Polarization and Media Habits

[GannonFan]

Wait. What?
Fiscally conservative?
Can you "clearly establish" your stance on some of the fiscal issues again?

1) I think our welfare state has created generational dependency and needs to be completely revamped.

2) I think government inefficiency, redundancy, and overall spending is completely out of control.

3) There are too many entities both public and private that are suckling off the government teat.

4) I don't like government picking winners and losers.

5) We need to cut spending.

I just happen to not be a Republican window licker or a "free market" fundamentalist.

Weren't you in favor of reinstituting Hawley-Smoot though? Where does that fit? And really, now people that tout the "free market" are fundamentalists? Where's the nuance in that perjorative? BlueHen86 will be disappointed by that name-calling from an avowed "non-conk".

You may actually believe much of what you wrote, although you don't always seem to tout many of those things when you post, but your remedies (protective tarrifs, skewed trade agreements, status quo for the developing world) for what ails us are often unrealistic and impossible to implement, let alone impossible to succeed. Pie-in-the-sky may be the better description for your economic views. I guess that can fall anywhere you want on the political spectrum, but in the end it probably doesn't matter.

[kalm]

I think the word you are looking for is 'nuance'. There are a lot of conks on this board, cid being one of them, that don't grasp the concept. You either agree with them 100% of the time, or you are a donk. They can't understand the concept of middle ground.

Come on, do you honestly believe the same isn't true of the donks on this board? This idea that one side or the other has the monopoly on nuance is stilly - both sides are stridently partisan and both sides only listen to what they want to listen to.

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, Ganny. Republicans will often be the first to point out nuance as a weakness for liberals. Sometimes that's actually true. Somethings, however call for nuance. Conservatives by nature resist alternative or progressive views. This too can be a strength or weakness. Stoically holding to your beliefs and belittling nuance as indecisive weakness is a conk characteristic.

Oh, and not everyone on this board listens only to what they want to hear.

[CAA Flagship]

Wait. What?
Fiscally conservative?
Can you "clearly establish" your stance on some of the fiscal issues again?

1) I think our welfare state has created generational dependency and needs to be completely revamped.

2) I think government inefficiency, redundancy, and overall spending is completely out of control.

3) There are too many entities both public and private that are suckling off the government teat.

4) I don't like government picking winners and losers.

5) We need to cut spending.

I just happen to not be a Republican window licker or a "free market" fundamentalist.

OK kalmy, now where do you rank this fiscal stance as it relates to all issues of a political platform? And which party, with a reasonable chance of winning a national election, offers the best chance of tackling these issues? Which party, with a reasonable chance of winning a national election, offers the best chance of meeting your Number 1 issue?

[AZGrizFan]

Come on, do you honestly believe the same isn't true of the donks on this board? This idea that one side or the other has the monopoly on nuance is stilly - both sides are stridently partisan and both sides only listen to what they want to listen to.

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, Ganny. Republicans will often be the first to point out nuance as a weakness for liberals. Sometimes that's actually true. Somethings, however call for nuance. Conservatives by nature resist alternative or progressive views. This too can be a strength or weakness. Stoically holding to your beliefs and belittling nuance as indecisive weakness is a conk characteristic.

Oh, and not everyone on this board listens only to what they want to hear.

I'm sorry, were you saying something?

[GannonFan]

Come on, do you honestly believe the same isn't true of the donks on this board? This idea that one side or the other has the monopoly on nuance is stilly - both sides are stridently partisan and both sides only listen to what they want to listen to.

Stoically holding to your beliefs and belittling nuance as indecisive weakness is a conk characteristic.

And stoically holding to your beliefs and belittling nuance as backward thinking or uneducated mumbo-jumbo is a donk characteristic.

Neither conk or donk handle nuance well, it's not in their nature and it doesn't hold well with their beliefs that what they believe is correct and anyone who differs with them is crazy.

[kalm]

Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, Ganny. Republicans will often be the first to point out nuance as a weakness for liberals. Sometimes that's actually true. Somethings, however call for nuance. Conservatives by nature resist alternative or progressive views. This too can be a strength or weakness. Stoically holding to your beliefs and belittling nuance as indecisive weakness is a conk characteristic.

Oh, and not everyone on this board listens only to what they want to hear.

I'm sorry, were you saying something?

[kalm]

1) I think our welfare state has created generational dependency and needs to be completely revamped.

2) I think government inefficiency, redundancy, and overall spending is completely out of control.

3) There are too many entities both public and private that are suckling off the government teat.

4) I don't like government picking winners and losers.

5) We need to cut spending.

I just happen to not be a Republican window licker or a "free market" fundamentalist.

Weren't you in favor of reinstituting Hawley-Smoot though? Where does that fit? And really, now people that tout the "free market" are fundamentalists? Where's the nuance in that perjorative? BlueHen86 will be disappointed by that name-calling from an avowed "non-conk".

You may actually believe much of what you wrote, although you don't always seem to tout many of those things when you post, but your remedies (protective tarrifs, skewed trade agreements, status quo for the developing world) for what ails us are often unrealistic and impossible to implement, let alone impossible to succeed. Pie-in-the-sky may be the better description for your economic views. I guess that can fall anywhere you want on the political spectrum, but in the end it probably doesn't matter.

No silly, but there are definitely free market fundamentalists. Surely you can admit that? Or did I strike a nerve with that one.

As for the rest, and unlike you, I remain undecided. Neo-liberalism is not settled science.

[kalm]

1) I think our welfare state has created generational dependency and needs to be completely revamped.

2) I think government inefficiency, redundancy, and overall spending is completely out of control.

3) There are too many entities both public and private that are suckling off the government teat.

4) I don't like government picking winners and losers.

5) We need to cut spending.

I just happen to not be a Republican window licker or a "free market" fundamentalist.

OK kalmy, now where do you rank this fiscal stance as it relates to all issues of a political platform? And which party, with a reasonable chance of winning a national election, offers the best chance of tackling these issues? Which party, with a reasonable chance of winning a national election, offers the best chance of meeting your Number 1 issue?

Platforms and parties are the problem. To answer your question, I didn't intend for this to be a ranking of my issues. Just a list.

[CAA Flagship]

OK kalmy, now where do you rank this fiscal stance as it relates to all issues of a political platform? And which party, with a reasonable chance of winning a national election, offers the best chance of tackling these issues? Which party, with a reasonable chance of winning a national election, offers the best chance of meeting your Number 1 issue?

Platforms and parties are the problem. To answer your question, I didn't intend for this to be a ranking of my issues. Just a list.

I see this as ONE issue. Actually, part of ONE issue. Where does it rank and does it affect your vote?

[Ibanez]

My brother is this || close to being unfriended. And he's on my side of the political spectrum.

In all seriousness, I don't (or RARELY) post political stuff on FB. Really not the place....sometimes, however, I just can't help myself...

I enjoy your mid-life crisis posts.

[kalm]

Platforms and parties are the problem. To answer your question, I didn't intend for this to be a ranking of my issues. Just a list.

I see this as ONE issue. Actually, part of ONE issue. Where does it rank and does it affect your vote?

Meh…if you're really worried about how and which things get funded, then campaign finance should be your ONLY issue.

[CAA Flagship]

I see this as ONE issue. Actually, part of ONE issue. Where does it rank and does it affect your vote?

Meh…if you're really worried about how and which things get funded, then campaign finance should be your ONLY issue.

Oh for God's sake kalm. Answer the question. All I want to know is if you vote to your number one issue or not (or at least if you think you do).
You called yourself a "fiscal conservative". Is "fiscal conservatism" in front of, or behind, your "social liberalism".

For example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative and more centered on social issues. But fiscal conservatism far outweighs all other issues combined. I believe that jobs is one issue that is a concern for every person regardless of race, creed, sex, education, and whether you like the designated hitter or not. It hits home, either directly or indirectly, with every American, which sets up perfect to be a number 1 voting issue. Jobs are tied to the economy, to taxes, to government spending, and to a shit-ton of other things, and I vote for the party, with a reasonable chance of winning the election, that I think will be better at managing the whole issue.
Any issue that threatens the health of my number 1 issue is something that I will be against (like the timing of the ACA).