Party over Country
I freely took the oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution back in August of 1981, and to my knowledge, no one has relieved me of that oath. I distinctly remember my oath of enlistment, and NO WHERE in there did I:
“……solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Democratic and Republican parties against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”
On a recent seed on fact checking, I found that most could discuss the topic with a fair degree of sanity, honesty, and yes civility. So what the hell is causing people to be so tribal?
I’ve voted on both sides of the aisle for the majority of my life, and I can’t understand for the life of me party line nor single issue voters.
- I’m a hunter, and I’m all for the 2nd Amendment, but I’m also all in on finding solutions towards common sense gun legislation. Let’s start with limits on magazine size.
- I don’t care one bit how a person prays, but why do so many think others have to pray and believe like they do?
- LGBT community…… You don’t like them…? I’d bet money they don’t like you either. Leave each other the hell alone!
- Abortion….. I’d not wish any woman to have one, but like someone recently said. If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at your local Jiffy lube.
Are the single issue voters where the tribal politics start, or is it something else?
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Is it the profit driven division tactics by the talking heads responsible for our tribal politics today, or something else?
Dear Friend FLYNAVY!: Great question.
Political discourse has devolved into sound byte noise.
We are Americans all.
We can and must do a better job about being adults in how we address each other, and topics of interest.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to One and All.
Enoch.
IMO a contributor to the divisions is that everyday, ordinary people don't matter anymore. I think most of the people of the United States still believe in America. People want to feel like their participation in America makes a difference, no matter how small. If people are going to be disregarded and discarded, what's the point in trying?
The oath I took was a bit different....
Same as the officer oath, it is used for civilian employees of the Federal government also.....
I don't know if it completely responsible, but it obviously is a huge factor in driving the emotional rhetoric....
So you're saying that they know what buttons to push.....
Is there any hope in getting people to understand that they are having their buttons pushed?
I doubt it... It's been going on since the late 1890's. Joseph Pulitzer was the first to take propaganda mainstream. And it's been an essential part of media ever since.....
And he used it to get us into a war also..... One heck of a coincidence? I don't think so....
Loss of critical thinking skills, or am I thinking that there was something there that never was?
All I know is that our country is WAY better than this......
IT goes back alot further than that. The Jefferson/Madison linked press was nothing if not a propaganda machine set in motion against Washington/Hamilton.
Irresponsible right wing media has pretty much destroyed the concept of non partisan political dialogue in America.
MSNBC started out non partisan, and they were basically an adjunct of middle of the road NBC news for a quite a few years. Eventually they had noticed how successful Fox News had become by being entirely partisan (conservative) and MSNBC set themselves up as the liberal alternative to Fox.
In the early 1990's Rush Limbaugh went national. His popularity took off when he made a crusade out of destroying the Clintons. Rush became a phenomena in talk radio. Eventually there were dozens of Rush Limbaugh imitators, some nationally syndicated and some local. Many of these programs are irresponsible and often fact free or questionable. Then there are the Breitbarts and Infowars and Gateway Pundits which have infected millions of minds with false, misleading and sometimes inflammatory content. There really isnt an equivalent to this on the left.
Donald Trump never could have got the Democratic nomination, even if he spouted "leftist" doctrine in the primaries and launched a "liberal populist" crusade. He would have had few followers because he is and always has been an obvious con man and fraud. Why did right wingers fall in line behind him? Because there was a run up of a couple decades of conservative booshwa in national conservative media that paved the way.
I await our "independents" and "moderates" publicly acknowledging these facts.
MSNBC = FOX That's pretty much where I'm at.
At this point, does it really matter who did it first? The political Pandora's box is open, now what can be done to negate the resulting tribalism?
MSNBC does not equal Fox. One is more accurate than the other.
It is really annoying to watch this pretense that "both sides are equally to blame for the current situation".
People who think that liberal media is as dishonest and as inaccurate as conservative media have not been paying attention for the past 25 years
Bill Maher said the other night that 51% of Republicans still believe in birtherism. We have a birther in the White House. These sad facts are the result of the influence of right wing media. Liberal media does not cause these ridiculous and destructive anomalies.
In politics as in physics, all movement is relative Wally. It comes down to the perspective of the perception of movement.
I for one grew up in Kansas, and was more of a Goldwater conservative. That being said, the republican party moved away so far from the Goldwater form of conservatism, that I find I'm more closely aligned with moderate democrats today.
Wally, the networks and the major newspapers and magazines are corporate , they are not "leftist". You have to go to You Tube to see leftist content.
So was my Dad, he grew up in Iola and, later got to know Goldwater personally.
This is basically what my Dad said after Bush II was elected, except he added a few expletives to his comments as well.
Tribalism is the enemy of our country moving forward John.
If we lose it all, what the hell is pointing fingers going to help in the end? In many ways I agree with your statements, but given human nature, rubbing peoples noses in things isn't a recipe for success.
Sorry but this is my country, and I'm not out to score political points on debate. I'm looking for a way for us Americans to become what the constitution says we are.
You have this 'centrist's' vote.
Too many skeletons in my closet....... I couldn't get elected hallway monitor.
On September 16, 2016, as the Republican Party presidential nominee, Trump conceded that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."
Ooops.
In the immortal words of about a hundred billion people, "so what?"
I told you elsewhere that the state of Hawaii had on two occasions prior to 2011 made the announcement that Obama's birth certificate had been personally inspected in the Hawaii state archives. There was actually a third time they made the same announcement and that was in 2011, after Trump's birther nonsense of 2011. So did Trump cease and desist? Not really. Although he left the front pages with it when Obama produced his long form birth certificate, Trump continued to tweet about it and talk about it in interviews occasionally all the way up to the start of his political campaign in 2015.
The date you give in Sept 2016 came only after people were calling on him to say something for a long time.
You seriously believe all the racist nonsense he was propagating and lying about for years gets wiped out in one minute? From a pathological liar and deceiver? LOL
Dont ever debate anyone on this topic. You are basically a good guy but you are way overmatched when you try to discuss this.
"Both sides are equally to blame" is not a way out, it is an excuse. Both sides are not equally to blame.
I don't consider my self to be "tribal" and I do speak out when my opinions disagree with liberal orthodoxy, but we have a two party political system, and independent political movements( with a mere one or two exceptions) have never had success. Moderates should work within the existing parties to sway people to their beliefs and stop acting like they are the ones who are holding everything together while the parties self-destruct.
Trump is not merely the flip side of Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi. Those moderates who act as if that is the case are doing a disservice to the country.
That is what I said which you evidently take exception to. Do you believe that Nancy Pelosi is merely the flip side of Trump and vice versa?
Right, it was irresponsible right wing media that trashed George Bush right?
Facts? [Deleted]
Nonsense
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are to the left of the old Soviet Pravda
they support and promote Marxist Statist power, they have adopted Marx’s push for elimination of all morality norms.
their is not a single tenet recommendation found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto that they disagree with
The trashing of the opposition of course, that went back way farther than Jefferson/Madison - Hamilton/Burr. (Washington wasn't involved in it and abhorred it, he refused to allow it on his watch and nobody was going to go against Washington) Besides, a couple of hundred handbills passed out on a street corner or in the antechamber of the Capitol wasn't considered mass media.
Pulitzer/Hearst was millions of copies delivered per day each, not counting extras which in the case of Pulitzer and his "World" were hourly in the run up to the Spanish American War.
Talking mass media here. Coincided with the invention of the High Speed rotary press, the Linotype, and the automobile..... late 1800's
Actually there was a newspaper publishers code developed afterwards. the News papers gained a modicum of respectability and the code was held to because of the power of the medium of high speed printing and now radio being held to the same standard. The same standard was also applied to TV in the '30's but TV didn't take off until after the war....
In the '90's we have the rise of the internet an even faster form of distribution with a much wider capability of creation/dissemination. completely unregulated, any one can publish anything they like. The other medias, Print is dying, Radio is losing audience and TV has perverted itself trying to catch up......
Yellow Journalism is again taken hold until a way to regulate it is found.
The development of Mass Media, the first one to put all the pieces together was Pulitzer.... First in St Louis and then in New York. Pulitzer got all the great journalism awards named after him and Hearst went on to become a king maker.
I think it is ironic as all hell that the devisor of "Yellow Journalism", massive rapid push propaganda, is the one who has his name all over the excellence in journalism awards. Especially since Joesph Goebbels was one of his most gifted acolytes.
But then, the inventor of dynamite, (Nobel) has his name all over the international awards for the humanities.
Pulitzer was the first to recognize that the base human emotions is what drives consumption of media, AND, it is the job of a media company to deliver what the public wants......
Apply that to news media today....... Nothing new
It's amusing and enlightening that none of our supposedly objective conservatives , and even some of the moderates, never bother to contradict your endless nonsense.
Neither could I, and I would have to answer for my "Reagan" years..... {chuckle} That disqualifies me right off the bat....
John to 1st.......
Damn, the funniest line I've ever seen written on this board.....
But that is what perennial debate losers say when they finally acknowledge they are overmatched at all times in any debate....
Usually the last to see it....
Hundreds of years longer than that...
I totally agree with that. I am so sick of tribalism in this country and partisan politics that I’m ready to pull my hair out I would like our government to be for the people and that for themselves
I don't think that many mind if the 'right' buttons are being pushed by the 'right' people.
Meaning what?
Maybe you should read my response here... 2.1.29
In his later life, not even Goldwater was a 'Goldwater conservative'. He shocked the hell out of conservatives when he spoke out for gays in the military and was one of the first to warn against the GOP becoming a 'religious organization'.
As a resident of Indiana, Richard Lugar was my Senator for a long time and I respected, trusted and voted for him. As you said about John Huntsman, today's GOP turned it's back on Republicans like Lugar.
The use of propaganda started long before a European stepped foot in the New World.
George Bush trashed George Bush and now the right is perpetuating it.
That is spot on. Because neither will do the will of the people. They do what is expedient to them and what will keep their power. Once things become about power, the people suffer.
I assume you can provide stats to support this statement?
Wally the majority of Americans think Trump is worthless that's why all polls show him going down hill
"even some of the moderates, never bother to contradict your endless nonsense."
Clear waste of time..... Akin to the WWII phrase "Like bouncing marbles off of a sidewalk."
Nice to know I'm in good company!
Not worth the time to correct John. So much easier to just ignore the sophomoric.
I meant to say I would like our government to be for the people and not for themselves. This is what happens when you multi-task.
"click-click-click-click" - yup, the ol' broken record is back.
“……solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Democratic and Republican parties against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”
Ya got that right !
But More like:
…..solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Democratic and Republican parties against all Domestic enemies,
Democrats more than Republicans though.
Never have I seen anything like a Party that has this need to "Take Away citizen rights", or want to "take sooooo much citizen money" , while doing anything they can to protect those that aren't even in this country, than I have seen from the Democrats over the years.
Our government has become Kings and Queens of this country. They were supposed to be there to "Represent" the MANY, NOT "DICTATE" down to the Many !
Funny IIM...... You might try to see things from where this once Goldwater Republican stands.....
Regards,
where this once Goldwater Republican stan
Unless you are a single issue voter on abortion,the idea that Goldwater Republicanism is more in line with todays's Democratic party is curious, to say the least.
If you've read "Conscious of a Conservative" or looked at what Goldwater campaigned on when he was the Republican nominee, it's pretty clear the Republican party of today is much more moderate than Goldwater was.
The other day, correct me if I'm wrong, you made some denigrating comments about libertariinism. (Not being worth the paper its written on or something to that effect). Yet Goldwater, while certainly not a doctrinaire libertarian, is as close to a libertarian as any party has nominated since Coolidge. Goldwater Republicanism stands for lower taxes, less regulation of business, less government spending and standing up to Communism. His book and his campaign define Goldwater Republicanism. I don' think you'll find any public support for gay rights from Goldwater when being a Goldwater Republican meant something.
I can see why a follower of Goldwater would abandon the Republican party. Goldwater advocated for the flat tax, Republicans keep passing tax cuts that are more progressive in nature. Goldwater was an oppenet of welfare, Republicans keep expanding it and creating new entitlements. On the whole, Republicans certainly haven't limited government spending, which was his mantra. But again, if a Goldwater Republican was going to leave the party, it would be for the Libertarians, whose views are closer to pure Goldwater than the Republicans have been able to implement. But for a Goldwater Republcian to become a member of a party that actively champions government expansion is dissonant.
During the campaign against Johnson, the MSM labeled him crazy and alleged he was conspiring with neo-Nazi's in Germany. (fits into the problem with the media we still have today). At the end of his life, he adopted some liberal social positions that restored him in the eyes of those who called him a Nazi when he was relevant. But social positions are not relevant to what being a Goldwater Republican was in the 1960s, when he was a leader of the national party and the term Goldwater Republican meant something.
Hold that thought.... I have to go fix dinner!
I didn't see that in the oath I swore in '66. Nothing even close.
I never served in the military. The Vietnam draft ended a few months before I was eligible; I was classed 1H, unneeded. If I had enlisted I could have made it to Vietnam in time for the fall of Saigon. Military service was not a viable option for me, the military was demobilizing and didn't need recruits.
I became a civilian Federal employee. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, too. I may not have served in the military but I have served with the military. My work included helping to solve little vexing, not very sexy problems that could cause a bad day in the military. I readily confess that my contribution wouldn't amount to a pimple on a gnat's ass but some of my work did cross the berm during Desert Storm.
I'm was just a damned government worker. Lazy, stupid, waste of taxpayer money. But maybe, just maybe, I helped a soldier come home. I hope so.
Thanks to folks like you I got paid and got fed. I appreciate you
The last people that want to be sent to war are those that would have to fight it Nerm. It is reassuring to those in uniform that there are people doing what is needed to make sure they are able to come back home in as close a condition to when they went.
Remember the moving Catch-22. How would you like to find out that when you really needed a parachute, that it had been invested on your behalf by Lt. Milo Minderbinder and M&M Enterprises?
I put a lot of blame for the tribalism on two things: Media and Social Media. The Mainstream Media has a history of putting 3 similar left-leaning panelists on a panel while only putting a single right-leaning panelist on the same panel. There is no real back and forth, there usually is 3 voices drowning out the single right-leaning voice on any single issue. Then, when it is one of the rare occasions that a right-leaning person is being interviewed/debated by a left-leaning reporter, the reporter acts like they are an Inquisitor from the Spanish Inquisition and the right-leaning guest is an accused heretic. Meanwhile, if a left-leaning guest is being interviewed/debated, it seems like they are playing a game of T-ball and the reporter is the "pitcher" setting the ball on the pole for the guest to hit. Seeing that type of "debate environment" tends to set those who are right-leaning themselves into defense mode while the left-leaning populace have their beliefs reaffirmed. This then leads to each person thinking that those that disagree with them are out to destroy them, which then leads to both sides digging in their heels and supporting those whom are considered part of the same "side" regardless of the issue and whether they agree on that issue.
For example, most of those that voted for Trump actually were voting to keep Hillary out of office, because they believe that she is a crook at heart. There has been enough scandal and questionable activities plus a lot of foreign monies going to her and Bill's foundation and initiative that those of us that voted against her could reasonable assume that she has been taking bribes and would continue taking bribes. And, many of us feel vindicated that we saw this behavior by her when all of the donations to those charities started drying up after her loss. And, it was not a gradual drying up, it was a "sudden drop off a face of a cliff" style of drying up. Meanwhile, those that voted for Hillary felt cheated due to being told even up to when Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were called for Trump that Hillary would win the election with at least a 90% chance of doing so. But, those Hillary supporters couldn't do like I did when Trump won the Republican nomination over Ted Cruz and just accept it. That lack of coming to terms with the loss is another blow to civility as their fears are reinforced by the coverage. This has lead to people WANTING Trump to be found guilty of colluding with Russia, despite there being far more evidence that Hillary has been in Putin's back pocket since at least her tenure as Secretary of State than Trump.
There's no talking reality with that side of the aisle, they wanted to follow up a supposed "historic" election of a black man to office with a "Historic" election of a woman. They were willing to overlook and protect her just because of gender.....
She had no more real interest in them than she did the republicans......
But they will NEVER accept the truth in that.
"There's no talking reality with that side of the aisle."
Really.... You seem to talk to me, or have I been imagining things.
Your claiming to be a Goldwater Republican, if that is true, very close to a Reagan Democrat.
That does not make you the "other" side of the aisle....
Makes you the same side of my aisle.
Just because some lame brained numbskulls want to lable me an ultra rightist nazi Trumpster, doesn't make me one.
And you know better my friend....
I did vote for Reagan once, and I voted for Clinton once.
Is there such a thing as the "Pragmatic Centrist Party"?
There better be for all our sakes..... (and hopefully they step up in the near future, we sure could use them now)
Careful there, you will be labeled as someone who can not make up their mind and nothing more than a Hitler apologist.
Hell Dave......Life's short! I'll take my chances and walk down the middle of the road anyway.
Regards
I am with you there.
Gee tom, the Clinton Foundation is STILL a 4 star charity.
You claim that donations have dried up yet they've manager to assist 165,862 farmers, 79,875 girls and women and worked with 39,000 schools in 2018.
It looks like a lot better report card than Trump's charity ever had. Unless you count spending other people's money to pay for portraits of yourself.
What did I say about the Clinton Foundation? Oh, that the DONATIONS dropped off a cliff after Hillary lost the election. I did not say anything about the effectiveness of the charity or the work it did. I was pointing that the sudden lack of donations made it look like that Hillary and Bill were accepting bribes for Hillary's actions while in office as Secretary of State and for "when" she became President.
Oh COURSE you didn't say anything about the effectiveness or the work they do. That wouldn't fit your agenda. MY point is that despite your claim, the Foundation is doing quite well and MUCH better than Trump's 'charity' ever did.
Now THAT is an example of what FLY is talking about. Unless you are JUST as critical about the millions that are unaccounted for from the Trump inaugural, it's all about party for you. Though actually, that isn't a good comparison since the Foundation and Global Initiative funds ARE accounted for and NONE of those funds went to Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Right. A dropoff of 58% in donations once Hillary lost is "quite well." In the same her campaign for President went "quite well."
Wonder why Putin's cronies stopped giving her millions once her chances at the Presidency ended. Probably just a coincidence.
nted for and NONE of those funds went to Bill or Hillary Clinton.
They just paid millons for the Clintons to travel in luxury and employ the political people who work for them. You understand that was the point, right? To create a cash cow that would employ the Clintonites while the Clintons waited for their supposedly inevitable return to political power. When I think what real charites do, the first thing that comes to mind is paying $10,000 a month to the weasel Sid Blumenthal.
Link?
No, I understand that the Foundation has DOCUMENTED programs and filings that show where the money goes.
You're confusing the Clintons with the Trumps.
What's your issue with Blumenthal?
No, Hillary just violated the very clause of the Constitution that the Democrats kept claiming Trump violated with his hotel proposal in Moscow and with dignitaries staying at his hotel in Washington, DC. Remember, Bill got an unheard of $500,000 to speak in Moscow while Hillary was still Secretary of State during her talks with the Russians about a technology exchange and while Rosatom was seeking to purchase Uranium One (the Canadian company that owned 20% of US Uranium reserves). But, no, that wasn't a bribe at all was it, nor a violation of the Emoluments clause if the Constitution despite Hillary being Secretary of State.
Well gee tom, after two years of the GOP being in control of the government, WHY isn't Clinton behind bars for all of the crimes you allege that she committed? WTF did Session do all that time, how about Whitaker? WHERE are the indictments?
Why hasn't Mr. 'Law and order' Trump DONE something about her lawlessness?
It couldn't be that Sessions asked the GOP for EVIDENCE and they couldn't provide any could it tom?
It couldn't be that even though they had Clinton's taxes and the documents from the Foundation and Global Initiative, the GOP pit bulls in the House STILL couldn't find any evidence of emoluments clause violations worthy of bringing suit against Clinton could it tom?
It can't possibly be that all the allegations that you made are BULLSHIT conspiracy theories could it tom?
It can't be that all the conspiracy theories have been investigated ad nauseam and found to be BULLSHIT could it tom?
My second paragraph is the prime example of what you are talking about. When Bill Clinton and Obama were elected there was no push for an rejection of the election results or calls for impeachment before the President-elect took office. With Trump there was, and it was lead by the many mainstream Liberal leaders whom supported Trump during the Republican Primaries until the moment it looked like he had locked it up. Then, he did what those same Liberal leaders thought was impossible for him to do: beat Hillary in the Electoral College.
False equivalencies.
You're kidding right tom? Seriously, the Never Trump crowd was rife with GOP stalwarts.
Trump will rue the day he was elected. His business is DONE. His 'charity' is DONE. He'll be lucky to stay out of jail. I'm pretty sure Jr. won't be so lucky.
I see your lack of memory is shining through. I was talking about people like Oprah, Whoopi, many in the mainstream media outside of the Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and George Will. These were the ones hoping Trump would win the Republican nomination, not just because they thought his inexperience would be easy for Hillary to beat; but because they agreed with some of his early positions in the election.
My comment has nothing to do with memory tom.
You presume that the criticism against Trump's candidacy was partisan, it wasn't.
Which proves that it's a false equivalency to party over country. Thanks for illustrating that fact.
Are you actually positing that ANY of the people you cited were hoping Trump would win? That's utter bullshit. NONE of the people you cited voted for Trump BTFW.
And, now you show that you cannot read. Did I say any of the people listed voted for Trump? They couldn't vote for him, unless the state they are registered in held open primaries, since all but George Will and Bill Kristol were DEMOCRATS and I was referencing the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.
You're showing that you can't stand by your comments.
So your posit is that they wanted him to win and 'they agreed with some of his early positions in the election' but they didn't vote for him? So WTF is your point?
Oh and BTFW, you said ELECTION, not REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.
No, I said Republican NOMINATION, which is what you get when you win the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. So, again, you prove you cannot read, or at least cannot comprehend what you read. Support and votes are two completely separate things. Support can be anything from an endorsement to donations outside of actually voting for someone. So, please, stop trying to dig up the goal posts, all you are doing is digging yourself through to the Indian Ocean.
So that means you should be able to support your claim that ANY of the 4 people you named endorsed or donated to Trump.
Got any evidence to support that claim tom?
Oh and please provide some evidence that those 4 'agreed with some of his early positions in the election' as you claimed.
George Will should be the easiest one since he writes prolifically.
I'm sure that you can find a Weekly Standard article from Kristol too right?
Whoopi would be easy since she's on TV stating her opinions 5 days a week.
Please proceed.