"He knew what he signed up for"
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Guys like Kelly, Jim Mattis, and H.R. McMaster are likely doing the country a valuable service. It will cost them, though.
Backacha. Your topic is ideology, mine is pragmatism. You see yourself engaging in different topics, I see you engaging in all ideology, all the time.
You want a different topic? Let's talk about poiitical division. I'll start it, you take it from there: Ideology divides, pragmatism unites.
Edit: As for your use of "infecting," you really have nothing to stand on, because you haven't said rational word one why every political discussion shouldn't be about pragmatism. Don't forget, this is the 21st century and you are alive now. Just because Trump and other troglodytes want to live in the past doesn't mean you have to.
Name one solution you have for lessening political divisiveness that doesn't include inanities like saying we need a secular state.
Last edited:
I used to agree with this but no longer do.
For one, they are only making Trump worse because now he says, "Hey, the Generals back up everything I say so I must be right".....which just encourages him to be worse (if that's even possible).
Second, I keep reading that we're giving up on diplomacy with North Korea and war with them is almost a certainty now. And the "adults" sure haven't stopped him with Iran....which is also shoving us to war with them.
Nope, TheO, I didn't. I laughed at that one.
Btw, name one thread with more than five responses that didn't go in at least one different direction from the OP.
Hey just some friendly advice. People seem to not appreciate your posting and one main reason seems to be your proclivity to go into a thread and say "this doesn't matter - what about X?" Well, why not just start a thread on X? Other posters will appreciate the maturity it takes to do that as opposed to trying to ruin other threads.
I've got another way to look at my point about ideology versus pragmatism.
Take political division. Many bemoan the political division in our current society. The question is, how to lessen political division and divisiveness? I would argue that ideology is the fundamental source of division. I would also argue that pragmatism is the best source of uniting many of those otherwise divided.
I've already given an example on unwanted pregnancies.For another example, take guns. How about a liberal politician saying, "We've got a problem here. Let's work with law enforcement to see if we can find a solution." That's uniting insofar as liberals having a reputation for being on the opposite side of law enforcement politically.* It's also a pragmatic approach. Law enforcement has an interest in addressing the problem of guns being used by bad actors and they're always as close to experts on the topic as we're likely to find.
Another aspect of political division for liberals to consider. Who needs political division? The party in the minority of the electorate. After all, the party of the majority of the electorate would logically prefer unity. This is why the GOP has steadfastly and assiduously fostered divisive political topics such as Right to Life. It's their only chance to slop together a coalition so they can foist their 1%er policies on the rest of us. And Democrats took the bait, hook, line, and sinker, instead of doing everything they possibly can to foster unity and not fall into divisive traps.
* Note this is another GOP-contrived political division. Since when are liberals against law enforcement?
Bullshit again. TheO. I've gotten plenty of likes lately. I really don't need your "friendly" advice, but while we're on the topic, I'll give you some: Take note of today's date, in particular the year.
Next?
At the risk of being called Goat's BFF, you're an idiot and Goat is exactly right.
Oooohhhhh, that had to sting a little.
Unlike you guys, I have zero problem admitting when the "other side" is right.
You guys would rather have a three-way with Trump and Pelosi than admit I was right........kinda like Trump refusing to ever admit he was wrong.
Lurker I am nothing but polite to you and you are a giant raging ass to me. Please don't lecture me about friends and enemies.
Again bullshit. There's nothing polite about writing an untruth, as you did. Also, i haven't been a giant raging ads (?) so that's another untruth. I've been civil, because I know who can ban me if He so chooses.
Your whole schtick about infecting every thread was anything but polite. You don't say that to other people who bring alternative points of view to a topic, so that's also not polite.
You really need to look in a mirror goat. That's not a suggestion. It's an observation.
I didn't write any untruth. I offered you a suggestion in good faith. As is your wont with me, you responded with snide remarks. I don't know why you personally dislike me so much, but it's getting really old.
Untruth #1: You state as a fact that I dislike you. False.
Untruth #2: I didn't "infect" every thread.
Impoliteness #1: Your use of infect is insulting and beyond impolite.
Untruth #3: I didn't miss that part.
Untruth #4: Your statement "People seem..." is unqualified therefore represents all people here. Sinnce I have received many likes recently, your overgeneralization is patently false.
Impoliteness #2: Sarcasm.
Impliteness #3: "Learn to read" is condescending and insulting.
Untruth #5: As shown above, you have been impolite several times.
Impoliteness #4: Calling me a raging ass is impolite.
===
Might I remind you, Goat, you are a moderator here?
What you might be missing Goat, if you really are trying to help me, is that I'm not here posting to make friends. I'm here as an exponent of making our society better. That's the only reason I post here. If I succeed in planting a seed for societal improvement in one mind, I've been successful.
He's said it to others, including me.
Dang, dude, how many times are you going to make me defend Goat today?
He said it to you for introducing an alternative point of view? I missed it then. My bad.
Then let me repeat my friendly advice: follow the conventions of the board, and you'll be more successful at improving society in this small way. You rub people the wrong way, even people who agree with you. This has been going on since you first started posting under this handle.
So your advice is don't rub people the wrong way? I'll do my best.
Btw, if I start a post "Here's an idea. Instead of infecting every thread with...," is that likely to rub people the right way?
You are the one who says you want to make a positive difference. Your posting style isn't conducive to that. If your goal is just to troll people, then you're doing just fine.
Allow me to correct my apparent miscommunication to you. My goal is to plant in people's minds ideas for positive change in our society. I'm not concerned with how I plant those ideas, just that they get planted. I'm not even concerned if they're aware those ideas have been planted.
Since the reception of my notion about pragmatism has met with such astonishing intransigence by otherwise sentient people here, I can only assume that ideology is so deeply rooted in their psyches that it will likely take multitudinous attempts from multitudinous angles to make any progress on my goals. Meanwhile, I'll do my best to learn from my mistakes.
And allow me to repeat that the intransigence has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with posters being frustrated with your style.
One more angle: How can it possibly hurt for liberal politicians to communicate in a more pragmatic way?
Sorry, but I don't buy that. I've never seen you not respond to a topic that struck your fancy, OP notwithstanding. Furthermore, that wouldn't even make sense. If you saw any value in the topic, why would you refuse to respond to the topic just because you don't like something about the delivery?
I'll keep digging, but so far I haven't fathomed why people here aren't interested in discussing the value of pragmatism. Quite possibly most people posting here really aren't interested in any sort of scientific truth but rather propounding their ideology.
INcidentally, Goat, I did post this in a separate thread some weeks ago. Very little response.
I don't respond to your posts about pragmatism because they are not the topic. I like to try to stay on in the topic of the thread. If you started a new thread with your theories I might join in.
This isn't complicated.
Okay, when I respond, I have every intention of responding within the topic and as far as I'm concerned every political topic that rests on ideology, and that's most policy and political topics here, has an appropriate response and relationship to pragmatism.
You talk about guns, abortion, taxes, whatever, I'm going to try to put together a pragmatic response, just like your responses implicitly or explicitly assume an ideological underpinning. So what am I doing wrong here, specifically? I assert nothing. I assert that it just rubs you and perhaps some others the wrong way because it's out of your comfort zone or you think it's unrealistic or whatever.
No, you don't. If you did that, that would be fine. But when you start talking about pragmatism, you don't respond to the topic at hand. You dismiss the topic at hand as unimportant, because the only thing that matters to you is the battle between ideology and pragmatism.
See:
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...-sneering-dismissiveness.158188/#post-2236797
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/is-the-russin-naritive-on-zuckerburg.158453/#post-2240168
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...l-democracy-in-microcosm.158454/#post-2240341
In no case have you ever responded to a topic with your offer of a pragmatic solution to a problem being discussed. Your schtick is only to jump in and bemoan the fact that we aren't already talking about pragmatism.
You've proclaimed yourself the board's champion of "pragmatic" communication (whatever that means) yet you can't communicate even with the "otherwise sentient" posters, let alone the morons you baselessly claim you know how to reach. Oblivious to the irony, you blame everyone else for your failure to "pragmatically" communicate. Indeed, your failure merely shows you how blinkered everyone else must be.
Maybe the problem isn't everyone else. Perhaps there's something you might "pragmatically" do to stop failing.
That's sad, Goat. Really sad that you don't see those were indeed direct responses, in context. Really sad. Then again, information for me. Thanks. I'll keep working on my communication. Must be a way to solve this.
You're outright wrong about me not accepting responsibility for my inability to communicate. I did that with Goat on this page of this thread. I always do, whether you realize it or not. I've got no problem with that.
Meanwhile, I am thinking about putting together a post explaining whatever I mean. All of this feeds into it. I don't take it so personally as you (as exhibited by my not needing to debase you).
No, they aren't direct responses. Not even close. But, hey, I've tried hard enough to convince you. If you don't want to see it, I wash my hands of it. Just understand that you are damaging your own proclaimed cause.
You see, you're more interested in being right than finding out something. Otherwise you'd have said, you think so? Please explain.
Anyway, bottoms up, Goat. Long night of drinking ahead, no?
This help?
My experience is that apart from the ideologically committed, most Americans don’t worry a lot about whether a given policy is “liberal” or “conservative.” They worry about whether or not it works. And so as any given issue gets debated, the ideologues take stands that hew to their beliefs and only reluctantly yield on their views, while most voters want to see things get resolved in a manner that responds to the needs of the country. Taken together, the results of these debates set the country’s direction and the speed at which it heads there.
When ideology trumps pragmatism, we find ourselves incapable of moving. Yet these ideological battles are engrained [sic] in the dialogue of our democracy. The argument between a smaller and a greater role for government has been with us since the very beginning of our nation; in some ways it defines our political history.
Our challenge today, as it has always been, is to balance the passions of those who find themselves firmly on one side or the other against the common sense of the great mass of Americans, who are most concerned about making progress on the problems that beset them. As the common phrase has it, they want not big government or small government, but smart government. They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done.
When ideology trumps pragmatism, we find ourselves incapable of moving. Yet these ideological battles are engrained [sic] in the dialogue of our democracy. The argument between a smaller and a greater role for government has been with us since the very beginning of our nation; in some ways it defines our political history.
Our challenge today, as it has always been, is to balance the passions of those who find themselves firmly on one side or the other against the common sense of the great mass of Americans, who are most concerned about making progress on the problems that beset them. As the common phrase has it, they want not big government or small government, but smart government. They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done.
This explains plenty to me, in particular, why most people here at the WC aren't interested in pragmatism ("the ideologues take stands that hew to their beliefs and only reluctantly yield on their views"), that my hunch appears to be right that the preponderance of Americans are pragmatic ("they want not big government or small government, but smart government"), and that pragmatism, sincerely adopted by either party, would dominate the political scene ("most Americans don’t worry a lot about whether a given policy is “liberal” or “conservative.”").
Here is where the real policy discussion should be, why are we operating in Niger without air support. The story is that Niger refuses to allow American jets to fly over its territory, but they allow French jets. When the attack happened, air cover was called for and French Mirages responded.
Well, responded as much as they could. They flew low level runs over the enemy, simulating attacks. Niger's rules of operations do not allow the French aircraft to use weaponry.
Now I have no idea if Trump or Obama agreed to this, but Trump IS there now so the buck stops with him. We should never agree to those restrictions. I cannot believe this part has not blown up bigly.
Well, responded as much as they could. They flew low level runs over the enemy, simulating attacks. Niger's rules of operations do not allow the French aircraft to use weaponry.
Now I have no idea if Trump or Obama agreed to this, but Trump IS there now so the buck stops with him. We should never agree to those restrictions. I cannot believe this part has not blown up bigly.
Congress should also be grilled. Exactly when did congress ok missions in Niger? We all know they have not, they punted all responsibility with the original war on terror resolution. We may have very good reasons for being there, but congress absolutely must be involved and approve.
Similar threads
