Wondering

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You ignored my original point (or maybe you proved my point yet again) and tried to make it what it was not.
I refuted it with facts.
Then, you seemed to purposefully twist my subsequent point.
I don't consider a robust defense of natural rights to be "extremist." I disagree with your point.

That’s ok. We can talk about what you’re speaking.
Yes. That's what a discussion is.
Yes. I also think the majority of Republicans do. Overall, I will say the majority of Americans support such things.
Except the Democrats don't support those things. And then roughly half (or 65-70% in California) of our country vote for those Democrat politicians. It isn't "leaning left" to compromise on core values. Compromise is for annual budgets.

You can keep weaponizing and putting down my reasonableness all you want.
Your self-described "reasonableness" is just enabling more bad actors. It doesn't seem reasonable at all.

It still doesn’t change how, to me, you consistently display your blindness with your apparently, newfound love fest, with the conservative party.
What a joke. I don't "love" any party. I support rational and pragmatic people regardless of party. One party has largely moved away from the core principles that really matter over the past decade plus. I'll remind you again that when the neo-cons were dominating the right I did not support them and I still stand by that.

The data you presented only shows one thing.
And what is it that you think it shows?
All the rest is nothing more than the narrative anyone wants to present.
Your reasoning is not making much sense to me.
 
I don't consider a robust defense of natural rights to be "extremist." I disagree with your point.
I never said anything of the like and anyone reasonable wouldn’t ever say such as thing. Why do you keep doing that? Who are you arguing with? Certainly not me.
Except the Democrats don't support those things.
…says the right narrative political machine.

Insert another issue and party and it’s nothing more than political rhetoric. Traditional politics tactics at its core. It’s the simplest, stupidest thing, and yet somehow the most effective trick in the book! We’re all still childish at heart!

Round and round we go!
And what is it that you think it shows?
To be honest, I don’t know! What’s the criteria for “extreme voting” on either side? On the other hand, what’s the criteria for “moderate voting” on either side? Is this suppose to be based on what is “traditionally” left or right ideology in modern politics? Doesn’t seem like much of any data here. I’m truly confused.
 
Last edited:
The moderates in that party, if there are any left, are either hiding from or hanging out with the extreme wing. Meanwhile there are plenty of sensible folks on the "conservative" side.

Regardless, we actually agree there. You actually further prove my point, but just choose to see one side. Unfortunately, it’s the game we’ve made them play more and more the last 25 or so years; I still think with the help of 24-hour “news”.
 
To be honest, I don’t know! What’s the criteria for “extreme voting” on either side? On the other hand, what’s the criteria for “moderate voting” on either side?
https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#ideology
They talk about how this doesn't actually track ideology in an abstract sense: It actually tracks how often members write bills with their political bloc.

"Moderate" voting under this methodology is: Does the member cross the aisle to craft or promote legislation.

"In a nutshell, Members of Congress who cosponsor similar sets of bills will get scores close together, while Members of Congress who sponsor different sets of bills will have scores far apart. Members of Congress with similar political views will tend to cosponsor the same set of bills, or bills by the same set of authors, and inversely Members of Congress with different political views will tend to cosponsor different bills."

The outliers are people that only work with their own party ... or rarely with others -- technically the bounds are undefined; the people on the extremes could have worked dozens of times with members of the opposite party but the people in the middle might have done so thousands of times and it would produce the same result. The scale of the axes in the chart is unlabeled.

There is also a subtle problem in that people who introduce fewer bills will tend toward the center faster even when working across the aisle less. Someone near the top left (/right) corner can have collaborated an equal number of times as someone in the bottom right (/left) but they will weight away from the center simply by working more often with their own party. This doesn't actually say anything about their willingness to work across the aisle: It could indicate few opportunities, a newer member of congress, fewer members of their own party in congress (although I think the timeline of the chart does result in a relatively even split), less interest in (co-)sponsoring bills (not everyone in congress is cut out for that job), less interest in working with other members of congress regardless of party -- that's just off the top of my head thinking for as long as this took to type. I'm sure everyone could come up with other reasons.

The underlying data is probably useful for something, but the chart itself isn't a fantastic presentation and it's demonstrably prone to wild misinterpretation, even according to its authors.
 
I see. Thank you. You’ve articulated very-well more than a couple random thoughts that swirled in my head as I looked at the screenshot of the data and wasn’t really sure at all what I was looking at.
 
I'd say this makes a case for being served data as opposed to being able to freely discover it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...tics-has-been-losing-more-often-than-winning/
I read it as "Democrats/lean D" either aren't happy with the way their party is running things or they watch/read sources that lie to them, because they are, in fact, getting what they voted for.

By contrast, "Republican/lean R" saw that they were getting what they voted for with Trump (especially after his first year in office) and now clearly see the big loser that the Biden-Harris administration actually is (as well as the state and local Ds they voted for).
 
..and what it looks like to be a democrat today.

View attachment 100043View attachment 100044

I haven’t read the articles, but maybe you’re proving their points?

Regardless, you’re certainly helping and further promoting the f-ing ugliness of politics at anyone’s expense and it most definitely doesn’t paint you in a nice light. Is this what is acceptable in your orbit? It’s the 60’s all over again. How did that history workout? What did that history teach us?

On the other hand, I can take a joke (that’s the problem with typed words from people we don’t know).
 
Last edited:
Its almost like we are watching the prequel to a dystopian science fiction movie, but this isn't fiction and we are living it right now.

Words have consequences and we need to treat each other with more respect.

JR
 
Words have consequences
Indeed. It took years, but Alex Jones is finally being forced to reckon with the consequences of his words. Paul Pelosi unfortunately got his skull cracked because GOP mouthpieces were not mindful of the consequences of their words. Folks have been killed in synagogues and schools and Wal-Marts as a consequence of the words of right-wing agitators.

You've spoken right to the heart of what I'm wondering in this thread: When will rank and file Republicans decide to make violence-inciting conservative pols face the consequence of losing their vote? When do generally decent conservatives decide that being in league with anti-semites, insurrectionists and racists is just not worth it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top