Which type of Republican are you? How to self-identify.

Ok... then that's your "Reality for You"

RealityForAll said: You are entitled to your opinion.  With which, I disagree.

sprout said: Dude... he named himself. Not my fault he picked something that sounds rather presumptuous.

This reminds me of a Thomas Sowell quote regarding our schools.  

RobB said:

Would you say that it's...sad?

Seriously though. Most do think. It's just that they don't think like you. If libertarians were a little more flexible I think they'd have plenty to contribute, but then I think back to the drivers license thing at the convention.

Here you (not you you, you libertarians) are, booing Gary Johnson for thinking drivers licenses are a good idea. I see that and think, these guys are crazy, I'm out. ****, true blue hardcore libertarians should be out too - there's no federal drivers license - why would you even ask a candidate for president about it? Which state is clamoring for abolishing drivers licenses? Bah. Insanity.

Anyhow, **** your buddy. I think.

terp said: Most don't think.  And that's not great. 

Glad to see you're getting outside the libertarian ech.... oh 

terp said:

This reminds me of a Thomas Sowell quote regarding our schools.  

RobB said:

Would you say that it's...sad?

Seriously though. Most do think. It's just that they don't think like you. If libertarians were a little more flexible I think they'd have plenty to contribute, but then I think back to the drivers license thing at the convention.

Here you (not you you, you libertarians) are, booing Gary Johnson for thinking drivers licenses are a good idea. I see that and think, these guys are crazy, I'm out. ****, true blue hardcore libertarians should be out too - there's no federal drivers license - why would you even ask a candidate for president about it? Which state is clamoring for abolishing drivers licenses? Bah. Insanity.

Anyhow, **** your buddy. I think.

terp said: Most don't think.  And that's not great. 

Thomas Sowell was interpreting a quote by Diane Ravitch, and what he wrote, in 1992, was this: "In short, it is not merely that Johnny can't read, or even that Johnny can't think. Johnny doesn't know what thinking is, because thinking is so often confused with feeling in many public schools." (Italics his.)

How much the context, the differences in the wording and the passage of a quarter-century matter, I'll leave up to all the critical thinkers out there, contenting myself with the dream that just one of these times a quotation posted by terp will be accurate.

Re the OP:

Thanks to the GOP we've lost the respect of the western world; we've assured ourselves that no one will share sensitive info with us, even our closest ally Israel; that members of the administration are in bed with the Ruskies; that the GOP-led Congress hasn't the courage to stand up to the impaired and incompetent president; that the GOP is greedy enough to risk the republic for tax breaks and a return to non-science policies, antiquated policing policies led by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, and an ed. dept. led by an ignoramus.

So for me, there are only a few types of republicans: those brave few who've denounced DJT; cynical greedy bastards who want only tax cuts at the cost of the country; backward folks who romanticize the past, when everyone knew their place; and overt racists.

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

Sorry that you're sad. Here's the thing though. If it just stopped at me being lumped in with a bunch of social outcasts deemed dangerous by polite society, you'd be happy as a clam.  I'm basing this on past behavior.  

terp, if I did something that hurt you and you haven't mentioned it, please do so. I apologize for hurting you in the past.

But look what you've just done. You criticized me for a comment that I would have made in theory, in your head.

I made my "sad" comment because all the insult lobbing seems gratuitous, and no one deserves it, including you.

I find your comment to me to be quite unkind. I will not apologize for a comment I have not made and which you think I have the potential to make. And I will not apologize for feeling in any way in which you think I would feel but have not shown. Jeez, man, what the heck?!

LOST said:

And certainly Mr. Trump is "glib, sarcastic, condescending and believes himself to be intellectually superior. That is why the joke is on those who were taken in by him. And the joke is not very funny.

That's true but Repubs didn't lose the election because of it. In fact one could argue that's how they won. Repubs thrive on social hostilities so why feed it to them? You want to prove something or you want to be happy? 

People insult me and others that veer away from the political orthodoxy of this board regularly.  I've noticed that you seem to step in only when those folks "bite back".  It's just something I've noticed.  Nothing to get upset about. 

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

This thread makes me sad.

Sorry that you're sad. Here's the thing though. If it just stopped at me being lumped in with a bunch of social outcasts deemed dangerous by polite society, you'd be happy as a clam.  I'm basing this on past behavior.  

terp, if I did something that hurt you and you haven't mentioned it, please do so. I apologize for hurting you in the past.

But look what you've just done. You criticized me for a comment that I would have made in theory, in your head.

I made my "sad" comment because all the insult lobbing seems gratuitous, and no one deserves it, including you.

I find your comment to me to be quite unkind. I will not apologize for a comment I have not made and which you think I have the potential to make. And I will not apologize for feeling in any way in which you think I would feel but have not shown. Jeez, man, what the heck?!

terp said:

People insult me and others that veer away from the political orthodoxy of this board regularly.

You hurl plenty of insults. It's the nature of people on the internet.

Don't tell me how to feel.

You've basically accused me of insulting merely because you believe I would do so. It's a low blow, not based in fact. I had no impulse to say anything disparaging or insulting. DO NOT TELL ME what I would have done.

You've really stepped over a line here. I ask you not to do that with me, and while I'm at it, I'll suggest you not do it with anyone. It's not likely to get you anything you want, and it is likely to annoy or upset.

Any further defense will annoy me even more.

I just call em as I see em.  I re-read through this thread.  I stand by every word. 

I've seen you posting on this board for years.  Never once have you come to my defense.  I'd guess I have a slight lead on zoinks for the most unprovoked attacks per post on MOL.  Thus, you have had plenty of opportunities. You've joined in.  You've defended many who started in with me.  Yet you've never come to my defense.  Not once.   Sure, there's always a chance that's a giant coincidence.  The odds are clearly against it. 

Once I start hurling insults back in my defense, which I freely admit guilt to, that's usually when your holier than thou attitude comes out. 

Given that.  I have no idea how you feel about it.  I don't think I told you how to feel. I just said it wasn't worth getting upset about it.  That being said, if that's what floats your boat, its none of my business. 

Tom_Reingold said:

Don't tell me how to feel.

You've basically accused me of insulting merely because you believe I would do so. It's a low blow, not based in fact. I had no impulse to say anything disparaging or insulting. DO NOT TELL ME what I would have done.

You've really stepped over a line here. I ask you not to do that with me, and while I'm at it, I'll suggest you not do it with anyone. It's not likely to get you anything you want, and it is likely to annoy or upset.

Any further defense will annoy me even more.

dave23 said:

terp said:

People insult me and others that veer away from the political orthodoxy of this board regularly.

You hurl plenty of insults. It's the nature of people on the internet.

I pretty much never initiate the insult spiral.  But I'm definitely guilty of biting back. 

Kind of a distinction without a difference.  A pretty tedious attempt on your part.  

The partial quote stands up. If you read the book, he goes on later in the chapter to point out how dangerous it is that people who have not been trained to think clearly are a danger in a free society.  

DaveSchmidt said:

Thomas Sowell was interpreting a quote by Diane Ravitch, and what he wrote, in 1992, was this: "In short, it is not merely that Johnny can't read, or even that Johnny can't think. Johnny doesn't know what thinking is, because thinking is so often confused with feeling in many public schools." (Italics his.)

How much the context, the differences in the wording and the passage of a quarter-century matter, I'll leave up to all the critical thinkers out there, contenting myself with the dream that just one of these times a quotation posted by terp will be accurate.

Yeah, it's always the other guy, "tedious" as they are. 

terp said:

I just call em as I see em.  I re-read through this thread.  I stand by every word. 

I've seen you posting on this board for years.  Never once have you come to my defense.  I'd guess I have a slight lead on zoinks for the most unprovoked attacks per post on MOL.  Thus, you have had plenty of opportunities.  But you've never come to my defense.  Not once.   

Once I start hurling insults back in my defense, which I freely admit guilt to, that's usually when your holier than thou attitude comes out. 

Given that.  I have no idea how you feel about it.  I don't think I told you how to feel. I just said it wasn't worth getting upset about it.  That being said, if that's what floats your boat, its none of my business. 

Tom_Reingold said:

Don't tell me how to feel.

You've basically accused me of insulting merely because you believe I would do so. It's a low blow, not based in fact. I had no impulse to say anything disparaging or insulting. DO NOT TELL ME what I would have done.

You've really stepped over a line here. I ask you not to do that with me, and while I'm at it, I'll suggest you not do it with anyone. It's not likely to get you anything you want, and it is likely to annoy or upset.

Any further defense will annoy me even more.

dave23 said:

terp said:

People insult me and others that veer away from the political orthodoxy of this board regularly.

You hurl plenty of insults. It's the nature of people on the internet.

I pretty much never initiate the insult spiral.  But I'm definitely guilty of biting back. 

Calling someone tedious because they called someone else tedious is tedious...wait..

dave23 said:

Yeah, it's always the other guy, "tedious" as they are. 

terp said:

I just call em as I see em.  I re-read through this thread.  I stand by every word. 

I've seen you posting on this board for years.  Never once have you come to my defense.  I'd guess I have a slight lead on zoinks for the most unprovoked attacks per post on MOL.  Thus, you have had plenty of opportunities.  But you've never come to my defense.  Not once.   

Once I start hurling insults back in my defense, which I freely admit guilt to, that's usually when your holier than thou attitude comes out. 

Given that.  I have no idea how you feel about it.  I don't think I told you how to feel. I just said it wasn't worth getting upset about it.  That being said, if that's what floats your boat, its none of my business. 

Tom_Reingold said:

Don't tell me how to feel.

You've basically accused me of insulting merely because you believe I would do so. It's a low blow, not based in fact. I had no impulse to say anything disparaging or insulting. DO NOT TELL ME what I would have done.

You've really stepped over a line here. I ask you not to do that with me, and while I'm at it, I'll suggest you not do it with anyone. It's not likely to get you anything you want, and it is likely to annoy or upset.

Any further defense will annoy me even more.

dave23 said:

terp said:

People insult me and others that veer away from the political orthodoxy of this board regularly.

You hurl plenty of insults. It's the nature of people on the internet.

I pretty much never initiate the insult spiral.  But I'm definitely guilty of biting back. 

--- and I refer to the title of Ann Coulter's magnificent tome, "How To Talk To Liberals (If You Must)." Condescend much? 

ml1 said:

anybody ever listen to conservative talk radio?  Or watch Fox News?  When the hosts talk about liberals, they're glib, sarcastic, condescending and project a narrow sense of moral and intellectual superiority in how they think and talk about liberals' world view. ....

Oy. I wasn't calling you tedious. Just pointing out that you always blame other people. 

terp said:

Calling someone tedious because they called someone else tedious is tedious...wait..

terp, I was sad because I saw insults that no one deserved. I thought you didn't deserve the ones you were getting. I think you're intelligent and interesting, and I agree with some of your views. I'm pretty sure I've said so on a few occasions. I didn't know I was supposed to tell you this, but now you know. I also didn't know I had a duty to come to anyone's defense, but in a way, I did in my first post in this thread. But you took it to mean as disrespect for you, which is weird.

And since you can't remember me defending you, you take that to mean that I have an insult ready for you, whether I write it or not? You might be in a lot of pain to come to that conclusion. I apologize for the degree to which I'm responsible for that, but I have no idea if I am at all.

If you think I have any ill intent for you, you are entirely mistaken. We come here to Politics to have respectful discussions, right? I do my best at that. I assume you do, too.

Does that help?

Next time you think you're reading my mind, ask me what's really on my mind, OK? Because you were wrong.

terp said:

The partial quote stands up. If you read the book, he goes on later in the chapter to point out how dangerous it is that people who have not been trained to think clearly are a danger in a free society.

It's not a partial quote. It's a misquote. You're welcome to dismiss that as a distinction without a difference. Others may not, which is the reason for flagging it.

What's tedious is the repetition of a failed politics, practiced by no one but undergrads and fringe folks, and promoted as the answer to all the problems caused by the downtrodden who deny affluent people more affluence and are judged as defective human beings who should die if they can't contribute. 

RobinHood said:

LOST said:

And certainly Mr. Trump is "glib, sarcastic, condescending and believes himself to be intellectually superior. That is why the joke is on those who were taken in by him. And the joke is not very funny.

That's true but Repubs didn't lose the election because of it. In fact one could argue that's how they won. Repubs thrive on social hostilities so why feed it to them? You want to prove something or you want to be happy? 

Can't I have both?   

GL2 said:

What's tedious is the repetition of a failed politics, practiced by no one but undergrads and fringe folks, and promoted as the answer to all the problems 

That first part of your quote sounds like the new manifesto of the British Labor Party. 

from a couple of pages back -

terp says:  "See the ACA for instance. This nobody wanted.  Nobody in their right mind would want that particular peice of legislation. ****, nobody understood it when it was voted on.  However, the progressives saw that as a step away from individuals controlling our lives and towards "Society" controlling our lives. That's kind of the goal of all this stuff."

couple of points here:

1.  "This nobody wanted."  Well, probably true nobody wanted exactly what was in it.  It was a big, big compromise among lots of different interests.  That's how stuff gets done in real life.

2.  "That's ["Society" controlling our lives] kind of the goal of all this stuff."  Seriously? You think it's people trying to get power over other people??  You don't think it's people wanting insurance policies that actually cover what they need, or wanting any policy at all, for that matter, if they've been sick before?  Why should people who don't get insurance at work not have the same access to coverage that employees have?  Does it cross your mind that about the first thing that happens when you're really sick is that... you can't work?  and you lose your insurance?

It was a truly messed-up situation, where insurance companies had pretty much total control, and were seriously abusing their power.  ACA went part way to improving the situation  (and started to bend the cost curve downward, iirc).  Reasonable people would have thought this very complex new law/system would have been corrected/improved gradually as problems came up and new solutions were devised, but noooo, nothing but Throw It Out, based at least in part on misleading if not outright false claims about it. 

Your imputing the worst possible motives behind ACA doesn't advance the resolving of the mare's nest that is the US health "system," imo, but instead contributes to setting people against each other.

Usually, I can see what you're getting at in your posts, even when I don't agree.  But this particular few sentences seemed way off base.

end rant (sorry to have run on; as some here know, I have a sensitivity about the ACA)

I posted this on another thread.  A post election survey reveals some of the reasons white working class voters supported Trump.  Spoiler alert:  liberals writing mean stuff on message boards isn't one of the reasons: 

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...

I've written this before, but I don't see any way that liberals can reconcile their principles with what it would take to win over these voters.  The key to winning elections is getting liberals to turn out, not to convert white working class people who believe that the country is leaving their way of life behind.  Because to be fair, it is leaving them behind.  If a person defines the United States as a majority white, Christian, Euro-centric culture, demographic trends are clearly moving away from that. And telling liberals to speak nicer about rural white people isn't going to turn that trend around.

The voting public is not entirely polarized and dichotomous. While it is unlikely that neither entrenched conservatives nor iiberals will be swayed, there are many moderates who may be open to reconsidering their positions. Those are the ones to whom both parties may wish to appeal.

the "moderate" party is today's Democratic Party.  Anyone who finds the likes of Hillary Clinton to be too far to the left can't realistically be called a moderate.

Norman_Bates said:

The voting public is not entirely polarized and dichotomous. While it is unlikely that neither entrenched conservatives nor iiberals will be swayed, there are many moderates who may be open to reconsidering their positions. Those are the ones to whom both parties may wish to appeal.

And, what of the libertarian who believes that HRC is too much of a Hawk?

Can such persons (opposed to HRC's hawkish policies) also NOT be called moderates?

And, what of the libertarian who believes that HRC is too enmeshed with big banking and finance to make material changes necessary to prevent another 2008 financial melt-down (and work to eliminate crony capitalism)?

ml1 said:

the "moderate" party is today's Democratic Party.  Anyone who finds the likes of Hillary Clinton to be too far to the left can't realistically be called a moderate.

Norman_Bates said:

The voting public is not entirely polarized and dichotomous. While it is unlikely that neither entrenched conservatives nor iiberals will be swayed, there are many moderates who may be open to reconsidering their positions. Those are the ones to whom both parties may wish to appeal.

RealityForAll said:

And, what of the libertarian who believes that HRC is too much of a Hawk?

Can such persons (opposed to HRC's hawkish policies) also NOT be called moderates?

And, what of the libertarian who believes that HRC is too enmeshed with big banking and finance to make material changes necessary to prevent another 2008 financial melt-down (and work to eliminate crony capitalism)?

ml1 said:

the "moderate" party is today's Democratic Party.  Anyone who finds the likes of Hillary Clinton to be too far to the left can't realistically be called a moderate.

Norman_Bates said:

The voting public is not entirely polarized and dichotomous. While it is unlikely that neither entrenched conservatives nor iiberals will be swayed, there are many moderates who may be open to reconsidering their positions. Those are the ones to whom both parties may wish to appeal.

The Libertarian should be voting for their party, or the candidate which most closely expresses their interests. Libertarian philosophy ignores left/right paradigms anyway, which is what allows them to sit on the sidelines and gripe about how much more awesome the world would be if we none of us were human beings.

I'm of a libertarian bent, I'm unhappy with the ACA,  but I am a strong supporter of some kind of national health insurance.  There are some things I can't do myself like pay the staggering medical bills for some serious chronic illness that might hit me.  I work with Canadians, have known plenty of Israelis.  They all look damn healthy.  I've never heard them complain about medical care in their countries although I'm sure there are flaws (unlike here, huh?) .  I'm envious of people who pay a fraction of what we pay for care.   I have no problem, btw, with monied people, or any people, being allowed to step outside the system to get "Cadillac" treatment if they so choose.

this is not a description of someone who believes Clinton is too much of a leftist 

RealityForAll said:

And, what of the libertarian who believes that HRC is too much of a Hawk?

Can such persons (opposed to HRC's hawkish policies) also NOT be called moderates?

And, what of the libertarian who believes that HRC is too enmeshed with big banking and finance to make material changes necessary to prevent another 2008 financial melt-down (and work to eliminate crony capitalism)?

ml1 said:

the "moderate" party is today's Democratic Party.  Anyone who finds the likes of Hillary Clinton to be too far to the left can't realistically be called a moderate.

Norman_Bates said:

The voting public is not entirely polarized and dichotomous. While it is unlikely that neither entrenched conservatives nor iiberals will be swayed, there are many moderates who may be open to reconsidering their positions. Those are the ones to whom both parties may wish to appeal.

The "cultural dislocation" of Trump voters:

Looking to the past, not the future. Feeling lost, resenting immigrants. Feeling broke, picked on. Self-medicating, rejecting education. Wanting a rule-breaking leader to end the misery.

These are some of the characteristics of white working-class voters who were three times more likely to support Donald Trump in the 2016 election, according to an expanded analysis of more than 3,000 people surveyed before and after the election by PRRI/The Atlantic of white Americans who are marked by “cultural dislocation.”

“These new results show that feelings of cultural displacement and a desire for cultural protection, more than economic hardship, drove white working-class voters to support Trump in 2016,” says PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones. “The findings cast new light on how Trump’s ‘Make American Great Again!’ slogan tapped these fears and anxieties and a deep sense of nostalgia for a previous time in the country when white conservative Christians perceived that they had more power and influence.”

The PRRI survey is remarkable in ways its press release doesn’t quite say. It suggests Trump’s supporters don’t do well distinguishing between their feelings and factual circumstances. Take their relative economic class — they’re not necessarily poor, but they aren’t satisfied. They don’t like what they see, but want someone else to fix it. They’re traumatized and lash out. Many are inclined to blame others and self-medicate, yet reject self-betterment through higher education. The survey shows that lots of people in overlooked America vote based on their frustrations and darker emotions.

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/1...