Mindless Partisanship

Truth Detector said:
There you go with the clueless DNC narrative. Trump has done a LOT for the American public. You lack the honesty and grey matter to comprehend that snowflake. You are the definition of mindless partisanship.
Click to expand...

No dumbass, it is simply the partisan opposite to your statement by dropping a couple of words. Course, if you are a mindless partisan you might not get that. The DNC? How did you make that stretch?
 
Oneuli said:
And, more to the point of this thread, "Trumpism" isn't even a principled political outlook, such that we could say people Trumpists because Trump has aligned with their policy positions. Rather "Trumpism" is a cult of personality. Its policy positions can change wildly over time, because policy is beside the point. Trump could propose new trade rules tomorrow that greatly lowered tariffs, and they'd be for that, too. He could announce that we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately, or that we should double our troop strength there, and they'd support either. It's all about the partisanship itself, rather than being partisan in favor of particular ideas.
Click to expand...

Translation to this moronic false screed:

35576311251_fc80262395.jpg
 
mak2 said:
No dumbass, it is simply the partisan opposite to your statement by dropping a couple of words. Course, if you are a mindless partisan you might not get that. The DNC? How did you make that stretch?
Click to expand...

Irony coming from a dishonest, hyper partisan dumbass. Buy a mirror snowflake; it defines dumbass. :laugh:
 
Oneuli said:
That's a good example. For my own part, I found myself against Obama on a number of issues, because my policy principles aren't dictated by what the head of the Democratic Party believes at a given moment. That included disagreeing with the US getting involved in Syria... and Libya. But that kind of consistency,in the fact of partisan political pressure, is ever rarer on the right.
Click to expand...

You had the capacity and ability to think an issue through and come to a decision. That's what it SHOULD BE about. Here at JPP, it seems to be a Red Team/Blue Team 'sports-type' affair. You have the Politically Correct Fascists on one side, then you have the Fox News Parrots on the other side. There are some that seem to be able to discuss an issue without the usual "You're a Libtard" or "You're a Conservotard" epithets.

Congrats on the OP and pointing out the Partisanship here. (Doubt it will do much good, I think it is 'culturally' ingrained here)
 
Oneuli said:
The point of this thread isn't to argue whether China's well-behaved or NAFTA can be improved. The point is to contrast each side's reaction to the issue as a whole. China didn't suddenly become much worse shortly after Obama took office, then improve, then get vastly worse in 2015 through 2017, then get better again. NAFTA's terms didn't get overhauled in huge ways that made it much worse, then better, then worse, then better again. The violent swings of Republican opinion are not the slow evolution of someone gradually adjusting his opinions to new data (that's what the Democratic graph looks like). Instead, the Republican graph is what it looks like when you have people with no principles operating on very low information, such that they just spasm in whatever direction they've been triggered by their handlers.
Click to expand...
Republicans were ( some still are ) under the misconception we have free trade. I think it'smore an awarenes now that Trump had brought it to the forefront.
Since they are more wedded to "free trade" (sic) it was more of a sudden swing then from Dems who generally
were skepticle of NAFTA/WTO.

But this is a really difficult argument to make -since there are so many factors that effect our impressions-
that's it's somehow bound to partisanship
 
cawacko said:
Wow, this is some revisionist stuff. The biggest flank of Bernie's campaign was based on trade. Did you not watch the primaries?
Click to expand...

I voted for him and campaigned for him. I'm very familiar with what he emphasized. Trade was a side issue for him. You can confirm here:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

As you can see, the word "trade" doesn't come up even once on the first page of his issues list. Wealth inequality, college tuition, and getting big money out of politics were his top three issues. He found space on that front page to discuss a lot of things, from big-ticket items like climate change, on down to niche stuff like "standing with Guam," "supporting historically black colleges," and "fighting for nurses," but no mention of trade at all.

If you dig down further into his issues, you'll find trade, but even then it isn't listed as a top item. For example:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

Trade policies are the fourth thing he focuses on, after raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in infrastructure.

Spare me the "wingnut" crap. That's mindless partisan rhetoric. You're young so you clearly are unaware of the history of trade deals in this country, union positions on trade and who supported what
Click to expand...

What makes you think I'm ignorant of that? Is there anything specific in what I wrote that you think I got wrong?

You ought to write this thread about Democrats who found religion on free trade once Trump won office.
Click to expand...

Take another look at those graphs. THINK! Now, do you really think the big story there is Democrats "finding religion" on free trade after Trump won? Again, as you'll see, the majority of Democrats have been pro-free-trade all along. They gradually became more so even before Trump made it a headline item, and their percentage actually held steady over the last two years.
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
That's a good example. For my own part, I found myself against Obama on a number of issues, because my policy principles aren't dictated by what the head of the Democratic Party believes at a given moment. That included disagreeing with the US getting involved in Syria... and Libya. But that kind of consistency,in the face of partisan political pressure, is ever rarer on the right.
Click to expand...
did you actually buck that stupid R2P crap Hillary was selling for regime change in Libya? good for you
 
Jack said:
You had the capacity and ability to think an issue through and come to a decision. That's what it SHOULD BE about. Here at JPP, it seems to be a Red Team/Blue Team 'sports-type' affair. You have the Politically Correct Fascists on one side, then you have the Fox News Parrots on the other side. There are some that seem to be able to discuss an issue without the usual "You're a Libtard" or "You're a Conservotard" epithets.

Congrats on the OP and pointing out the Partisanship here. (Doubt it will do much good, I think it is 'culturally' ingrained here)
Click to expand...

I object to mindless partisanship from both the left and the right. But I've long had a feeling it was worse on the right, and I think these graphs support that understanding. Democrats evolved somewhat on trade over time, but it was the kind of gradual evolution you could reasonably attribute to adapting to new information or changing circumstances. The Republicans are all over the board, in a way that just can't be explained by way of any legitimate source of change.
 
Oneuli said:
And, more to the point of this thread, "Trumpism" isn't even a principled political outlook, such that we could say people are Trumpists because Trump has aligned with their policy positions. Rather "Trumpism" is a cult of personality. Its policy positions can change wildly over time, because policy is beside the point. Trump could propose new trade rules tomorrow that greatly lowered tariffs, and they'd be for that, too. He could announce that we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately, or that we should double our troop strength there, and they'd support either. It's all about the partisanship itself, rather than being partisan in favor of particular ideas.
Click to expand...
no we are wedded to getting China to stop it's trade barriers and IPR theft.
If Trump suddenly said "nevermind" i'd drop him in a heartbeat.

Same with the wall -we stick with him despite all the fake news attacks,and cries of "racism"
and idiotic Russian collusion delusion.

I don't know if you call that principled partisanship -since I do not consider myself a Republican-
I'm a conservative federalist. but for the next 6 years at least I'll be a Republican
 
Oneuli said:
I voted for him and campaigned for him. I'm very familiar with what he emphasized. Trade was a side issue for him. You can confirm here:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

As you can see, the word "trade" doesn't come up even once on the first page of his issues list. Wealth inequality, college tuition, and getting big money out of politics were his top three issues. He found space on that front page to discuss a lot of things, from big-ticket items like climate change, on down to niche stuff like "standing with Guam," "supporting historically black colleges," and "fighting for nurses," but no mention of trade at all.

If you dig down further into his issues, you'll find trade, but even then it isn't listed as a top item. For example:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

Trade policies are the fourth thing he focuses on, after raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in infrastructure.



What makes you think I'm ignorant of that. Is there anything specific in what I wrote that you think I got wrong?



Take another look at those graphs. THINK! Now, do you really think the big story there is Democrats "finding religion" on free trade after Trump won? Again, as you'll see, the majority of Democrats have been pro-free-trade all along. They gradually became more so even before Trump made it a headline item, and their percentage actually held steady over the last two years.
Click to expand...

Bernie talked trade often. Why do I think you lack knowledge of where people stand on trade? Look at the votes for our trade deals. Who supported NAFTA and CAFTA the most? Republicans. Who didn't? Democrats and unions. Do you think Cypress was alone in his belief in his post I showed you?

Look at candidate Obama in 2008 and his positions on NAFTA etc. He was not pro free trade. Look at Hillary Clinton changing her position on TPP. Why would she do that if so many Democrats were pro-free trade?

Yes there has been a gradual shift in the voters of both parties with some democrats moving more towards it and some Republicans away from it. But you trying to create some narrative to present yourself as principled and others as not is a sham.
 
Guille said:
Because you're dumb.
Click to expand...

Rufus, I regularly kick RW ass on this forum on every subject from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, anti-discrimination and Civil Rights laws, science and any number of other topics.

I do try to dumb things down for the RW tards on this forum. Obviously, that is in vain.
 
anatta said:
Republicans were ( some still are ) under the misconception we have free trade. I think it'smore an awarenes now that Trump had brought it to the forefront.
Since they are more wedded to "free trade" (sic) it was more of a sudden swing then from Dems who generally
were skepticle of NAFTA/WTO.

But this is a really difficult argument to make -since there are so many factors that effect our impressions-
that's it's somehow bound to partisanship
Click to expand...

Look at the graphs, though. The majority of Democrats were pro-free-trade the whole way through. It just strengthened gradually over time. The Republicans, meanwhile, bounced violently down, then up, then down, then up again. If that's about "more awareness" I think it's awareness of what the leaders of each party were doing. When, in 2009, McCain was more pro-free-trade than Obama, Republicans as a whole were very pro-free-trade. When Obama started successfully pushing through big new trade deals, they became anti-free trade. Then when Romney was running as a free-trade advocate, they were free trade again. Then when Trump launched his isolationist run, they became wildly anti-free trade. Then when he started negotiating trade deals, they drifted back towards neutrality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top