't consider them at all. No vote. No committee hearings. DOA. Just like McConnell did with Merrick Garland (an excellent jurist who should have been confirmed BTW).

Why did Dems block all those Federal Judges from even a vote? It wasn't because of qualifications, it never even got to that point. It was pure politics. And because they could. The same reason McConnell blocked Garland.

You could argue that the stakes are higher for a SCOTUS judge, and as I said above, no two situations are completely analogous and factually every situation is a little different in kind and degree. But the fact remains both sides used the confirmation process in the Senate to block judicial nominees for purely political reasons. Reid started it; McConnell dialled it up.

When Dems are in control of the Senate again, what do you think the odds are they'll bring the filibuster back for SCOTUS Justices?

So again, both sides do it. And did it.

 

[Irvine511]

You could argue that the stakes are higher for a SCOTUS judge, and as I said above, no two situations are completely analogous.

exactly.

 

[Irvine511]

but you yada yada'd over the best part!

free college and milkshakes?

 

[PhilsFan]

Free college is definitely a thing that is unrealistic, rather than something hugely popular that would finally drive young voters out to the polls.

 

[Nick66]

exactly.

LOL...OK. No two factual situations are exactly alike, but the fact remains "both sides" have killed nominees to the Federal Judiciary, without so much as a vote, for political purposes.

And "both sides" ditched filibusters for judicial nominees...first Reid for ALL the lower court judges (which are frankly more important to the day to day efficiency of the judiciary than the SCOTUS), then McConnell for the remaining ones on the SCOTUS.

So what makes Democrats better in this scenario? How were Democrats less politically motivated than Republicans in being partisan with the Federal Judiciary?

 

[Irvine511]

As stated earlier, we are disagreeing on the degree of what “both sides” are willing to do.

This is proving my point. You’re pulling out something that both sides do and comparing it to something for which there is no precedent and pretending that it’s all the same.

There’s a reason people rightly accuse the democrats of being spineless and weak.

 

[Irvine511]

Free college is definitely a thing that is unrealistic, rather than something hugely popular that would finally drive young voters out to the polls.

It drove white kids in rural red states states to caucuses, but I didn’t see any evidence that it drove anyone anywhere else.

I think “free” community college, as pushed for by Obama, was absolutely a good idea, whether or not it drove voters to the polls.

Had Hillary won, this could have been incremental change we could all believe in.

 

[Nick66]

As stated earlier, we are disagreeing on the degree of what “both sides” are willing to do.

This is proving my point. You’re pulling out something that both sides do and comparing it to something for which there is no precedent and pretending that it’s all the same.

There’s a reason people rightly accuse the democrats of being spineless and weak.

There was no precedent when Reid killed the filibuster for federal judges. That's something Republicans could have done, but didn't. Reid set the precedent. McConnell just took it to the next step.

What they both did was unprecedented, but really, Reid opened that door. And frankly, it wasn't spineless of Reid...it was a bold move actually that the left applauded...in fact they had been demanding it. Even though many people said at the time it would come back to haunt Democrats when Republicans were in control with a Republican President...and it did.

 

[PhilsFan]

It drove white kids in rural red states states to caucuses, but I didn’t see any evidence that it drove anyone anywhere else.

I think “free” community college, as pushed for by Obama, was absolutely a good idea, whether or not it drove voters to the polls.

Had Hillary won, this could have been incremental change we could all believe in.

Obama was the candidate of incremental change, and when nothing get done, everyone chalked it up to the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party and/or leftist policy. And the half measures they did get done, like the ACA, got gutted as soon as the Dems lost the White House.

And let's not pretend that Hillary ran on a platform saying they needed even incremental change. She ran on "let's do more of the same, the last eight years were great." People don't go to her website to look up her First Term Guide for Policy Wonks. They remembered "America is already great," and her defending her record of milquetoast Dem policy.

 

[Nick66]

Yeah but Bernie ran on seven minute abs.

 

[BEAL]

I do wonder how much Trump changed things.

Let’s say JEB! Is president. Does he back a pedophile ? Does he completely deny Russia meddled in our election or refuse to impose the sanctions against them?

I feel like the GOP went Full Retard and now there’s no going back.

The Dems are playing politics as usual and it’s why they continue to lose.

I can’t say i want them to get as nasty as the GOP but it’s not even the same game they’re playing. Hope for gains in 2018 but who knows

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Not really that difficult to understand. More times the far left, and this forum is a strong example of it, do not like to address their own possible shortcomings or culpability.

Hence, "this is not a both sides issue." To the far left, there's NO chance that they could possibly be wrong or make a mistake.

I think you're passive aggressive condescending response proves my point.

Hoo boy. Today I learned the 'far left' are centrist Democrats.

Vlad is going to be soooooo upset.

It's great to know you're always thinking of me, Irvine.

 

[Gzusfrk]

This is so sweeping and generalized and confused that I don’t even know what to respond to.

How about the fact that...........it's difficult for people on the left side of the political spectrum to admit when they are wrong, of if they made a mistake.

Also, to say that the FBI/Mueller/Russia series of investiagtions is not a "both sides" issue is clear partisanship.