We really need to start having a serious conversation about this....

[AnalogPackrat]

Before Trump Republicans were very much in favour of immigration from Mexico, because it was good for business (cheap labour).

That was a subset of wealthy elites, not simply "Republicans." I saw a lot of that with the wealthy leftist elites in CA. Legal immigration is no longer a partisan issue.

"Woke" wasn't a thing back then, but even Barry Goldwater supported much of the civil rights legislation.

As did Nixon and plenty of others on the conservative side, especially those born in the 40s and 50s. Ask my father.

Abortion wasn't an issue of debate in 1960. There is no public policy statement on record by JFK on the issue.

JFK was a practicing Catholic (moreso than Pelosi or Biden).

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Military enlistment may be an expression of a feeling of patriotic duty, but it may also be an indicator of a lack of other employment opportunities.

Another tired old chestnut based on assumptions. When will you admit that what you think you know about my country is mostly a bunch of bunk from questionable sources? I have two cousins who served since c.2004 in the Army and one who joined the USAF c.2002 and recently went in the reserves while he flies commercial. I trust their insights into our armed forces more than The Guardian or whatever else you read. They've all "been there." Here are other bubble-poppers:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...hy-but-their-findings-arent-what-many-assume/
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2023/02/14/mythbusters-breaking-down-the-myths-of-military-service/

 

[hodad]

Here are other bubble-poppers:

Yes!! clearancejobs.com is where I go for all my favorite news facts!!!!!!!! So much more trustworthy than the Guardian and NY Times and the rest of the lamestream media!!!!!!!!!!

mostly a bunch of bunk from questionable sources?

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AnalogPackrat]

ChatGPT can solve this argument and save everyone a ton of time.

Did you actually have ChatGPT do this? Because if you did, it clearly shows the bias that has been discussed widely.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide which party they believe is worse. There is no right or wrong answer, and both parties have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Actually, when one party controls the government and uses it to undermine the foundations of Liberty there is a "right or wrong answer."

Here are some specific examples of how Republicans and Democrats differ on issues:

• The environment: Republicans tend to be more supportive of fossil fuels and less supportive of environmental regulations. Democrats tend to be more supportive of renewable energy and environmental regulations.

Gross oversimplification. Why is there no mention of Democrat's decades long (mostly successful) fight against nuclear energy, for example? Republicans aren't against everything but fossil fuels. They're pragmatic about energy requirements and realistic about costs and timeframes to develop alternatives that actually work at scale.

• Social programs: Republicans tend to be more supportive of cuts to social programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats tend to be more supportive of maintaining or expanding social programs.

5th grade answer. Republicans expect adults in good health and of working age to put forth effort to support themselves and their families/dependents. Government safety nets are for short term assistance, not a multi-generational lifestyle. Conservatives (and Libertarians and Classical Liberals) don't want government interference in all aspects of our lives by huge, inefficient, and unaccountable bureaucracies.

• The rights of minorities: Republicans tend to be more supportive of policies that discriminate against minorities, such as voter ID laws

Secure and trustworthy elections are a major pillar of the Republic. It is therefore necessary to ensure the integrity of the vote. Voter ID is a simple, cheap, and effective part of election integrity. IDs are required for many other purposes and the left never complains that those are discriminatory.

• and restrictions on abortion rights.

Twisted logic. Abortion reduces the minority population and many conservatives believe there should be limits on it (prior to 12-16 weeks is common).

• Democrats tend to be more supportive of policies that protect the rights of minorities, such as same-sex marriage and affirmative action.

W.r.t. same-sex marriage that was true 25+ years ago. Not so much now. Affirmative action is racial descrimination.

• The economy: Republicans tend to be more supportive of policies that favor the wealthy, such as tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of the financial industry. Democrats tend to be more supportive of policies that favor the middle class, such as raising the minimum wage and expanding access to healthcare.

5th grade answer and inaccurate. Democrats want bigger government which means higher taxes to pay for it. Conservatives and others want smaller government. Congress has the power of the purse and that is one way to reduce government--starve it of funds. Republicans want people to decide what to do with most of the money they earn rather than filtering it (wastefully) through government first. Democrats are losing middle class support with their high tax rates and crazy policies that negatively affect them.

• Personal freedom: Republicans tend to be more supportive of policies that restrict personal freedom,

Hahahaha!

• such as book bans

user 37518 handled that one.

• and restrictions on abortion rights.

When is the baby a person with rights? At that point it isn't simply "the mother's body" being affected by the decision.

• Democrats tend to be more supportive of policies that protect personal freedom, such as legalizing marijuana

Such a huge win!

• and same-sex marriage.

Already responded to this.

Where's the other stuff? You know, vaccine mandates, extended pointless lock downs, attacks on freedom of speech, gun control, gas appliance bans, gas car bans, diesel truck bans, stupid CFL mandates (20 years ago), small-business-killing regulations, and on and on.

These are just some examples

A cherry picked and twisted subset exhibiting bias.

of how Republicans and Democrats differ on issues. There are many other

more important

issues that could be discussed, and both parties have their own unique perspectives on each issue.

Laughably lame.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yes!! clearancejobs.com is where I go for all my favorite news facts!!!!!!!! So much more trustworthy than the Guardian and NY Times and the rest of the lamestream media!!!!!!!!!!

What makes the two sources questionable? Several of us have provided examples of the bias exhibited by NYT, The Guardian, etc. Put up or shut up.

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try harder. living sounds asserted something with no basis in fact. Where's your data or logical reasoning to back this up?

 

[Matador]

Look at this elitist, biased, left-wing nuttery that is ChatGPT!!!!!
-----------------
The Democrats are destroying the country because they are trying to turn it into a socialist hellhole. They want to take away our guns, our freedom, and our way of life. They are trying to open our borders to all the illegal aliens and terrorists, and they are trying to give them free healthcare and education. They are trying to destroy our economy by raising taxes and regulations. They are trying to destroy our culture by promoting diversity and multiculturalism. They are trying to destroy our families by promoting abortion and same-sex marriage. They are trying to destroy our country by any means necessary, and we must stop them.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Look at this elitist, biased, left-wing nuttery that is ChatGPT!!!!!
-----------------
The Democrats are destroying the country because they are trying to turn it into a socialist hellhole. They want to take away our guns, our freedom, and our way of life. They are trying to open our borders to all the illegal aliens and terrorists, and they are trying to give them free healthcare and education. They are trying to destroy our economy by raising taxes and regulations. They are trying to destroy our culture by promoting diversity and multiculturalism. They are trying to destroy our families by promoting abortion and same-sex marriage. They are trying to destroy our country by any means necessary, and we must stop them.

Did you invoke DAN to achieve that?

And be sure to avoid responding to any of my refutations. Keep dodging, deflecting, flying off on tangents, and exercising the catalog of fallacies. It's very revealing.

 

[crazydoc]

 

[hodad]

Where's your data or logical reasoning to back this up?

Where's your evidence that something called clearancejobs is a reliable news source? I can give you multiple examples of bias from NYT--cutting many different ways--but they still hold themselves, and are held to, far higher journalistic standards than I dare say anyone at clearancejobs has even heard of. NYT has a long and storied--though certainly not unblemished--history, and it has reportorial standards about sourcing and other matters that are openly accessible to the public. Can you point me to any information on the journalistic standards of clearancejobs.com?

EDIT: Oh, I see now. The author is a microblogger, so obviously an excellent and experienced journalist.

 

[Matador]

And be sure to avoid responding to any of my refutations. Keep dodging, deflecting, flying off on tangents, and exercising the catalog of fallacies.

I definitely will!

And I'll make it known to everyone reading that Texas Sharpshooting isn't a skill one is born with: it requires dedication, a steady hand on the keyboard, and daily practice!

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Where's your evidence that something called clearancejobs is a reliable news source?

Well, what motivation would exist for a site that lists security clearance required jobs to lie about this? Most people join the military to serve their country and fellow citizens.

Living sounds asserted that the JFK quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" was somehow still owned by current Democrats and at odds with his incorrect assertion that all republicans are selfish "greed is good" types.

I showed data that most military (volunteer) enlistment biases toward red states and not blue and that polls of active military and veterans show a skew to the right for all age groups. He responded by implying these volunteers may have had no other opportunity. I posted information to the contrary. While there almost certainly are some cases where this is true, it is nowhere near what the NYT asserts.

The training, regimentation, and other sacrifices made by our service members are not some kind of honey pot alternative to other jobs.

I can give you multiple examples of bias from NYT--cutting many different ways--but they still hold themselves, and are held to, far higher journalistic standards than I dare say anyone at clearancejobs has even heard of.

Biased almost always one way.

NYT has a long and storied--though certainly not unblemished--history, and it has reportorial standards about sourcing and other matters that are openly accessible to the public.

Yet their standards have deteriorated and various scandals have reduced the paper to mostly junk.

Can you point me to any information on the journalistic standards of clearancejobs.com?

Any proof that the pieces I linked are false?

EDIT: Oh, I see now. The author is a microblogger, so obviously an excellent and experienced journalist.

What information do you have that the author has not produced a reliable piece?

edited to add...seems legitimate to me.

 

[hodad]

Biased almost always one way.

Perhaps I should bring up Judith Miller here, and her invaluable assistance to Bush/Cheney in helping them lie their way into the Iraq War.

******


Oh, hey, that writer dude is a prolific military cartoonist too! Wow!!!!

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Perhaps I should bring up Judith Miller here, and her invaluable assistance to Bush/Cheney in helping them lie their way into the Iraq War.

Yes, I remember 20 years ago. I was in my mid 30s and well aware. I've stated my opinion on Neocons. I opposed the Iraq invasion. How many Democrats also supported the invasion? NYT was not unique in that regard. Hardly infallible. That and the abominable USA PATRIOT Act are two things that Bernie and I agreed on.

******


Oh, hey, that writer dude is a prolific military cartoonist too! Wow!!!!

I figured you'd take the ridicule route since you have nothing of substance to back your empty rant. A sense of humor is a sign of intelligence.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

View attachment 106860

Selfie?

 

[living sounds]

Living sounds asserted that the JFK quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" was somehow still owned by current Democrats and at odds with his incorrect assertion that all republicans are selfish "greed is good" types.

It seems the fundamental misunderstanding here ist that I talk about ordinary people. I am talking about the moneyed interests behind the Republican party, the influence peddlers, media tycoons, etc. who develop these wedge issues people like you perceive as their idological core. They have successfully sold their hogwash idea over many decades that their freedom to make money without limits at the expense of the rest of society is somehow essential to upholding peoples freedoms. Naomi Oreskes has just released her new book about this (I will read it, you surely won't).

But you can be damn sure that Trump has never done anything for anyone else than Trump. There are good people who actually believe the Ayn BS. But there are many who just profit from selling this, or selling anti-abortion or anti-homo-woke-whatever just to keep you from actually voting your material interests.

And don't get me this "you don't understand my country" nonsense -again. You don't understand it yourself, otherwise you would have long grasped what I wrote in the above paragraphs.

I rest my case.

I'm starting to think we should close the brewery, this has sadly become a breading (brewing?) ground for hard-right conspiracy stuff.

 

[hodad]

I figured you'd take the ridicule route since you have nothing of substance to back your empty rant. A sense of humor is a sign of intelligence.

I simply find it interesting that your biases create so much distrust for certain media outlets that you dismiss them out of hand, and yet you blindly accept something written by a cartooning microblogger on a jobs website. I personally don't fully trust either one, but hey, if you want to trust any random source that says what you want to hear, then be my guest.

And just because he draws cartoons, it doesn't mean he's funny. (EDIT: I did some research & based on a sample size of one cartoon.....not funny.)

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It seems the fundamental misunderstanding here ist that I talk about ordinary people. I am talking about the moneyed interests behind the Republican party, the influence peddlers, media tycoons, etc. who develop these wedge issues people like you perceive as their idological core.

That is not what you wrote or what you meant when you said "the market fundamentalist Right." If it is, then you need to improve your communication skills.

They have successfully sold their hogwash idea over many decades that their freedom to make money without limits at the expense of the rest of society is somehow essential to upholding peoples freedoms.

Being around people on the right and the left I can assure you that your assumptions about the way people here think are wrong.

Naomi Oreskes has just released her new book about this (I will read it, you surely won't).

Never heard of her. I might read it if you'll read something by Thomas Sowell or maybe John Lott.

But you can be damn sure that Trump has never done anything for anyone else than Trump.

I'm familiar with the caricature painted by his opponents after he ran for president.

There are good people who actually believe the Ayn BS. But there are many who just profit from selling this, or selling anti-abortion or anti-homo-woke-whatever just to keep you from actually voting your material interests.

Same on the left with Kendi, DiAngelo, and so many others. But that's freedom of speech and the press. You get the good, the bad, and the ugly along with the snake oil and charlatans.

And don't get me this "you don't understand my country" nonsense -again. You don't understand it yourself, otherwise you would have long grasped what I wrote in the above paragraphs.

Is that a circular argument or another self-referential appeal to authority? Your display of hubris and ego are duly noted and I laughed out loud.

I rest my case.

LOL. You haven't made any case.

I'm starting to think we should close the brewery, this has sadly become a breading (brewing?) ground for hard-right conspiracy stuff.

Nothing hard right or conspiracy-theory in anything that I've said here. But I will note the typical authoritarian anti-free speech "solution" of censorship again comes from the left after they lose the argument.

 

[crazydoc]

Selfie?

No. For some reason after reading through the last few pages of this thread, the phrase "red faced fistwaving" popped into my head and I googled it.
Here's another, if you liked that one:

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I simply find it interesting that your biases create so much distrust for certain media outlets that you dismiss them out of hand,

You misunderstand. My biases against certain outlets is based on my experience reading them and comparing their "facts" and "findings" to other sources. I once read and mostly trusted some of these outlets. When an outlet writes total rubbish about a topic with which I have direct and extensive knowledge, I become suspicious. I found the same problems with some pieces in The Economist back in the 90s (when it was far less left-leaning).

and yet you blindly accept something written by a cartooning microblogger on a jobs website.

Because I see no evidence for ulterior motive. And I linked a second article that corroborates his view. I also have known quite a few people who served and none did it because the had no other option, nor have they indicated that this is a common reason for people signing up.

I personally don't fully trust either one, but hey, if you want to trust any random source that says what you want to hear, then be my guest.

I made my judgement, you made yours. But you have zero reason to question what I linked (written by people with direct military experience) and prefer to believe a journalist without it.

And just because he draws cartoons, it doesn't mean he's funny. (EDIT: I did some research & based on a sample size of one cartoon.....not funny.)

There's no accounting for taste. You probably dislike Dilbert and The Babylon Bee, too. I can't watch SNL or the current crop of late night hosts, but apparently someone thinks they're hilarious.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

No. For some reason after reading through the last few pages of this thread, the phrase "red faced fistwaving" popped into my head and I googled it.
Here's another, if you liked that one:

View attachment 106867

I'm not red faced or waving my fist. Maybe you're projecting. And I'm not a big supporter of Greene. But keep piling on those fallacies. It's impressive.

 

[living sounds]

No. For some reason after reading through the last few pages of this thread, the phrase "red faced fistwaving" popped into my head and I googled it.

It's certainly no serious conversation...