Posted by tangplay on 8/2/2019 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/2/2019 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 11:01:00 AM (view original):
First of all, cite your sources. That 80% is nothing close to what I remember. Second, there are plenty of reasons people dislike/suspect opposing politicians that have nothing to do with race.

If you think Obama wasn't born in America, you are a racist. The end.

There is no logic that supports this assertion. Ay all.

You are correct, nothing but pure racism could explain why people think Obama wasn't born in America. You honestly believe people question it if Obama is white?

People want to believe negative or harmful assertions about people who disagree with themselves. We automatically assume people who disagree with us are ignorant, stupid, and bad. So you don't have to be racist to buy into birtherism once it's been brought up. You just have to dislike Obama's policies, and you are likely to want to believe.

I don't think any scientific data exists on this, but based on my personal polling of more liberally-inclined friends, more self-identified Democrats agree with statement A than statement B below, unless B is asked immediately before A.

A) Trump was personally involved in directing collusion with the Russians during the 2016 general election
B) Trump is smart enough to direct collusion with the Russians during the 2016 general election

In a sense this isn't a surprising result. Self-identified Democrats don't like Trump or his politics, so their picture of him is that he's not smart and he probably does bad things. But it's an obvious logical fallacy. It's possible for B to be true without A. It is impossible for A to be true without B. B is obviously more likely than A. But it just feels wrong if you hate the guy's politics, so that's not what people believe. It's a lot like the Linda problem - a result of the basic automated mental heuristic of representativeness. If my picture of Trump is that he's bad and stupid, I will respond affirmatively to his being both bad and stupid. If my picture of Obama is that he is bad, I'm ready to believe almost any bad thing I hear about him (like that he falsified his birth certificate), even if it doesn't make logical sense.

Posted by tangplay on 8/2/2019 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 9:29:00 AM (view original):
The Democratic assumption of moral high ground on issues of race, gender etc. is extremely artificial. Frankly, the current progressive-driven attitudes and policy preferences espoused by most of the Democratic candidates are terrible. They're contrary to basic principles of human nature and doomed to fail. And perhaps more importantly, the underlying psychological principle is very popular right now. I've read about it in at least 3 or 4 psychology and behavioral economics books in the past 6 months alone. So maybe lots of rank-and-file progressives don't know, and feel like they're doing the right things. But I guarantee you party leaders with research teams know how damaging the views they continue to embrace really are. There is no moral high ground for them.

Basically - and stop me if you've heard this before - the human mind is hardwired for what is popularly called "us-theming" - creating ingroups and outgroups with inherent, unconscious preference for people who are "like us." What's more, we can make those groups basically anything we like, people will still show an unconscious preference for their own group. Somebody just has to tell us the groups exist. One of the fairly famous studies of this involved having a group of test subjects roll a die. Those who rolled even numbers were put in one group, those who rolled odds in another. When asked to distribute resources among other participants, study participants favored the ingroup. In this case the groupings are obviously arbitrary, the participants know they're based on nothing but random chance. But it's built in. This kind of study has been repeated ad nauseum. If we tell people they're in a group, they will show a subconscious preference for that group, even if they wouldn't show a conscious preference.

This is why the so-called "identity politics" are so damaging. It doesn't matter how benevolent your intentions are. If you focus on differences in race or gender, you inherently group people by those characteristics. When you frame things in this way you automatically make people in each group feel that they will have to give something up in order for the other groups to improve. The effective framework is to draw bigger circles - don't talk about groups, talk about making things better for everyone. Virtually all of the most effective civil rights leaders in history have understood this. MLK, Mandela, Gandhi - their speeches and writings are full of "bigger circle" analogies, asking for everyone to be treated well, often without mentioning their specific groups at all. You can't fight subconscious human nature. The us-them response is part of the automatic response system, it's not governed by conscious thought. The best intentions in the world can't overcome it. Identity politics can't work. At least not with humans.

I am against Identity Politics too dahs... BUT this isn't a Dem thing... Trump uses identity politics all the time.

That's true. Like I said, I've voted for a lot of Democrats in the past few elections. I voted for Hillary, then last year I voted for Tim Kaine again for Senate. And in my senatorial election before that I voted for Diane Feinstein. But I still continue to identify as a Republican, and certainly a conservative, since I think there is more hope of that party moving to a place I can support. Right now the Democratic party is being driven by hardcore progressives who are into big government, identity politics, and increased entitlements. Odds are the next Democratic nominee for POTUS, if it isn't Joe Biden, will be the most liberal on the contemporary political spectrum since FDR. Right now the Republican party is being driven by xenophobic nationalists, but on average these voters are much older than the progressive driving force for Dems leftward movement. I think it's a lot more likely that in 2028 Republicans run somebody who looks like John McCain than that Democrats run somebody who looks like Joe Biden.

TL/DR - I'm defending conservatism, not Trump.

I hope your speculation about the "odds are" is wrong. Moving too far too liberal at this moment will likely make it much easier for Trump.
I don't think ALL the dem candidates are the "Most liberal" since FDR. I don't think Gabbard is. And I'm not convinced Mayor Pete is that liberal generally.
As I support Tulsi in 2020. And as I'm a small gov't advocate GENERALLY, I do hope we don't end up with a Sanders or a Williamson at the head of the ticket. Because it's NOT about my vote. It's about all those independents!

the majority of the country want a step by step normal person who will bring back norms.
the person most like that is biden.
he may not have the best judgement but he has proven heart and loyalty and friendship.
and he knows the way things work.
i think people believe that he is the only one to get at least some things done bipartisan
and feel comfortable with him as a person.
2020 comfort zone.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 7:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/2/2019 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/2/2019 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 11:01:00 AM (view original):
First of all, cite your sources. That 80% is nothing close to what I remember. Second, there are plenty of reasons people dislike/suspect opposing politicians that have nothing to do with race.

If you think Obama wasn't born in America, you are a racist. The end.

There is no logic that supports this assertion. Ay all.

You are correct, nothing but pure racism could explain why people think Obama wasn't born in America. You honestly believe people question it if Obama is white?

People want to believe negative or harmful assertions about people who disagree with themselves. We automatically assume people who disagree with us are ignorant, stupid, and bad. So you don't have to be racist to buy into birtherism once it's been brought up. You just have to dislike Obama's policies, and you are likely to want to believe.

I don't think any scientific data exists on this, but based on my personal polling of more liberally-inclined friends, more self-identified Democrats agree with statement A than statement B below, unless B is asked immediately before A.

A) Trump was personally involved in directing collusion with the Russians during the 2016 general election
B) Trump is smart enough to direct collusion with the Russians during the 2016 general election

In a sense this isn't a surprising result. Self-identified Democrats don't like Trump or his politics, so their picture of him is that he's not smart and he probably does bad things. But it's an obvious logical fallacy. It's possible for B to be true without A. It is impossible for A to be true without B. B is obviously more likely than A. But it just feels wrong if you hate the guy's politics, so that's not what people believe. It's a lot like the Linda problem - a result of the basic automated mental heuristic of representativeness. If my picture of Trump is that he's bad and stupid, I will respond affirmatively to his being both bad and stupid. If my picture of Obama is that he is bad, I'm ready to believe almost any bad thing I hear about him (like that he falsified his birth certificate), even if it doesn't make logical sense.

But birtherism is a race-based criticism. I believe it is perpetuated by Obama's status as an African-American.

People said that Obama was a Muslim, a communist, and make up lies about his policies and made up several other conspiracies about him. However, Birtherism is different, because it doesn't happen to someone of a different race. No one is saying that a white President was born in Africa.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/2/2019 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/2/2019 9:29:00 AM (view original):
The Democratic assumption of moral high ground on issues of race, gender etc. is extremely artificial. Frankly, the current progressive-driven attitudes and policy preferences espoused by most of the Democratic candidates are terrible. They're contrary to basic principles of human nature and doomed to fail. And perhaps more importantly, the underlying psychological principle is very popular right now. I've read about it in at least 3 or 4 psychology and behavioral economics books in the past 6 months alone. So maybe lots of rank-and-file progressives don't know, and feel like they're doing the right things. But I guarantee you party leaders with research teams know how damaging the views they continue to embrace really are. There is no moral high ground for them.

Basically - and stop me if you've heard this before - the human mind is hardwired for what is popularly called "us-theming" - creating ingroups and outgroups with inherent, unconscious preference for people who are "like us." What's more, we can make those groups basically anything we like, people will still show an unconscious preference for their own group. Somebody just has to tell us the groups exist. One of the fairly famous studies of this involved having a group of test subjects roll a die. Those who rolled even numbers were put in one group, those who rolled odds in another. When asked to distribute resources among other participants, study participants favored the ingroup. In this case the groupings are obviously arbitrary, the participants know they're based on nothing but random chance. But it's built in. This kind of study has been repeated ad nauseum. If we tell people they're in a group, they will show a subconscious preference for that group, even if they wouldn't show a conscious preference.

This is why the so-called "identity politics" are so damaging. It doesn't matter how benevolent your intentions are. If you focus on differences in race or gender, you inherently group people by those characteristics. When you frame things in this way you automatically make people in each group feel that they will have to give something up in order for the other groups to improve. The effective framework is to draw bigger circles - don't talk about groups, talk about making things better for everyone. Virtually all of the most effective civil rights leaders in history have understood this. MLK, Mandela, Gandhi - their speeches and writings are full of "bigger circle" analogies, asking for everyone to be treated well, often without mentioning their specific groups at all. You can't fight subconscious human nature. The us-them response is part of the automatic response system, it's not governed by conscious thought. The best intentions in the world can't overcome it. Identity politics can't work. At least not with humans.

I am against Identity Politics too dahs... BUT this isn't a Dem thing... Trump uses identity politics all the time.

That's true. Like I said, I've voted for a lot of Democrats in the past few elections. I voted for Hillary, then last year I voted for Tim Kaine again for Senate. And in my senatorial election before that I voted for Diane Feinstein. But I still continue to identify as a Republican, and certainly a conservative, since I think there is more hope of that party moving to a place I can support. Right now the Democratic party is being driven by hardcore progressives who are into big government, identity politics, and increased entitlements. Odds are the next Democratic nominee for POTUS, if it isn't Joe Biden, will be the most liberal on the contemporary political spectrum since FDR. Right now the Republican party is being driven by xenophobic nationalists, but on average these voters are much older than the progressive driving force for Dems leftward movement. I think it's a lot more likely that in 2028 Republicans run somebody who looks like John McCain than that Democrats run somebody who looks like Joe Biden.

TL/DR - I'm defending conservatism, not Trump.

You are going to substantiate your claim that progressives automatically believe more in identity politics than moderate democrats, but I won't deny that it could be true. Bernie is more progressive than Kamala, but Kamala believes more in identity politics.

Thanks for clarifying your position though, and I do agree that Republicans are more likely to go more moderate in the future (we should all hope), but I generally believe that Democrats are more likely to be the party that unites people rather than divides people. Obama proved that it's possible. I think a majority of the Democratic field today are working towards unity (although that could change as more support reparations).

Posted by laramiebob on 8/2/2019 8:10:00 PM (view original):
I hope your speculation about the "odds are" is wrong. Moving too far too liberal at this moment will likely make it much easier for Trump.
I don't think ALL the dem candidates are the "Most liberal" since FDR. I don't think Gabbard is. And I'm not convinced Mayor Pete is that liberal generally.
As I support Tulsi in 2020. And as I'm a small gov't advocate GENERALLY, I do hope we don't end up with a Sanders or a Williamson at the head of the ticket. Because it's NOT about my vote. It's about all those independents!

Gabbard definitely is. Pete isn't, Delaney isn't. the Colorado boys aren't.

I agree with Mayor Pete's statement about moderates right now. Trump will call Joe Biden a socialist. No matter who the Democrats nominate, they will be called socialist.

That's likely accurate Tangy. Trump will call names. Socialist will be one of them. So will "Plugs" and "sleepy Joe" if He's the candidate.

How do you figure Tulsi as a "most left candidate since FDR"? She's likely the most "right" of the entire field on International affairs and her stance on the Military is downright centrist.

Posted by laramiebob on 8/3/2019 12:06:00 PM (view original):
That's likely accurate Tangy. Trump will call names. Socialist will be one of them. So will "Plugs" and "sleepy Joe" if He's the candidate.

How do you figure Tulsi as a "most left candidate since FDR"? She's likely the most "right" of the entire field on International affairs and her stance on the Military is downright centrist.

I might be wrong on Tulsi, but to me it seems like she is running with the progressive crowd.

Who isn't? They are all running with the progressive crowd.

^ Point proven....

BTW, Joe Biden, Delaney, Bennet, Tim Ryan, and Klobuchar are not progressive

Posted by tangplay on 8/3/2019 2:49:00 PM (view original):
^ Point proven....

BTW, Joe Biden, Delaney, Bennet, Tim Ryan, and Klobuchar are not progressive

^ Agreed......

They are perhaps the last of the progressive moderates. Way too progressive for me.

Posted by DougOut on 8/3/2019 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/3/2019 2:49:00 PM (view original):
^ Point proven....

BTW, Joe Biden, Delaney, Bennet, Tim Ryan, and Klobuchar are not progressive

^ Agreed......

They are perhaps the last of the progressive moderates. Way too progressive for me.

Why are they "too progressive?"

Is it because they aren't racists and homophobes and xenophobes and religious nutbars?

No, Seriously...

dummy

Check out this post-bumping by dum o rama.

Pathetic.

Posted by tangplay on 8/3/2019 2:49:00 PM (view original):
^ Point proven....

BTW, Joe Biden, Delaney, Bennet, Tim Ryan, and Klobuchar are not progressive

And of those Tangy, the ONLY one I can consider a vote for POTUS is Biden, and ONLY then IF He chooses a younger, eminently qualified VP Candidate.

BTW. That's the exact SAME criteria I had for McCain when He ran. You're old, choose someone younger and eminently qualified. He failed miserably (Palin).
He lost my vote. It's the same for Biden with me. I could possibly hold my nose and vote for him but ONLY IF His VP candidate is a good one!