4 ms·

That basic idea is basically correct. Reality is more nuanced than that, but from a birds eye view republicans are actually bad, and democrats are actually good

That basic idea is basically correct. Reality is more nuanced than that, but from a birds eye view republicans are actually bad, and democrats are actually good.

arkis22 6y ago
I live near a beach. there's some sand here you can stick your head in. enjoy your monopoly on morality.
mythrwy 6y ago
I'm a Republican I'll admit it. I don't believe in God. I think people should be able to take whatever drugs they want. I think there should be a basic safety net and what we have now isn't doing it. I believe in evolution. (I don't however believe climate change models are good enough to predict what will happen and I don't think C02 will turn out to be the predicted tragedy. I do agree humans are affecting the climate). I believe people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor and taxation of labor or capital isn't a good idea (I'm a land and resource tax proponent). I don't think society has an innate claim on the labor or talents of anyone. I think people should be able to defend themselves and possess deadly weapons. I don't go to church but I think people should be able to worship as they wish. I think churches should be somewhat restricted in what they can claim (for the same reasons I think peddlers of nutritional supplements should be restricted in what they can claim) but this is pretty loose and outright fraud is what I have in mind. I think racism is stupid. I think slavery and communism are both horrible ideas for society and for the victims. I believe in representative constitutional government. I abhor monarchies, dictatorships, dynasties and anything resembling those. Am I bad in your opinion? If you think so I feel it's not me that's the problem. Of course I understand you may not agree with all my positions and that's fine. I don't think you are bad for disagreeing. Unless you are a slavery proponent or advocate of non representative form of dictatorship and then ya, you likely are bad. Otherwise you probably just have a different opinion.
- philosopher1234 6y ago
  No I don’t think you’re bad. I was giving a generalization. I believe there exist good people (whatever that means) in both aisles. I think there are many deeply destructive warrior republicans. I believe there are many delusional, stupid republicans. I believe there are some thoughtful, sensitive, and smart republicans, but I don’t believe there are very many of them. I believe the republican leadership has abandoned the pursuit of compassion and dignity, and ceded power to the delusional and the warriors.
  - arkis22 6y ago
    ditto but for dems. your name is wrong. you're not a philosopher. you've never considered the opposite view.
    - philosopher1234 6y ago
      I disagree. There are more reasonable/compassionate dems, and the party has retained truth and compassion as core values. The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party.
      - arkis22 6y ago
        you're 18 right
      - arkis22 6y ago
        I am so sorry for you that you think the dems have a monopoly on morality. I really am. you're like 18 right
- tempestn 6y ago
  For what it's worth, I don't think you're bad based on what you wrote above; I even agree with you on much of it, with the severity of climate change being the major exception. What I can't see is how a reasonable person could vote for Trump based on positions like those. Because to me his behavior was so egregious, divisive, and even dangerous that any reasonable person should have voted against him, with both Clinton and Biden being far better alternatives even if you don't share all their views.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    He was real change in wilderness of more of the same. Particularly involving the oversea conflicts and increased outsourcing. Neither Biden nor Clinton were credible in my view. Both were corrupt. Both were sold out and more of the same. Both were involved in "regime change". So I forgive a little carnival barker behavior (I, and many others don't care for it either but we understand). It helped bring in a large group of people that don't usually listen to guys in suits. Hope that explains it.
    - tempestn 6y ago
      Not sure if you'll still be checking this thread, but I wanted to respond since I really think it's valuable to try to understand people with very different views from one's own. That said, I do kind of feel like we're operating from very different origins, not just in priorities and beliefs (which might not be all that different), but in understanding of the state of the world. That said, in case you're interested I'll do my best to lay out how I see these things. I can respect the position you laid out. I agree that minimizing wars is a laudable goal. The Iraq war in particular was catastrophic, and Trump indeed didn't start something like that. He did do things that I felt made the world more dangerous, like the 'little rocket man' taunts, and pulling out of the Iran deal, but I can understand the sentiment of supporting less foreign involvement. That said, it just doesn't seem like we're sharing the same baseline worldview in terms of what constitutes corruption, or what behavior is excusable in a public figure. I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton or Biden is corrupt; Trump has said it a lot, but has he produced actual evidence? On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of evidence of Trump profiting from the presidency, such as scheduling events at his properties. Not to mention more serious offenses, like encouraging foreign leaders to investigate his opponents. Much of what you call carnival barker behavior I see as divisive and immoral, from birtherism to calling into question the whole electoral system without apparent evidence. It basically seems like he's willing to say literally anything if he thinks it will rile up support, even if it's entirely made up, deeply insulting, or incredibly divisive. To me the harms done by those actions and behaviors greatly outweigh the potential benefits, unless perhaps you believe that Clinton or Biden would have started another Iraq, which I don't. I guess we'll see over the next few years. But we've already seen the harms, both domestically and abroad; I can tell you for instance that the US's Canadian allies feel a lot less warmly toward not just Trump but the US as a whole after his attitude toward our country. I actually wrote another couple paragraphs, but I really don't want to be argumentative; I'm just trying to similarly lay out my point of view (if you're even still checking this thread). I truly do want to understand the perspective of people who have a very different worldview than my own, especially when they seem reasonable and willing to engage. I realize my own guttural negative reaction toward Trump's behaviour probably biases me against his actions and supporters as well, so I do try to guard against that. Didn't even get to climate change. To be honest, that's maybe the one issue where I would consider (although likely reject) supporting a Trump-like figure on the left, if they seemed likely to advance the goal, since the evidence I've seen really does suggest it's a catastrophe in the making. I'm curious whether your belief that it won't be that bad is more of a feeling based on past overreactions, or whether it's based on evidence or expert opinion that I haven't seen. I'd certainly be happy to be convinced it indeed won't be bad, but to be honest I can't see how that could be, given what I see as pretty concrete evidence of both the fact and trajectory of climate change. We're already seeing impacts on more frequent extreme weather events, and on shrinking habitat for polar and ocean wildlife, like polar bears and coral to name just a couple. Anyway, I appreciate your reply, and conversations like this one do give me some hope for a less antagonistic future.

That basic idea is basically correct. Reality is more nuanced than that, but from a birds eye view republicans are actually bad, and democrats are actually good.

arkis22 6y ago

I live near a beach. there's some sand here you can stick your head in. enjoy your monopoly on morality.

mythrwy 6y ago

I'm a Republican I'll admit it. I don't believe in God. I think people should be able to take whatever drugs they want. I think there should be a basic safety net and what we have now isn't doing it. I believe in evolution. (I don't however believe climate change models are good enough to predict what will happen and I don't think C02 will turn out to be the predicted tragedy. I do agree humans are affecting the climate). I believe people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor and taxation of labor or capital isn't a good idea (I'm a land and resource tax proponent). I don't think society has an innate claim on the labor or talents of anyone. I think people should be able to defend themselves and possess deadly weapons. I don't go to church but I think people should be able to worship as they wish. I think churches should be somewhat restricted in what they can claim (for the same reasons I think peddlers of nutritional supplements should be restricted in what they can claim) but this is pretty loose and outright fraud is what I have in mind. I think racism is stupid. I think slavery and communism are both horrible ideas for society and for the victims. I believe in representative constitutional government. I abhor monarchies, dictatorships, dynasties and anything resembling those. Am I bad in your opinion? If you think so I feel it's not me that's the problem. Of course I understand you may not agree with all my positions and that's fine. I don't think you are bad for disagreeing. Unless you are a slavery proponent or advocate of non representative form of dictatorship and then ya, you likely are bad. Otherwise you probably just have a different opinion.

philosopher1234 6y ago
No I don’t think you’re bad. I was giving a generalization. I believe there exist good people (whatever that means) in both aisles. I think there are many deeply destructive warrior republicans. I believe there are many delusional, stupid republicans. I believe there are some thoughtful, sensitive, and smart republicans, but I don’t believe there are very many of them. I believe the republican leadership has abandoned the pursuit of compassion and dignity, and ceded power to the delusional and the warriors.
- arkis22 6y ago
  ditto but for dems. your name is wrong. you're not a philosopher. you've never considered the opposite view.
  - philosopher1234 6y ago
    I disagree. There are more reasonable/compassionate dems, and the party has retained truth and compassion as core values. The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party.
    - arkis22 6y ago
      you're 18 right
    - arkis22 6y ago
      I am so sorry for you that you think the dems have a monopoly on morality. I really am. you're like 18 right
tempestn 6y ago
For what it's worth, I don't think you're bad based on what you wrote above; I even agree with you on much of it, with the severity of climate change being the major exception. What I can't see is how a reasonable person could vote for Trump based on positions like those. Because to me his behavior was so egregious, divisive, and even dangerous that any reasonable person should have voted against him, with both Clinton and Biden being far better alternatives even if you don't share all their views.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  He was real change in wilderness of more of the same. Particularly involving the oversea conflicts and increased outsourcing. Neither Biden nor Clinton were credible in my view. Both were corrupt. Both were sold out and more of the same. Both were involved in "regime change". So I forgive a little carnival barker behavior (I, and many others don't care for it either but we understand). It helped bring in a large group of people that don't usually listen to guys in suits. Hope that explains it.
  - tempestn 6y ago
    Not sure if you'll still be checking this thread, but I wanted to respond since I really think it's valuable to try to understand people with very different views from one's own. That said, I do kind of feel like we're operating from very different origins, not just in priorities and beliefs (which might not be all that different), but in understanding of the state of the world. That said, in case you're interested I'll do my best to lay out how I see these things. I can respect the position you laid out. I agree that minimizing wars is a laudable goal. The Iraq war in particular was catastrophic, and Trump indeed didn't start something like that. He did do things that I felt made the world more dangerous, like the 'little rocket man' taunts, and pulling out of the Iran deal, but I can understand the sentiment of supporting less foreign involvement. That said, it just doesn't seem like we're sharing the same baseline worldview in terms of what constitutes corruption, or what behavior is excusable in a public figure. I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton or Biden is corrupt; Trump has said it a lot, but has he produced actual evidence? On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of evidence of Trump profiting from the presidency, such as scheduling events at his properties. Not to mention more serious offenses, like encouraging foreign leaders to investigate his opponents. Much of what you call carnival barker behavior I see as divisive and immoral, from birtherism to calling into question the whole electoral system without apparent evidence. It basically seems like he's willing to say literally anything if he thinks it will rile up support, even if it's entirely made up, deeply insulting, or incredibly divisive. To me the harms done by those actions and behaviors greatly outweigh the potential benefits, unless perhaps you believe that Clinton or Biden would have started another Iraq, which I don't. I guess we'll see over the next few years. But we've already seen the harms, both domestically and abroad; I can tell you for instance that the US's Canadian allies feel a lot less warmly toward not just Trump but the US as a whole after his attitude toward our country. I actually wrote another couple paragraphs, but I really don't want to be argumentative; I'm just trying to similarly lay out my point of view (if you're even still checking this thread). I truly do want to understand the perspective of people who have a very different worldview than my own, especially when they seem reasonable and willing to engage. I realize my own guttural negative reaction toward Trump's behaviour probably biases me against his actions and supporters as well, so I do try to guard against that. Didn't even get to climate change. To be honest, that's maybe the one issue where I would consider (although likely reject) supporting a Trump-like figure on the left, if they seemed likely to advance the goal, since the evidence I've seen really does suggest it's a catastrophe in the making. I'm curious whether your belief that it won't be that bad is more of a feeling based on past overreactions, or whether it's based on evidence or expert opinion that I haven't seen. I'd certainly be happy to be convinced it indeed won't be bad, but to be honest I can't see how that could be, given what I see as pretty concrete evidence of both the fact and trajectory of climate change. We're already seeing impacts on more frequent extreme weather events, and on shrinking habitat for polar and ocean wildlife, like polar bears and coral to name just a couple. Anyway, I appreciate your reply, and conversations like this one do give me some hope for a less antagonistic future.