Is bipartisanship dead in the U.S., or is media just not covering it enough?

[Twisted Crow]

Also, I have smacked around Republicans numerous times, even calling Trump administration a dangerous hydra at one point. In what magical world does that make me right wing? ::)

That's very strange, leftists are much less common than centrists among Democratic supporters. Leftists don't usually like the Democratic party as it is against a lot of their interests(Especially anti-capitalist interests, as Democrats are largely pro-capitalism).

Like I'm one you definitely have met as I'm a far leftist. And I hate the Democratic party, as do many leftists. But will vote Democrat because I consider the other choice so much worse. Though there are also many who are so disenfranchised by Democrats they just won't vote at all because the Democratic party is so anti-Leftist.

It should be mentioned like I did in another thread, Buzzfeed is not a great source. BuzzfeedNews however is a very good source. They're very different, and BuzzfeedNews has led a lot of important investigations into various things. It is similar to how a lot of sites label what types of article something is, they'll have at the top whether something is for entertainment, an opinion piece, satire, or actual news. People often totally miss these things and assume they're all the same when they're very different and labelled on most sites.

I will admit, I  had thought that Buzzfeed and BuzzfeedNews as the same.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's an umbrella organization. Think how Fox Entertainment and Fox News are different.

[Tolvo]

Well someone can be Right Wing without being a Republican, it is just the largest Right Wing party in the USA. If someone believes in many right wing views and positions and takes those stances but hates Trump, they still are right wing. There are right wing Democrats. Hillary is considered pretty right wing among Democrats but in the last ten years has taken some progressive positions regarding social issues, but still supports a lot of industries like the prison industry, military industry, etc, that mark her as very right wing. Left wing Republicans though are nearly unheard of as Republicans are so anti-left wing in all respects. There are conservatives and Republican voting people here on E who have mentioned they don't like the GOP and especially Trump but are still right wing.

It's something I've considered making is a thing on media literacy and understanding sources and how to read news, since it is something a lot of people haven't really been taught about or figured out how to do. And is pretty important for this section of the site.

[Twisted Crow]

Well someone can be Right Wing without being a Republican, it is just the largest Right Wing party in the USA. If someone believes in many right wing views and positions and takes those stances but hates Trump, they still are right wing. There are right wing Democrats. Hillary is considered pretty right wing among Democrats but in the last ten years has taken some progressive positions regarding social issues, but still supports a lot of industries like the prison industry, military industry, etc, that mark her as very right wing. Left wing Republicans though are nearly unheard of as Republicans are so anti-left wing in all respects. There are conservatives and Republican voting people here on E who have mentioned they don't like the GOP and especially Trump but are still right wing.

It's something I've considered making is a thing on media literacy and understanding sources and how to read news, since it is something a lot of people haven't really been taught about or figured out how to do. And is pretty important for this section of the site.

Hmmm. Based on what you describe as left wing... I don't see a lot of myself in. With the exception of supporting military, but i get the feeling you might mean something else by 'military industry' (like blowing billions on weapon projects and what not).

It's an umbrella organization. Think how Fox Entertainment and Fox News are different.

I think that might be why it is easy to make that mistake, then. People might be using "a source from Buzzfeed" loosely, then. Sometimes the contributions I have read in discussions have been quite biased, others just seemed like a news article, to me. So this might explain a lot.

[Twisted Crow]

Correction, what you decribe as "right wing". Sorry, the past incivility earlier has left me a bit rattled. :-)

[Kye]

I think it's time for everyone in this thread to take a break.  Walk away from the computer and calm down.  I don't want to have to lock this thread, as there is some decent discussion going on, but tempers are obviously high.  Any further incivility from anyone will not be tolerated. 

[Tolvo]

Hopefully things are more calm now.

Well there are various views on the military among left wing groups. Some are against any military, though that doesn't mean they think it won't be necessary to have one more so they want to create a world where they aren't necessary. Some want a people's army. Others are very pro-revolution so they want an army of revolutionaries. Authoritarian leftists tend to be very pro military but want a left wing only military. While anti-authoritarian leftists do not want large powerful militaries. An incredibly powerful military and using it to control the rest of the world and people is usually more right wing though authoritarian leftists can support that but they'll still hate the right wing version of it.

But the largest most powerful over funded military in the world, as well as Imperialism, are very anti-left wing stances. So the US military is not liked by the left wing largely.

Though with anything, hating the military does not mean hating soldiers. It means hating the system and that it exists, not that anyone who serves or has served deserves hatred. A lot of leftist groups accept former military members, especially many were accepted among soldiers disenfranchised with the US government who served in Vietnam.

Centrist and right wing tend to support the military itself, with Democrats tending to want aid for the soldiers. Leftists more so want aid for everyone which would include soldiers. Democrats also lean in this direction but don't go all in. While Republicans on and off support aid for soldiers, currently Trump doesn't and he's deciding a lot of that though they heavily fund the military itself.

For news there will always be bias because every person has bias that has ever existed. Even most AI has bias because the people designing AI have their own biases and biased data available. It's more about how much bias influences something or makes someone unable to clearly assess something. BuzzfeedNews is very factual but also is left wing so the commentary is left wing but they are still very factual. And do link to sources when they're available. It's when an article does not contain factual information, does not include sources or any way to verify anything, and treats their statements as truth without any backing, that it is a problem.

Though this has branched out a lot from Bipartisanship. Bipartisan news doesn't really exist as it would basically be incredibly confusing to read, people can link to different sources among different political alignments but if an article itself is Bipartisan or is made up of people working on it who are of very strongly different political views, it will jump all over and will largely be more of a debate than news. Certain sites and organizations have people with very different views but it often causes the organization problems and makes people across different sides angry with the organization for platforming people they do not like and political views they hate. For instance if you have a news site that publishes an article about how transgender people are mentally ill, on the same site with an article about how doctors largely agree transgender people are real and valid, that will confuse and piss a lot of people off and people won't know which one the organization agrees with or believes in or considers a fact. That example by the way happens a lot with organizations like the BBC, The Guardian, and others.

[Twisted Crow]

Though with anything, hating the military does not mean hating soldiers. It means hating the system and that it exists, not that anyone who serves or has served deserves hatred. A lot of leftist groups accept former military members, especially many were accepted among soldiers disenfranchised with the US government who served in Vietnam.

Yeah, this is what I thought you were referring to. I very much understand this relation and I figured you meant a distinction It annoys me to see liberals or just left-leaning people in general being put in this box of "hating the troops" just because they don't agree with a runaway military budget. I would definitely go to bat for the left in that case, as I feel like soldiers should be taken care of. However, when the money goes to military toys instead of their fiscal security... that is one thing that I have a problem with in spite of what some right-leaners have insisted with me.

[Skynet]

Or you know... enlighten/educate me, if I am ignorant. The leftists I have been exposed to (so I have been recently told) have been pretty much been limited to the extremist end of the wing. When Buzzfeed and other crapsack sites surface as "sources" in research it begs the question on where one can get the facts without all the angles. So, great post. I guess that was helpful..



My thanks, Tolvo. That... actually clarifies much. Or at least, makes me think. And doubt more, but that isn't all in all too bad.

Mainstream Democrats are not in favor of a stateless society where people can move about as they please. Clinton, Obama, and many Democrats have been in favor of funding border patrols.

The leftists who DO want unregulated immigration are communists and anarchists who want to do away with the concept of government entirely and tend to...not run for office in the United States in the first place.

[Skynet]

PS Examples of Democrats in favor of various varieties of border regulation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/hillary-clinton-europe-must-curb-immigration-stop-populists-trump-brexit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996

[Twisted Crow]

I will take a look at these.


*sigh*

Perhaps I should change my political purple thread title to Politically Confused. I haven't felt a part of either ship due to their convuluted portrayals. And everytime I voice this confusion, whether requesting to soundboard or an innocuous question. I am simply met with either aggression from either party and given plenty of reasons to just not contribute to politics. It's one reason many why I have trouble voting, as I am rarely sure what I am voting for. And I don't trust the media when it tells me who and what voting for these people represent.  :-\

[Twisted Crow]

But I thank you for your contribution, Sky.

[Skynet]

I will take a look at these.


*sigh*

Perhaps I should change my political purple thread title to Politically Confused. I haven't felt a part of either ship due to their convuluted portrayals. And everytime I voice this confusion, whether requesting to soundboard or an innocuous question. I am simply met with either aggression from either party and given plenty of reasons to just not contribute to politics. It's one reason many why I have trouble voting, as I am rarely sure what I am voting for. And I don't trust the media when it tells me who and what voting for these people represent.  :-\

But I thank you for your contribution, Sky.

No worries. :)

I found that it's a lot easier to avoid labels and take them on when you find an ideology which you agree on the majority of issues with. Or at least the core message. Mixing political parties into things makes it a lot more volatile when said parties end up changing or not practicing what they preach.

It's part of why when I criticize hateful elements among evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians I say "evangelical culture" rather than "Christian culture." Or talk specifically about "Republicans" rather than "conservatives."

Your confusion is in part due to the broader perception in the United States that the Democrats are a left-wing party. They're not; like others said they're more centrist or even right-wing in places. It would be far better served as a thread of its own going into detail, but in short even when they do champion leftist causes they often do the bare minimum necessary or focus on issues which won't hurt the bottom line of their rich campaign donors. Or only start to move when there's actual pushback, like many of them voting in favor of an Iraqi invasion but turning around once that turned into a quagmire.

It's more the case of the fact that the GOP is so hateful and dogmatic that every other ideology looks like a radical communist in comparison to them nowadays.

[Tolvo]

Yeah, and in regard to Bipartisanship, if the parties in our country were more balanced and reasonable and cared more about everyone's rights, lives, etc, Bipartisanship would be more desired and effective. But currently one party is incredibly extreme and promoting violence and hatred, so giving them what they want and conceding to them is not desired. If there was a right wing party in power here that was more fair and cared about common people and everyone's interests then it'd make more sense to be Bipartisan with them.

Political terminology is often based on the time and opposition and place. Since I know you know Japanese history, Oda Nobunaga for instance was a progressive. He was a monarchist who believed in oppressing peasants and military might. But he was forward thinking regarding elevating soldiers and technology, so he was progressive, for his time and place. Today he'd be a very conservative. The founding father's were considered radicals and anarchists and liberators, their views on free speech would mark them free speech extremists. Extremists are usually defined in opposition to the status quo. As is terrorism, which usually is defined by non-state actors. So bombing 3,000 civilians to instill terror is fine if it's done by a military. Blowing up 10 civilians is a terror attack if done by a non-government body. Currently I'd probably be called a radical leftist, as I'm very extreme when it comes to human freedoms and rights. In 50 years my current views might be downright conservative compared to what new people may think.

[Twisted Crow]

I am reminded of my family using JFK as sort of a passive slam at the left. "JFK couldn't be elected today (because he is too conservative by left standards)" or something like this. His famous "Ask not... " phrase was used to back this up, but my gut tells me that my fam is cherry-picking this a little bit. But JFK was long before me, it is difficult to argue events that I never present for when my folks were. I love my family but they have been known to cherry-pick shit. Religion, politics, et. al. And some of their interests are at odds with mine and what I view as equality. So, a reason I can't just jump on Club Trump or Club GOP like some of them can.

In truth, I would like to see Trump take one for the team and not fulfill his promise on the wall. We could use 5 billion for a lot of other things to benefit our people while having some monitoring of the border to fight problems some claim to want to fight ( trafficking, for example). Trump hasn't given me much reason to think he will reach across the aisle. I have been also interested in what is considered "good bipartisanship" and what has been not so good, hence one of purposes of the thread coming to be.


The news went crazy about this when George H.W. Bush passed on. Though, I wasn't able to catch all of this considering I watching over my grandmother at the time.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am reminded of my family using JFK as sort of a passive slam at the left. "JFK couldn't be elected today (because he is too conservative by left standards)" or something like this. His famous "Ask not... " phrase was used to back this up, but my gut tells me that my fam is cherry-picking this a little bit. But JFK was long before me, it is difficult to argue events that I never present for when my folks were. I love my family but they have been known to cherry-pick shit. Religion, politics, et. al. And some of their interests are at odds with mine and what I view as equality. So, a reason I can't just jump on Club Trump or Club GOP like some of them can.

In truth, I would like to see Trump take one for the team and not fulfill his promise on the wall. We could use 5 billion for a lot of other things to benefit our people while having some monitoring of the border to fight problems some claim to want to fight ( trafficking, for example). Trump hasn't given me much reason to think he will reach across the aisle. I have been also interested in what is considered "good bipartisanship" and what has been not so good, hence one of purposes of the thread coming to be.


The news went crazy about this when George H.W. Bush passed on. Though, I wasn't able to catch all of this considering I watching over my grandmother at the time.

Thing is.. odds on that JFK wouldn't have made a 2nd term at the time he was shot.

1. Bobby has literally shat on the man that most assuredly gave him a good chunk of the south. LBJ. The Vice President. Doing things like broadcasting in the clear to the embassies that the VP was visiting Europe but he was not doing it in an official capacity.
2. His father's deals with the various machines fell thru. Bobby went after the Mob. He, the president, failed to follow through on promises to the wrong sort of people

It was a different time.

[HannibalBarca]

Dallas, I'm a leftist. I believe in socialism. I don't like communism at all. I think capitalism is pretty much a tricked-out version of feudalism for modern times.  But I've never belonged to any political party, ever.  I was raised in a conservative, military family, so I have a very thorough understanding of such points of view.  In my opinion, it's vitally important to understand opposing points of view, and articulate them, or you end up debating caricatures of your opposition.

However...I'm very dissatisfied with the concept of 'both-siderism', in which it seems that forcing the neutral position is held above all else.  In many things, balance is the natural position...mostly in nature.  But in the human condition, the middle ground does not tend to be the actual natural state.  Take the United States, for example.  In their era, the Founding Fathers of the United States were considered very radical, left-wing individuals.  The American Tories, King George, and his supporters in Parliament were considered right-wing or conservative.  In the present-day United States, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as slave owners, would be seen as so far extreme to the right that they wouldn't be able to even see the middle.  This shifting view of what is right, middle, and left is known as the Overton Window.  As new information becomes available, people are exposed to new modes of thinking, new perspectives, and people who are different than themselves.  This opens them up to differing perspectives, broadening their horizons--and making them move more to the left, which, on the whole, tends to be much more tolerant of different perspectives and opinions...except for those perspectives and opinions which shut down dissent.

[sdparquinn]

Politics *is* partisan to it's very core. Without division there is no such thing as politics. There's this bizarre but common view of politics as being so exercise in reaching the best possible solution between raceless, sexless, classless, ect... people that simply honestly disagree who's demographic interests are not at odds. But that's silly on both a normative and descriptive level. Or should I better say, "not preferable on a normative level because of how it operates on a descriptive level".

[Oniya]

Politics *is* partisan to it's very core. Without division there is no such thing as politics. There's this bizarre but common view of politics as being so exercise in reaching the best possible solution between raceless, sexless, classless, ect... people that simply honestly disagree who's demographic interests are not at odds. But that's silly on both a normative and descriptive level. Or should I better say, "not preferable on a normative level because of how it operates on a descriptive level".

Still, there are things that most people - by the sheer virtue of being human - can agree on.  Breathing is good.  We should have clean air.  Food and water are good.  We should have clean water and untainted food.  So forth and so on.  Of course, these are things that we shouldn't see in the media just because of the fact that there shouldn't be a disagreement over them.  'Man eats breakfast, doesn't die' does not get page-views.  Half the time that I see something paraded around for having 'bipartisan support', it's like they're expecting to be congratulated for being decent human beings.  Like - you actually had to vote on that?  Or discuss it for more than five minutes?

[sdparquinn]

Still, there are things that most people - by the sheer virtue of being human - can agree on.  Breathing is good.  We should have clean air.  Food and water are good.  We should have clean water and untainted food.  So forth and so on.  Of course, these are things that we shouldn't see in the media just because of the fact that there shouldn't be a disagreement over them.  'Man eats breakfast, doesn't die' does not get page-views.  Half the time that I see something paraded around for having 'bipartisan support', it's like they're expecting to be congratulated for being decent human beings.  Like - you actually had to vote on that?  Or discuss it for more than five minutes?

Yes as a matter of species survival I 100% agree. If I could wave a wand and have everyone on the same page about combating environmental destruction I would do it. So just as a disclaimer: I think you and I agree on a ton of things policy wise. But...

Many upper class individuals, especially elderly and/or those not concerned with their descendants, don't have a group interest to combat climate change. Because that would require some heavy taxation (among other things that hurt their bottom line).

If, and it's a big if, we could all agree on some form of utilitarian ethics along the lines of "greatest good for the greatest number of people" I would agree. that politics would not be politics in the partisan mode. But that's a tall order.