4 ms·

>You act as if this is some new phenomenon, but it's just the latest data point in a dangerous game played by both sides. Your list supporting "both sides", wh

>You act as if this is some new phenomenon, but it's just the latest data point in a dangerous game played by both sides. Your list supporting "both sides", when in chronological order, starts with three instances in a row of Republicans attacking the legitimacy of Democrats, the third one of which (birtherism) was driven by Trump! If you're going to spin this as both sides, you can spin it better than that. For instance, I'm pretty sure that the hatred for the Clintons, at least in the 90s, had a lot to do with Hillary's association with Watergate. So in the minds of Republicans at the time, I believe they felt it was payback for making Nixon resign.

naasking 5y ago
I'm not claiming that both sides are equally terrible, only that both sides are terrible. It's like having two colleagues, one of whom is an openly hostile, selfish asshole, and the other who is nice to your face but talks shit about you when you're not around and sometimes stabs you in the back when it's convenient for them. If you asked people who they'd rather associate with if they had to choose one, I think you'd get a pretty even split roughly along partisan lines. I also think it's pretty clear that the two-faced one would easily get a majority if they weren't so duplicitous and didn't stab you in the back so much. Instead of insisting they do this, people are instead expending all of their energy complaining that the other guy has recently become an even bigger asshole.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >sometimes stabs you in the back when it's convenient for them Your summary didn't support this analogy. I think you need to work on it. You mentioned that the Republicans repeatedly "stabbed" the Democrats, front, back, I dunno. Then after at least a quarter century of escalation, the Democrats (may have) retaliated. I'm not arguing about how to describe history, you can have it your way. But the summary and the characterization just don't go together.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Yeah, no, you're not getting it. The Democrats and Republicans have no obligation to be nice to each other; arguably they shouldn't be. The "stabbing in the back" refers to how they treat their constituents, and in that regard, my analogy perfectly describes the situation, and this is why they're both terrible parties.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >The "stabbing in the back" refers to how they treat their constituents, and in that regard, my analogy perfectly describes the situation, and this is why they're both terrible parties. Ok, I see that you think they are basically equally bad in how they treat their own constituents, but since their constituents want different things, I don't know why it matters. Imagine a simplistic political model where the country is divided into two exact halves that want to exterminate the other. It wouldn't make sense to switch sides no matter how ineffective your side is. If the other side is equally or more likely to carry out their plans, more trustworthy, has spiffier uniforms, better speakers, or whatever, that isn't a reason to support them.

naasking 5y ago

I'm not claiming that both sides are equally terrible, only that both sides are terrible. It's like having two colleagues, one of whom is an openly hostile, selfish asshole, and the other who is nice to your face but talks shit about you when you're not around and sometimes stabs you in the back when it's convenient for them. If you asked people who they'd rather associate with if they had to choose one, I think you'd get a pretty even split roughly along partisan lines. I also think it's pretty clear that the two-faced one would easily get a majority if they weren't so duplicitous and didn't stab you in the back so much. Instead of insisting they do this, people are instead expending all of their energy complaining that the other guy has recently become an even bigger asshole.

perl4ever 5y ago
>sometimes stabs you in the back when it's convenient for them Your summary didn't support this analogy. I think you need to work on it. You mentioned that the Republicans repeatedly "stabbed" the Democrats, front, back, I dunno. Then after at least a quarter century of escalation, the Democrats (may have) retaliated. I'm not arguing about how to describe history, you can have it your way. But the summary and the characterization just don't go together.
- naasking 5y ago
  Yeah, no, you're not getting it. The Democrats and Republicans have no obligation to be nice to each other; arguably they shouldn't be. The "stabbing in the back" refers to how they treat their constituents, and in that regard, my analogy perfectly describes the situation, and this is why they're both terrible parties.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >The "stabbing in the back" refers to how they treat their constituents, and in that regard, my analogy perfectly describes the situation, and this is why they're both terrible parties. Ok, I see that you think they are basically equally bad in how they treat their own constituents, but since their constituents want different things, I don't know why it matters. Imagine a simplistic political model where the country is divided into two exact halves that want to exterminate the other. It wouldn't make sense to switch sides no matter how ineffective your side is. If the other side is equally or more likely to carry out their plans, more trustworthy, has spiffier uniforms, better speakers, or whatever, that isn't a reason to support them.