Reply With Quote
Truth.
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.
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
You first, profe.
DMC will never answer his own question. Too takey.
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'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.
Try again
Honestly it was kind of a non-answer since you agree most with a guy who died six years ago.Try again
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....
Al sharpton and DeRay McKesson duh
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.
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.
“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”
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.
Last edited by Pavlov; 12-20-2018 at 01:38 PM. Reason: syntax apocalypse
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 ing 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).
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.
Last edited by spurraider21; 12-20-2018 at 01:50 PM.
Never said that.
with whom do you agree the most?
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.
I haven't quantified it so I cannot say accurately.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
