LogFAQs > #921864940

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 224: The Congressional Contempt for Political Buggery
xp1337 05/14/19 12:56:02 AM #273:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... I thought I was pretty obviously not trying to gotcha or checkmate you but discuss, and YOU literally brought it up and I responded that in general Im talking about Left-leaning economics, so I dont understand the point of any of this. Wtf I was confused that you brought FDR up! I didn't bring him up and what you saw was me trying to figure out why you did by throwing a few ideas out! maybe saying "checkmate" was a bit dismissive of me but I was genuinely puzzled as to invoking FDR and his term as president had to do with what I had originally said. I mean, I presented a(n article explaining a) study showing how opposition to welfare was shown to increase in white Americans when shown information about increasing diversity. FDR has nothing to do with that. My whole point was that racial resentment to rising diversity leads to opposition to progressive policies. The example I provided was narrow in scope but I admitted that I couldn't find the broader data I was thinking of and provided that on short notice when you asked if what I said was true. ChaosTonyV4 posted... Yes, and in a two party system many people are ok with voting for the one that sucks less. My supporting statement is that the groups that vote Republican the Least are also the least likely to vote. Id argue theres evidence that its because the Democrats dont do enough. What evidence? ChaosTonyV4 posted... Its like you took a ton of effort to read my post in the most rigid and argumentative way possible, Im a little taken aback, not gonna lie. I wasn't trying to. You questioned if what I said was true, which is fair, I knew when I stated it originally I might be asked for something to back it up. I couldn't get the exact thing I was looking for but I did have something very closely related. But then, from my point of view, you added in some things that to me... didn't actually address or refute what I had claimed. So I tried to think of how they could have been meant to do so. I was a bit snippy in my response to them, and I shouldn't have been - so sorry for that, but I genuinely had no clue what they were in response to, it certainly didn't seem like it was to the point I was making. ~~~ I mean on a more macro-level and where I suspect this discussion would ultimately go if we went deep on it is the intersection of race and economic politics. And maybe even more broadly race and progressive politics in general. (For instance I think you are way to dismissive of the non-economic side of things even if just as a means to try and understand the challenges inherent in actually implementing said policies but I didn't really feel like delving into that right now.) --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:921864940] in Politics C... [t:77687499]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>I thought I was pretty obviously not trying to gotcha or checkmate you but discuss, and YOU literally brought it up and I responded that in general Im talking about Left-leaning economics, so I dont understand the point of any of this. Wtf</quote> I was confused that you brought FDR up! I didn't bring him up and what you saw was me trying to figure out why you did by throwing a few ideas out! maybe saying "checkmate" was a bit dismissive of me but I was genuinely puzzled as to invoking FDR and his term as president had to do with what I had originally said. I mean, I presented a(n article explaining a) study showing how opposition to welfare was shown to increase in white Americans when shown information about increasing diversity. FDR has nothing to do with that. My whole point was that racial resentment to rising diversity leads to opposition to progressive policies. The example I provided was narrow in scope but I admitted that I couldn't find the broader data I was thinking of and provided that on short notice when you asked if what I said was true. <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote> Yes, and in a two party system many people are ok with voting for the one that sucks less. My supporting statement is that the groups that vote Republican the Least are also the least likely to vote. Id argue theres evidence that its because the Democrats dont do enough.</quote> What evidence? <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote> Its like you took a ton of effort to read my post in the most rigid and argumentative way possible, Im a little taken aback, not gonna lie.</quote> I wasn't trying to. You questioned if what I said was true, which is fair, I knew when I stated it originally I might be asked for something to back it up. I couldn't get the exact thing I was looking for but I did have something very closely related. But then, from my point of view, you added in some things that to me... didn't actually address or refute what I had claimed. So I tried to think of how they could have been meant to do so. I was a bit snippy in my response to them, and I shouldn't have been - so sorry for that, but I genuinely had no clue what they were in response to, it certainly didn't seem like it was to the point I was making. ~~~ I mean on a more macro-level and where I suspect this discussion would ultimately go if we went deep on it is the intersection of race and economic politics. And maybe even more broadly race and progressive politics in general. (For instance I think you are way to dismissive of the non-economic side of things even if just as a means to try and understand the challenges inherent in actually implementing said policies but I didn't really feel like delving into that right now.) --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1