A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Js1 84939]

45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If the Democratic party is to be an exclusive club for only the most far-left ideologues....prepare to have similar electoral success as the far-right nutbars.  If the Democratic response to Trumpism turns out to be similarly polarized, purity test idiocy, I'll be ripshit pissed because that will mean that fucking NOBODY is manning the ramparts to actually defend the fucking Republic.  To be fair, from the bulk of the Democratic party (national level all the way down to Travis county), that's NOT what I've seen.  Quite a few prominent, lifelong Dems in this town know my history, and are very glad to have me with them, supporting them, etc.  I hope that the party keeps it up, because I've already invested significant time and money with them, and intend to do so to my dying day (which I hope is, you know, a lot later).

The party accepts former republicans who want to stop Trumpism and protect democracy. But their role is NOT to try and drag the party right by relitigating 2016 primary and saying the far left is “too extreme” and the Dems need to moderate  

Don't crash a party or tag along as a plus one and then bitch that you don’t like the snacks and drinks offering. 

[Brisketexan 104215]

Just now, Js1 said:

But their role is NOT to try and drag the party right by relitigating 2016 primary and saying the far left is “too extreme” and the Dems need to moderate  

I'll definitely agree about not relitigating the 2016 primary (with the caveat that there are damn well lessons to be learned from it -- particularly the lesson of how effective the GQP disinformation machine is, and we should fucking take it seriously and attack it aggressively).

As to a broader point that a party will not be helped by catering to its extreme fringe.....that's not exactly fresh wisdom.  It's actually long been sound advice, and we need look no further than the GQP hurting itself in winnable races by going full MAGA.  The Democratic party will not have electoral success if its platform lurches to "eat only tofu, cut off all fossil fuel energy tomorrow (damn the costs, damn the frozen people), all university classes should spend half the semester on a queer studies component of the course, etc." (silly examples for hyperbolic effect here).  The "far" ANYTHING (left or right) is, by definition, an extreme, and extremes alienate the more moderate voters that each side needs in order to win.  Note that we're not characterizing as "far left" things like universal healthcare, minimum wage laws, etc. -- FOX news does so, but the folks in my cohort aren't.  Don't conflate the two.

The Democratic party will have electoral success if it 1) keeps as a foundation the pretty obvious position of "we should keep the Republic and protect voting rights for all" and 2) keeps a moderately "big tent" for its policy platforms.  Again, that's not exactly a controversial take.

[wildcat09 29143]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The party accepts former republicans who want to stop Trumpism and protect democracy. But their role is NOT to try and drag the party right by relitigating 2016 primary and saying the far left is “too extreme” and the Dems need to moderate  

Don't crash a party or tag along as a plus one and then bitch that you don’t like the snacks and drinks offering. 

Yup.

I'll show respect to anyone who can demonstrate that they've learned from their mistakes and is trying to do better. But that doesn't mean I think the Democratic party or the progressive movement more broadly should shift themselves further right on policy matters to accommodate what is at the end of the day merely the sensitive feelings of former Republicans. Hell, the Dems having done that since 1992 played a big role in how we've gotten here.

[RomaVicta 29690]

You know, after centuries of occupation, brutal tyrrany, and bloody resistance, present day Ireland won indepedence.

To the horror of so many, there was an immediate, bloody internecine war in the new country. 

[wildcat09 29143]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'll definitely agree about not relitigating the 2016 primary (with the caveat that there are damn well lessons to be learned from it -- particularly the lesson of how effective the GQP disinformation machine is, and we should fucking take it seriously and attack it aggressively).

As to a broader point that a party will not be helped by catering to its extreme fringe.....that's not exactly fresh wisdom.  It's actually long been sound advice, and we need look no further than the GQP hurting itself in winnable races by going full MAGA.  The Democratic party will not have electoral success if its platform lurches to "eat only tofu, cut off all fossil fuel energy tomorrow (damn the costs, damn the frozen people), all university classes should spend half the semester on a queer studies component of the course, etc." (silly examples for hyperbolic effect here).  The "far" ANYTHING (left or right) is, by definition, an extreme, and extremes alienate the more moderate voters that each side needs in order to win.  Note that we're not characterizing as "far left" things like universal healthcare, minimum wage laws, etc. -- FOX news does so, but the folks in my cohort aren't.  Don't conflate the two.

The Democratic party will have electoral success if it 1) keeps as a foundation the pretty obvious position of "we should keep the Republic and protect voting rights for all" and 2) keeps a moderately "big tent" for its policy platforms.  Again, that's not exactly a controversial take.

I think we're kind of talking passed each other here. Js1, cactus, etc. can speak for themselves, but I think we're all focusing as much on rhetorical approaches to politics as we are about any specific policies.

I think the greatest misstep the Democratic party has made in my lifetime is its obsessive focus on triangulation. They didn't just allow the GOP to hollow out the working class and destroy unions and lock up young black men en masse, they actively aided them in doing so to try to win over voters they saw as moderate conservatives in a country they saw as very conservative. Time after time after time, they ceded the rhetorical grounds on every issue to Republican arguments and Republican framing, in an attempt to reach voters like you and GoLL were. For decades they failed at the two most fundamental elements of politics: (1) define yourself, and (2) define your opponent, because they were trying to appeal to voters like y'all. And yeah, it might've helped for certain seats and in certain elections (though I think 1992 was much more about the split in the Republican base than it was the political efficacy of triangulation). But it fucking destroyed the bigger, longer-term goals of protecting and reinforcing American democracy and helping ensure the general welfare of Americans. 

We're all pretty much in agreement now about what the GOP is and the threat it poses. But each national election still comes down to razor-thin margins because the Democratic party has done a fucking horrible job of convincing marginal voters of what the GOP actually is, and it's failed to do so because it is too fucking scared of offending voters who are now like you used to be.

As I see it, we've got two general ways to persuade ex-Republicans (ignoring for purposes of this discussion the whole selling progressive policies side of things).  One, we can act is if Trump was sui generis and just stay silent about all the prior horrible GOP shit that led to him and what the GOP is now. Or we can actually talk about that shit too, and explain how it led to where things are now. It might be easier with some people to pretend that Trump was sui generis. But, the problem with acting as if Trump was sui generis and that the fascist heart of the GOP doesn't have its roots in shit that predates him is that, while it might make it easier to persuade someone like Lobo or the new guys posting in this thread to vote Dem for President in 2024, is it makes it harder to persuade them of the threat the rest of the GOP will continue to pose long after Trump keels over on the shitter. 

I don't think we need to be giant assholes to the new guys admitting they fucked up or anything, but it's on them to work to understand what they missed or were willing to ignore and how that was part of the problem.

[Macanudo 12915]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Ahem. 
 

Lusty Libyan lesbians straddle Serbian sybian 

Lebanese Lesbians on Libyan Sybians with Serbians Scissoring.

[YGIFS 19447]

Y’all remind me of the part where I ever voted for Trump, and even in the primaries.  Oh my lord, you had a yard sign?  Bless your heart.  Some of us did real work.  I guess I posted on a forum of heroes. 

[YGIFS 19447]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So what, you want a gold star for seeing what was always there for everyone to see? It’s all been bullshit since 1980, and when GHW Bush (still be best president of my life) tried to pull it back in 1990 the party spat him out. Trump just dropped the facade and held up a mirror, and like 10% of you guys didn’t like what you saw.

So it’s funny- I was on Hornfans with these cats 20+ years ago when they were all normie Republicans. When they told me the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would pay for themselves, when they participated in “operation chaos” in 2008 because Obama was a secret black nationalist, when they cheered for Citizens United because more free speech, when they pretended “maccaca” wasn’t a racial slur because Jim Webb was a radical leftist, when they defended medmal caps because they would lower healthcare costs, and on and on. 
Oh, but Trump, sure. You could live with Intellectual bankruptcy and moral confusion, but not the vulgarity of living out loud. Yes, it must all be very traumatic. Project what you want onto Democrats, but maybe this would be more productive between you and your therapist. 

By the way, your struggle is so admirable.  I bundled hundreds of thousands of votes and hundreds of thousands of dollars for Biden in 2020. And you had a bumper sticker.  You are so fucking brave.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Umm, you're grouping a lot of us together when we were FAR from unified.  For example, I bolded where you and I indeed disagreed (like I said, I had to actually SEE trickle-down fail to realize it absolutely, 100%, DOES NOT WORK), and underlined where you and I were actually in agreement.  The anti-Obama racism in 2008 was horrific, Citizens United has been devastating as expected, "maccaca" was of course a racial slur, and you damn well know I thought all of the "tort reform" bullshit was bullshit

Great, but you’re saying that you were part of a system of power consolidation built around a coalition of appealing fictions despite not buying all of them, and I agree. I don’t think anybody does. 

I used to have this argument with Tahoe. He didn’t like the structural racism or the giant deficits, but he liked the tax cuts. What I think he eventually came to see but not act on was that you couldn’t get the one without the other two. 
I realize I’m preaching to the converted on this one, but here’s the thing- the coalition doesn’t depend on you buying one piece and ignoring the other. It depends on you leaning into the fiction. It’s just a half step from there to Q-ism. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

By the way, your struggle is so admirable.  I bundled hundreds of thousands of votes and hundreds of thousands of dollars for Biden in 2020. And you had a bumper sticker.  You are so fucking brave.  

I didn’t even have that. Thank you for your service and good  luck on your passage through the needle’s eye.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[Lurch 5916]

You bundled donations and didn’t vote for Trump. We get it. We got it the first three times you insisted on telling us, though no one asked.

Here’s your cookie. Fuck off.

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

The party accepts former republicans who want to stop Trumpism and protect democracy. But their role is NOT to try and drag the party right by relitigating 2016 primary and saying the far left is “too extreme” and the Dems need to moderate  

Don't crash a party or tag along as a plus one and then bitch that you don’t like the snacks and drinks offering. 

Texas Democrats actually tried this in the late 90’s and decided ex Republicans should be in charge. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Bozo_Casanova

[YGIFS 19447]

You keep losing elections and wondering why.  And I thought Republicans embraced the stupid.  FREOPP, TPPF, et Al.  Get in the game.  For fucks sake.  You minimally donate and vote and collect stickers.  And act like you’re making a difference.  It’s fucking pathetic.  Wow, I voted for a Republican once for President, 24 years ago.  I must be beholden to Trump.  Fucking amateur hour 

[wildcat09 29143]

Nobody argues with ghosts online quite like lobo. 

[YGIFS 19447]

And I have better odds of winning statewide office than any of you folks.
 

“Anybody who once ate lunch with a Republican a decade ago must be evil”.  Great fucking campaign strategy.  Meantime, every single day…one of my Hispanic relatives wakes up and converts to the GOP because of your nauseating condescension.   

[aggie08 21259]

Leave Lobo alone so he can get back to his important people (and Ted Cruz's wife) that he sees on a regular basis updates.

[wildcat09 29143]

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

And I have better odds of winning statewide office than any of you folks.
 

“Anybody who once ate lunch with a Republican a decade ago must be evil”.  Great fucking campaign strategy.  Meantime, every single day…one of my Hispanic relatives wakes up and converts to the GOP because of your nauseating condescension.   

I know you know this, but nobody has said that nor even implied it. Stop being a drama queen and go see your therapist.

[Degenerate Gardner 4074]

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

And I have better odds of winning statewide office than any of you folks.
 

“Anybody who once ate lunch with a Republican a decade ago must be evil”.  Great fucking campaign strategy.  Meantime, every single day…one of my Hispanic relatives wakes up and converts to the GOP because of your nauseating condescension.   

h

 

 

[YGIFS 19447]

Bullshit aside, we’ve kept that family out of our forum banter for good reason.  Let’s continue that.  No reason to have it to pop back up in search engine results.  Berate me all you want. Happy new year.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[Degenerate Gardner 4074]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Bullshit aside, we’ve kept that family out of our forum banter for good reason.  Let’s continue that.  No reason to have it to pop back up in search engine results.  Berate me all you want. Happy new year.  

Dorothy Mantooth is a saint.

[YGIFS 19447]

Kudos on having a sense of humor.  Unlike that other cunt who already has me getting texts about “are you in therapy”.  Discretion fellas.  Get some or I’ll get it for you 

[wood 11088]

9 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

“Former” conservatives ditching the GOP after the Palins and Trumps wanting adulation 

Adulation? I haven't read the hundreds of pages of this thread so I probably missed it, but who here is seeking adulation over their voting choices?

[Brisketexan 104215]

27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Great, but you’re saying that you were part of a system of power consolidation built around a coalition of appealing fictions despite not buying all of them, and I agree. I don’t think anybody does. 

I used to have this argument with Tahoe. He didn’t like the structural racism or the giant deficits, but he liked the tax cuts. What I think he eventually came to see but not act on was that you couldn’t get the one without the other two. 
I realize I’m preaching to the converted on this one, but here’s the thing- the coalition doesn’t depend on you buying one piece and ignoring the other. It depends on you leaning into the fiction. It’s just a half step from there to Q-ism. 

Cool, cool.

Something really, really important that you're not materially taking into account is that for the most part, a person's foundational political beliefs are "born, not made."  That is, your formative political thinking is heavily influenced by what you were exposed to when you were forming those beliefs.  I grew up in a household that voted for Ford over Carter, that sort of thing.  Generally conservative -- not wingnutty or Jesus freaky, but yes, on board with many of the "appealing fictions," as you call them.

And just like any human relationship built on what you THINK is good about a person, you choose to focus on the good and defensible things about that person, and look past the building evidence of flaws....until those flaws become too much, and you realize that the "good and defensible things" aren't even true, to boot.

Whereas you were almost certainly born into/raised in an environment dominated by people who voted for Carter over Ford.  Congratulations, but don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back for being born into an ideology that turned out to be much more defensible than the ideology that others were born into.

I'm actually proud that my parents and upbringing ingrained into me good foundational principles, some as simple as "give a shit about other people, not just yourself," and "don't be racist, not even a little bit," that ultimately steered my path.  I didn't back off of my foundational principles.  I reached a point where I realized those principles were fundamentally incompatible with the belief/action system of the political philosophy that I grew up with and in.  And as a result, I stuck with my principles, and ditched the incompatible political philosophy. 

Funny thing is, my dad was by far the most conservative member of my family growing up.  Today?  He couldn't hate the GQP more if he tried.  Because -- spoiler -- he's ALSO the guy who held and taught me most of those foundational principles.  And seeing them under attack, particularly in a world that his beloved grandchildren will inherit, really pisses him off.

TLDR: don't rest too comfy on the laurels of "I've always been a Democrat" when 95% of the time, you have the luxury of saying that because you were born/raised into that political belief.  Congratulations on lucking into your family of origin - you are fortunate in that respect, but don't go claiming credit for luck and circumstance (don't we Dems regularly make that very point when we correctly point out the bullshit fiction that is the American "BOOTSTRAPS!" narrative?  Is that no longer a thing?  Just checking.)

[YGIFS 19447]

I voted illegally for Harry Browne in 1996.  Is that anything?  I was technically domiciled in illinois, going to school in Florida,  but physically in Texas.  Dammit ma!

[Brisketexan 104215]

6 minutes ago, wood said:

Adulation? I haven't read the hundreds of pages of this thread so I probably missed it, but who here is seeking adulation over their voting choices?

Seriously.

I only expect adulation based on 1) my good looks and charm, 2) the fact that at age 16, I got a sweaty hug from Susannah Hoffs, and y'all didn't, and 3) I've never posted a pic of a deconstructed burger at the Doral.  Those are the sort of qualities about me that stand the test of time.

[YGIFS 19447]

Don’t forget I almost got knocked off my plastique bench at Waffle House due to your flatulence.  You literally move worlds my friend.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33777]

14 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Cool.  But know you are very likely the first person in the history of the CR forum to use the word ‘Libs’ to refer to libertarians.  Hence the sort of universal WTF?

Lol, right? Fuck us for interpreting a word that gets slung around like feces in a monkey pen and the one time someone throws a banana we're the idiots for going, "wtf?"

[TexArcher 37391]

46 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

“Anybody who once ate lunch with a Republican a decade ago must be evil”.

Well, which Republican?

[YGIFS 19447]

Tito.  Or Jermaine.  One of the two

[wood 11088]

12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Lol, right? Fuck us for interpreting a word that gets slung around like feces in a monkey pen and the one time someone throws a banana we're the idiots for going, "wtf?"

Yeah like I said before that was a poor abbreviation choice on my part and I owned it. I didn't call anyone an idiot over it. But by all means, carry on making a mountain out of a molehill. You're very good at it.

[Lurch 5916]

You must be new here.

[wood 11088]

2 minutes ago, Lurch said:

You must be new here.

Heh. Actually, I knew this board's rep which is why I stayed away, but dang. Real eye-opener. But anyway ...

[wildcat09 29143]

Everyone but me takes shit from random internet people they don't know way too personally.

Not me though, I have no flaws to speak of.

[Js1 84939]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Texas Democrats actually tried this in the late 90’s and decided ex Republicans should be in charge. 

And they’re losers. 

[WhatTheBuck 28694]

35 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Everyone but me takes shit from random internet people they don't know way too personally.

Not me though, I have no flaws to speak of.

Negged. 

[SaucyJack 3474]

I had no idea these guys existed.  But I'm really really smart and I make thousands of votes for non-republican candidates.

And I'm Zapotec!  

[Slacks 6779]

What?

[NameAlreadyInUse 5098]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

2000 or 2008.  For all W's faults, I don't recall him hitting the racism/nativism button more than your average Republican.  Sure, after 9/11, the Republicans led the way on anti-Muslim/anti-foreign/anti-brown.  But W won the Muslim vote in 2000.  

Maybe not racist, but he did interrupt television during the Iraq war, not to give us a war update, but to make sure we all understood that he hated the gays and was asking for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  That happened in February, 2004.  Reagan had left him some pretty big footprints to follow in that regard though, so it wasn't like he was plowing virgin fields.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11771]

9 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Maybe not racist, but he did interrupt television during the Iraq war, not to give us a war update, but to make sure we all understood that he hated the gays and was asking for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  That happened in February, 2004.  Reagan had left him some pretty big footprints to follow in that regard though, so it wasn't like he was plowing virgin fields.

Don't forget his Karla Faye Tucker moment either.  That was completely compassionate.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11771]

And going back to shunning anyone who flirted Republicanism, well, I'm not so sure you're being shunned as it is you are feeling like a dumbass for being gullible.  I was fortunate to have a pretty astute old man.  He dabbled in Libertarianism for a bit until he figured out the party mechanism were mostly nutcases and vote-sucking proxies for the GOP.  If he had any artistic sense, he would have compiled the Rupert Murdoch "cookie" cartoon long before it was popular.  He taught me that the mantra of "less government" and "lower taxes" really meant "less government for those other people, and lower taxes for me".  Growing up in a rural, old farming community that particularly hit home for me since most of the people spouting that bullshit rhetoric were living on farm subsidies, Social Security and Medicare.  But they'd be goddamned if anyone else was gonna get any of that.  

That's what it's been all along.  Bootstraps for thee, government for me.  And if it takes hate, hurt and demonization to accomplish that, so be it.  

To be fair he hated the Democrat party too, but at least in his eyes, their dysfunction was toward positive change for society.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

Here's a brief timeout from who ditched the GOP dick-measuring contest, and back to the true purpose of this thread, which is mocking/shitting on/scratching our collective heads/astonished at day to day musings about Trump:

 

https://www.axios.com/2022/12/29/trump-fire-usher-bidens-white-house-ex-press-secretary?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial

 

Quote

Former President Trump wanted to fire the former White House chief usher for helping the Bidens move into the executive mansion, former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Why it matters: Grisham's account indicates that Trump's desire to delay or prevent the transition of power after the 2020 election affected traditionally nonpolitical White House positions.

The detail was included in a transcript of Grisham's interview with the select committee that was released Thursday along with several other interview transcripts, including one from Donald Trump Jr.

What they're saying: Grisham said Timothy Harleth, the former White House chief usher, "independently" reached out to members of Biden's transition team after Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election and gave them a binder with resources to help the incoming first family, like blueprints so they could order furniture.

 

 

 

Quote

Grisham described Harleth's actions as "the normal stuff that you would do" during a presidential transition, but said he "wasn't really allowed" to talk to Biden's people.

When Trump and former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows found out about Harleth's contact with Biden's team, she said they "wanted to fire him immediately for trying to facilitate that kind of transition."

"They felt that what Tim did was completely disloyal, and they were not to help at all, or he was not to help at all, and he was almost fired for it," Grisham told the committee.

However, Harleth was not fired because former first lady Melania Trump "stepped in and said, no, you're not going to fire him with 3 weeks to go," Grisham said.

 

 

 

Quote

The big picture: The White House chief usher, traditionally a nonpolitical position, is head of household staff and operations at the executive mansion. Appointed ushers typically serve multiple presidential administrations. 

Harleth, a former employee of the Trump Organization, was chosen to become usher by Melania Trump in 2017.

Ultimately, Harleth was fired on Inauguration Day even before the Bidens officially moved into the White House, according to the New York Times. 

His firing resulted in a brief awkward moment when Joe and Jill Biden first arrived at the mansion in 2021. 

Since there was no hired usher at the time of their arrival, the Bidens were greeted with a set of closed doors on the North Portico. Typically, the doors would have been held open for the first family.

 

[GenXer 2762]

3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Y’all remind me of the part where I ever voted for Trump, and even in the primaries.  Oh my lord, you had a yard sign?  Bless your heart.  Some of us did real work.  I guess I posted on a forum of heroes. 

I had a yard sign, worked a call center five times, hosted a call center in my home, did door to door canvassing in my neighborhood, and donate around $500 each election cycle.

I also PM’d you directly about developing a website to publicly expose J6 insurrectionists. You basically told me “good luck with that”. My developer can build a prototype. I will fund the prototype.

Based on your posting history, I take it that you’re a professional political operative. Speaking for myself, I do this in my free time. I post here to vent.

Dems need to fight dirty to combat the Republican propaganda machine.

I’m ready to go to battle. Who’s down with creating a surly PAC and do some cambridge analytica shit? I am.

[YGIFS 19447]

Rock n roll. 
Let’s build it.  

[TwiceHorn 31019]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So what, you want a gold star for seeing what was always there for everyone to see? It’s all been bullshit since 1980, and when GHW Bush (still be best president of my life) tried to pull it back in 1990 the party spat him out. Trump just dropped the facade and held up a mirror, and like 10% of you guys didn’t like what you saw.

So it’s funny- I was on Hornfans with these cats 20+ years ago when they were all normie Republicans. When they told me the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would pay for themselves, when they participated in “operation chaos” in 2008 because Obama was a secret black nationalist, when they cheered for Citizens United because more free speech, when they pretended “maccaca” wasn’t a racial slur because Jim Webb was a radical leftist, when they defended medmal caps because they would lower healthcare costs, and on and on. 
Oh, but Trump, sure. You could live with Intellectual bankruptcy and moral confusion, but not the vulgarity of living out loud. Yes, it must all be very traumatic. Project what you want onto Democrats, but maybe this would be more productive between you and your therapist. 

Hey, I never did any of that.

[TwiceHorn 31019]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool.

Something really, really important that you're not materially taking into account is that for the most part, a person's foundational political beliefs are "born, not made."  That is, your formative political thinking is heavily influenced by what you were exposed to when you were forming those beliefs.  I grew up in a household that voted for Ford over Carter, that sort of thing.  Generally conservative -- not wingnutty or Jesus freaky, but yes, on board with many of the "appealing fictions," as you call them.

And just like any human relationship built on what you THINK is good about a person, you choose to focus on the good and defensible things about that person, and look past the building evidence of flaws....until those flaws become too much, and you realize that the "good and defensible things" aren't even true, to boot.

Whereas you were almost certainly born into/raised in an environment dominated by people who voted for Carter over Ford.  Congratulations, but don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back for being born into an ideology that turned out to be much more defensible than the ideology that others were born into.

I'm actually proud that my parents and upbringing ingrained into me good foundational principles, some as simple as "give a shit about other people, not just yourself," and "don't be racist, not even a little bit," that ultimately steered my path.  I didn't back off of my foundational principles.  I reached a point where I realized those principles were fundamentally incompatible with the belief/action system of the political philosophy that I grew up with and in.  And as a result, I stuck with my principles, and ditched the incompatible political philosophy. 

Funny thing is, my dad was by far the most conservative member of my family growing up.  Today?  He couldn't hate the GQP more if he tried.  Because -- spoiler -- he's ALSO the guy who held and taught me most of those foundational principles.  And seeing them under attack, particularly in a world that his beloved grandchildren will inherit, really pisses him off.

TLDR: don't rest too comfy on the laurels of "I've always been a Democrat" when 95% of the time, you have the luxury of saying that because you were born/raised into that political belief.  Congratulations on lucking into your family of origin - you are fortunate in that respect, but don't go claiming credit for luck and circumstance (don't we Dems regularly make that very point when we correctly point out the bullshit fiction that is the American "BOOTSTRAPS!" narrative?  Is that no longer a thing?  Just checking.)

Great post. We mostly "inherit" our politics, either from our family or other peers, before we know enough about the way the world works to decide for ourselves. And this is not strictly an issue of critical thinking ability.  Some come to that earlier than others and a lot of it comes from particular life experiences.

[Gil Bang 25831]

oh hell yeah. 

 

 

 

[cactusflinthead 27587]

5 hours ago, wood said:

Heh. Actually, I knew this board's rep which is why I stayed away, but dang. Real eye-opener. But anyway ...

For as much bitching as we get on the board discussion forum it's mostly loud hollering. You're going to have to be a truly shitty poster to get negged to Purgatorio. Animal+smoking has been run off more times than I care to remember but he keeps coming back for more. 

It's going to be loud with lots of table pounding, but it's rarely acrimonious. But woe unto the drive by fucker with hot sports opinions that won't back them up.

 

[NAVY 6735]

4 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

For as much bitching as we get on the board discussion forum it's mostly loud hollering. You're going to have to be a truly shitty poster to get negged to Purgatorio. Animal+smoking has been run off more times than I care to remember but he keeps coming back for more. 

It's going to be loud with lots of table pounding, but it's rarely acrimonious. But woe unto the drive by fucker with hot sports opinions that won't back them up.

 

Wow. Congrats on the 14k rep mark 

[Willfully Horn 7911]

On 12/28/2022 at 5:35 PM, cactusflinthead said:

it didn't take much to figure out Reagan was behind the delay in getting the hostages released. Or his minions were. That alone was enough to sour me on Rs for the rest of my life.

Wish I could rep this twice. 
 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Clara