5 ms·

I believe his point is that many people who follow politics follow parties emotionally rather than rationally. This is quite common in the US; it's very tribal,

I believe his point is that many people who follow politics follow parties emotionally rather than rationally. This is quite common in the US; it's very tribal, and by design. When it is framed as a "Republican," issue (which it certainly is), you've just lost a good chunk of the audience you are trying to convince. That is the counterproductive part.

foolrush 9y ago
So don't convince them. Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Doubly so when one side is at odds with the other side's values. History is a good guide here: When one side is against a value system, negotiating isn't an option. Fight them.
- Clubber 9y ago
  >Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Really? Do you not think that has been going on for the last year at least? It didn't do a lick of good either.
  - foolrush 9y ago
    See second part. The power that be don't have your interests at hand. It is fight time.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      So what does that entail? Write letters more vigerously?
      - SpikeDad 9y ago
        Larger size fonts? Republicans are already immunized against public opinion - they know their base will vote for them regardless. It's gonna take a every non-right wing Republican voter to bond together and start voting for the candidate running against the Republican regardless of how they feel about them. Only by voting out Republicans in large numbers will they finally start paying attention to the public. I think the liberal, progressive factions need to realize their best actions are to vote against Republicans and for whatever mainstream Democrats are running. Sorry they might not be the ideal candidate but when a party like Republicans are in power they immediately start changing the rules making it so much more difficult to get them out of office.
        intended 9y ago
        Currently America needs a third party. The design of its politics used to work. But today the dual effects of Fox News insulation, and social media polarization are running in only one direction - more polarization. This is finally the year that the Democrats got polarized fully and started responding to the system with the levers that still work. Unfortunately, bipartisanship is a dirty word for the republicans, due to the set up of their internal power and image dynamics. For decades now, they’ve been working on the winner take all playbook- this has bred ever more aggressive republican politicians, whose main focus is winning elections. The younger politicians see reaching across the aisle as weakness and betrayal. The older republicans have allowed the situation to occur and now ride the tiger. This scenario will lead to only more polarization, even within the parties themselves. Without any ability to listen to the other side, your options are reduced to “do nothing / try the same thing, but harder”. In such a scenario having only two parties results in deadlock. A third party would allow for cooperation, and breaking of deadlock.
actsasbuffoon 9y ago
A recent survey showed that ~75% of republicans support the concept of net neutrality. The problem is that republican lawmakers overwhelmingly don’t support net neutrality. I think it’s a good idea to remind republicans that their elected officials are doing things they don’t approve of. Hopefully they will put pressure on them to re-instate NN, and vote for pro-NN candidates in the future.
- SpikeDad 9y ago
  Republicans have made it an art form to get their base to support things that are bad for them. Just look at the new tax bill, reduction of social services. The list is extensive. As long as they feed the agenda in their base's minds that voting for Republicans is voting for people like that who are against (or hate) the "other" folks then there's not much Republicans can't do to satisfy their real benefactors - rich folks and corporations.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  On the other hand, they support the things their constituents want (e.g anti-abortion, anti-immigration,gun rights, etc). Yes, they may want net neutrality, but it's not a priority compared to the other things they want more.
lotu 9y ago
To this point I talked with my Republican parents about this they were not very informed about what Net Neutrality was but they liked the idea of less regulations. I explained how it would allow the "Washington Post" to strike a deal with Comcast to be the exclusive low tier news site for so you would only be able to access "fox news" and "drugg report" if you paid for a higher tier plan. They did not like the idea anymore.
lurr 9y ago
> and by design anyone else find it ridiculous how often people try to claim the issues plaguing the US government are "by design". it seems like it's done for almost anything. Electoral college is giving more and more power to low population states and somehow that is by design despite the house being capped for a century. political parties were warned about by some of the founding fathers, but the adversarial nature turning into an incredibly toxic environment is "by design"?
- thephyber 9y ago
  > Electoral college is giving more and more power to low population states and somehow that is by design despite the house being capped for a century. I'll agree with your second point, but not this one. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of the issues ("how to elect the president") was tasked to the "Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters", which came up with the Electoral College. The founding fathers gave the low-population states a bone in order to create something that all of the colonies/states could/would ratify. It is affirmative action for states where few people want to live. And it was "by design" at the time of ratification of the Constitution. It was, however, designed as a compromise, as was allowance of slavery and the 3/5s of a person that each slave represented for Congressional Districts.
- Clubber 9y ago
  You don't think two party politics are adversarial by design? Wake up. Politicians talk the way they do because to get elected, you energize your base. You do that by shitting on the other guy. Good ideas don't get you elected. Emotion does and that emotion is usually fear. Read a newspaper website. Pick any. Do you think the "October surprise" every singe presidential election cycle is just one hell of a coincidence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

foolrush 9y ago

So don't convince them. Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Doubly so when one side is at odds with the other side's values. History is a good guide here: When one side is against a value system, negotiating isn't an option. Fight them.

Clubber 9y ago
>Convince those that are already on side to rally and make calls. Really? Do you not think that has been going on for the last year at least? It didn't do a lick of good either.
- foolrush 9y ago
  See second part. The power that be don't have your interests at hand. It is fight time.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    So what does that entail? Write letters more vigerously?
    - SpikeDad 9y ago
      Larger size fonts? Republicans are already immunized against public opinion - they know their base will vote for them regardless. It's gonna take a every non-right wing Republican voter to bond together and start voting for the candidate running against the Republican regardless of how they feel about them. Only by voting out Republicans in large numbers will they finally start paying attention to the public. I think the liberal, progressive factions need to realize their best actions are to vote against Republicans and for whatever mainstream Democrats are running. Sorry they might not be the ideal candidate but when a party like Republicans are in power they immediately start changing the rules making it so much more difficult to get them out of office.
      - intended 9y ago
        Currently America needs a third party. The design of its politics used to work. But today the dual effects of Fox News insulation, and social media polarization are running in only one direction - more polarization. This is finally the year that the Democrats got polarized fully and started responding to the system with the levers that still work. Unfortunately, bipartisanship is a dirty word for the republicans, due to the set up of their internal power and image dynamics. For decades now, they’ve been working on the winner take all playbook- this has bred ever more aggressive republican politicians, whose main focus is winning elections. The younger politicians see reaching across the aisle as weakness and betrayal. The older republicans have allowed the situation to occur and now ride the tiger. This scenario will lead to only more polarization, even within the parties themselves. Without any ability to listen to the other side, your options are reduced to “do nothing / try the same thing, but harder”. In such a scenario having only two parties results in deadlock. A third party would allow for cooperation, and breaking of deadlock.

actsasbuffoon 9y ago

A recent survey showed that ~75% of republicans support the concept of net neutrality. The problem is that republican lawmakers overwhelmingly don’t support net neutrality. I think it’s a good idea to remind republicans that their elected officials are doing things they don’t approve of. Hopefully they will put pressure on them to re-instate NN, and vote for pro-NN candidates in the future.

SpikeDad 9y ago
Republicans have made it an art form to get their base to support things that are bad for them. Just look at the new tax bill, reduction of social services. The list is extensive. As long as they feed the agenda in their base's minds that voting for Republicans is voting for people like that who are against (or hate) the "other" folks then there's not much Republicans can't do to satisfy their real benefactors - rich folks and corporations.
craftyguy 9y ago
On the other hand, they support the things their constituents want (e.g anti-abortion, anti-immigration,gun rights, etc). Yes, they may want net neutrality, but it's not a priority compared to the other things they want more.

lotu 9y ago

To this point I talked with my Republican parents about this they were not very informed about what Net Neutrality was but they liked the idea of less regulations. I explained how it would allow the "Washington Post" to strike a deal with Comcast to be the exclusive low tier news site for so you would only be able to access "fox news" and "drugg report" if you paid for a higher tier plan. They did not like the idea anymore.

lurr 9y ago

> and by design anyone else find it ridiculous how often people try to claim the issues plaguing the US government are "by design". it seems like it's done for almost anything. Electoral college is giving more and more power to low population states and somehow that is by design despite the house being capped for a century. political parties were warned about by some of the founding fathers, but the adversarial nature turning into an incredibly toxic environment is "by design"?

thephyber 9y ago
> Electoral college is giving more and more power to low population states and somehow that is by design despite the house being capped for a century. I'll agree with your second point, but not this one. In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of the issues ("how to elect the president") was tasked to the "Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters", which came up with the Electoral College. The founding fathers gave the low-population states a bone in order to create something that all of the colonies/states could/would ratify. It is affirmative action for states where few people want to live. And it was "by design" at the time of ratification of the Constitution. It was, however, designed as a compromise, as was allowance of slavery and the 3/5s of a person that each slave represented for Congressional Districts.
Clubber 9y ago
You don't think two party politics are adversarial by design? Wake up. Politicians talk the way they do because to get elected, you energize your base. You do that by shitting on the other guy. Good ideas don't get you elected. Emotion does and that emotion is usually fear. Read a newspaper website. Pick any. Do you think the "October surprise" every singe presidential election cycle is just one hell of a coincidence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise