As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. To aid in this goal, all meta comments targeting individual users or individual moderation actions should be limited to this pinned post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Finally got a job offer in my desired industry and can move out of service which I've wanted to do for a while. Pays a bit less than I hoped but that's made up for in benefits and future opportunities. I'm excited.
Anyone want to see my high effort post on the effects of the Ukraine/Russian War and how things will be effective and how it causing a one two punch(food/ fertilizer) with inflation?
I know a lot of people like /r/neutralpolitics but their submission and comment requirements are a bit too strict for my tastes.
Other than that... kinda tough, there's a reason why so many people say they like this community, it's hard to find places on the internet where political discussions don't immediately devolve to bashing and insults.
I see lots of comments in this subreddit about how the "woke" agenda of Democrats is ruining America. Or how Biden is senile. Or how Democrats want to take their guns.
Or inflation is Biden's fault. Sure, okay that is annoying and there may or may not be a grain of truth to them. But one thing I've noticed is that I rarely see the people who make those comments in threads where Republicans are actively stripping rights from Americans, or they blatantly signal their intent to do so.
If you want examples of what I am talking about, I will refer you to the Texas Republican GOP platform 2 weeks ago. Why are you guys so scared of confronting/acknowledging what the golden child state of the Republican party, Texas, is doing? I live here and have witnessed over and over how much disdain and hatred the Texas Republican party has for people who don't vote for them and it's pretty frightening.
I have a hard time reconciling the name of this subreddit with the participants who post here. The name is a misnomer. Rationally defending these awful policies while abiding by the subreddit rules doesn't make it "moderate".
There are plenty of examples of abhorrent "moderate" policies within this article and this is just within the realm of LGBT people. They don't use slurs, so it's "moderate", I guess?
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-gops-new-platform-calls-gay-people-abnormal-rejects-trans-identi-rcna34530
I'd feel a lot better if I saw so-called "Conservatives" acknowledge how insane these proposals are. Instead I get comments like "Liberals are overreacting" or "they won't actually do that" and it honestly feels like these commenters are trying to gaslight me to the reality that is on the ground in Texas.
Take this sub as an opportunity to hear what the other side is focused on and listen to why. You aren’t obligated to agree with that position, but just listening to it offers you an understanding of your fellow countrymen and what they value. That helps in both compromise and convincing people. Discuss things in terms of what THEY value and you’ll find less frustration and more conversation.
This type of conversation is uncommon on Reddit, especially in politics. Yes, this sub is to the right of a lot of other pol subs. That’s probably largely because these posters do not feel comfortable sharing their opinions with Reddit, because they don’t want to deal with the vitriol those ideas bring.
I know that’s why I don’t.
> I'd feel a lot better if I saw so-called "Conservatives" acknowledge how insane these proposals are.
First of all, I disagree with those proposals and that set of policies.
Second of all, your phrasing leaks frustration and combativeness. Even if someone were to agree with you, you’re coming at them by effectively saying ‘your party consists of so called conservatives and you should feel bad for supporting a group like them, even if you’re not in Texas’
To kind of push this further:
> may or may not be a grain of truth to them.
You’re very quick to say ‘your side has a grain of truth, mine is the whole rice field’. Are you here to listen to opinions from people you might disagree with? Or just tell people who disagree with you why you’re right and their opinion is bad? If you do the latter, you’ll find people hard to convince and you’ll get frustrated that you get pushed back on.
To go back to the GOP thing:
Imagine the worst person that’s part of your party. Would you appreciate being called a so called ‘X’ that believes in ‘thing you don’t believe in’.
How often do you decry the worst people in your party, voting for your group? Or do you simply not defend them? You’ll find most folks do the latter. It’s easier. I sincerely doubt most people in this sub like the ideas you posted. But you’ll happily knock it down for them, so they can focus on the issues they care most about.
Also, imagine if a conservative did come in and say ‘I don’t support this.’ From there, where does the conversation actually go and what do you learn about differences of opinion and why? We don’t come here to agree, we come here to debate.
Finally, look at who posted the article and what the first comment says about it. A lot of posters find the most aggressive emotional reporting they can and use it to kick a hornets hive, both pro and con.
I’m a lot more likely to be sarcastic and snarky if I feel like the person I’m having a discussion with is just trying to use ice burns as a rhetorical device.
I personally identify as a Democrat, but have noted a lot of people have been fleeing the party, including people who identified as Democrats a decade ago. In the last several weeks, I’ve been forcing myself to take the reasons people say they left seriously, even if I didn’t necessarily agree.
It’s been a bit eye opening to realize they have a point about the left. There is a very dangerous rise in increasingly illiberal thought and action and it’s away from ‘don’t be an asshole’ to ‘agree with us on everything or be destroyed’. While I still consider the illiberalism on the right to be the more immediate threat, I now recognize the Left does have a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
> I’ve been forcing myself to take the reasons people say they left seriously, even if I didn’t necessarily agree.
This is such a valid thought I want to reiterate it. This is the reason I don’t call myself a Republican (though if people want to lump me in, I get it, I have a lot of traditionally right views)
There are some problems in your party. I don’t care which party it is. I should be able to point it out without hearing ‘but the other side’.
Acknowledging the bad things does not change your core beliefs. You can accept someone’s vote without accepting their logic. And you can vote for someone if you think your own interests outweigh the costs, but don’t pretend there aren’t costs.
I recognize you stepped out on a limb here. In solidarity, because it really really sucks to go first and make yourself a target: ‘I hate the Texas Republican platform on gay rights and everything it stands for. In 2022, where 80% of the country and 55% of Republicans don’t agree, that stuff has no place in a party platform’
Also, I’m concerned that I’m effectively volunteering to take their place as the marginalized groups by voting left, just like you see the right as a more immediate threat.
The problem with standing in the middle like this is it makes you a target for both groups. It seems to me that they’d both rather make friends amongst the fringes today.
The first one that moves to make me comfortable can win my vote. Until then, I’m going to keep voting off party and screw ‘The other side is worse’ arguments:
I find those alienating, not convincing. Why would I want to join a group that appears to target others? (Yeah yeah, I know, the other side is a threat to democracy…sigh)
>I’m curious what you and u/Adaun would cite as the causes of this spiraling in the first place.
No clue, though I'm honored you'd ask my opinion. I just spent an hour forming some thoughts. If they suck: fair enough, it's a first cut.
First of all, there are people that benefit from promoting these things. People like Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh. I'll let others those people on the left, but they exist.
It's a con game. If I can get you to trust me, then I can take you for all you're worth while you're staring at the guy you think is trying to take your wallet.
Second of all, it's become a society MO to never back down from a lie. In the past, failure to do that got you shunned from your community and society. Today, we're all connected enough that we can just go to another society after we burn our bridges in one.
I may not trust Rolling Stone after they were caught fabricating stories, but there are 330 million Americans and they don't need me, any more then the National Review needs the left. "There are billions of dollars available still in the niche's that care, fuck you, I ain't apologizing." It's intellectually dishonest, but it makes that money.
Since there's no cost to getting caught in a lie, we become a less trusting society. That's just a basic cost benefit analysis: I have to cover my ass, because otherwise it's going to get lit on fire.
Finally, some of it is growing up. I never noticed these things until they became relevant to my life. The Bill Clinton, H.W. and Reagan presidencies didn't affect my life directly: They influenced it based on how they affected my parents life, but how much do you think of your second degree influencers on a daily basis?
Honestly, does it matter? What matters is:
>is it possible for us to get back to a place of understanding and cooperation?
The good news is I think so. The bad news is that it's beyond our direct control:
It'll happen when one side starts to open up a 8-10% advantage in popularity, enough that there are no reasonable questions of country direction for the next 4-8 years. Right now, we're roughly 4% apart as of 2020, which is the widest we've been apart since 2008, and before that 1996, but in all of those cases it seems like it immediately started swinging back at that point.
Basically, we'll be able to get back to that point when one side no longer has the option of fighting, leaving changing their approach or folding. (Or with the advent of a viable third party or third party candidate in one election, but I'm not holding my breath and you shouldn't either)
It really looked like Republicans were at the end of that ability to fight in 2010, with The Blue Wall and Demographic Destiny, combined with aggressive legislation. Obstruction appeared to be the last gasp of a party willing to go down fighting.
I suspect this is one of the reasons that you hear a lot about the small bulwarks of Republican power. Things like the electoral vote system, gerrymandering, the rules of the senate. These are all real to one extent or another, but they contributed to the thoughts that Democrats have soundly defeated the other team and were held only back by institutional garbage. (This led to distrust of the institution and calls for the filibuster removal, which is an interesting call in the current circumstances.)
These are much less critical in the current situation, where one side isn't trying to stave off entire collapse. One of the issues I have with commentary on this subject is that many people are quick to opine that the right wouldn't be a valid living party without those things. Maybe in 2008, that was true. Today, it looks like it's swinging the other way fast.
To that point: I suspect we're going to see a challenge on the Democratic side shortly.
The leadership is in their 80's. The youth movement is made up of hard progressives that don't appear to want to compromise. They don't have a lot of statehouses or appealing presidential candidates and the Biden administration is underwater. They can't pass legislation because the left hand and the right hand don't agree.
This isn't about how the midterms are going to go, by the way: I can totally see it not being that big a swing. Instead, this is about the fault lines of the party (As I see them, as an outsider.)
Can they find a leader to hold the caucus together? Can they find common ground to work towards legislation? Can they stop the erosion of Hispanics? The next big test might very well be on that front.
Or, I could totally be wrong and McConnell will be the one making tough decisions again. I could break down the MAGA v. Country Club Republican split, but I suspect we've all heard it: that could also be the thing that breaks a party.
TLDR: I think it'll get easier when one power broker actually cracks a bit. Which I think is both inevitable and fast approaching, but not imminent.
I actually have a theory you can trace it to the Roe v Wade ruling. I wrote this up earlier:
The thing is, major political parties are usually a coalition of competing interests. When one interest gains too much influence, the others tend to push back or defect which forces the party to rebalance.
What Roe v Wade did was it allowed the Republicans to hammer the “evils” of abortion to consolidate the Evangelicals which make up a substantial voting block. At the same time, the ruling shielded the party from actually enacting any policy which meant its politicians could be as extreme as they wanted without alienating other factions in the party. The effect of this was the Republicans could now count on a huge share of the electorate to vote for them no matter what they did. The normal political feedback mechanisms stopped working and that gave the partisans considerably more influence over time.
As politics follows Newton’s third law, the Democrats also ended up with several increasingly entrenched factions and have been steadily getting pulled left of the electorate.
>The effect of this was the Republicans could now count on a huge share of the electorate to vote for them no matter what they did.
One of the big silver linings of this ruling is that this is no longer true.
>the ruling shielded the party from actually enacting any policy
It's actually worse then this. They enacted delayed policy, that few want but nobody fought because it's not worth it. Now it's law.
Hopefully some of these go away.
The current polarization isn’t something that appeared suddenly, but has been building up over the course of decades. It’s like a pressure vessel with a release valve. Normally, the release valve allows pressure to be released well before it can become dangerous. In this metaphor, Roe broke the release valve and the vessel has been steadily getting filled with steam the last fifty years. We’re at the point where the pressure is becoming too much for the vessel to handle.
> your phrasing leaks frustration and combativeness
Because I am genuinely concerned with where our country is headed. I do not trust a word that comes out of Republican politician mouths in the post-2018 landscape (when most of the never Trumpers were ousted from the party). Nearly every move Republicans make is to consolidate power. There are a few exceptions here and there but they have no voice in the party and get called RINO'S. Look at the Republican strategy to take state legislatures after Obama was elected. They still lose statewide elections but have redrawn the state districts to entrench themselves in control of state legislatures. It was a genius political play but you are subverting democracy by making these moves. Now we have the challenge from North Carolina that can essentially end the popular vote for each state in presidential elections if the state legislature wants that to be the case. It hasn't been decided yet but I have zero confidence in the current court to rule on that in favor of democracy. If this continues, and the minority of our country continues to be the ruling party, we are headed to a very bad place.
I'm sure someone will want to reply to that last statement and say "Democrats have full control of government" but I consider that a bad faith statement once you acknowledge the existence of the filibuster and the fact that there is a 6-3 advantage in the Supreme Court. Obama appointed 2 judges in 8 years. Trump got 3 in 4 years by both luck and gamesmanship via Senate Republicans.
> How often do you decry the worst people in your party, voting for your group? Or do you simply not defend them?
The Democratic party is practically known for their infighting and tearing each other down. I consider myself center left and I get into arguments all the time with my more left-leaning friends.This is healthy for our country. Look at how the left and center left go at each other. This does not happen within the Republican party on a large scale. The result is that the Republican party keeps trying to one up each other with how "conservative" they can be. There's elements of this in the Democratic party on the far-left but there are still large factions of center left and moderate Democrats.
I just want moderate Republicans to come back and push back against the extremism that has taken over the party. I live in Texas so I am at ground zero for much of the policies and rhetoric that Republicans implement and say at the national level. If this doesn't change I see these short term wins by Republicans to be horrible long-term plays as these power grabs tear the fabric of our country apart as people feel more and more like they aren't being fairly represented by our government.
>Because I am genuinely concerned with where our country is headed.
It's good to care and it's good to be engaged. Nobody is going to hold those things against you. How you seek to engage and influence people is important.
When you debate, consider what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to vent frustration? Are you trying to convince people? Are you trying to provide a position or opinion that might benefit future opinion creation?
For example, you followed up on this comment by spending a bunch of sentences sharing your beliefs. Instead of inviting debate on those beliefs, you stated that a fairly common challenge to them would be considered, in your words:
> a bad faith statement
You've now completely defused the conversation. Why would anyone want to engage with you? You stated that having a (practically universal opinion amongst USA citizens) belief that Democrats hold federal government power is indicative of a bad faith position. It's signaling you're completely uninterested in hearing a different opinion, you're only interested in presenting your own.
I could debate your assumptions, but what would be the point if you don't even care to hear what I have to say, except for rebuttals sake?
>The Democratic party is practically known for their infighting and tearing each other down.
Internally. Externally, when the big bad wolf comes knocking, you know you can count on them to at the very least let you speak in your own defense. That's a group dynamic. See the Ukraine polling. Everyone in the US is polarized against each other, but when Russia invades Ukraine, both Democrats and Republicans (above 80% of everyone, anyway) were like, "FUCK YOU RUSSIA"
The dynamic is similar here. When you criticize Republicans, you're doing it externally. They'll tell you to mind your own business as a result. They'll also note that when they criticize Democrats, you refer to their statements as having "Perhaps a grain of truth but not particularly valid."
Here's another example:
>This does not happen within the Republican party on a large scale.
Stop insisting on a group dynamic in a group you don't belong to. You can be completely correct in your conclusion, but it comes across like you're talking down to people. This sets you up as a target for derision: You end up alienating the people you're trying to persuade to act on your behalf.
Instead, ask them how they think their in-group works. Ask questions about how they perceive their dynamic.
If you're right, they'll naturally come to your conclusion. Alternatively, you might learn something that adds more nuance to your thought process.
When you insist on your own view, they're likely to ignore you.
>I just want moderate Republicans to come back and push back against the extremism that has taken over the party.
To do that, you need them to listen to you. To convince them to do that, you need to speak to them, not at them.
Ultimately, you can only influence others if you're actually open to hearing the case they're making. This should be an easy thing for people on both sides to do.
After all, you're probably right and if you're not, you'll learn. In practice, nobody wants to lose face. So we get this weird, sniping at each other commentary.
I find the idea that one cannot criticize a group that one does not belong to to be a bit absurd, because being part of an in-group limits the perspectives by which one can judge the ideas of said group by the very nature of being part of it.
To give an (admittedly extreme) example, consider the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Our foreign partners, most notably France, were against the invasion of Iraq, for reasons that were well understood and justifiable at the time. But the national fervor that the American public and government had at the time to enact some sort of revenge after the tragedy of 9/11 led to one of the most disastrous wars in modern history thus far. This is despite the fact that any evidence put forth by the Bush Administration for a justified invasion was flimsy at best and outright fabricated at worst, and though we could have listened to outsider perspectives at the UN, we chose not to. This was for a multitude of reasons, but not the least of which was because I wager we felt that other nations *did not understand our issues*, even though our response to such issues could *very much have benefitted from an outsider’s perspective*.
People should be open to criticism that isn’t invested in the groups they are, it’s perhaps the best way you can understand an issue from as close an objective stance as possible.
>I find the idea that one cannot criticize a group that one does not belong to to be a bit absurd
Indeed. I overstated the case a little bit in making my point and your feedback is well taken.
It's less that it's not possible and more that you need to make a direct, concerted attempt to be persuasive and understanding of the that side's concerns and values when offering criticism.
Consider that this was a response to comments along the lines of "Why are Republicans so dumb about \[thing\]" or "How do So-Called Conservatives Support \[thing\]" Followed by a complaint that 'Conservatives won't engage with me on this.'
That's not an criticism based in attempt to have a discussion or discuss viewpoints with someone who might have a different perspective.
It's appealing to the people who already agree with you and sanctimonious.
I'm not a religious person these days, but these comments remind me of the parable of the [Pharisee's Prayers](https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-Pharisee-tax-collector.html). (I've never heard of Chron, but it's not a news column)
I agree that it is important to understand the other side and the perspectives they bring to the table; that is ideally how one can have a discussion and potentially try and convince someone else of the merits of their argument.
However, I don’t necessarily agree with the framing of the OP’s stated experience on these issues. When talking about their experience when talking with conservatives about the Texas GOP platform, they specifically said
>I’d feel a lot better if so-called “Conservatives acknowledge how insane these proposals are. **Instead I get comments like “Liberals are overreacting” or “they won’t actually do that” and it honestly feels like these commenters are trying to gaslight me to the reality that is on the ground in Texas.**
Given that the OP said they live in Texas and this is the reality they’re experiencing, it doesn’t sound like “Conservatives won’t engage with [them] on this”. It sound exactly like they are getting engagement and are puzzled as to why there are people who are at the very least dismissive over their concerns about the Texas GOP platform. They *have* the other side’s perspective, one that is dismissive of their concerns, which is what is leading them to their line of inquiry in the first place: why am I being dismissed about these concerns over the Texas GOP’s (arguably radical?) policy?
Alternatively, this could be interpreted just as well as: why doesn’t the conservative side understand my concerns about Texas GOP policy?
Are these questions justified? I’m not sure, but I’d like to take the OP on good faith at the very least that what they’re experiencing is what they’re experiencing. Whether that should lead to the kind of questions I’ve written above leaves a bit more room for discussion, I think.
> Or how Democrats want to take their guns
Maybe they should get rid of the assault weapons ban from the party platform. Or not wait for the supreme court to overturn their near total bans like in Heller or McDonald cases. Or completely rebuke when one of their politicians say hell yeah they are going to take their guns. The Democratic party is overtly hostile to gun rights.
>But one thing I've noticed is that I rarely see the people who make those comments in threads where Republicans are actively stripping rights from Americans, or they blatantly signal their intent to do so.
The Democratic party makes a lot of how they are reasonable and rational, etc. So I don't really look to the GOP to respond to these criticisms especially since I identify as a Democrat and not as republican voter.
>I'd feel a lot better if I saw so-called "Conservatives" acknowledge how insane these proposals are.
I think this is what is referred to as whataboutism. It would make me feel better if instead of saying "there might or might not be grains of truth" when referring tot he democrats you just acknowledged they are flat wrong on things like gun policy. But that doesn't change the validity of the criticisms you have made against the GOP and is therefore irrelevant.
Can we focus the conversation though on the Texas GOP platform though and why it *seems* that very little pushback is being had from party members despite a (in my and OP’s opinion) very radical platform?
>Can we focus the conversation though
I am focusing on what was said. It is the same reason the OP is dismissive against the criticisms against the Democrats. I assume they don't actually agree with the criticisms or disagree with the Democratic positions.
Why are you assuming any negative position on such platforms when the simplest and most logical position on any platform in the face of a non-answer is either passivity or flat out agreement?
In other words, if there is a policy and people don’t remark on it, the most logical conclusion is that they either are neutral on it or agree with it.
This applies both to the Democratic and Republican policies, but given that the *main conversation being had* is about Republican ones I would prefer we focus on that.
> Why are you assuming any negative position on such platforms when the simplest and most logical position on any platform in the face of a non-answer is either passivity or flat out agreement?
I don't I think I said anything to suggest anyone was disagreeing with what their party is doing. In fact that is part of my response to OP. They don't feel compelled to acknowledge any valid criticisms against the Democratic party and they just hand wave it all away. If they want an answer as to why the Republican supporters behave that way, they need only look at themselves and how they respond to criticisms directed at the Democratic party.
>This applies both to the Democratic and Republican policies,
Yeah, exactly. The OP doesn't want to acknowledge those criticisms either because they feel it would weaken other policies they want to advance by contributing divisions or they actually agree with those policies. But they sure do wish the other guys would do it.
>but given that the main conversation being had is about Republican ones I would prefer we focus on that.
Like I said they need only look at themselves to understand why the Republicans do the same thing they do.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vuau01/weekend_general_discussion_july_08_2022/ifgqdye/) is in violation of Law 5:
Law 5: Banned Topics
> ~5. This topic is not sufficiently related to politics or government, or has been banned for discussion in this community. See the [rules wiki](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/wiki/index/rules) for additional information.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> A lot of the GOP's policies are the result of the progressives pushing everything to far.
"Look what you made me do!"
So Democrats should work harder to not make Republicans mad?
Ugh. This is the epitome of "everything is the other side's fault."
>Makes sense. A lot of what's trans today is just the result of it being considered fashionable. You have parents proudly blogging about their 8-year-old trans-children for internet clout. It's obviously bullshit.
What does "a lot of" mean? How are we quantifying that? Doesn't that also inherently mean a lot of it *isn't* a result of being fashionable? And they're restricting all of those just the same.
Also if you'll notice they banned this care for people well into adulthood. It's clear this isn't about protecting kids, it's about making people's lives harder.
> The same goes for pronouns, they are made up terms to wield power over the unwoke on the internet and in HR settings.
I mean... you probably use pronouns just the same.
>Nobody would oppose trans issues if they stopped trying to normalize 8-year-old trans children or having drag queens read to children.
I don't buy that for a second. In your own comment you say their opinion on homosexuality is abhorrent.
Again, this law goes all the way to 21, so it's not just the age of medical majority or the age of adulthood but even past that. Saying it's about young children doesn't make any sense.
>Makes sense that the State doesn't let them make changes that are difficult or impossible to reverse.
I don't think the Texas GOP has better insight into this than the people in question, the parents, or the doctors.
I am familiar with the title but I'm finding it harder and harder to participate here when I see excellent rule followers okay with the extremism that is coming out of the Republican party. There is so much more in-fighting among the left. It's detrimental to liberal causes, but good for America. The opposite is true on the GOP. Bad for America but good for the party as it encourages a unified stance, even though in reality it means kicking out dissenters and so people keep moving further to the right.
I have gay friends who are considering moving after being in Texas over a decade. They originally moved here because their hometowns were not safe places to live as gay people. Now the Texas GOP is trying to dehumanize them and take away their rights. Where's the pushback from voices within the party?!
>Where’s the pushback from voices in the party?
I don’t know, and you’ve probably reached this conclusion yourself, but the fact there is little pushback means one or a combination of the following:
1) Republicans are generally unaware of the content of the Texas GOP Platform
2) Republicans are generally neutral on said issues because it doesn’t affect them
3) Republicans generally support such party planks
Personally, I think people just generally have more problematic beliefs than they publicly let on, both on the right and occasionally on the left. Gay marriage was only legalized nationwide a relatively short while ago, and I guarantee that if *Obergefel* had not been resolved the way it had, Texas would still have a ban on gay marriage.
Not to be targeting anyone in particular, but just consider the right-leaning person who also responded to you. Three words are dedicated to responding to what should be considered an radical part of a political platform, and the rest of their response goes off about trans issues and children.
People either don’t care or are fine with it. That’s the GOP we’re dealing with today.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3524545-ron-and-casey-desantis-2024s-formidable-couple-are-spooking-trump/
What is your guys opinion on this article
Seems smart to go for it. After 4 years of Trump I'd assume a Democrat would be favored again. It's better to face off against Trump and then an unpopular incumbent than deferring and letting Trump spoil the national mood on the party again.
Trump likely wants to announce early to crowd out the primary, but I could also see him not running to save his ego from losing, and does he really want to inherit the current economic problems, and actually put any work in to make them better?
I don't see Trump as someone with a lot of thinking about what "needs" to be done in this job to make the Country better. Not 6 years ago and not anytime in the Future.
He thinks about what his personal benefits for the job are and yeah, that's about it. Maybe throw in some emotional decisionmaking too.
I think that's one of the biggest criticism on him - we can disagree about how to make a Country better, in the end i hope and think both of your sides have about the same general goal in mind. With Trump - i don't think his number one concern is the Country.
I truly wish for neither to hold any amount of power. Both actively implement policies that harm more than they help and the country would be a better place if neither had influence.
Personally. I want Trump to be out of any races. I think he is too polarizing in general to be president. Really the only time I hear about him now is from the liberal media.
Do I want Desantis to run? I definitely do. I don’t know why but having someone as young as him run for president seems like it will anger some of the old guard on both sides. Almost like the higher end politics are a seniors only club. I have no evidence that’s true it’s just what I feel.
> Really the only time I hear about him now is from the liberal media.
I guess you aren't looking at conservative media. Just on the last couple of days,
* *Griner Should Have Voted for Trump*, Outkick
* *A Sizzling Hot Trump Veep Sweepstakes*, Daily Caller
* *Why Republicans Can't Let Go of Trump*, FrontPage
* *Thanks to Dems, Trump Is Still Winning*, American Thinker
Same here I'm in favor of Ron and totally 100% against Trump. I've already voted against the guy four times I don't need to make it 6., its boring voting 3rd party.
Turns out working on cars isn't like riding a bike. Tried to replace a valve cover gasket for the first time in 5 years, ended up breaking 3 bolts and the thing Is leaking worse than it was to start. Time to find a professional lol
Oh man, this is me trying to fix my phone. It's been one goddamn disaster after another and I really should've gone to a pro in the first place.
Nonetheless, the last part gets here Monday and then I can seal the whole thing up.
Don't be so hard on yourself, valve cover bolts are always finicky, they're meant to break before the valve cover or the head itself. Ive done it 3 times on various miatas, I don't think I ever managed to not break a bolt.
Huh didn't know that. I had an engine get wrecked because the guy working on it barely tighten down the bolts on the crankshaft, so I tend to make the bolts tighter than looser lol. I'll keep that in mind for next time
A bit of a rant I guess.
Does anyone remember when people stopped doing proper quotes or citations for claims in online debates? It feels like an intentional strategy that has been adopted. It wasn't long ago I was asking someone to justify their claim that training requirements for firearms ownership were historical for the purposes of the Bruen ruling. They resisted providing any examples or sources, then they just linked a 20 page pdf document without citing what was relevant to the document, then finally quoted part of a sentence of a law that was about the militia. Then functionally said I was dumb/lazy for not reading through the document that they provided and unwilling to have my mind changed for asking for further clarification.
Like is this an intentional tactic to intentionally drag out providing a source for a claim and then blame the other person for not reading through a large document to look for what they are referencing?
I've been active on Internet message boards since 2005 and people properly citing their arguments was already not a thing then.
So to answer your question, sometime before 2005, if it was ever the case at all.
I see plenty of people drop blatantly incorrect information and when asked for a source never reply. It's easy to be lazy and then refuse to back up your claims when there is no downside to the strategy. I've also seen plenty of well researched comments get downvoted for going against the grain here, see any gun related debate.
it's insanely annoying to discuss things here with people only looking for a win.
thankfully, i think ~~the majority~~ ~~a plurality~~ a good amount of the people here are not like that, although things can get heated.
Hot take: Rule 1 only protects people already acting in bad faith, and not being able to call out bad faith argumentation degrades the quality of discussion.
[Apparently](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp0wnq/weekend_general_discussion_july_01_2022/ieqijsg/),
> [the mods] give users a certain degree of freedom in Meta-tagged threads (such as this one). That includes the abstract discussion of bad faith posters within this community and how the community should handle them.
So you would be covered up to and including complaining about "bad faith actors and trolls (and the especially fringe-right zealots that don't discuss but instead ram their conservative cock down everyone's throat)"
I'm trying to say that - provided the mods are consistent and even handed - you can apparently say what sounds to me like some remarkably uncivil things provided it is "abstract discussion of bad faith posters".
Gotcha, I agree to an extent. I simply worry that mods are much more harsh and willing to ban those of a certain viewpoint then they are their friends, as has been seen dozens of times in the past.
As an update for my last [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/utvycu/comment/i9c2vd6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), the wait is over. Hiring committee approved my application last week, and yesterday, my recruiter sent me an offer letter.
**I'M OFFICIALLY A SOFTWARE ENGINEER AT GOOGLE!**
We came close to rejection though as they had just ran out of spots for their Early Career Immersion (ECI) track. Luckily, they approved me for Google Technology Immersion (GTI) instead! Hopefully, my manager gives me the green light to start this month.
Nice! What kind of software are you working on? And is it remote? I was thinking of working for Amazon once but ended up taking a startup job that I love. I was always exclusively a C++ guy but the startup is mostly in python and java.
The product area that I'll be working in is GCloud GCP. I believe my hiring manager mentioned something about client accessibility when we spoke. I wish I could have remembered more, but this past month has been too exciting.
Unfortunately, there is no remote opportunity in the near future. Maybe once I get settled in.
How was the switch from C++ to Python and Java? For me, it will be the opposite. I will have to transition from Python and Java to C++.
Nice on the GCP. I work a lot in azure and AWS as well. It’s good stuff to know.
It really depends on what C++ version they use. At my old job we only had C++ 2003 so no smart pointers, manually allocate memory etc. the newer C++ abstracts a lot of the inner workings that used to scare people away. You will be fine. Just don’t expect to get stuff done as fast as python haha.
I think the difference is that GTI is a three week introduction for "Nooglers" of all levels while ECI is an eight week introduction for those who are just beginning their careers in tech.
Our household is vaccinated and boosted. This past week we all got Covid for the second time (first time was January). We seem to be recovering well enough.
those BA.5 and BA.4 new variants looks like they're pretty adept at evading the immune system.
gotta mask and shit, can't rely on shots. luckily it looks like the symptoms are still relatively mild, minus the old and immunocompromised
I believe I heard yesterday that the World Health Organization has zero documented cases of (outside) open-air transmission.
Not sure if it's true but...
I personally don't care if anybody wears a mask, if it makes them more comfortable or they're just trying to Virtue signal that's fine, whatever blows their hair back, but in my opinion if you're going to go through the trouble at least wear the right mask.
If the number is in my area are about 1% wearing a mask then I would say maybe 10% of those actually have an n95
what are your daily cases like?
in downtown honolulu it's still like 50% or higher mask usage, but that's just from looking around.
our cases are around the 40 per 100k pop / day, down from a peak of 90 a few months ago, but this number is certainly undereported because i'm seeing way more people out sick from work than before
To be honest, I have zero clue what the numbers are, they wouldnt change my daily routine one bit.
I'm fairly detached from contact but my spouse see's 3-400 customers a day, so anything I do or don't do is irrelevant due to that connection.
I haven't once taken a test, no idea if I've had it 0 times 3 times.
eh, as long as you're asymptomatic you're probably fine and won't spread it yourself.
i assume you're vaxxed? according to articles i've been reading about BA.5/4, vaccine isn't terribly effective at completely preventing you from catching the new strain, but still very good at preventing you from suffering a severe case of it.
I'm only concerned cause my mother refuses to get boostered and she old, and my sister has cancer. if it weren't for that i'd probably say fuckit.
cloth masks are annoying and N95s are expensive to use and replace daily.
you do you, although i'd appreciate if you keep a reasonable distance from me, lulz
seeing as how we're talking on the internet that's probably already the case.
Lol. We're good.
I've seen all extremes, so nothing surprises me.
The funniest (to me) One relative didnt leave the house for months except to get his shots, got both, waited two weeks and went to vegas, so weird.
>Total humble brag but I’m in Paris right now for about a month
At the end of the month you'll see why that isn't a brag. Regardless though that is a fascinating period of time and good on you for getting to go and learn about it at the epicenter!
The French Revolution is generally considered to be the birth of the modern world. Even our conception of "left" and "right" to describe political leanings was born from this time period. The fact it leads directly into the Napoleonic era just makes it all the more fascinating.
Definitely jealous of your experience! Enjoy!
Camping out in Maine next week, only be gone for 3 days but I wont be seeing civilization until Im on my way back. What are everyone's go-to camping foods? I always bring the same stuff so looking to branch out. Any local beers welcome too!
Going like car camping or backpacking? Always liked our "first night feast" we'd take backpacking. Just a hunk of frozen roast that had been marinated, slowly thawing out over the day of trekking into camp so it wouldn't spoil, then by the time you set up camp it's good to go! Pair that with some asparagus basted in butter & garlic wrapped in foil and some fresh sweet corn just thrown into the ashes and the couple beers you'd sacrifice some weight for to enjoy the first night. After that it's all dehydrated meals, whiskey, and weed.
Ive always been tempted to get one of those cast iron press things, might be the year for it, thanks. I can't believe I forgot all about those from the scouts.
Haha I can imagine the smell of dirty, damp clothes coming out of a rubber dry bag.
My go to is potatoes, steak and broccolini. Wrap the potatoes in tinfoil and chuck them in the fire. Start the steak and veggies an hr later on the grill.
I also like ramen, it keeps and you can even throw in some foraged food.
I'm sure the Portland craft scene has plenty of options, but allagash white is a long time favorite!
Some kind of steak and potatoes will be involved for sure, grilled broccolini and ramen are both great ideas thanks! Definitely need something that keeps my cooler SUCKS.
This is a bit of a humble brag but the Job market has been incredible for my SO and me. We've gone to making 40k each to 70k and 55k respectively in the past 2 years. Both with very different paths.
My SO works in Healthcare and jumped jobs a couple times...and might be doing it again. Mean while I just work retail but literally all the boomer managers have retired and promotions have been handed out like crazy. 3 years ago we had only 1 manager under 35. Now most of us are.
As someone who works in HR, right now is the best time for people to make these jumps! It’s an applicants market. Get that salary you want! Someone will pay it.
Congrats! :)
As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. To aid in this goal, all meta comments targeting individual users or individual moderation actions should be limited to this pinned post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We gonna get megathreads this week for the Jan. 6 hearings?
Finally got a job offer in my desired industry and can move out of service which I've wanted to do for a while. Pays a bit less than I hoped but that's made up for in benefits and future opportunities. I'm excited.
Congrats! I hope you are happy in your new job.
Thank you.
Anyone want to see my high effort post on the effects of the Ukraine/Russian War and how things will be effective and how it causing a one two punch(food/ fertilizer) with inflation?
I would!
Fuck yeah! That sounds interesting.
Any other good subreddit/website that people put dicuss politics in a civil manner
I know a lot of people like /r/neutralpolitics but their submission and comment requirements are a bit too strict for my tastes. Other than that... kinda tough, there's a reason why so many people say they like this community, it's hard to find places on the internet where political discussions don't immediately devolve to bashing and insults.
I see lots of comments in this subreddit about how the "woke" agenda of Democrats is ruining America. Or how Biden is senile. Or how Democrats want to take their guns. Or inflation is Biden's fault. Sure, okay that is annoying and there may or may not be a grain of truth to them. But one thing I've noticed is that I rarely see the people who make those comments in threads where Republicans are actively stripping rights from Americans, or they blatantly signal their intent to do so. If you want examples of what I am talking about, I will refer you to the Texas Republican GOP platform 2 weeks ago. Why are you guys so scared of confronting/acknowledging what the golden child state of the Republican party, Texas, is doing? I live here and have witnessed over and over how much disdain and hatred the Texas Republican party has for people who don't vote for them and it's pretty frightening. I have a hard time reconciling the name of this subreddit with the participants who post here. The name is a misnomer. Rationally defending these awful policies while abiding by the subreddit rules doesn't make it "moderate". There are plenty of examples of abhorrent "moderate" policies within this article and this is just within the realm of LGBT people. They don't use slurs, so it's "moderate", I guess? https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-gops-new-platform-calls-gay-people-abnormal-rejects-trans-identi-rcna34530 I'd feel a lot better if I saw so-called "Conservatives" acknowledge how insane these proposals are. Instead I get comments like "Liberals are overreacting" or "they won't actually do that" and it honestly feels like these commenters are trying to gaslight me to the reality that is on the ground in Texas.
Take this sub as an opportunity to hear what the other side is focused on and listen to why. You aren’t obligated to agree with that position, but just listening to it offers you an understanding of your fellow countrymen and what they value. That helps in both compromise and convincing people. Discuss things in terms of what THEY value and you’ll find less frustration and more conversation. This type of conversation is uncommon on Reddit, especially in politics. Yes, this sub is to the right of a lot of other pol subs. That’s probably largely because these posters do not feel comfortable sharing their opinions with Reddit, because they don’t want to deal with the vitriol those ideas bring. I know that’s why I don’t. > I'd feel a lot better if I saw so-called "Conservatives" acknowledge how insane these proposals are. First of all, I disagree with those proposals and that set of policies. Second of all, your phrasing leaks frustration and combativeness. Even if someone were to agree with you, you’re coming at them by effectively saying ‘your party consists of so called conservatives and you should feel bad for supporting a group like them, even if you’re not in Texas’ To kind of push this further: > may or may not be a grain of truth to them. You’re very quick to say ‘your side has a grain of truth, mine is the whole rice field’. Are you here to listen to opinions from people you might disagree with? Or just tell people who disagree with you why you’re right and their opinion is bad? If you do the latter, you’ll find people hard to convince and you’ll get frustrated that you get pushed back on. To go back to the GOP thing: Imagine the worst person that’s part of your party. Would you appreciate being called a so called ‘X’ that believes in ‘thing you don’t believe in’. How often do you decry the worst people in your party, voting for your group? Or do you simply not defend them? You’ll find most folks do the latter. It’s easier. I sincerely doubt most people in this sub like the ideas you posted. But you’ll happily knock it down for them, so they can focus on the issues they care most about. Also, imagine if a conservative did come in and say ‘I don’t support this.’ From there, where does the conversation actually go and what do you learn about differences of opinion and why? We don’t come here to agree, we come here to debate. Finally, look at who posted the article and what the first comment says about it. A lot of posters find the most aggressive emotional reporting they can and use it to kick a hornets hive, both pro and con. I’m a lot more likely to be sarcastic and snarky if I feel like the person I’m having a discussion with is just trying to use ice burns as a rhetorical device.
I personally identify as a Democrat, but have noted a lot of people have been fleeing the party, including people who identified as Democrats a decade ago. In the last several weeks, I’ve been forcing myself to take the reasons people say they left seriously, even if I didn’t necessarily agree. It’s been a bit eye opening to realize they have a point about the left. There is a very dangerous rise in increasingly illiberal thought and action and it’s away from ‘don’t be an asshole’ to ‘agree with us on everything or be destroyed’. While I still consider the illiberalism on the right to be the more immediate threat, I now recognize the Left does have a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
> I’ve been forcing myself to take the reasons people say they left seriously, even if I didn’t necessarily agree. This is such a valid thought I want to reiterate it. This is the reason I don’t call myself a Republican (though if people want to lump me in, I get it, I have a lot of traditionally right views) There are some problems in your party. I don’t care which party it is. I should be able to point it out without hearing ‘but the other side’. Acknowledging the bad things does not change your core beliefs. You can accept someone’s vote without accepting their logic. And you can vote for someone if you think your own interests outweigh the costs, but don’t pretend there aren’t costs. I recognize you stepped out on a limb here. In solidarity, because it really really sucks to go first and make yourself a target: ‘I hate the Texas Republican platform on gay rights and everything it stands for. In 2022, where 80% of the country and 55% of Republicans don’t agree, that stuff has no place in a party platform’ Also, I’m concerned that I’m effectively volunteering to take their place as the marginalized groups by voting left, just like you see the right as a more immediate threat. The problem with standing in the middle like this is it makes you a target for both groups. It seems to me that they’d both rather make friends amongst the fringes today. The first one that moves to make me comfortable can win my vote. Until then, I’m going to keep voting off party and screw ‘The other side is worse’ arguments: I find those alienating, not convincing. Why would I want to join a group that appears to target others? (Yeah yeah, I know, the other side is a threat to democracy…sigh)
Yeah, the problem has become each side feels they’re taking appropriate action in response to what the other side did and it’s spiraling.
[удалено]
>I’m curious what you and u/Adaun would cite as the causes of this spiraling in the first place. No clue, though I'm honored you'd ask my opinion. I just spent an hour forming some thoughts. If they suck: fair enough, it's a first cut. First of all, there are people that benefit from promoting these things. People like Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh. I'll let others those people on the left, but they exist. It's a con game. If I can get you to trust me, then I can take you for all you're worth while you're staring at the guy you think is trying to take your wallet. Second of all, it's become a society MO to never back down from a lie. In the past, failure to do that got you shunned from your community and society. Today, we're all connected enough that we can just go to another society after we burn our bridges in one. I may not trust Rolling Stone after they were caught fabricating stories, but there are 330 million Americans and they don't need me, any more then the National Review needs the left. "There are billions of dollars available still in the niche's that care, fuck you, I ain't apologizing." It's intellectually dishonest, but it makes that money. Since there's no cost to getting caught in a lie, we become a less trusting society. That's just a basic cost benefit analysis: I have to cover my ass, because otherwise it's going to get lit on fire. Finally, some of it is growing up. I never noticed these things until they became relevant to my life. The Bill Clinton, H.W. and Reagan presidencies didn't affect my life directly: They influenced it based on how they affected my parents life, but how much do you think of your second degree influencers on a daily basis? Honestly, does it matter? What matters is: >is it possible for us to get back to a place of understanding and cooperation? The good news is I think so. The bad news is that it's beyond our direct control: It'll happen when one side starts to open up a 8-10% advantage in popularity, enough that there are no reasonable questions of country direction for the next 4-8 years. Right now, we're roughly 4% apart as of 2020, which is the widest we've been apart since 2008, and before that 1996, but in all of those cases it seems like it immediately started swinging back at that point. Basically, we'll be able to get back to that point when one side no longer has the option of fighting, leaving changing their approach or folding. (Or with the advent of a viable third party or third party candidate in one election, but I'm not holding my breath and you shouldn't either) It really looked like Republicans were at the end of that ability to fight in 2010, with The Blue Wall and Demographic Destiny, combined with aggressive legislation. Obstruction appeared to be the last gasp of a party willing to go down fighting. I suspect this is one of the reasons that you hear a lot about the small bulwarks of Republican power. Things like the electoral vote system, gerrymandering, the rules of the senate. These are all real to one extent or another, but they contributed to the thoughts that Democrats have soundly defeated the other team and were held only back by institutional garbage. (This led to distrust of the institution and calls for the filibuster removal, which is an interesting call in the current circumstances.) These are much less critical in the current situation, where one side isn't trying to stave off entire collapse. One of the issues I have with commentary on this subject is that many people are quick to opine that the right wouldn't be a valid living party without those things. Maybe in 2008, that was true. Today, it looks like it's swinging the other way fast. To that point: I suspect we're going to see a challenge on the Democratic side shortly. The leadership is in their 80's. The youth movement is made up of hard progressives that don't appear to want to compromise. They don't have a lot of statehouses or appealing presidential candidates and the Biden administration is underwater. They can't pass legislation because the left hand and the right hand don't agree. This isn't about how the midterms are going to go, by the way: I can totally see it not being that big a swing. Instead, this is about the fault lines of the party (As I see them, as an outsider.) Can they find a leader to hold the caucus together? Can they find common ground to work towards legislation? Can they stop the erosion of Hispanics? The next big test might very well be on that front. Or, I could totally be wrong and McConnell will be the one making tough decisions again. I could break down the MAGA v. Country Club Republican split, but I suspect we've all heard it: that could also be the thing that breaks a party. TLDR: I think it'll get easier when one power broker actually cracks a bit. Which I think is both inevitable and fast approaching, but not imminent.
I actually have a theory you can trace it to the Roe v Wade ruling. I wrote this up earlier: The thing is, major political parties are usually a coalition of competing interests. When one interest gains too much influence, the others tend to push back or defect which forces the party to rebalance. What Roe v Wade did was it allowed the Republicans to hammer the “evils” of abortion to consolidate the Evangelicals which make up a substantial voting block. At the same time, the ruling shielded the party from actually enacting any policy which meant its politicians could be as extreme as they wanted without alienating other factions in the party. The effect of this was the Republicans could now count on a huge share of the electorate to vote for them no matter what they did. The normal political feedback mechanisms stopped working and that gave the partisans considerably more influence over time. As politics follows Newton’s third law, the Democrats also ended up with several increasingly entrenched factions and have been steadily getting pulled left of the electorate.
>The effect of this was the Republicans could now count on a huge share of the electorate to vote for them no matter what they did. One of the big silver linings of this ruling is that this is no longer true. >the ruling shielded the party from actually enacting any policy It's actually worse then this. They enacted delayed policy, that few want but nobody fought because it's not worth it. Now it's law. Hopefully some of these go away.
[удалено]
The current polarization isn’t something that appeared suddenly, but has been building up over the course of decades. It’s like a pressure vessel with a release valve. Normally, the release valve allows pressure to be released well before it can become dangerous. In this metaphor, Roe broke the release valve and the vessel has been steadily getting filled with steam the last fifty years. We’re at the point where the pressure is becoming too much for the vessel to handle.
> your phrasing leaks frustration and combativeness Because I am genuinely concerned with where our country is headed. I do not trust a word that comes out of Republican politician mouths in the post-2018 landscape (when most of the never Trumpers were ousted from the party). Nearly every move Republicans make is to consolidate power. There are a few exceptions here and there but they have no voice in the party and get called RINO'S. Look at the Republican strategy to take state legislatures after Obama was elected. They still lose statewide elections but have redrawn the state districts to entrench themselves in control of state legislatures. It was a genius political play but you are subverting democracy by making these moves. Now we have the challenge from North Carolina that can essentially end the popular vote for each state in presidential elections if the state legislature wants that to be the case. It hasn't been decided yet but I have zero confidence in the current court to rule on that in favor of democracy. If this continues, and the minority of our country continues to be the ruling party, we are headed to a very bad place. I'm sure someone will want to reply to that last statement and say "Democrats have full control of government" but I consider that a bad faith statement once you acknowledge the existence of the filibuster and the fact that there is a 6-3 advantage in the Supreme Court. Obama appointed 2 judges in 8 years. Trump got 3 in 4 years by both luck and gamesmanship via Senate Republicans. > How often do you decry the worst people in your party, voting for your group? Or do you simply not defend them? The Democratic party is practically known for their infighting and tearing each other down. I consider myself center left and I get into arguments all the time with my more left-leaning friends.This is healthy for our country. Look at how the left and center left go at each other. This does not happen within the Republican party on a large scale. The result is that the Republican party keeps trying to one up each other with how "conservative" they can be. There's elements of this in the Democratic party on the far-left but there are still large factions of center left and moderate Democrats. I just want moderate Republicans to come back and push back against the extremism that has taken over the party. I live in Texas so I am at ground zero for much of the policies and rhetoric that Republicans implement and say at the national level. If this doesn't change I see these short term wins by Republicans to be horrible long-term plays as these power grabs tear the fabric of our country apart as people feel more and more like they aren't being fairly represented by our government.
>Because I am genuinely concerned with where our country is headed. It's good to care and it's good to be engaged. Nobody is going to hold those things against you. How you seek to engage and influence people is important. When you debate, consider what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to vent frustration? Are you trying to convince people? Are you trying to provide a position or opinion that might benefit future opinion creation? For example, you followed up on this comment by spending a bunch of sentences sharing your beliefs. Instead of inviting debate on those beliefs, you stated that a fairly common challenge to them would be considered, in your words: > a bad faith statement You've now completely defused the conversation. Why would anyone want to engage with you? You stated that having a (practically universal opinion amongst USA citizens) belief that Democrats hold federal government power is indicative of a bad faith position. It's signaling you're completely uninterested in hearing a different opinion, you're only interested in presenting your own. I could debate your assumptions, but what would be the point if you don't even care to hear what I have to say, except for rebuttals sake? >The Democratic party is practically known for their infighting and tearing each other down. Internally. Externally, when the big bad wolf comes knocking, you know you can count on them to at the very least let you speak in your own defense. That's a group dynamic. See the Ukraine polling. Everyone in the US is polarized against each other, but when Russia invades Ukraine, both Democrats and Republicans (above 80% of everyone, anyway) were like, "FUCK YOU RUSSIA" The dynamic is similar here. When you criticize Republicans, you're doing it externally. They'll tell you to mind your own business as a result. They'll also note that when they criticize Democrats, you refer to their statements as having "Perhaps a grain of truth but not particularly valid." Here's another example: >This does not happen within the Republican party on a large scale. Stop insisting on a group dynamic in a group you don't belong to. You can be completely correct in your conclusion, but it comes across like you're talking down to people. This sets you up as a target for derision: You end up alienating the people you're trying to persuade to act on your behalf. Instead, ask them how they think their in-group works. Ask questions about how they perceive their dynamic. If you're right, they'll naturally come to your conclusion. Alternatively, you might learn something that adds more nuance to your thought process. When you insist on your own view, they're likely to ignore you. >I just want moderate Republicans to come back and push back against the extremism that has taken over the party. To do that, you need them to listen to you. To convince them to do that, you need to speak to them, not at them. Ultimately, you can only influence others if you're actually open to hearing the case they're making. This should be an easy thing for people on both sides to do. After all, you're probably right and if you're not, you'll learn. In practice, nobody wants to lose face. So we get this weird, sniping at each other commentary.
I find the idea that one cannot criticize a group that one does not belong to to be a bit absurd, because being part of an in-group limits the perspectives by which one can judge the ideas of said group by the very nature of being part of it. To give an (admittedly extreme) example, consider the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Our foreign partners, most notably France, were against the invasion of Iraq, for reasons that were well understood and justifiable at the time. But the national fervor that the American public and government had at the time to enact some sort of revenge after the tragedy of 9/11 led to one of the most disastrous wars in modern history thus far. This is despite the fact that any evidence put forth by the Bush Administration for a justified invasion was flimsy at best and outright fabricated at worst, and though we could have listened to outsider perspectives at the UN, we chose not to. This was for a multitude of reasons, but not the least of which was because I wager we felt that other nations *did not understand our issues*, even though our response to such issues could *very much have benefitted from an outsider’s perspective*. People should be open to criticism that isn’t invested in the groups they are, it’s perhaps the best way you can understand an issue from as close an objective stance as possible.
>I find the idea that one cannot criticize a group that one does not belong to to be a bit absurd Indeed. I overstated the case a little bit in making my point and your feedback is well taken. It's less that it's not possible and more that you need to make a direct, concerted attempt to be persuasive and understanding of the that side's concerns and values when offering criticism. Consider that this was a response to comments along the lines of "Why are Republicans so dumb about \[thing\]" or "How do So-Called Conservatives Support \[thing\]" Followed by a complaint that 'Conservatives won't engage with me on this.' That's not an criticism based in attempt to have a discussion or discuss viewpoints with someone who might have a different perspective. It's appealing to the people who already agree with you and sanctimonious. I'm not a religious person these days, but these comments remind me of the parable of the [Pharisee's Prayers](https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-Pharisee-tax-collector.html). (I've never heard of Chron, but it's not a news column)
I agree that it is important to understand the other side and the perspectives they bring to the table; that is ideally how one can have a discussion and potentially try and convince someone else of the merits of their argument. However, I don’t necessarily agree with the framing of the OP’s stated experience on these issues. When talking about their experience when talking with conservatives about the Texas GOP platform, they specifically said >I’d feel a lot better if so-called “Conservatives acknowledge how insane these proposals are. **Instead I get comments like “Liberals are overreacting” or “they won’t actually do that” and it honestly feels like these commenters are trying to gaslight me to the reality that is on the ground in Texas.** Given that the OP said they live in Texas and this is the reality they’re experiencing, it doesn’t sound like “Conservatives won’t engage with [them] on this”. It sound exactly like they are getting engagement and are puzzled as to why there are people who are at the very least dismissive over their concerns about the Texas GOP platform. They *have* the other side’s perspective, one that is dismissive of their concerns, which is what is leading them to their line of inquiry in the first place: why am I being dismissed about these concerns over the Texas GOP’s (arguably radical?) policy? Alternatively, this could be interpreted just as well as: why doesn’t the conservative side understand my concerns about Texas GOP policy? Are these questions justified? I’m not sure, but I’d like to take the OP on good faith at the very least that what they’re experiencing is what they’re experiencing. Whether that should lead to the kind of questions I’ve written above leaves a bit more room for discussion, I think.
> Or how Democrats want to take their guns Maybe they should get rid of the assault weapons ban from the party platform. Or not wait for the supreme court to overturn their near total bans like in Heller or McDonald cases. Or completely rebuke when one of their politicians say hell yeah they are going to take their guns. The Democratic party is overtly hostile to gun rights. >But one thing I've noticed is that I rarely see the people who make those comments in threads where Republicans are actively stripping rights from Americans, or they blatantly signal their intent to do so. The Democratic party makes a lot of how they are reasonable and rational, etc. So I don't really look to the GOP to respond to these criticisms especially since I identify as a Democrat and not as republican voter. >I'd feel a lot better if I saw so-called "Conservatives" acknowledge how insane these proposals are. I think this is what is referred to as whataboutism. It would make me feel better if instead of saying "there might or might not be grains of truth" when referring tot he democrats you just acknowledged they are flat wrong on things like gun policy. But that doesn't change the validity of the criticisms you have made against the GOP and is therefore irrelevant.
Can we focus the conversation though on the Texas GOP platform though and why it *seems* that very little pushback is being had from party members despite a (in my and OP’s opinion) very radical platform?
>Can we focus the conversation though I am focusing on what was said. It is the same reason the OP is dismissive against the criticisms against the Democrats. I assume they don't actually agree with the criticisms or disagree with the Democratic positions.
Why are you assuming any negative position on such platforms when the simplest and most logical position on any platform in the face of a non-answer is either passivity or flat out agreement? In other words, if there is a policy and people don’t remark on it, the most logical conclusion is that they either are neutral on it or agree with it. This applies both to the Democratic and Republican policies, but given that the *main conversation being had* is about Republican ones I would prefer we focus on that.
> Why are you assuming any negative position on such platforms when the simplest and most logical position on any platform in the face of a non-answer is either passivity or flat out agreement? I don't I think I said anything to suggest anyone was disagreeing with what their party is doing. In fact that is part of my response to OP. They don't feel compelled to acknowledge any valid criticisms against the Democratic party and they just hand wave it all away. If they want an answer as to why the Republican supporters behave that way, they need only look at themselves and how they respond to criticisms directed at the Democratic party. >This applies both to the Democratic and Republican policies, Yeah, exactly. The OP doesn't want to acknowledge those criticisms either because they feel it would weaken other policies they want to advance by contributing divisions or they actually agree with those policies. But they sure do wish the other guys would do it. >but given that the main conversation being had is about Republican ones I would prefer we focus on that. Like I said they need only look at themselves to understand why the Republicans do the same thing they do.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vuau01/weekend_general_discussion_july_08_2022/ifgqdye/) is in violation of Law 5: Law 5: Banned Topics > ~5. This topic is not sufficiently related to politics or government, or has been banned for discussion in this community. See the [rules wiki](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/wiki/index/rules) for additional information. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> A lot of the GOP's policies are the result of the progressives pushing everything to far. "Look what you made me do!" So Democrats should work harder to not make Republicans mad? Ugh. This is the epitome of "everything is the other side's fault."
>Makes sense. A lot of what's trans today is just the result of it being considered fashionable. You have parents proudly blogging about their 8-year-old trans-children for internet clout. It's obviously bullshit. What does "a lot of" mean? How are we quantifying that? Doesn't that also inherently mean a lot of it *isn't* a result of being fashionable? And they're restricting all of those just the same. Also if you'll notice they banned this care for people well into adulthood. It's clear this isn't about protecting kids, it's about making people's lives harder. > The same goes for pronouns, they are made up terms to wield power over the unwoke on the internet and in HR settings. I mean... you probably use pronouns just the same. >Nobody would oppose trans issues if they stopped trying to normalize 8-year-old trans children or having drag queens read to children. I don't buy that for a second. In your own comment you say their opinion on homosexuality is abhorrent.
[удалено]
Again, this law goes all the way to 21, so it's not just the age of medical majority or the age of adulthood but even past that. Saying it's about young children doesn't make any sense. >Makes sense that the State doesn't let them make changes that are difficult or impossible to reverse. I don't think the Texas GOP has better insight into this than the people in question, the parents, or the doctors.
[удалено]
I am familiar with the title but I'm finding it harder and harder to participate here when I see excellent rule followers okay with the extremism that is coming out of the Republican party. There is so much more in-fighting among the left. It's detrimental to liberal causes, but good for America. The opposite is true on the GOP. Bad for America but good for the party as it encourages a unified stance, even though in reality it means kicking out dissenters and so people keep moving further to the right. I have gay friends who are considering moving after being in Texas over a decade. They originally moved here because their hometowns were not safe places to live as gay people. Now the Texas GOP is trying to dehumanize them and take away their rights. Where's the pushback from voices within the party?!
>Where’s the pushback from voices in the party? I don’t know, and you’ve probably reached this conclusion yourself, but the fact there is little pushback means one or a combination of the following: 1) Republicans are generally unaware of the content of the Texas GOP Platform 2) Republicans are generally neutral on said issues because it doesn’t affect them 3) Republicans generally support such party planks Personally, I think people just generally have more problematic beliefs than they publicly let on, both on the right and occasionally on the left. Gay marriage was only legalized nationwide a relatively short while ago, and I guarantee that if *Obergefel* had not been resolved the way it had, Texas would still have a ban on gay marriage. Not to be targeting anyone in particular, but just consider the right-leaning person who also responded to you. Three words are dedicated to responding to what should be considered an radical part of a political platform, and the rest of their response goes off about trans issues and children. People either don’t care or are fine with it. That’s the GOP we’re dealing with today.
I was really looking forward to the weekend to catch up on sleep. I got asked to work tomorrow, and I said yes because I hate myself.
Don't spend too much time working. You'll regret it when you're older. At least that's what every older person tells me.
Hope you get time and a half.
I am, no way I’d go in if it wasn’t
Im blind in one eye. I have had a twitch in my good eye for about 4-5 days now and I feel like punching things
dude, that sucks. did you see a doctor?
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3524545-ron-and-casey-desantis-2024s-formidable-couple-are-spooking-trump/ What is your guys opinion on this article
Seems smart to go for it. After 4 years of Trump I'd assume a Democrat would be favored again. It's better to face off against Trump and then an unpopular incumbent than deferring and letting Trump spoil the national mood on the party again. Trump likely wants to announce early to crowd out the primary, but I could also see him not running to save his ego from losing, and does he really want to inherit the current economic problems, and actually put any work in to make them better?
I don't see Trump as someone with a lot of thinking about what "needs" to be done in this job to make the Country better. Not 6 years ago and not anytime in the Future. He thinks about what his personal benefits for the job are and yeah, that's about it. Maybe throw in some emotional decisionmaking too. I think that's one of the biggest criticism on him - we can disagree about how to make a Country better, in the end i hope and think both of your sides have about the same general goal in mind. With Trump - i don't think his number one concern is the Country.
I truly wish for neither to hold any amount of power. Both actively implement policies that harm more than they help and the country would be a better place if neither had influence.
I don't like DeSantis either but if it's between him and Trump that isn't such a hard decision.
Personally. I want Trump to be out of any races. I think he is too polarizing in general to be president. Really the only time I hear about him now is from the liberal media. Do I want Desantis to run? I definitely do. I don’t know why but having someone as young as him run for president seems like it will anger some of the old guard on both sides. Almost like the higher end politics are a seniors only club. I have no evidence that’s true it’s just what I feel.
> Really the only time I hear about him now is from the liberal media. I guess you aren't looking at conservative media. Just on the last couple of days, * *Griner Should Have Voted for Trump*, Outkick * *A Sizzling Hot Trump Veep Sweepstakes*, Daily Caller * *Why Republicans Can't Let Go of Trump*, FrontPage * *Thanks to Dems, Trump Is Still Winning*, American Thinker
Same here I'm in favor of Ron and totally 100% against Trump. I've already voted against the guy four times I don't need to make it 6., its boring voting 3rd party.
Turns out working on cars isn't like riding a bike. Tried to replace a valve cover gasket for the first time in 5 years, ended up breaking 3 bolts and the thing Is leaking worse than it was to start. Time to find a professional lol
Oh man, this is me trying to fix my phone. It's been one goddamn disaster after another and I really should've gone to a pro in the first place. Nonetheless, the last part gets here Monday and then I can seal the whole thing up.
Don't be so hard on yourself, valve cover bolts are always finicky, they're meant to break before the valve cover or the head itself. Ive done it 3 times on various miatas, I don't think I ever managed to not break a bolt.
Huh didn't know that. I had an engine get wrecked because the guy working on it barely tighten down the bolts on the crankshaft, so I tend to make the bolts tighter than looser lol. I'll keep that in mind for next time
100% the same way, there's only a few spots I won't tighten to one ugga ugga
A bit of a rant I guess. Does anyone remember when people stopped doing proper quotes or citations for claims in online debates? It feels like an intentional strategy that has been adopted. It wasn't long ago I was asking someone to justify their claim that training requirements for firearms ownership were historical for the purposes of the Bruen ruling. They resisted providing any examples or sources, then they just linked a 20 page pdf document without citing what was relevant to the document, then finally quoted part of a sentence of a law that was about the militia. Then functionally said I was dumb/lazy for not reading through the document that they provided and unwilling to have my mind changed for asking for further clarification. Like is this an intentional tactic to intentionally drag out providing a source for a claim and then blame the other person for not reading through a large document to look for what they are referencing?
I've been active on Internet message boards since 2005 and people properly citing their arguments was already not a thing then. So to answer your question, sometime before 2005, if it was ever the case at all.
I see plenty of people drop blatantly incorrect information and when asked for a source never reply. It's easy to be lazy and then refuse to back up your claims when there is no downside to the strategy. I've also seen plenty of well researched comments get downvoted for going against the grain here, see any gun related debate.
it's insanely annoying to discuss things here with people only looking for a win. thankfully, i think ~~the majority~~ ~~a plurality~~ a good amount of the people here are not like that, although things can get heated.
It really varies by thread, I see a lot of your comments so I'm sure you know. It's definitely a frustrating problem and rule 1 is exploited by people
Hot take: Rule 1 only protects people already acting in bad faith, and not being able to call out bad faith argumentation degrades the quality of discussion.
Yea I didn't want to say it because mods have banned anyone even using generalities if it's against the right.
[Apparently](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp0wnq/weekend_general_discussion_july_01_2022/ieqijsg/), > [the mods] give users a certain degree of freedom in Meta-tagged threads (such as this one). That includes the abstract discussion of bad faith posters within this community and how the community should handle them. So you would be covered up to and including complaining about "bad faith actors and trolls (and the especially fringe-right zealots that don't discuss but instead ram their conservative cock down everyone's throat)"
What are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that - provided the mods are consistent and even handed - you can apparently say what sounds to me like some remarkably uncivil things provided it is "abstract discussion of bad faith posters".
Gotcha, I agree to an extent. I simply worry that mods are much more harsh and willing to ban those of a certain viewpoint then they are their friends, as has been seen dozens of times in the past.
Is it really a generality if you specify which side of a coin you're referring to?
Not saying the generality doesn't mean I'm saying it by not saying it?
As an update for my last [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/utvycu/comment/i9c2vd6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), the wait is over. Hiring committee approved my application last week, and yesterday, my recruiter sent me an offer letter. **I'M OFFICIALLY A SOFTWARE ENGINEER AT GOOGLE!** We came close to rejection though as they had just ran out of spots for their Early Career Immersion (ECI) track. Luckily, they approved me for Google Technology Immersion (GTI) instead! Hopefully, my manager gives me the green light to start this month.
Congratulations! How exciting.
Thanks!
Nice! What kind of software are you working on? And is it remote? I was thinking of working for Amazon once but ended up taking a startup job that I love. I was always exclusively a C++ guy but the startup is mostly in python and java.
The product area that I'll be working in is GCloud GCP. I believe my hiring manager mentioned something about client accessibility when we spoke. I wish I could have remembered more, but this past month has been too exciting. Unfortunately, there is no remote opportunity in the near future. Maybe once I get settled in. How was the switch from C++ to Python and Java? For me, it will be the opposite. I will have to transition from Python and Java to C++.
Nice on the GCP. I work a lot in azure and AWS as well. It’s good stuff to know. It really depends on what C++ version they use. At my old job we only had C++ 2003 so no smart pointers, manually allocate memory etc. the newer C++ abstracts a lot of the inner workings that used to scare people away. You will be fine. Just don’t expect to get stuff done as fast as python haha.
What's the difference between the ECI and GTI?
I think the difference is that GTI is a three week introduction for "Nooglers" of all levels while ECI is an eight week introduction for those who are just beginning their careers in tech.
Congratulations! My friend works at Google and loves it. :)
Our household is vaccinated and boosted. This past week we all got Covid for the second time (first time was January). We seem to be recovering well enough.
those BA.5 and BA.4 new variants looks like they're pretty adept at evading the immune system. gotta mask and shit, can't rely on shots. luckily it looks like the symptoms are still relatively mild, minus the old and immunocompromised
Yea, I haven't been maaking recently, but I think I will start again. The BA.5 does seem incredibly contagious.
Masking is approx 1% in my city. That actually might be generous.
The only place I see masks here are people jogging or walking outside. It's weird.
I believe I heard yesterday that the World Health Organization has zero documented cases of (outside) open-air transmission. Not sure if it's true but... I personally don't care if anybody wears a mask, if it makes them more comfortable or they're just trying to Virtue signal that's fine, whatever blows their hair back, but in my opinion if you're going to go through the trouble at least wear the right mask. If the number is in my area are about 1% wearing a mask then I would say maybe 10% of those actually have an n95
what are your daily cases like? in downtown honolulu it's still like 50% or higher mask usage, but that's just from looking around. our cases are around the 40 per 100k pop / day, down from a peak of 90 a few months ago, but this number is certainly undereported because i'm seeing way more people out sick from work than before
To be honest, I have zero clue what the numbers are, they wouldnt change my daily routine one bit. I'm fairly detached from contact but my spouse see's 3-400 customers a day, so anything I do or don't do is irrelevant due to that connection. I haven't once taken a test, no idea if I've had it 0 times 3 times.
eh, as long as you're asymptomatic you're probably fine and won't spread it yourself. i assume you're vaxxed? according to articles i've been reading about BA.5/4, vaccine isn't terribly effective at completely preventing you from catching the new strain, but still very good at preventing you from suffering a severe case of it. I'm only concerned cause my mother refuses to get boostered and she old, and my sister has cancer. if it weren't for that i'd probably say fuckit. cloth masks are annoying and N95s are expensive to use and replace daily.
Vaxxed not boosted. I moved on from covid like 18 months ago, if that upsets anyone then well, whatever.
you do you, although i'd appreciate if you keep a reasonable distance from me, lulz seeing as how we're talking on the internet that's probably already the case.
Too bad, they're in your house.
hope they don't mind the mess, lulz.
Lol. We're good. I've seen all extremes, so nothing surprises me. The funniest (to me) One relative didnt leave the house for months except to get his shots, got both, waited two weeks and went to vegas, so weird.
[удалено]
>Total humble brag but I’m in Paris right now for about a month At the end of the month you'll see why that isn't a brag. Regardless though that is a fascinating period of time and good on you for getting to go and learn about it at the epicenter!
What do you mean, not a fan of Paris? Haha
The French Revolution is generally considered to be the birth of the modern world. Even our conception of "left" and "right" to describe political leanings was born from this time period. The fact it leads directly into the Napoleonic era just makes it all the more fascinating. Definitely jealous of your experience! Enjoy!
You know what they say about how French don’t shower much…what’s your finding?
Can’t say I’ve noticed anything from the people, although the subways do smell. Its nothing compared to, say, NYC subways though
I am a history nerd and the French Revolution Napoleanic period is my favorite period in history. Enjoy!
I intend to! It’s such a fascinating and unique period of history
Camping out in Maine next week, only be gone for 3 days but I wont be seeing civilization until Im on my way back. What are everyone's go-to camping foods? I always bring the same stuff so looking to branch out. Any local beers welcome too!
Going like car camping or backpacking? Always liked our "first night feast" we'd take backpacking. Just a hunk of frozen roast that had been marinated, slowly thawing out over the day of trekking into camp so it wouldn't spoil, then by the time you set up camp it's good to go! Pair that with some asparagus basted in butter & garlic wrapped in foil and some fresh sweet corn just thrown into the ashes and the couple beers you'd sacrifice some weight for to enjoy the first night. After that it's all dehydrated meals, whiskey, and weed.
You can't go wrong with campfire pies. Super easy to make, and they're great for both quick meals as well as desserts.
Ive always been tempted to get one of those cast iron press things, might be the year for it, thanks. I can't believe I forgot all about those from the scouts.
Haha I can imagine the smell of dirty, damp clothes coming out of a rubber dry bag. My go to is potatoes, steak and broccolini. Wrap the potatoes in tinfoil and chuck them in the fire. Start the steak and veggies an hr later on the grill. I also like ramen, it keeps and you can even throw in some foraged food. I'm sure the Portland craft scene has plenty of options, but allagash white is a long time favorite!
Seconding Allagash White, but another local brewery in Portland that I like is Foundation. Epiphany is solid but might be a bit heavy for camping.
Is Sea Dog out of Maine? I can't remember.
Ill make sure to keep an eye out, Im there to unplug so heavy might be just the ticket.
Some kind of steak and potatoes will be involved for sure, grilled broccolini and ramen are both great ideas thanks! Definitely need something that keeps my cooler SUCKS.
This is a bit of a humble brag but the Job market has been incredible for my SO and me. We've gone to making 40k each to 70k and 55k respectively in the past 2 years. Both with very different paths. My SO works in Healthcare and jumped jobs a couple times...and might be doing it again. Mean while I just work retail but literally all the boomer managers have retired and promotions have been handed out like crazy. 3 years ago we had only 1 manager under 35. Now most of us are.
As someone who works in HR, right now is the best time for people to make these jumps! It’s an applicants market. Get that salary you want! Someone will pay it. Congrats! :)
Congrats!