A taste of Prager U

[_Maksutov]

Conservatives and Democrats can have an understanding, even though we vote very differently.

in my opinion, not only can there be an understanding - understandings do indeed exist among Conservatives and Democrats. Unfortunately, these understandings are very rarely discussed and these understandings are becoming the exception in and around American politics - not the rule. This is one of the factors, among many others, that has resulted in America finding itself in the very unstable and potentially devastating position of an unbridgeable political divide.

For example, if I lived in Georgia I'd be voting line Democrat and Ms. Abrams would most certainly have my vote.

Understood and I completely support and accept your individual right to cast your individual vote any way you see fit. And in doing so, I would not assume that your voting decision was based on racism, sexism, homophobia or nazism. Rather, I would consider the obvious possibility - and likelihood - that you cast your vote based on what you personally believe represents the best interest of America as well as all of the citizens who call America their home.

I'd like to see my party be more inclusive and effective at uniting everyone instead of attempting to win through schism'ing and dividing the electorate.

for what it's worth, I would also like to see my party (who has its own set of real problems) be more inclusive and effective at uniting (and reaching) everyone of our America citizens.

Since Adams and Jefferson argued we have always had a creative if not always comfortable tension between liberals and conservatives in America. It seems to occur in other societies as well. It seems embedded in human psychology. I think we need to recognize the relative strengths and weaknesses of the polarities and acknowledge that we need a whole, not a divided, electorate and society, at least on areas of common interest and involvement. This is not a very exciting position, doesn't loan itself to slogans, cheers and rallies, but it is based on mutual respect and the value of individuals--something we need to survive and thrive.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since Adams and Jefferson argued we have always had a creative if not always comfortable tension between liberals and conservatives in America. It seems to occur in other societies as well. It seems embedded in human psychology. I think we need to recognize the relative strengths and weaknesses of the polarities and acknowledge that we need a whole, not a divided, electorate and society, at least on areas of common interest and involvement. This is not a very exciting position, doesn't loan itself to slogans, cheers and rallies, but it is based on mutual respect and the value of individuals--something we need to survive and thrive.

That was a really thoughtful post, Mak. I appreciate you chiming in.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Note Honor's link does NOT take it to his highlighted portion, and he attempts to pass the highlighted portion off as if it's something I said.

I spoke too soon. Right back off the horse.

It was clearly pointing out that my comment from last Saturday, wait for it....oh, it's something you are accusing me of not realizing is what is going on in Georgia in the post above it. Funny how it showed up in things I was saying last week while your post right above it was just barely coming around to arguing the Georgia Republican establishment wasn't targeting minorities for kicks but because they were more likely to vote Democrat.

It's amazing to watch how your mind has gotten so wrapped around the axle of racism the way it is in this discussion.

The GOP understands that socio-economics, but really just economics, drives voter habits. Poor people generally vote Democrat, with the exception of rural White America (but I think that has more to do with their faith and the 2nd Amendment than wYt3s h8 Bl4ck P30pl3!). I think the attempt to gerrymander, not just in Georgia, but across our country, is a political evil and we need to make the districts fair, less biased, and it's, in my opinion, about income.

I wish to goddess people voted based on economics with a heavy dose of understanding that the investment in opportunity capitalization is a long-term investment in the Nation. But the majority don't prioritize economics when they are making decisions in the voting booth on either side. Psychologists say we are pretty darn good at recognizing faults or illogic in others while being blind to it in ourselves (some dude in Roman Palestine had a nice quip about being able to see the splinter in our neighbor's eye or something...) and I think we see that in US politics. Whether it's Democrats looking at the majority of Republican voters who will ultimately end up losers in the long run due to the tax reform bill and think they vote based on "God, guns and gays" while the rich laugh their way to the bank; or the Republican voter who sees "virtue signaling social justice warriors" everywhere in the news and wonders why they can't see how unrestrained government spending and ballooning deficits are self-inflicted potentially mortal wounds. We see well in others how their voting behavior isn't based on the dispassionate, logical assessment of which party is best serving one's economic interests.

Until Trump, I would have agreed that the people maneuvering the voting public were mainly focused on economics, that they gerrymander to take advantage of voting demographics to serve their own economic interests. But Trump is the second half of the second act where the sorcerer's apprentice has lost control of the magic brooms and can't shut it back down. Voters told that socialism and liberal ideas are not just bad economically but "politically evil" as you called gerrymandering, aren't going to think maybe they had been fooled all this time. People don't think that way. "Drain the swamp!", championed by a corrupted self-described billionaire who promised to shake up Washington on both sides was almost inevitable as jilted conservative voters became fed up with the Republican establishment promising things they had no ability to provide but didn't care because the game was to make the voters hate a liberal boogeyman. I suspect that the progressive side is just behind on this issue as the younger voting generations rally around an unachievable cocktail of a Utopian society where all get trophies after the game and are free to find their real selves without competition or costly failure being on the table.

[_honorentheos]

in my opinion, not only can there be an understanding - understandings do indeed exist among Conservatives and Democrats. Unfortunately, these understandings are very rarely discussed and these understandings are becoming the exception in and around American politics - not the rule.

Says the guy who started a thread about "Fear the Left" and this thread about PragerU. But then passed on every attempt to discuss where his source had things wrong about liberal thought while having no problem getting into it with people who were tossing jabs.

It's easy to say things like the above, ceebs. But that's how hypocracy usually happens, isn't it.

[_EAllusion]

Since Adams and Jefferson argued we have always had a creative if not always comfortable tension between liberals and conservatives in America. It seems to occur in other societies as well. It seems embedded in human psychology. I think we need to recognize the relative strengths and weaknesses of the polarities and acknowledge that we need a whole, not a divided, electorate and society, at least on areas of common interest and involvement. This is not a very exciting position, doesn't loan itself to slogans, cheers and rallies, but it is based on mutual respect and the value of individuals--something we need to survive and thrive.

I think this is where the dipole political spectrum fails to be a useful tool. "Liberal" and "conservative" are labels that contain a broad range of views that are loosely related by historical happenstance as much as anything. I don't think it is the case that we need a mixture of every possible view to have a healthy body politic. "Conservatives" contain everything from fascists to libertarians and "liberals" contain everything from Stalinists to anarcho-syndicalists. And those positions are almost the exact opposite of one another. I don't think we need a certain % of the public to be sympathetic to fascism or communist totalitarianism to mix and max strengths and weaknesses. Realistically, there's probably a narrow band of views that is optimal for mixing what is likely correct with sources of innovative, contrary perspectives. Most of the political spectrum is just bad and it is no vice to recognize that. Of course, robust tolerance of differing views is important and needed in a functioning political system both because of the value of freedom of thought and because unpopular views sometimes are right. But that's one of the core values of liberal democracy itself and a piece of what is meant when we talk about Western small "l" liberalism.

[_Maksutov]

Since Adams and Jefferson argued we have always had a creative if not always comfortable tension between liberals and conservatives in America. It seems to occur in other societies as well. It seems embedded in human psychology. I think we need to recognize the relative strengths and weaknesses of the polarities and acknowledge that we need a whole, not a divided, electorate and society, at least on areas of common interest and involvement. This is not a very exciting position, doesn't loan itself to slogans, cheers and rallies, but it is based on mutual respect and the value of individuals--something we need to survive and thrive.

I think this is where the dipole political spectrum fails to be a useful tool. "Liberal" and "conservative" are labels that contain a broad range of views that are loosely related by historical happenstance as much as anything. I don't think it is the case that we need a mixture of every possible view to have a healthy body politic. "Conservatives" contain everything from fascists to libertarians and "liberals" contain everything from Stalinists to anarcho-syndicalists. And those positions are almost the exact opposite of one another. I don't think we need a certain % of the public to be sympathetic to fascism or communist totalitarianism to mix and max strengths and weaknesses. Realistically, there's probably a narrow band of views that is optimal for mixing what is likely correct with sources of innovative, contrary perspectives. Most of the political spectrum is just bad and it is no vice to recognize that. Of course, robust tolerance of differing views is important and needed in a functioning political system both because of the value of freedom of thought and because unpopular views sometimes are right. But that's one of the core values of liberal democracy itself and a piece of what is meant when we talk about Western small "l" liberalism.

I would love to let go of the left/right dichotomy...I think it's hopelessly antiquated and restrictive...but I keep looking in vain for a postpartisan, plurality consciousness to emerge among the people and the commentariat. Instead the inclination to oversimplify and ratchet up the tribalism seems to be getting worse.

[_canpakes]

By your logic, the GOP also hates White people because they're attempting to limit Democrats from voting through gerrymandering. You want so badly for this to be about racism, and it's really about winning votes, even though none of you could answer some simple questions. You STILL can't explain how winning a few hundred votes, at best, was a good ROI for the Kemp campaign.

Doc, it’s absolutely true that gerrymandering serves the function that you stated, against both blacks and whites that vote a particular way. But in the case of Democrats, the party has traditionally held sway within the majority of black voters. So it’s easy to see an overlap of purpose from these sorts of shenanigans, especially given more recent attitudes expressed by Republicans on the fringes, and some even less so.

The argument about a ‘few hundred votes’ shouldn’t be part of your argument considering that we have plenty of examples in recent years of contests being decided by such small numbers, including one primary in the midst of that situation right now.

[_huckelberry]

"Drain the swamp!", championed by a corrupted self-described billionaire who promised to shake up Washington on both sides was almost inevitable as jilted conservative voters became fed up with the Republican establishment promising things they had no ability to provide but didn't care because the game was to make the voters hate a liberal boogeyman. I suspect that the progressive side is just behind on this issue as the younger voting generations rally around an unachievable cocktail of a Utopian society where all get trophies after the game and are free to find their real selves without competition or costly failure being on the table.

I think this arrow is awfully close to the bullseye.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Candygal,

Lol, well they're doing a terrible job at it since millions of Black Georgians have dodged the mobs of angry White Republicans and managed, against virtually insurmountable odds, to not only register to vote lawfully, but to actually cast a ballot or two!

Check out this racist website ran by a racist for more details:

http://sos.ga.gov/index.php/Elections/v ... statistics

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I think this is where the dipole political spectrum fails to be a useful tool. "Liberal" and "conservative" are labels that contain a broad range of views that are loosely related by historical happenstance as much as anything. I don't think it is the case that we need a mixture of every possible view to have a healthy body politic. "Conservatives" contain everything from fascists to libertarians and "liberals" contain everything from Stalinists to anarcho-syndicalists. And those positions are almost the exact opposite of one another. I don't think we need a certain % of the public to be sympathetic to fascism or communist totalitarianism to mix and max strengths and weaknesses. Realistically, there's probably a narrow band of views that is optimal for mixing what is likely correct with sources of innovative, contrary perspectives. Most of the political spectrum is just bad and it is no vice to recognize that. Of course, robust tolerance of differing views is important and needed in a functioning political system both because of the value of freedom of thought and because unpopular views sometimes are right. But that's one of the core values of liberal democracy itself and a piece of what is meant when we talk about Western small "l" liberalism.

I would love to let go of the left/right dichotomy...I think it's hopelessly antiquated and restrictive...but I keep looking in vain for a postpartisan, plurality consciousness to emerge among the people and the commentariat. Instead the inclination to oversimplify and ratchet up the tribalism seems to be getting worse.

While personally I favor pluralism, the reality of human social behavior is unlikely to ever yield something that is postpartisan, in my opinion. Where I think there is healthy debate is around tolerance and respectable ideas on one side, and how one engages with those ideas or behaviors that seem so corrupted that to tolerate them is akin to ignoring a growing malignancy in the hopes it will take care of itself rather than sending one to the doctor for diagnosis. But then, who are the doctors if we no longer respect anyone in authority, taking our "medical" advice from the Jenny "Vaccines Cause Autism" McCarthys of the world that we use to self-diagnose using our Facebook echo-chambers like WebMD?