Quidnon,
First, I apologize for calling you a troll. You are right that while I stand by calling you condescending (per the quotes below), derisive was not fair. That was overly aggressive on my part and I'm sorry for that. I know I can be quite condescending as well. One day I'll grow up on that front.
Accepted. And now bygones.
What I hope for you to understand is that it's extremely exasperating to continually try to get a reasoned response from someone who is crusading against the entire forum based on very little evidence while engaging in the exact sort of myopic and biased behavior you accuse others of embracing. That said, I will admit I was wrong in my own earlier characterization. You are just unusually partisan and set in your opinions, which is not inherently terrible, per se, but you can see why those of us who actually want to debate an issue find that unhelpful, right?
I can see why you might believe that is so, but I don't think we would likely agree on the details. It is my experience that true debates don't occur on the internet, and that it is rare that anyone who participates in political threads are there to challenge their own perspectives. Instead, most are there to either challenge the perspectives of whomever they consider their opponents or to seek to confirm their opinions. I was ignoring the poltical portions of the off-topic section altogether until I saw the thread asking for Trump voters. I came to present my position, and have only been attacked since. I don't expect to change anyone's mind.
I too have been a political animal for a long time and have read many authors more persuasive than you. My positions still evolve regularly and I am proud that I continue to be flexible in my thinking. But good for you for being so strong in your faith. Now back it up with some facts, please.
Why should I bother? If I do the research to find the 'facts', they will be dismissed by others as false or questionable, for any number of reasons. For the same reasons, likely, that I would question your own presentation of facts. Because news reporting cannot be trusted anymore, because statistics are not reliable facts, because the statements of professionals are dependent upon their assumptions. Because facts found on the internet are not always actually facts. If I dig all the way down to the root references, and they are indisputable; my interpretations of the consequences and/or conclusions about the meaning of said facts would be doubted. Honestly, I don't really understand why you spend the time.
Second, just because you ignored many posts in which I or others professed a reasoned opinion doesn't mean those posts don't exist. There are many examples, but here is the most recent one I can recall (in which you ignore Sol, despite him apparently being the most thoughtful of us):
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.
I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance. I think the past few years have proved me out on this one.
Your bias is showing. I stopped reading right here.
I highlighted the important part. That Sol felt that such a statement was enough to reject your original presumption that
Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance. Most Republicans do want that, but don't agree on the path taken thus far. We don't agree on what "decent" health insurance should look like, what "affordable" is in this context, or even what "health insurance" should mean. I can tell that Sol means well, and that you believe what you say. But in so many ways, what you believe to be true simply isn't so, and I have no reasonable path to convince you. It is quite like we live in different realities, and I'm so tired of having these kinds of "debates". I've had them for decades, and no one ever seems to really change their perspectives until reality smacks them in the face.
And another where you completely ignore me:
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...
Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
- There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
- Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
- Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
- Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
- This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
- Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.
*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.
**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.
To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief. I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.
Credit to you for admitting your view might be distorted from reality, but then we both know that statement was actually just more veiled condescension.
This excerpt is a wonderful example of my point above with Sol's quote. The statements by yourself I was responding to appear like they are from another reality altogether. Obviously, I didn't ignore you, either. Seems like an episode from Sliders. I could have responded to your post point by point; but really, why? You wouldn't believe me anyway.
I mean, you seriously haven't noticed the strong streak of libertarians here, for example?
Oh, I'm sure there are some here somewhere. But I haven't seen much in the way of libertarian arguments. Maybe Metric Mouse. So whatever libertarians there are on this forum, they must have already been conditioned to ignore the political threads in the off-topic section. Which is, in my own experience, telling in it's own way. Because libertarians tend to be a vocal lot. I suspect that threads about religion don't fare any better. If nothing else, I'd expect libertarians to be commenting on why Trump will be such a bad president, from a libertarian perspective. Haven't seen that either.
Plenty of conservative republicans too, though they may be less obvious since you haven't been around long. I myself am quite fiscally conservative and a small government advocate, which I constantly have to bring up since people like you think disliking Trump automatically means a person is a flaming liberal. And you seriously aren't familiar with the Huffington Post, for example?
Yes, I have heard of the HuffPost. I didn't know that they had a forum, though. Not that I would have bothered to join it if I was aware.
If you think we are anywhere close to harder left than that extremely well-known site (which is far from the hardest left site out there), you really need to read our posts more carefully and get out of your echo chamber and explore other sources. Listening to those you don't agree with is a virtue.
It might very well be, but you are displaying your own biases again. You don't appear any more virtuous than myself to myself. Even making such a statement sounds like virtue signaling to me.
You, on the other hand, have offered little to no credible evidence to back up your conservative views. We have offered reams to back up ours. That doesn't mean we are right and you are wrong, or that our sources are good ones, or that you should change your mind, but what value are you adding to the conversation when your contributions are only to completely dismiss our own?
I did not dismiss them, I've understood them far longer than I've been on this forum. These are not new arguments to me; I've encountered them, considered them, and found them wanting long ago. If you can present a new argument, I'll consider it; but again, you will have a hard row to hoe here. Mostly because I've been down this road so many times that I've named the rocks beside the road.
I would love for you to school us with your knowledge on the need to repeal the ACA at all costs, or why Trump's foreign policy moves have been shrewd, his cabinet picks wise, and his relationship with Russia unimportant. So far I haven't seen a single lick of evidence from you why you believe those things, which makes it pretty damn difficult to take you seriously at all.
My reasons for hating the ACA are detailed, and I have repeatedly expressed a willingness to go into such a detail, if you start another thread. I don't believe that such a topic belongs here, and your unwillingness to start such a thread befuddles me. As for Trump's foreign policy, I don't consider it wise, per se, just different; which might prove to be wise in time, or not. About Trump's cabinet picks, I likely know less about them than you do. My only comments about his picks so far has been about him using them to 'stir the pot' with the left. It actually appears like he is deliberately stoking outrage with one or two people "under consideration" only to switch to whomever he really wanted as the outrage really gets started, leaving the talking heads with a "wait, what?" kind of moment. I think it's funny. I'm not even sure that you ever understood
why I voted for Trump in the first place, even though I have stated it as well as I know how on several occasions. I
did not vote for Trump because I thought he would be a good president. I voted for Trump because I didn't want Clinton to gain presidential immunity. Maybe the United States will do well under Trump, maybe not. I don't know. Trump is unpredictable.