President Donald Trump

[Gregg]

I appreciate the response Gregg.

But that's how I see Bernie based on his responses in this thread. And why it is a "personal attack" ? It was me stating how I perceive Bernie's stance on the subject being discussed. And if Bernie (or anyone else) is "silenced" because of how I perceive them, well........

Over the years I have been the subject of MANY personal attacks on this site, yet I carry on.

And I have defended you.

Truth be told you also left the site for awhile because of those attacks. I am glad you came back.

[Mithrandir]

And I have defended you.

Truth be told you also left the site for awhile because of those attacks. I am glad you came back.

I have left a few times. It was generally because I was trying to spend less time "goofing off" on a website. But that's difficult!

I still don't think that I attacked Bernie.

Isn't there a difference between stating how you perceive someone's stance on any given subject and calling that person names (or worse) because of their stance?

If I would have called Bernie an asshole or racist or whatever, then that would have been an attack.

[DMT]

Ironic Mith using the same logic that Bernie used to defend Republicans.

[Mithrandir]

Ironic Mith using the same logic that Bernie used to defend Republicans.

Not really. I was accused of personally attacking Bernie. Which I did not. Please show me where I attacked him?

For all that i know based on my limited knowledge of Bernie's core beliefs, my post might be spot on.

[Bernie Brewer]

Did I miss anything?

[Bernie Brewer]

This is an example of why I very rarely post in the Sports Bar.

I like you Mith. You are out of line here. Posts like this take the fun out of the debate.

Best case you silence the opposition and have no one to play with. They stay but stick to things baseball related.

Worse case they leave the site.

Gregg, I’m not going anywhere. I’m a big boy. I also don’t know Mith, so I am not the least bit concerned with how he perceives me. He is clearly unconcerned with how I might perceive him and some of his posts and responses. So, we carry on.

But, I am apparently, and you'd think I'd have learned this by now, after admitting to it several times, in need of learning how to use the smileys and sarcasm things better.

[DMT]

Not really. I was accused of personally attacking Bernie. Which I did not. Please show me where I attacked him?

For all that i know based on my limited knowledge of Bernie's core beliefs, my post might be spot on.

Posting "So basically Bernie doesn't really give two shakes about women's rights and hides behind the cover of "it's just opinion" and doing some type of two-step to explain his reasoning." is pretty inflammatory. I claimed it was ironic because while you didn't explicitly attack him, you still made a point to accuse him of not caring about women's rights. Just as Bernie defends Republicans because they don't come out and openly declare they are against women's rights, but instead block legislation that will help women for 'other' reasons, etc.

[chancellor]

Conservatives, as a general rule, are in favor of the status quo, of tradition, and of the value of the ways things were and have been for a long time. Liberals are by definition progressive. They see problems, and they are quick to advocate for change as the solution to those problems. I want to be clear and use value-neutral language here: progress is not always perceived by all as a good thing. After all, if you "progress" from a good position to a worse one, that isn't the sort of "progress" folks want to make. And that is how conservatives see a lot of the "progress" progressives try to make. That is the balance of things. Progressives try to change things quickly, and conservatives want to slow things down, for fear of rushing into decisions that will make things worse. Both positions have merit and value, depending on who you are and what the issue is.

Nope. Categorically no. Liberals want to portray themselves as the progress leading, virtue seeking, system changing people and conservatives as the evil progress blockers, the desiring of the status quo. Little could be more false.

The leaders in the fight against slavery were highly religious individuals who saw themselves as advancing God's holy Will in fighting slavery. The core of the Underground Railroad were staffed by people whose doctrine make me look like a flaming theological liberal.

There's many other examples, but I haven't time.

[Bernie Brewer]

At the same time, I think Bernie was being too sensitive...

Probably true.

...and unfair in mischaracterizing B-Fly's and OaklandA's original comments that tried to answer his questions about what Dems have done for women and how Republicans see things differently for women. I don't think either of those gentlemen implied that all Republicans don't care about women, as he said, and neither said what Mith said (Bernie, I thought it was interesting you were quick to infer they were taking personal shots when your bar for Republicans seems to be that have to be explicit in attacking women, or it doesn't count as evidence). They both represent, to me, very respectful ways to engage in this debate, but that is hard to do if the response is always, any criticism of a position is a personal attack. That wasn't the case with those two's comments. Of course, then Mith chimes in and does exactly that, so that sort of undercut my argument that things are generally respectful in here.

First, both are very respectful posters, and I don't believe I have ever suggested otherwise. I, too, would like to think I am a respectful poster, but I will admit that I've become less patient and, to your first quote above, more sensitive to the tone of some posters. I could add more, but then I just a snowflake and whatever other name we're called these days.

All I know is that if we can't have a middle ground between personal attack and egg-shell walking, never disagree with each other for fear of making someone feel like this isn't a "safe space" then there is no point in having a dialogue at all. It is getting to the point where I feel that way--I don't want to come across as insulting fellow posters I respect and want to engage, but I also can't ignore positions I think need to be challenged. So, if all challenges come across as insults and personal attacks, I guess I should just stick to the lighter threads.

I don't think any one is craving a "Safe Place", per se.

I'll take one last stab on this debate, though:

Conservatives, as a general rule, are in favor of the status quo, of tradition, and of the value of the ways things were and have been for a long time. Liberals are by definition progressive. They see problems, and they are quick to advocate for change as the solution to those problems. I want to be clear and use value-neutral language here: progress is not always perceived by all as a good thing. After all, if you "progress" from a good position to a worse one, that isn't the sort of "progress" folks want to make. And that is how conservatives see a lot of the "progress" progressives try to make. That is the balance of things. Progressives try to change things quickly, and conservatives want to slow things down, for fear of rushing into decisions that will make things worse. Both positions have merit and value, depending on who you are and what the issue is.

However, if we can all accept all of the above as being in a very general and simple way accurate, I think we have a starting point on understanding why conservativism is, generally speaking, in the best interest of those who have been historically privileged by the status quo, and progressivism, in general, is more in the best interest of those who have been disadvantaged by the status quo. Those whom the system favors with better jobs, better pay, more power, more rights, etc benefit from inertia in the system. Those oppressed by the system benefit from the system changing. So, it is just natural that the progressive party, Democrats, would be the party most favorable to women and minorities, because they are the party proposing changes to the system that puts them at a disadvantage.

I want to be clear, again, that just because the progressive party pushes such changes, does not mean all changes they push actually help the people they say they want to help. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. That is where I see legitimate debate on this and other issues. If we can all agree that there are well-meaning people on both sides of this thing, and that all of those people want to do the "right" thing for all people, then we can debate the relative merits of being cautious with changes vs forging ahead.

My position, and why I generally align with progressivism, is that, yes, it can be a very haphazard, imperfect movement toward improvement, but history shows us that over the long haul, despite the missteps, the sidesteps, and the occasional steps backward, progressives, eventually, move things forward in a way that most reasonable people agree is good for society. So many things that all good people agree on today--from civil rights, to women's suffrage, have been driven by the progressive ideology of seeing wrongs and forcing changes to right those wrongs.

But I also see the value of conservatism, because, left unchecked, progressives will take things to extremes, or in directions that don't represent real progress. There needs to be that corrective, to ensure change flows in a postive direction, and I think thoughtful, compassionate conversativism helps direct thoughtful, compassionate, progressivm, toward a better tomorrow. I think the legitimate debate is on what issues do progressive agendas represent real progress, and on what issues do they represent changes that don't actually make things better, and may actually make things worse.

Let's be honest about our ideologies, though, and have the courage to back up our positions. Let's do that respectfully as a way to temper our ideas in the fires of spirited, well-intended debate. You know, let's do the opposite of what this admin does .

I can't fault a single word you wrote above. It is however, written in a way, that still makes conservatives seem small minded and afraid of change. I think you are hitting on the head by saying conservatives want a slow methodical well-though out change processes and not, what I'll call the "weather vain, reactionary, rush to change that seemingly comes from the left, IMO. Many conservatives are for changes in the Gun Laws but aren't for sweeping changes. As Baldgriff tried to say so many times, but was roundly beaten in to submission, we already have gun laws; tweak them or use them to exact the changes you want. Don't rush to make new laws that further penalize those who are already intent on keeping those laws.

However, get some of the more extreme voices to agree with this and I think we'll have a thread we can be proud of.

[Bernie Brewer]

Just as Bernie defends Republicans because they don't come out and openly declare they are against women's rights, but instead block legislation that will help women for 'other' reasons, etc.

See, I understand that you may see it that way. You see it just as you wrote, and I believe that any number of liberals truly believe because they have been told by their candidates and thought leaders, that just because Republicans don't come out and openly declare they are against women's rights, but instead block legislation that will help "women" for other reasons, etc. is sufficient to say that Republicans are at war with women. But, it isn't close to true and that's where we disagree. When legislation is brought forward by Democrats that is called "such and such for women" but is really something that will provide broader "protections" to other groups, as well, such as LGBT, Immigrants and other, then its not really for just for the benefit of women. When the Equal Wage Act added in the legal processes for enforcing regulations, Republicans by enlarge are not fans of greater regulation and enforcement. Why pay money to trial lawyers. If it supposed to benefit women, then let women benefit. Am I, are we, splitting hairs, maybe, but I don't think so.

[DMT]

See, I understand that you may see it that way. You see it just as you wrote, and I believe that any number of liberals truly believe because they have been told by their candidates and thought leaders, that just because Republicans don't come out and openly declare they are against women's rights, but instead block legislation that will help "women" for other reasons, etc. is sufficient to say that Republicans are at war with women. But, it isn't close to true and that's where we disagree. When legislation is brought forward by Democrats that is called "such and such for women" but is really something that will provide broader "protections" to other groups, as well, such as LGBT, Immigrants and other, then its not really for benefit of women. Am I, are we splitting hairs, I don't think so.

Ok, can you name any recent examples of Republicans actively promoting the advancement of women's rights? Gina Haspel doesn't count.

[DMT]

Nope. Categorically no. Liberals want to portray themselves as the progress leading, virtue seeking, system changing people and conservatives as the evil progress blockers, the desiring of the status quo. Little could be more false.

The leaders in the fight against slavery were highly religious individuals who saw themselves as advancing God's holy Will in fighting slavery. The core of the Underground Railroad were staffed by people whose doctrine make me look like a flaming theological liberal.

There's many other examples, but I haven't time.

So why, pray tell, do African Americans no longer support Republicans since they were the anti-slavery party?

[Bernie Brewer]

Ok, can you name any recent examples of Republicans actively promoting the advancement of women's rights? Gina Haspel doesn't count.

Again, I don't think the Republican's differentiate between men's and women's rights. That, by definition, would be Identity Politics. What the Republicans have attempted to do is pass or modify laws that impact families and individuals, indiscriminate of identity groups, but not at the exclusion of groups. Next you'll tell me that immigrants have been adversely impacted and women's rights have been adversely impacted, etc. etc. But that's simply the difference between parties. One party, as SM said above, want wants one type of change, while the other wants other change.

[Ken]

So why, pray tell, do African Americans no longer support Republicans since they were the anti-slavery party?

You're probably looking for the "solid south switch". Do some reading on it, it probably more complicated than I can put in a single post but it is very interesting and explains a lot.

[Bernie Brewer]

So why, pray tell, do African Americans no longer support Republicans since they were the anti-slavery party?

OK, slow down. African Americans no longer support the Republican's, in as a large of numbers, for many reasons, and most recently it has a lot has to do with Obama. AAs sat out the last election in large numbers. But the change in voting from Republicans to Democrat is a social issue going back decades. We can discuss this if you wish, but Google is your friend, if you are really looking for an answer! A better question to ask is what has voting Democratic in large numbers gotten AAs over the last 40 years, besides Obama?