Who Represents Your Worldview?

[DMC]

Along the political spectrum various political worldviews exist. As talking points surface, we often take a side and defend it. During those discussions, quotes and tweets are offered to make a point. When the authors of those are scrutinized here, people sometimes begin to distance themselves from them. Who do you think most accurately represents your worldview? What politicians to you align with and which do you disalign with?

[Spurs Homer]

Along the political spectrum various political worldviews exist. As talking points surface, we often take a side and defend it. During those discussions, quotes and tweets are offered to make a point. When the authors of those are scrutinized here, people sometimes begin to distance themselves from them. Who do you think most accurately represents your worldview? What politicians to you align with and which do you disalign with?


Truth.

[ElNono]

Soros and the Koch, clearly... you get paid to vote 20 times every election, and you get to enjoy your your tax-reduced white priviledge... best of both worlds, tbh

[Winehole23]

You first, profe.

[Pavlov]

:lol DMC will never answer his own question. Too takey.

[Will Hunting]

There isn’t a modern day politician I can say represents my worldview. This is largely due to the fact I view climate change as far and away the most significant issue in the world and most politicians don’t.

[DarrinS]

There isn’t a modern day politician I can say represents my worldview. This is largely due to the fact I view climate change as far and away the most significant issue in the world and most politicians don’t.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cortez.jpg

[DMC]

You first, profe.

I've seen some folks who do more than others. I agreed with a lot of what Obama said, just not everything he did. I agree in principle with the main talking points. I lean more toward folks who observe decorum and protocol in the Senate and house over those who do not. It's there for a reason (decorum and protocol).

Obviously I have a more conservative stance regarding the BoR but more liberal regarding the "R" part of it. I think the right, though they harp on the BoR a lot, are quick to infringe on other privacy rights when the notion strikes. The left is guilty too, but often it's a different right they infringe upon.

I've heard Trey Gowdy say things I agree with, and I like his demeanor some, but not a fan of the political showmanship during the Clinton interviews or other hearings where he strayed from legalese into political capital talking points and self promotion (he never fails to mention he was a federal prosecutor).

I don't care for moral lecturing from congress. They have no ground to stand on most of the time.

I am not a fan of Trump. I hope for positive changes but the man himself is disgusting as a human being. If he's good inside he doesn't show it.

I think GWB became a better leader after he left office, oddly enough.

I never was a fan of John McCain. I respect his service both in the military and in congress, but not a fan of his "look at me, I'm different" facade.

I don't know anything about the Tea Party.

I never heard of the "Proud Boys" before someone mentioned them here.

I agree with a lot of what Christopher Hitchens had to say. Not so much with Ben Shapiro though he has some canned responses that require more research than most respondents have time to do on the fly.

[DMC]

:lol DMC will never answer his own question. Too takey.

Try again :lol

[Pavlov]

Try again :lolHonestly it was kind of a non-answer since you agree most with a guy who died six years ago.

[Will Hunting]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cortez.jpg
1) I’m not convinced she cares about climate change, it seems more like she’s using it as a reason to give free stuff to everyone.

2) Why do Republicans like spamming oversized pictures of AOC making weird faces all the time?

[Pavlov]

1) I’m not convinced she cares about climate change, it seems more like she’s using it as a reason to give free stuff to everyone.

2) Why do Republicans like spamming oversized pictures of AOC making weird faces all the time?Of course they do the same with Trump since so many of them here say they don't like him....

[Trill Clinton]

Al sharpton and DeRay McKesson duh

[Blake]

I can't really think of anyone in particular that represents my world view. I just really like making fun of others' completely illogical and insane views.

[Will Hunting]

Of course they do the same with Trump since so many of them here say they don't like him....
It’s actually funny that Darrin refers to Trump as Drumpf thinking he’s being really clever when it’s painfully transparent that he’s trying to make his opinions seem more credible by portraying himself as a Trump hater.

[Will Hunting]

“Drumpf hasn’t done anything wrong....obviously since I called him Drumpf it means that my opinion isn’t politically motivated and that Trump er I mean Drumpf has just done such a good job that people like me who opposed him approve of the job he’s done....I still don’t like him tho”

[Pavlov]

It’s actually funny that Darrin refers to Trump as Drumpf thinking he’s being really clever when it’s painfully transparent that he’s trying to make his opinions seem more credible by portraying himself as a Trump hater.
I've never seen any of the Republicans who say they don't like him actually come out against any of Trump's policies or actions.

As for OP, it's gets to be unwieldy pretty quickly as he demonstrated. Politicians will ultimately disappoint because compromises will always be made in government, meaning actions will never meet rhetoric. Pundits and commentators are nice since they can potentially remain ideologically pure, but they never do anything but talk.

[Will Hunting]

I've never seen any of the Republicans who say they don't like actually come out against any Trump of Trump's policies or actions.
I think CosmicCowboy and Chucho are the two who legitimately don’t like him and have spoken against his policy / stuff he’s said. I can’t tell with DMC, I think he just likes fucking with people, but the Republicans like Darrin are why the polling was off in 2016 (knows that he probably shouldn’t like Trump, won’t admit he likes Trump, won’t tell some random pollster he’s voting for Trump out of embarrassement, but when push comes to shove he’s voting for Trump on Election Day).

[spurraider21]

2) Why do Republicans like spamming oversized pictures of AOC making weird faces all the time?
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276763&p=9630727&viewfull=1#post9630727

[spurraider21]

I've never seen any of the Republicans who say they don't like actually come out against any Trump of Trump's policies or actions.

As for OP, it's gets to be unwieldy pretty quickly as he demonstrated. Politicians will ultimately disappoint because compromises will always be made in government, meaning actions will never meet rhetoric. Pundits and commentators are nice since they can potentially remain ideologically pure, but they never do anything but talk.
that's pretty spot on imo

also when it comes to national-scale politicians, we only really see them through the lens of the "big ticket" issues where everybody just toes the party line, so you many of them just seem to blend. how many democrats are going to be noticeably different with respect to tax/immigration/gun control? you might say those issues are not the most important to you, but that's where they're the most vocal and where most of their emphasis will be.

[DMC]

Honestly it was kind of a non-answer since you agree most with a guy who died six years ago.
Never said that.

[Winehole23]

Never said that.with whom do you agree the most?

[spurraider21]

There isn’t a modern day politician I can say represents my worldview. This is largely due to the fact I view climate change as far and away the most significant issue in the world and most politicians don’t.
i tend to agree with this, too. and not just directly, but also because prioritizing gut feelings and preferences over scientific data is such a dangerous position generally speaking, and we see it come up on issues such as vaccines as well. the ideology behind climate change denial terrifies me just as much as the more direct ramifications of climate change denial. (inb4 snarky darrin comment about how the climate always changes)

but if that's going to be your chief issue, who's really going to be your champion in politics, al gore? nah

and when you boil it down, there is no logical reason why climate change in and of itself should be a political issue. now... how to approach the problem via policy? that's certainly a political question. but we've gotten to the point where acknowledging the science has become political, and i cant make sense of it.

[DMC]

with whom do you agree the most?

I haven't quantified it so I cannot say accurately.

[DMC]

i tend to agree with this, too. and not just directly, but also because prioritizing gut feelings and preferences over scientific data is such a dangerous position generally speaking, and we see it come up on issues such as vaccines as well. the ideology behind climate change denial terrifies me just as much as the more direct ramifications of climate change denial. (inb4 snarky darrin comment about how the climate always changes)

but if that's going to be your chief issue, who's really going to be your champion in politics, al gore? nah

and when you boil it down, there is no logical reason why climate change in and of itself should be a political issue. now... how to approach the problem via policy? that's certainly a political question. but we've gotten to the point where acknowledging the science has become political, and i cant make sense of it.

It's easy to understand really. People who won't acknowledge it don't understand it, and the mouthpiece for science, in their eyes, has political motivations. If they were to get involved at the research level they'd have a better understanding of the scientific process, and maybe develop a trust. As it stands, the word "science" just means "our opinions based on stuff some other people said" to most of these guys who spent their lives profiting from resources, not protecting them.

When it comes down to it, it's almost impossible to trust that even a hard core scientist wouldn't turn shill if the money was right.

[spurraider21]

wasn't that long ago that i said if you could take the warhawk out of lindsey graham, that he'd have been the best GOP candidate in the 2016 election. seeing him bend over for trump and lose his mind at the kavanaugh hearings changed my perspective of him, though.

[ElNono]

Srsly, I think Kasich(sp?) is probably a guy I heard that said a lot of things I agreed with. Out of the collection of politicians du jour, he’s probably a guy I could vote for without a problem.

He’s not flamboyant and his message is not to blow it all up, which are easier sells in this polarized environment, but he largely sounded rational on his talking points, IMO

[spurraider21]

It's easy to understand really. People who won't acknowledge it don't understand it, and the mouthpiece for science, in their eyes, has political motivations. If they were to get involved at the research level they'd have a better understanding of the scientific process, and maybe develop a trust. As it stands, the word "science" just means "our opinions based on stuff some other people said" to most of these guys who spent their lives profiting from resources, not protecting them.

When it comes down to it, it's almost impossible to trust that even a hard core scientist wouldn't turn shill if the money was right.
true, but there are plenty of liberals who don't understand it yet acknowledge it.

it's still a political dividing line

[spurraider21]

Srsly, I think Kasich(sp?) is probably a guy I heard that said a lot of things I agreed with. Out of the collection of politicians du jour, he’s probably a guy I could vote for without a problem.

He’s not flamboyant and his message is not to blow it all up, which are easier sells in this polarized environment, but he largely sounded rational on his talking points, IMO
that's because by the end of the republican primary he was the only one acting like an adult on stage, so many of us sorta gravitated towards him

[spurraider21]

i dno, maybe some weird combination of elizabeth warren and sheldon whitehouse? it's an interesting question posed by OP but one that i'm having a lot of difficulty understanding. the nuance in my political worldview shows up a lot more when voting for state/county/municipal ballot measures than when voting for specific candidates tbh

[DMC]

true, but there are plenty of liberals who don't understand it yet acknowledge it.

it's still a political dividing line

That's because they are toeing the line. If you acknowledge things you don't understand, how is that worse than not acknowledging it? Either way you're making your mind up about something you have no idea about.

Consider it like the warning on a pack of cigarettes. People still smoke, even very intelligent people. Why? Because it hasn't crept up on them yet so they feel safe. Where climate is concerned, we only feel unsafe because we read the reports. The cause/correlation fallacy is in play with trends and such, and it's hard to discern the truth. So people rely on their gut, and cold days make ignorant people think global warming is a myth in the same way people they think other things that are factually incorrect.

[DMC]

i dno, maybe some weird combination of elizabeth warren and sheldon whitehouse? it's an interesting question posed by OP but one that i'm having a lot of difficulty understanding. the nuance in my political worldview shows up a lot more when voting for state/county/municipal ballot measures than when voting for specific candidates tbh

I see so many people support this or that person then say they don't represent their worldview. So then who does? I think we'd probably all name a lot of common folks, and be surprised who we pick. I haven't seen Chomsky yet.

[spurraider21]

That's because they are toeing the line.
yeah i get that much. my question is more of "why was a line ever drawn here on a partisan basis"


If you acknowledge things you don't understand, how is that worse than not acknowledging it? Either way you're making your mind up about something you have no idea about.
yes and no, depending on the subject matter. we enjoy the fruits of a lot of technology that we may not understand the workings of. but we can acknowledge the underlying science based on the results.


Consider it like the warning on a pack of cigarettes. People still smoke, even very intelligent people. Why? Because it hasn't crept up on them yet so they feel safe. Where climate is concerned, we only feel unsafe because we read the reports. The cause/correlation fallacy is in play with trends and such, and it's hard to discern the truth. So people rely on their gut, and cold days make ignorant people think global warming is a myth in the same way people they think other things that are factually incorrect.
i get it. but see my first response in this post. i get that many people might find the science to be bologna. but why is it generally so neatly drawn along party lines? what is "conservative" about climate change skepticism?

[spurraider21]

I see so many people support this or that person then say they don't represent their worldview. So then who does? I think we'd probably all name a lot of common folks, and be surprised who we pick. I haven't seen Chomsky yet.
i think chumplov addressed that point quite well early on. so the answer might not be somebody in politics... but then other commentators like a sam harris or christopher hitchens might not have a lot of content on other political matters you find important

[DarrinS]

It’s actually funny that Darrin refers to Trump as Drumpf thinking he’s being really clever when it’s painfully transparent that he’s trying to make his opinions seem more credible by portraying himself as a Trump hater.

Why would being a Trump hater make one's opinions more credible?

[koriwhat]

the only one i agree with, even though he was left leaning for sure and not a political hack, was bill hicks. if you want to see into my crazy head just watch his standups. lol! he and carlin spoke nothing but the truth tbh.

[DMC]

yeah i get that much. my question is more of "why was a line ever drawn here on a partisan basis"

Because Al Gore was the mouthpiece.


yes and no, depending on the subject matter. we enjoy the fruits of a lot of technology that we may not understand the workings of. but we can acknowledge the underlying science based on the results.

You're comparing apples to oranges (see what I did there?)

There's nothing nuanced about the product of technology. Even common folks can purchase a cell phone or buy a television. However climate change isn't apparent to most normal folks who don't study weather patterns and sea levels. Since the left is known as preservationists while the right focuses on conservation, the left is seen by the right as tree huggers. This term wasn't coined because of global warming.


i get it. but see my first response in this post. i get that many people might find the science to be bologna. but why is it generally so neatly drawn along party lines? what is "conservative" about climate change skepticism?
The history of the message that morphed into "global warming", at least to them, includes things like eco terrorism. Even if they are unrelated, the hippie message of "save the world, fuck the humans" resonates.

Also, there's a mixed message about global warming, partly suggesting that nothing we do will prevent it yet wanting us to impose severe restrictions on businesses for what appears to amount to waiting for the climate boogey man, and then the notion that only a couple civilized nations do anything about it and the most egregious offenders will never change, as if we should throttle our economy to keep our half of the picket fence painted even if it will decay from the other half anyhow.

[DMC]

i think chumplov addressed that point quite well early on. so the answer might not be somebody in politics... but then other commentators like a sam harris or christopher hitchens might not have a lot of content on other political matters you find important

Hitchens had opinions on a lot of things. Sam Harris is a hack.

[spurraider21]

Hitchens had opinions on a lot of things. Sam Harris is a hack.
i dont know much about harris. i was introduced to him here when he had some comments about the election. i mainly lumped him in with hitchens because they're often lumped together due to their advocacy for atheism.

[DMC]

i dont know much about harris. i was introduced to him here when he had some comments about the election. i mainly lumped him in with hitchens because they're often lumped together due to their advocacy for atheism.

Semantics, but they advocated against religion more than "for" atheism. They rarely mention atheism. Hitch is to Harris what MJ is to Kobe.

[spurraider21]

Semantics, but they advocated against religion more than "for" atheism. They rarely mention atheism. Hitch is to Harris what MJ is to Kobe.
true true

[Chris]

i dno, maybe some weird combination of elizabeth warren and sheldon whitehouse? it's an interesting question posed by OP but one that i'm having a lot of difficulty understanding. the nuance in my political worldview shows up a lot more when voting for state/county/municipal ballot measures than when voting for specific candidates tbh

Just to confirm, Pocahontas shapes your worldview?

[spurraider21]

mono that quote from joe barton on page 1 is kinda misleading tbh

[spurraider21]

Just to confirm, Pocahontas shapes your worldview?
try reading through the thread. and even the rest of that comment

[Chris]

try reading through the thread. and even the rest of that comment

I'm asking you directly right now. Is this a disconnect?

[spurraider21]

I'm asking you directly right now. Is this a disconnect?
just to confirm?

no

[Pavlov]

Just to confirm, Pocahontas shapes your worldview?Who shapes your worldQ?

[Monostradamus]

Who shapes your worldQ?
:lol

[Blake]

Just to confirm, Pocahontas shapes your worldview?

We know who shapes yours, goose stepper.

[Blake]

Who shapes your worldQ?

1075873593857359877

[Will Hunting]

:lol “their” Green New Deal

AOC is the only one talking about a green new deal, it’s not a part of the platform of any of the front runners who could run in 2020.

[Winehole23]

Along the political spectrum various political worldviews exist. As talking points surface, we often take a side and defend it. During those discussions, quotes and tweets are offered to make a point. When the authors of those are scrutinized here, people sometimes begin to distance themselves from them. Who do you think most accurately represents your worldview? What politicians to you align with and which do you disalign with?...

My contempt for the learned smugness of Democrats is only surpassed by my contempt for the intentional crudity and sadism of Republicans. I've never felt identified with either major parties, but as a fifty year old I feel tempted for the first time in my life no longer to vote for principled losers with whom I agree, but for Democrats, merely to prevent Republican dickheads from taking power.

...

[Winehole23]

Before 9/11/01 I wasn't much of a follower of current events, I was still in my post-liberal arts education afterlife of absorption in literature, movies and music and was not particularly politically oriented.

[Winehole23]

It pretty much chaps my hide that my choice in 2020 will be between a dickhead Republican and another soulless corporate automaton like Beto, Kamala Harris, or Joe Biden.