Eight Reasons America Is On Edge

[DGuller]

There is nothing inherently wrong about parties, IMO.  It makes sense for people with shared ideals to band together.  Where it gets destructive is when partisan competition turns into total war.

[Valmy]

But partisanship is good for us! The Atlantic says so!

If God wanted me to be partisan he would have provided me with a party to support.

[Valmy]

There is nothing inherently wrong about parties, IMO.  It makes sense for people with shared ideals to band together.  Where it gets destructive is when partisan competition turns into total war.

Well this is sorta the issue.  It is one thing to have different political opinions out there it is another when people start going down the 'Better Hitler than Blum' route.

[Berkut]

But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about whether the president is legitimate. Of course they tried to remove him - but that isn't the point. You can't bring that up to support your claim that one side questions the legitimacy more than another.

You're defining legitimacy far too narrowly.  Claiming that someone is a murderer is an attack on someone's legitimacy.  Obviously a murderer can't be a US president.  Claiming that someone is trying to dismantle the country is also an attack on legitimacy.  Obviously someone who tries to destroy US can't be a US president.

Uhh, *you* are suddenly defining it much too broadly - although oddly enough that crushes your argument that somehow this is a uniquely or predominately right wing phenomenon, since now we can basically show that every single president had their legitimacy attacked by the other party, since both parties always have some crazies who claim the other parties president is trying to destroy the country.

Hell, if we are going to move the goalposts from talking about people claiming Obama is not legitimate because he is actually not legally allowed to be president to someone simply claiming the president is doing a terrible job and is destroying the country, we don't even need to limit ourselves to talking about the nutbars anymore.

[Berkut]

There is nothing inherently wrong about parties, IMO.  It makes sense for people with shared ideals to band together.  Where it gets destructive is when partisan competition turns into total war.

No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.

[Valmy]

No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.

QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.

[Berkut]

No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.

QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.

I find it much more annoying when people refuse to support something simply because it is an idea put forth by the other party. A subtle distinction, but an important one.

Especially when it is something that isn't even relevant to the core of what it means to be a member of a party anyway.

Dem opposition to the Iraq War, for example. Or republican opposition to the Kosovo involvement. Almost completely motivated, IMO, by the fact that it was under the other parties President, rather than any principles or practical considerations.

Funny, the screaming and wailing to get the troops out immediately sure did disappear the moment Bush was out of office.

That kind of partisanship is much more damaging than anything else, IMO, since it actually influences national policy based on nothing that has anything to do with the merits of the situation at hand, but simply a matter of "get the other guy".

[Oexmelin]

No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.

QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.

The problem with such a presentation is that it can take diverging, but legitimate, political positions, and portray one as biased and irrational, thus taking us back to square one.

[Fate]

No, where it gets destructive is when party allegiance and tribalism begins to trump objectivity and rational thinking.

QFT, it annoys me when normally smart people start supporting idiotic positions, or positions completely counter to their own personal beliefs, simply because that is what people of their particular partisanship are supposed to support.

I find it much more annoying when people refuse to support something simply because it is an idea put forth by the other party. A subtle distinction, but an important one.

Especially when it is something that isn't even relevant to the core of what it means to be a member of a party anyway.

Dem opposition to the Iraq War, for example. Or republican opposition to the Kosovo involvement. Almost completely motivated, IMO, by the fact that it was under the other parties President, rather than any principles or practical considerations.

Funny, the screaming and wailing to get the troops out immediately sure did disappear the moment Bush was out of office.

That kind of partisanship is much more damaging than anything else, IMO, since it actually influences national policy based on nothing that has anything to do with the merits of the situation at hand, but simply a matter of "get the other guy".

Give be a break. You're really comparing Kosovo to the Iraq War. Why the fuck did you vote for Obama? You neocons are sure confusing.

[Barrister]

I'm really proud of this forum some days.  Except for one-slip-up by Berkut, nobody has responded to Fate at all in this thread. 

[DGuller]

I'm really proud of this forum some days.  Except for one-slip-up by Berkut, nobody has responded to Fate at all in this thread. 

I did, but at least I didn't quote him.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

This thread is an example of why we can't have nice things.

Once again Ed wins the thread

[Berkut]

I'm really proud of this forum some days.  Except for one-slip-up by Berkut, nobody has responded to Fate at all in this thread. 

I did not!

Did I?

[Eddie Teach]

You quoted Fate but your response was to Guller.

[Fate]

You quoted Fate but your response was to Guller.