Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[SimonDoom]

SimonDumb omitted centrist Democrats like myself in their “persecutor list”.

If SimonDumb is going to play the sea lion victim, then SimonDumb should accurately identify the political ideologies of ALL of their "persecutors".

You're not a persecutor. You're just an example of someone uninterested in reasoned and civil discussion. You prefer name-calling.

 

[Lazaran]

L

You're not a persecutor. You're just an example of someone uninterested in reasoned and civil discussion. You prefer name-calling.

SimonDumb is either purposefully missing the point of my “name-calling”, or they truly are dumb.



Also:

SimonDumb is looking more and more like a garden-variety sea lion.

 

[TastySuckToy]

When I have people from both the left and the right coming after me with name-calling and cliches I figure I must have done something right.

I daresay you're getting primarily attacked by the left here. Though I can't speak on your actual experience.

 

[MiaBabe23]

Maybe this is naive, but I really didn’t get the sense the OP was being a sealion
Harpy? Yes. Triggered? Yes. MAGAts? Yes.
I thought the OP seemed to be lamenting a lack of a space for genuine political dialogue. No doubt I would vehemently disagree with most of what he would say, but I gotta welcome anyone who wants to genuinely try to think about why things are as they are

 

[RobDownSouth]

Cite?

Make it her OFFICIAL position too please. Not something some pundit in the media says.

Cite?

Did you or did you not watch her live acceptance speech in front of a live national audience last week?

You claim to live in California so her speech was televised before your bedtime.

Vice President Kamela Harris stated very clearly and unambiguously her positions on codifying Roe v, Wade into US law, her support for Israel, her support for both NATO and Ukraine, and the need to negotiate a ceasefire NOW in Gaza, etc. etc.

That's not "OFFICIAL" enough for you?

If a presidential nominee's own words on national television aren't enough for you, then you are arguing in bad faith, the textbook definition of a "sealion".

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I don't support Donald Trump. Let's get that straight.

But over 74 million people voted for him in 2020. The vast majority are not fascists. Donald Trump is not a fascist, if one wants to be historically accurate about the use of the term. The term "fascist" is hyperbole.

I know people who voted for Donald Trump, and I've heard their reasons. I didn't agree with them, but it's not true that there's no debate. I know that they are not racists and fascists.

This is what I mean. If one thinks this way, there is no possibility of reasoned debate. You are every bit as unreasonable on this point as the people you disagree with.

I'm curious. What do the Trump supporters you know claim is their reason for voting for him?

 

[TomTeacher19]

It has to be honest and accurate. I have several friends I talk politics with who are in the opposite side of me for issues and we're fine because they can do that. Opinions are not facts and they aren't valid when they are dishonest and inaccurate. So if you can't start somewhere other than that, we have nothing to talk about.

 

[SimonDoom]

I daresay you're getting primarily attacked by the left here. Though I can't speak on your actual experience.

I started out taking some heat from the Trump/MAGA contingent. But the more recent posts seem to come from the left, some of whose members adopt a rhetorical strategy of wanting to treat efforts to be civil as forms of gaslighting and false equivalency, "sea-lioning," trolling, or, worse yet, undercover right-wing activity. Fevered imaginations and conspiracy-thinking dwell in the minds of both camps.

I'm not going to characterize all people on the left as this way, because I know they're not, but there is a sizable element on the left for whom it is very important to shoot down appeals to civility, because it is critical to their world view that they must not accept for a moment that anybody to the right of them has anything to say, and they must reserve the right to demonize those they disagree with to keep the Overton window as small as possible. I've seen this at work for over 40 years, back to when I was in college.

If you're left of center, you don't notice this phenomenon. This is true of all of most of us, of all political varieties. We notice the bias of those we disagree, but the bias of our own side doesn't look like bias.

For instance, every left of center person thinks FoxNews is ridiculously biased. They're right about that.

But CNN and especially MSNBC are biased, too. They're not as bad as FoxNews, but they present news in a noticeably anti-Trump way that goes beyond objective reporting. But lefty people don't see it that way. If you think Trump is the devil, you're not going to see it as bias. You're just going to think, "Well, yeah, that's just the way it is. You gotta call the devil what he is."

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I started out taking some heat from the Trump/MAGA contingent. But the more recent posts seem to come from the left, some of whose members adopt a rhetorical strategy of wanting to treat efforts to be civil as forms of gaslighting and false equivalency, "sea-lioning," trolling, or, worse yet, undercover right-wing activity. Fevered imaginations and conspiracy-thinking dwell in the minds of both camps.

I'm not going to characterize all people on the left as this way, because I know they're not, but there is a sizable element on the left for whom it is very important to shoot down appeals to civility, because it is critical to their world view that they must not accept for a moment that anybody to the right of them has anything to say, and they must reserve the right to demonize those they disagree with to keep the Overton window as small as possible. I've seen this at work for over 40 years, back to when I was in college.

If you're left of center, you don't notice this phenomenon. This is true of all of most of us, of all political varieties. We notice the bias of those we disagree, but the bias of our own side doesn't look like bias.

For instance, every left of center person thinks FoxNews is ridiculously biased. They're right about that.

But CNN and especially MSNBC are biased, too. They're not as bad as FoxNews, but they present news in a noticeably anti-Trump way that goes beyond objective reporting. But lefty people don't see it that way. If you think Trump is the devil, you're not going to see it as bias. You're just going to think, "Well, yeah, that's just the way it is. You gotta call the devil what he is."

CNN is openly backing Donald Trump. They treat him with kid gloves while aggressively questioning Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm curious. What do the Trump supporters you know claim is their reason for voting for him?

Thank you for asking that! Finally, somebody who wants to engage in a discussion. Even if you may be somewhat incredulous, you asked a good question.

Some Republicans are one-issue pro-life voters. Trump delivered on his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. They did. Those voters will defend Trump on that issue alone.

Some voters support his economic policies of cutting taxes and regulations. Trump is not consistent in his economic views; he's not a fiscal conservative. He's a pro-tariff populist. But it's reasonable for a voter who prioritizes minimizing government's footprint on the economy to think that Trump might be the better candidate than Harris.

Some voters are wary of international interventionism. They don't want us involved in wars in the Middle East or Ukraine. It's understandable that they might prefer Trump to Harris. One thing you CAN say about Trump's presidency is that he didn't increase or prolong US involvement in overseas wars, unlike Bush, Obama, and Biden.

Some voters are disturbed by what they perceive as "wokeness" -- especially the illiberal methods by which it's enforced in college campuses.

None of the four grounds I cited above are "fascist" or "authoritarian." You may disagree with them, and you probably have good reasons to disagree with them. But none of these are issues about which people cannot have reasonable conversations (although it's hard to have a reasonable conversation about abortion because it comes down to first principles).

 

[SimonDoom]

CNN is openly backing Donald Trump. They treat him with kid gloves while aggressively questioning Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

CNN is NOT "openly backing" Trump. If you believe that, give me a link to a specific example of that. I don't know what you are referring to. Its reporters and commentators obviously don't support Trump (unlike those at Fox, who plainly do). Have you listened to Dana Bash or Erin Burnett or Jake Tapper talk about Trump? Come on, be serious. They criticize Trump but you think it's not enough, and they question Biden and Harris and you think it's excessive criticism. Your bias is showing. I think CNN does an OK job of questioning both sides.

 

[MiaBabe23]

I started out taking some heat from the Trump/MAGA contingent. But the more recent posts seem to come from the left, some of whose members adopt a rhetorical strategy of wanting to treat efforts to be civil as forms of gaslighting and false equivalency, "sea-lioning," trolling, or, worse yet, undercover right-wing activity. Fevered imaginations and conspiracy-thinking dwell in the minds of both camps.

I'm not going to characterize all people on the left as this way, because I know they're not, but there is a sizable element on the left for whom it is very important to shoot down appeals to civility, because it is critical to their world view that they must not accept for a moment that anybody to the right of them has anything to say, and they must reserve the right to demonize those they disagree with to keep the Overton window as small as possible. I've seen this at work for over 40 years, back to when I was in college.

If you're left of center, you don't notice this phenomenon. This is true of all of most of us, of all political varieties. We notice the bias of those we disagree, but the bias of our own side doesn't look like bias.

For instance, every left of center person thinks FoxNews is ridiculously biased. They're right about that.

But CNN and especially MSNBC are biased, too. They're not as bad as FoxNews, but they present news in a noticeably anti-Trump way that goes beyond objective reporting. But lefty people don't see it that way. If you think Trump is the devil, you're not going to see it as bias. You're just going to think, "Well, yeah, that's just the way it is. You gotta call the devil what he is."

You really haven’t looked much at the PB if you think the vilifying is coming from the left
I fear you’re comforting yourself that those who hold views more similar to your own aren’t going to be so uncivil
That’s unconscious bias and, here at least, it’s simply incorrect
As to the media; CNN etc cover stories that you won’t be used to seeing on Fox - hence it seems they’re biased because they’re informing you more about the bad things he’s done

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

CNN is NOT "openly backing" Trump. If you believe that, give me a link to a specific example of that. I don't know what you are referring to. Its reporters and commentators obviously don't support Trump (unlike those at Fox, who plainly do). Have you listened to Dana Bash or Erin Burnett or Jake Tapper talk about Trump? Come on, be serious. They criticize Trump but you think it's not enough, and they question Biden and Harris and you think it's excessive criticism. Your bias is showing. I think CNN does an OK job of questioning both sides.

President Biden was criticized showing signs of aging. Donald Trump is in worse shape cognitively but gets a pass.
Vice President Harris is criticized for not providing enough policy details. Donald Trump has never provided any policy details but gets a pass.

It's not just CNN. All the mainstream media apply different standards to Republicans and Democrats.

 

[adrina]

Thank you for asking that! Finally, somebody who wants to engage in a discussion. Even if you may be somewhat incredulous, you asked a good question.

Some Republicans are one-issue pro-life voters. Trump delivered on his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. They did. Those voters will defend Trump on that issue alone.

Some voters support his economic policies of cutting taxes and regulations. Trump is not consistent in his economic views; he's not a fiscal conservative. He's a pro-tariff populist. But it's reasonable for a voter who prioritizes minimizing government's footprint on the economy to think that Trump might be the better candidate than Harris.

Some voters are wary of international interventionism. They don't want us involved in wars in the Middle East or Ukraine. It's understandable that they might prefer Trump to Harris. One thing you CAN say about Trump's presidency is that he didn't increase or prolong US involvement in overseas wars, unlike Bush, Obama, and Biden.

Some voters are disturbed by what they perceive as "wokeness" -- especially the illiberal methods by which it's enforced in college campuses.

None of the four grounds I cited above are "fascist" or "authoritarian." You may disagree with them, and you probably have good reasons to disagree with them. But none of these are issues about which people cannot have reasonable conversations (although it's hard to have a reasonable conversation about abortion because it comes down to first principles).

There is an argument to be made that the support of the president which ended Roe, regardless of the majority of the population's opinion and against all precedent, was authoritarian. Especially since they ruled beyond the original question asked. They did the same thing with the immunity ruling.

And given the circumstances of the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, there is no way to argue that reversing Dobbs and ending the right to abortion nationwide was even close to democratic or even reflective of our republic.

 

[ChloeTzang]

CNN is openly backing Donald Trump. They treat him with kid gloves while aggressively questioning Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

You're sounding ridiculous on on that one. There is no way in this space-time continuum that CNN could be even remotely consider pro-Trump.

 

[SimonDoom]

You really haven’t looked much at the PB if you think the vilifying is coming from the left

I'm looking at this thread. There's vilification going on, and it's from the left. Yes, there is plenty of evidence of vilification from the left. It's undeniable, unless one's bias prevents one from seeing it.

I've seen plenty of evidence of nonsense from the Trump/Maga contingent, and I've observed as much. I don't deny its existence.

What's strange to me is the insistence that we have to determine who is MORE at fault. No, we don't. It doesn't matter. I don't care. Bias is bias. Intolerance is intolerance. If one side makes up 70% of the bias and intolerance there's still good reason to call out bias and intolerance and incivility on both sides.

 

[MajorRewrite]

A few people were banned from the forums recently because they advocated violence or did other dumb things.

They were all MAGA nuts.

I think that’s a good indicator of why there is no civil discussion on this forum.

 

[ChloeTzang]

There is an argument to be made that the support of the president which ended Roe, regardless of the majority of the population's opinion and against all precedent, was authoritarian. Especially since they ruled beyond the original question asked. They did the same thing with the immunity ruling.

And given the circumstances of the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, there is no way to argue that reversing Dobbs and ending the right to abortion nationwide was even close to democratic or even reflective of our republic.

Confusing constitutional law and democracy again. SCOTUS ruled on the law. SCOTUS is not meant to rule based on popular opinion. That, and the last three appointments to SCOTUS, as all appointments do, have to go thru the Senate for approval. Democrats have foisted radical left wing judges on SCOTUS who are under qualified and who are blatantly "making law" rather than ruling on the basis of the constitution and its intent. The rule of law was adhered to despite conservatives opposing those rulings. Such as Roe vs Wade.

Turn and Turn about, Adrina. Either respect the Constitution and SCOTUS or just admit you don't and, like most Democrats, you want to do away with it all and impose a left wing totatlitarian government. Just stop pretending though. LOL

 

[ChloeTzang]

A few people were banned from the forums recently because they advocated violence or did other dumb things.

They were all MAGA nuts.

I think that’s a good indicator of why there is no civil discussion on this forum.

Bullshit. LOL. You left wing nut jobs are out to lunch and couldn't discuss something civilly to save your lives. I have to say I enjoy it though, and I don't expect it to change. I get Simon's point, but Simon's in the middle here between a bunch of left wing whack jobs and a bunch of conservatives who can't be bothered being polite about the nutcases and who enjoy making fun of them. Kind of indicative in a nutshell of where the US is going really, altho that said, when you get RFK and Tulsi joing with Trump, to have to acknowledge, that is where the center is these days.

 

[MiaBabe23]

I'm looking at this thread. There's vilification going on, and it's from the left. Yes, there is plenty of evidence of vilification from the left. It's undeniable, unless one's bias prevents one from seeing it.

I've seen plenty of evidence of nonsense from the Trump/Maga contingent, and I've observed as much. I don't deny its existence.

What's strange to me is the insistence that we have to determine who is MORE at fault. No, we don't. It doesn't matter. I don't care. Bias is bias. Intolerance is intolerance. If one side makes up 70% of the bias and intolerance there's still good reason to call out bias and intolerance and incivility on both sides.

Well you were commenting on who you thought was vilifying you more, so you were insisting on determining who’s most at fault…?
Which is kinda going against the whole purpose of your thread
We get attacked daily by a select group of bigots/ zealots/ trolls in ways that make what you’re talking about look like a very pleasant exchange
Doesn’t make it right, I was agreeing with your point on those comments originally, but if you keep saying “It’s the left, it’s the left!!”, some of your argument starts to lose credibility, I think?
And btw, I’ve just started a thread, A Thoughtful Thread, dedicated to looking at the issues without personal comments, you helped inspire that. Feel free to visit for a more relaxed look at the issues

 

[adrina]

Confusing constitutional law and democracy again. SCOTUS ruled on the law. SCOTUS is not meant to rule based on popular opinion.

False. They over-ruled 50 years of precedent by citing a religious dude from centuries ago.

That, and the last three appointments to SCOTUS, as all appointments do, have to go thru the Senate for approval. Democrats have foisted radical left wing judges on SCOTUS who are under qualified and who are blatantly "making law" rather than ruling on the basis of the constitution and its intent.

False. If you want to talk about legislating from the bench you will have to rationalize how they went above and beyond the questions asked in both Dobbs and the immunity decision. They created law with their ruling while overturning precedent. There's not much more legislating from the bench than that.

The rule of law was adhered to despite conservatives opposing those rulings. Such as Roe vs Wade.

False. They did everything they could at the state level to put barriers to care in place. Additionally they have been judge shopping purposefully to try to overturn access to abortion and birth control.

Turn and Turn about, Adrina. Either respect the Constitution and SCOTUS or just admit you don't and, like most Democrats, you want to do away with it all and impose a left wing totatlitarian government. Just stop pretending though. LOL

This isn't turn about. This is you thinking you've make a snarky point but failing because your argument is based on false assumptions from the "media" you consume.

 

[SimonDoom]

There is an argument to be made that the support of the president which ended Roe, regardless of the majority of the population's opinion and against all precedent, was authoritarian. Especially since they ruled beyond the original question asked. They did the same thing with the immunity ruling.

And given the circumstances of the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, there is no way to argue that reversing Dobbs and ending the right to abortion nationwide was even close to democratic or even reflective of our republic.

There's an argument on the other side. By overturning Roe, the Supreme Court returned the issue to the states and their legislatures. That IS democratic. Roe v. Wade was an undemocratic opinion, because it removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process and insulated the abortion right from democratic challenge, despite the transparently feeble connection between the abortion right and the text of the Constitution.

The Dobbs opinion may be opposed by the majorities of California and New York, but not by the majorities of many other states, so one can't say it's contrary to the majority of the population's opinion.

I read the Roe opinion over 35 years ago and have read it since then a number of times and my view is that the majority of people have no understanding of what the issues are in Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court is an inherently un-democratic institution. Its job is to ignore what the majority wants and to uphold the rights granted by the Constitution, even if it protects rights that the majority doesn't value, such as the free speech rights of communists or the religious freedoms of Jews and Muslims and the Amish.

The immunity ruling is an entirely different matter. Whether or not it ends up being authoritarian will depend on how the Court decides when the President is acting in his official capacity and therefore immune from prosecution. The ruling left that question somewhat open.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Intolerance is intolerance.

A good debate could be had about whether we should be tolerant of intolerance.

My answer is no, but intolerant people get very huffy when they are called out on their intolerance. “You’re attacking me! You’re the intolerant one!” is their favorite reply.

 

[MiaBabe23]

There's an argument on the other side. By overturning Roe, the Supreme Court returned the issue to the states and their legislatures. That IS democratic. Roe v. Wade was an undemocratic opinion, because it removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process and insulated the abortion right from democratic challenge, despite the transparently feeble connection between the abortion right and the text of the Constitution.

The Dobbs opinion may be opposed by the majorities of California and New York, but not by the majorities of many other states, so one can't say it's contrary to the majority of the population's opinion.

I read the Roe opinion over 35 years ago and have read it since then a number of times and my view is that the majority of people have no understanding of what the issues are in Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court is an inherently un-democratic institution. Its job is to ignore what the majority wants and to uphold the rights granted by the Constitution, even if it protects rights that the majority doesn't value, such as the free speech rights of communists or the religious freedoms of Jews and Muslims and the Amish.

The immunity ruling is an entirely different matter. Whether or not it ends up being authoritarian will depend on how the Court decides when the President is acting in his official capacity and therefore immune from prosecution. The ruling left that question somewhat open.

So if fundamental freedoms are to be solely determined by states, how do you avoid a tyranny of the majority?
How do you avoid women being left in their cars dying of sepsis?
Democracy isn’t simply a case of following what a particular law says, especially if that law is defective and undemocratic

 

[SimonDoom]

False. They over-ruled 50 years of precedent by citing a religious dude from centuries ago.

Brown v. the Board of Education overruled 58 years of precedent established by Plessy v. Ferguson. And it was right to do so. The reality is that nobody cares much about precedent when it comes to Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, and that's as it should be. People only care about precedent when it comes to overturning decisions they want to keep. The Supreme Court should try, in good faith, to get it right, rather than relying upon a bad precedent. No liberal justice of the Court has ever shied away from junking precedent when it suited their view about what they thought was the "right" decision. I thought Alito's dissection of the precedent argument in Dobbs was powerful and sound.