Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[dps]

Civility in public discourse has value to society as a whole.  That doesn't necessarily make it an effective tactic for any given politician.

Of course, not every politician who is uncivil is doing so as a tactic;  some people just don't have it in them to be civil.

[garbon]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

Though that's somewhat of an aside as a lack of civility doesn't have to mean that.

But it will. A candidate offering radical change and instant solutions can afford to be a yelling bafoon. A moderate cannot. Hence my above point.

But I don't actually want a candidate offering radical change and yet am tired of tolerating intolerance and buffoonery.

[Tamas]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

Though that's somewhat of an aside as a lack of civility doesn't have to mean that.

But it will. A candidate offering radical change and instant solutions can afford to be a yelling bafoon. A moderate cannot. Hence my above point.

But I don't actually want a candidate offering radical change and yet am tired of tolerating intolerance.

I am with you. Let's hope I am wrong.

[Valmy]

Civility in public discourse has value to society as a whole.  That doesn't necessarily make it an effective tactic for any given politician.

Of course, not every politician who is uncivil is doing so as a tactic;  some people just don't have it in them to be civil.

Well yeah without civility you cannot have a debate of any substance. But we have a critical mass of people who are not interested in debating ideas right now.

[Tamas]

Civility in public discourse has value to society as a whole.  That doesn't necessarily make it an effective tactic for any given politician.

Of course, not every politician who is uncivil is doing so as a tactic;  some people just don't have it in them to be civil.

Well yeah without civility you cannot have a debate of any substance. But we have a critical mass of people who are not interested in debating ideas right now.

While debates are certainly not on the agenda for most people (I guess that's normal with extremes rising on both ends), I think the short era of lack of political ideologies fighting each other, is over. The ideas of open and closed societies definitely seem to be at each other's throats.

[Razgovory]

One of the immutable laws of nature is that sometimes you must reciprocate or die.  Tit for tat is a more robust strategy than turning the other cheek. 

Jesus should have clarified that you should turn the other cheek once.  If you get slapped again, then you kind of have to resort to a tactic that protects you from getting slapped further.  Everyone is better off if turning the other cheek works, but if early humans adopted that tactic against predatory animals, there would be no modern humans.

I don't see any point in civility anymore for Democrats.  If they are civil they don't get any credit for it, conservatives will still claim that anything they do is justified by some imaginary crimes Democrats are engaged in.  I'm sure Tim Mcveigh felt he was the real victim when he murdered all those people.

One thing is clear to me.  The Right-wing hates us.  Many would kill us if they thought they could get away with it.  Hell, they have no problem reminding us of why they keep all those guns, to kill us when conservatives have finally had enough and decided must overthrow the terrible tyranny of gay marriage and political correctness.  Why should we be civil to these people? 

[The Brain]

One of the immutable laws of nature is that sometimes you must reciprocate or die.  Tit for tat is a more robust strategy than turning the other cheek. 

Jesus should have clarified that you should turn the other cheek once.  If you get slapped again, then you kind of have to resort to a tactic that protects you from getting slapped further.  Everyone is better off if turning the other cheek works, but if early humans adopted that tactic against predatory animals, there would be no modern humans.

I don't see any point in civility anymore for Democrats.  If they are civil they don't get any credit for it, conservatives will still claim that anything they do is justified by some imaginary crimes Democrats are engaged in.  I'm sure Tim Mcveigh felt he was the real victim when he murdered all those people.

One thing is clear to me.  The Right-wing hates us.  Many would kill us if they thought they could get away with it.  Hell, they have no problem reminding us of why they keep all those guns, to kill us when conservatives have finally had enough and decided must overthrow the terrible tyranny of gay marriage and political correctness.  Why should we be civil to these people?

Because as long as you are economically useful to them they won't liquidate the ghetto. Surely.

[Valmy]

One of the immutable laws of nature is that sometimes you must reciprocate or die.  Tit for tat is a more robust strategy than turning the other cheek. 

Jesus should have clarified that you should turn the other cheek once.  If you get slapped again, then you kind of have to resort to a tactic that protects you from getting slapped further.  Everyone is better off if turning the other cheek works, but if early humans adopted that tactic against predatory animals, there would be no modern humans.

I don't see any point in civility anymore for Democrats.  If they are civil they don't get any credit for it, conservatives will still claim that anything they do is justified by some imaginary crimes Democrats are engaged in.  I'm sure Tim Mcveigh felt he was the real victim when he murdered all those people.

One thing is clear to me.  The Right-wing hates us.  Many would kill us if they thought they could get away with it.  Hell, they have no problem reminding us of why they keep all those guns, to kill us when conservatives have finally had enough and decided must overthrow the terrible tyranny of gay marriage and political correctness.  Why should we be civil to these people? 

This way of thinking is very worrisome. I mean sure there are people on the right who it is absolutely a waste of time to talk to and do hate us, but it is not like all of them are in lockstep agreement on this. Just like they love to paint us as radical and violent extremists.

But you do point out a truth, or at least something I think is currently true, is that you get no credit for being civil with the other side or attempting to be bipartisan. On the contrary you will be lambasted for being a traitor. Many of the informal rules that make our system work, including the legal assumption that there is no partisanship, are breaking down. It is worrisome.

[derspiess]

Well maybe they should lead the way.

I'm civil

[Valmy]

I'm civil

And I appreciate it

[derspiess]

One thing is clear to me.  The Right-wing hates us. 

I don't hate you

Many would kill us if they thought they could get away with it.

  You've been spending too much time around your Antifa friends.

[Admiral Yi]

The current occupant of the Oval Office is despised by 60% of the electorate, in part because of his swinish behavior.  Emulating that is not a recipe for success.

[Valmy]

The current occupant of the Oval Office is despised by 60% of the electorate, in part because of his swinish behavior.  Emulating that is not a recipe for success.

Well said.

After all the warnings that we cannot allow Trump to be normalized, my party should not go in that direction. Most of the election in Texas has been very aspirational for the most part and I have appreciated that. Tell people why they should support you, the reasons you shouldn't vote for Donald Trump are already obvious to the majority of the electorate.

[FunkMonk]

Michael Avenatti will save us

[crazy canuck]

The current occupant of the Oval Office is despised by 60% of the electorate, in part because of his swinish behavior.  Emulating that is not a recipe for success.

Well said.

After all the warnings that we cannot allow Trump to be normalized, my party should not go in that direction. Most of the election in Texas has been very aspirational for the most part and I have appreciated that. Tell people why they should support you, the reasons you shouldn't vote for Donald Trump are already obvious to the majority of the electorate.

I have been watching "the Circus" on HBO.  Their episodes spend a fair amount of time on the Texas race.  The point made in the last episode is that the Democratic candidate is running as a Texan first and as a Democrat second.   He seems to understand very well that politics are local.  There was also a discussion about how the Supreme Court nomination mess did not help him because it detracted from his message that he is the best Texan for the job and it infused party politics into the race.