Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
OK...speaking of depending on where you are sitting when developing a point of view...
I am surprised Rationalwicki didn't say that everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a neo-con.
I clicked an was reading what is (purposefully) supposed to look like a wiki-page without looking at the URL or scrolling up to the header...
I had a Scoobydoo moment reading that.. "Zoinks, Raggy!"
Got a smile out of it.
It is interesting to see how someone of a liberal mindset views congressmen and issues that look remarkably different when seen across the aisle.
Kind of depends on the issue, too. Congresspeople are not monolithic. Mary Landrieu put us on the eventual path to single payer, but she IS campaigning against the EPA legislating around congress.
A lot of them were blue dogs because they are in right of center districts. Those got bumped off in the 2010 mid-terms.
From my admittedly biased point of view it often seems that Democrats and their supporters are in lockstep. I suspect though you are right because several of the things sitting on Reids desk had 10-20 Democrats in concurrence... The most you see of Republicans crossing over is maybe Snow who is a Democrat, and one maybe two other randoms.
I think a politician's point of view is often obscure to us as, political calculations are made before they decide which position they will support. I think that the people that vote for those politicians are more honest about expressing what their point of view is, and generally less likely to have had the time and taken the effort to be fully informed on the issue, whatever it is.
I think politicians are generally aware that the contents and especially the amendments and riders on the bill often have little to nothing to do with the title of the bill.
I don't think the bi-partisan supporters of "The Patriot Act" or those who have voted to re-authorize it since, think it has anything to do with patriotism.
Agreed. But not blindly with your position.
I think a lot of people who one could pretty easily demonstrate are in fact "blindly" agreeing with their "team" would argue that they are in fact very well-informed and carefully reasoned on the issues.
During the 2012 election I finally in exasperation began to add some political content to my Facebook page when a friend's wife kept posting hackneyed insta-gram memes multiple times a day saying breathlessly, "GUYS! Do your research on this stuff!!" Her research consisted of clicking the links provided daily by email from her favored candidate.
The majority of it had no substance with which to find disagreement, appeals to patriotism and generalized statements of the intentions of the opposition need no response. The ones that advocated a policy position were easily debunked with the typical misapplied statistics or the like. She had zero interest in any reply but "You sing it sister!"
I am convinced those insta-blurbs disseminated through social media accounts for the few point difference between the candidates.
There are instances where well-informed people of good conscience can come to opposing points of view. I would think that should happen most when the disagreement is about methods of dealing with an issue, not fundamental principles.
Last edited:
