Conservatives and Liberals

[MDlaxfan76]

yeah, I must have smoked too much weed...addled in the brain now.

This shouldn't be so hard, especially since you made the claim.....

....just ONE foreign policy that you disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on.......
-----------------------------------------------------------

Is it her Bolivia policy?

Asking racist Trudea the black face Canuck to step down?

Selling Iceland three Nuke aircraft carriers ?

Lativia milk price fixing ?

Fatty, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. Tulsi is not on the radar screen as far as I'm concerned.
But, yeah, her isolationism goes too far in my view, simply mistaken; I'd say that her play with Assad raises alarm bells as well.

But I'm not going to go as far as some and claim she actually intends to be playing into Putin's hands.

So your calling Hillary a liar? The long knives will be out for your alleged Republican backside. This could be a first on this forum. Is it possible MD was making a subtle criticism against a Democrat? I now believe that pigs really can fly.

nope, but calling SOMEONE that.


try watching, again, for the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYud9re7-Q

at the 50 minute mark, Tulsi Gabbard talks about ASSad, ( but you knew that b/c you watched it , like you claimed.

at 1:04:10....Tulsi Gabbard explains her, or rather MYTH BUSTS her "isolationist" viewpoint. Alleged a "concern" of the liar.

You're right, I didn't get to 50 minutes listening to these guys. Too long a sit for me to just listen to folks gabbing.

Thanks for pointing to that specific section; she comes across very well (absent the military industrial complex conspiracy stuff) with regard to her logic against 'regime change wars' and her strong preference towards diplomacy. I agree with her on that, which may surprise you...but I do. I like her tone, very much as I did early on a couple of years ago when I listened to her on various shows. Where I feel she appears to fall short is that she is not able, at least during that 15 minute section, to say unequivocally that these various 'leaders' are evil, bad news guys, war criminals etc. She'd probably be a pretty good diplomat herself as she's so careful not to saying anything bad about the bad guys of this world, under the supposition I suppose that she might have to sit across the table from them at some point downstream. But...what does she really think?

You can, IMO, both argue her position that 'regime change wars' have dangerous consequences while also being clear that the truly brutal dictators of this world are the US' foes, not allies.

BTW, can you point to anything she says specifically about Assad or was she not just speaking generally about 'regime change' and that's supposed to be a proxy for why she met with Assad? I may have missed it.

On the 'isolationism', she makes an interesting case for herself as not an isolationist (sorry, Salty, she too is pushing back on "isolationism"'), but I find her answer to Jocko's challenge about stepping in to stop genocides etc to be not my own view...she seems to see conspiracies of people 'pushing agendas' using humanitarian claims and language when they are not actually appropriate...I'm not seeing those other agendas, apparently, the way she is. IMO, she indeed leans too far, too hard towards "isolationism" if not willing to go all in (which I agree would be a tragic mistake). But she's leaning too hard that direction for me...but she's definitely an articulate, credible spokesperson for her views. I just disagree.

[runrussellrun]

yeah, I must have smoked too much weed...addled in the brain now.

This shouldn't be so hard, especially since you made the claim.....

....just ONE foreign policy that you disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on.......
-----------------------------------------------------------

Is it her Bolivia policy?

Asking racist Trudea the black face Canuck to step down?

Selling Iceland three Nuke aircraft carriers ?

Lativia milk price fixing ?

Fatty, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. Tulsi is not on the radar screen as far as I'm concerned.
But, yeah, her isolationism goes too far in my view, simply mistaken; I'd say that her play with Assad raises alarm bells as well.

But I'm not going to go as far as some and claim she actually intends to be playing into Putin's hands.

So your calling Hillary a liar? The long knives will be out for your alleged Republican backside. This could be a first on this forum. Is it possible MD was making a subtle criticism against a Democrat? I now believe that pigs really can fly.

nope, but calling SOMEONE that.


try watching, again, for the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYud9re7-Q

at the 50 minute mark, Tulsi Gabbard talks about ASSad, ( but you knew that b/c you watched it , like you claimed.

at 1:04:10....Tulsi Gabbard explains her, or rather MYTH BUSTS her "isolationist" viewpoint. Alleged a "concern" of the liar.

You're right, I didn't get to 50 minutes listening to these guys. Too long a sit for me to just listen to folks gabbing.

Thanks for pointing to that specific section; she comes across very well (absent the military industrial complex conspiracy stuff) with regard to her logic against 'regime change wars' and her strong preference towards diplomacy. I agree with her on that, which may surprise you...but I do. I like her tone, very much as I did early on a couple of years ago when I listened to her on various shows. Where I feel she appears to fall short is that she is not able, at least during that 15 minute section, to say unequivocally that these various 'leaders' are evil, bad news guys, war criminals etc. She'd probably be a pretty good diplomat herself as she's so careful not to saying anything bad about the bad guys of this world, under the supposition I suppose that she might have to sit across the table from them at some point downstream. But...what does she really think?

You can, IMO, both argue her position that 'regime change wars' have dangerous consequences while also being clear that the truly brutal dictators of this world are the US' foes, not allies.

BTW, can you point to anything she says specifically about Assad or was she not just speaking generally about 'regime change' and that's supposed to be a proxy for why she met with Assad? I may have missed it.

On the 'isolationism', she makes an interesting case for herself as not an isolationist (sorry, Salty, she too is pushing back on "isolationism"'), but I find her answer to Jocko's challenge about stepping in to stop genocides etc to be not my own view...she seems to see conspiracies of people 'pushing agendas' using humanitarian claims and language when they are not actually appropriate...I'm not seeing those other agendas, apparently, the way she is. IMO, she indeed leans too far, too hard towards "isolationism" if not willing to go all in (which I agree would be a tragic mistake). But she's leaning too hard that direction for me...but she's definitely an articulate, credible spokesperson for her views. I just disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EFj9Ra9STo

[Brooklyn]

another example of the CONservative state of mind:





so aberrant but not surprising

[DocBarrister]

Why is William Barr supporting a lying, racist, authoritarian, bigoted, misogynistic piece of trash like Donald Trump?

It all makes sense if you understand that Barr is part of the authoritarian Christian white supremacist movement that has taken over the Republican Party.

A deeper understanding of William Barr is emerging, and it reveals something profound and disturbing about the evolution of conservatism in 21st-century America.

... Mr. Barr’s constitutional interpretation is simply window dressing on his commitment to religious authoritarianism. And that, really, gets to the heart of the matter. If you know anything about America’s founders, you know they were passionately opposed to the idea of a religious monarchy. And this is the key to understanding the question, “What does Bill Barr want?”

The answer is that America’s conservative movement, having morphed into a religious nationalist movement, is on a collision course with the American constitutional system. Though conservatives have long claimed to be the true champions of the Constitution — remember all that chatter during previous Republican administrations about “originalism” and “judicial restraint” — the movement that now controls the Republican Party is committed to a suite of ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution and the Republic that the founders created under its auspices.

Mr. Trump’s presidency was not the cause of this anti-democratic movement in American politics. It was the consequence. He is the chosen instrument, not of God, but of today’s Christian nationalists, their political allies and funders, and the movement’s legal apparatus. Mr. Barr did not emerge in order to serve this one particular leader. On the contrary, Mr. Trump serves a movement that will cynically praise the Constitution in order to destroy it, and of which Mr. Barr has made himself a hero.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/opin ... e=Homepage

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

President Ron Daniels wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Not very well written and far too wishy-washy. But its implicit message is a harsh one: far too many Americans are ignorant on matters of basic civics.

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

Maybe (some) colleges have failed to teach basic civics, but the real problem is with the ignorant Americans in conservative America who disdain science, believe the idiotic conspiratorial rhetoric about the “Deep State”, advocate for the creation of a white supremacist Christian theocracy, and support the lying ignoramus, Donald Trump.

DocBarrister

[Bart]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

[DocBarrister]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

Well, if you’re talkin’ about Berkeley, easily the most anti-Semitic grunge fest I have ever had the displeasure of paying $100,000+ to, then I might be obliged to concur.

DocBarrister

[Bart]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

Well, if you’re talkin’ about Berkeley, easily the most anti-Semitic grunge fest I have ever had the displeasure of paying $100,000+ to, then I might be obliged to concur.

DocBarrister

Nope just a School in NYS that I have worked at for over 25 years. Plenty of ignorance regarding general civics.

[MDlaxfan76]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

Well, if you’re talkin’ about Berkeley, easily the most anti-Semitic grunge fest I have ever had the displeasure of paying $100,000+ to, then I might be obliged to concur.

DocBarrister

Nope just a School in NYS that I have worked at for over 25 years. Plenty of ignorance regarding general civics.

That's indeed an issue across the spectrum.

I suspect Doc thought you were referring more to the bigotry than the civics...."ignorance".

[holmes435]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

The nice thing about college educated people is that they generally continue to learn throughout and after college and become more well-rounded and less ignorant.

It's tough to say that about people with fewer educational opportunities.

[MDlaxfan76]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

The nice thing about college educated people is that they generally continue to learn throughout and after college and become more well-rounded and less ignorant.

It's tough to say that about people with fewer educational opportunities.

In general, folks who have significant exposure to diverse points of view, backgrounds, and knowledge tend to be far less likely to have prejudices about those who in some way differ from them. In large part, this is due to the evolutionary, survival impulse to get along in community, the desire to be 'liked' by others. We tend to expand the parameters of our own tolerance in the desire to be accepted by others as well, with whom we find ourselves in 'community'.

This does tend to happen on college campuses, particularly those which attract students and faculty from a diversity of backgrounds, the more so the better in that sense. As we've been discussing (I think on another thread) this also happens in the military.

However, people who remain siloed in a particular, insular community (whether rural or urban) are much less likely to be tolerant of others, largely based on their lack of positive contact with others different from themselves. It's indeed accurate that rural areas are more likely to have such insularity, particularly as those who manage to gain educational opportunities and mobility tend to aggregate where economic opportunity is greatest...which isn't rural America.

Unfortunately, even when in diverse situations, our desire to be 'accepted' and 'liked' also leads us to seek specific groups with identities with whom we are most comfortable. And this can lead to balkanization, and even hostility, defining one's own identity in opposition to others.

Helping this, at least somewhat, had been the relatively common sources of information flow previously in our society. Whether rural, suburban, or urban, many of our information sources were shared experiences, the same national magazines, the same tv networks, etc. There was relatively less balkanization of information. No longer the case.

We're struggling with this.

[Bart]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

The nice thing about college educated people is that they generally continue to learn throughout and after college and become more well-rounded and less ignorant.

It's tough to say that about people with fewer educational opportunities.

That is a nice sentiment that I would hope to be true but I honestly do not know about that in regards to civics. I have had conversations with several recently graduated post college age kids, young adults, who were convinced the POTUS was out after the articles of impeachment came out. So convinced that one would not even look it up on the interwire. Anecdotal.. ...absolutely but I see it every day at work. Perhaps just too young and early to be reflecting...........

In order to continue to learn, you have to want to continue to learn. Often facing data and presuppositions counter to your world view. I believe in today's hyper-polar society people are often not willing to do that.

[Bart]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

The nice thing about college educated people is that they generally continue to learn throughout and after college and become more well-rounded and less ignorant.

It's tough to say that about people with fewer educational opportunities.

In general, folks who have significant exposure to diverse points of view, backgrounds, and knowledge tend to be far less likely to have prejudices about those who in some way differ from them. In large part, this is due to the evolutionary, survival impulse to get along in community, the desire to be 'liked' by others. We tend to expand the parameters of our own tolerance in the desire to be accepted by others as well, with whom we find ourselves in 'community'.

This does tend to happen on college campuses, particularly those which attract students and faculty from a diversity of backgrounds, the more so the better in that sense. As we've been discussing (I think on another thread) this also happens in the military.

However, people who remain siloed in a particular, insular community (whether rural or urban) are much less likely to be tolerant of others, largely based on their lack of positive contact with others different from themselves. It's indeed accurate that rural areas are more likely to have such insularity, particularly as those who manage to gain educational opportunities and mobility tend to aggregate where economic opportunity is greatest isn't rural America.

I may agree with this but one of the MOST insular communities in our fair land is that of the college campus. Where most academics share insulated views that are often, not always, out of sync with those same rural communities they are in that you speak of. Do you think the academics welcome the opposing views from their rural neighbors? No, they write letters to the editor and articles in the school paper about how out of touch their neighbors actually are. It is not a one way street with regards to ignorance or views that are insulated. IMO

Unfortunately, even when in diverse situations, our desire to be 'accepted' and 'liked' also leads us to seek specific groups with identities with whom we are most comfortable. And this can lead to balkanization, and even hostility, defining one's own identity in opposition to others.

Helping this, at least somewhat, had been the relatively common sources of information flow previously in our society. Whether rural, suburban, or urban, many of our information sources were shared experiences, the same national magazines, the same tv networks, etc. There was relatively less balkanization of information. No longer the case.

We're struggling with this.

[MDlaxfan76]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

The nice thing about college educated people is that they generally continue to learn throughout and after college and become more well-rounded and less ignorant.

It's tough to say that about people with fewer educational opportunities.

That is a nice sentiment that I would hope to be true but I honestly do not know about that in regards to civics. I have had conversations with several recently graduated post college age kids, young adults, who were convinced the POTUS was out after the articles of impeachment came out. So convinced that one would not even look it up on the interwire. Anecdotal.. ...absolutely but I see it every day at work. Perhaps just too young and early to be reflecting...........

In order to continue to learn, you have to want to continue to learn. Often facing data and presuppositions counter to your world view. I believe in today's hyper-polar society people are often not willing to do that.

I agree with you, Bart, that we find ignorance of civics everywhere, including on the college campus. But, on a relative basis, it is not merely a 'sentiment' that those who seek an education are more likely to "want to continue to learn" more than those who do not. Again, on a relative basis.

And yes, this "hyper-polar" aspect is a serious problem as well.

[MDlaxfan76]

Frankly, Daniels was far too timid in speaking the truth more directly ... that ignorance is more of a problem in Republican, rural, and conservative America.

DocBarrister

Sorry Doc, I see this manifest itself equally in a liberal college campus.

The nice thing about college educated people is that they generally continue to learn throughout and after college and become more well-rounded and less ignorant.

It's tough to say that about people with fewer educational opportunities.

In general, folks who have significant exposure to diverse points of view, backgrounds, and knowledge tend to be far less likely to have prejudices about those who in some way differ from them. In large part, this is due to the evolutionary, survival impulse to get along in community, the desire to be 'liked' by others. We tend to expand the parameters of our own tolerance in the desire to be accepted by others as well, with whom we find ourselves in 'community'.

This does tend to happen on college campuses, particularly those which attract students and faculty from a diversity of backgrounds, the more so the better in that sense. As we've been discussing (I think on another thread) this also happens in the military.

However, people who remain siloed in a particular, insular community (whether rural or urban) are much less likely to be tolerant of others, largely based on their lack of positive contact with others different from themselves. It's indeed accurate that rural areas are more likely to have such insularity, particularly as those who manage to gain educational opportunities and mobility tend to aggregate where economic opportunity is greatest isn't rural America.

I may agree with this but one of the MOST insular communities in our fair land is that of the college campus. Where most academics share insulated views that are often, not always, out of sync with those same rural communities they are in that you speak of. Do you think the academics welcome the opposing views from their rural neighbors? No, they write letters to the editor and articles in the school paper about how out of touch their neighbors actually are. It is not a one way street with regards to ignorance or views that are insulated. IMO

Unfortunately, even when in diverse situations, our desire to be 'accepted' and 'liked' also leads us to seek specific groups with identities with whom we are most comfortable. And this can lead to balkanization, and even hostility, defining one's own identity in opposition to others.

Helping this, at least somewhat, had been the relatively common sources of information flow previously in our society. Whether rural, suburban, or urban, many of our information sources were shared experiences, the same national magazines, the same tv networks, etc. There was relatively less balkanization of information. No longer the case.

We're struggling with this.

I'm struggling with claiming that academia is "one of MOST insular communities" in America. Presumably you mean in terms of liberal vs conservative leanings, not race, religion, ethnic ancestry, gender power, etc? Hard to classify as among the "MOST insular" if that is the sole determinant.

Even looking at the liberal vs conservative bent, which is definitely correct except for a handful of religious dominated institutions, it's difficult to find a major, or highly selective, college without conservatives on the faculty. I can't speak for your NYS school (are you a faculty member or member of the administration?) but I do know that Ivies have lots of conservatives within the faculty ranks. Are they significantly outnumbered? Sure. But are they silent? No.

Where I do think that there's some uniformity on college campuses is that the faculty all pretty much understand that they need to respect the diversity of their student body. Colleges are definitely struggling with how to do so.

However, if we simply examine the definition of the word "insular", "ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience." it's difficult to say that there aren't faculty members interested in studying cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience". Heck, that's exactly what the social sciences are all about, trying to understand how different people make choices and why.

On the other hand, is there plenty of 'ignorance' or even outright dismissal of rural, working class America among many faculty?

Sure. But, again, not all. Not by a long shot.

[holmes435]

Don't forget, college campuses have been bastions of liberalism and activism for over a half-century before the hyper-partisanship of the past decade.

If colleges were so insular and indoctrinating, most of the boomer politicians would be similar or to the left of Bernie.

[Bart]

Don't forget, college campuses have been bastions of liberalism and activism for over a half-century before the hyper-partisanship of the past decade.

If colleges were so insular and indoctrinating, most of the boomer politicians would be similar or to the left of Bernie.

Perhaps this is where your continued learning comes in

[get it to x]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are far too broad of terms to describe today's ideologies. The term conservative goes from neocons to Isolationists and from free traders to trade hawks. Liberal could be anything from a total socialist big government advocate all the way to anarchist.

I would say one of the big differences is many on the right think that many of the left's ideas are bad and have been proven bad over and over, while many on the left think those on the right are evil people. Look at what DB thinks of Trump voters. It's how he can call Trump a racist, when all indications are he is completely colorblind in that regard. He won NAACP awards and had a hit show, and nobody called him a racist until he messed with their rice bowl. He will blow away the "R" percentage of the African American vote in 2020 because of his outreach.

Doc, all of this hate can't be good for you.

[Bandito]

President Trump is sending 100 Marines into Iraq after the embassy attack.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did NOTHING while our embassy was being attacked in Benghazi.

That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats!

[Typical Lax Dad]

President Trump is sending 100 Marines into Iraq after the embassy attack.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did NOTHING while our embassy was being attacked in Benghazi.

That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats!

Attaboy Donald! Give em hell