Partisanship is (an awful lot like) treason
-
I think it ultimately is like treason. It's working against the interests of your own country. Is it literally treason, obviously not. Hence why the title isn't "Partisanship is literally treason." But at some point, it starts to achieve the same goals. If you were an enemy of this country and wanted to bring it down, but knew you couldn't do so militarily or economically, how would you go about it? I imagine that you would seriously consider exactly what is happening, to sow massive dissension and distrust and cause us to waste enormous amounts of energy on petty internal squabbling and political stalemate. In fact I would imagine that there are quite a few people sitting in rooms in various other countries who jobs are to help enhance this process.
Explorans limites defectum
No, the only place that's treason is a fascist country. In the US the most important thing is (supposed to be) individual liberty, and the nation is in place to bolster that. Not vice versa. Treason in the US is about putting the interests of a foreign power over ours and abusing authority granted by the US government (vice the US people) to do so; that's completely it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political parties, but this sort of hyperbole and hysterical overreaction is, again, the problem.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
No, the only place that's treason is a fascist country. In the US the most important thing is (supposed to be) individual liberty, and the nation is in place to bolster that. Not vice versa. Treason in the US is about putting the interests of a foreign power over ours and abusing authority granted by the US government (vice the US people) to do so; that's completely it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political parties, but this sort of hyperbole and hysterical overreaction is, again, the problem.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
But if you weaken the US, you DO put the interests of other countries ahead of your own. It's not like they aren't going to step up if we falter, or step in anywhere we fall back. You can call it hyperbole, but I think that the level of polarization today is vastly beyond what it's been in the past, because the means for it to spread and faster is vastly larger and news organizations are overtly part of the left/right divide now. I think it's very dangerous where things are, and if you project it forward it's not good.
Explorans limites defectum
-
But if you weaken the US, you DO put the interests of other countries ahead of your own. It's not like they aren't going to step up if we falter, or step in anywhere we fall back. You can call it hyperbole, but I think that the level of polarization today is vastly beyond what it's been in the past, because the means for it to spread and faster is vastly larger and news organizations are overtly part of the left/right divide now. I think it's very dangerous where things are, and if you project it forward it's not good.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
You can call it hyperbole, but I think that the level of polarization today is vastly beyond what it's been in the past
The US Civil War. Ergo, hyperbole.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
You can call it hyperbole, but I think that the level of polarization today is vastly beyond what it's been in the past
The US Civil War. Ergo, hyperbole.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
That was NOT partisanship. That was a war over economics (and slavery of course though at that time it was primarily an economic issue.) Completely different. It wasn't about who was on top, it was about the southern states having gotten themselves addicted to free labor and being forced to give it up, at great monetary cost to the wealthy who lived there.
Explorans limites defectum
-
That was NOT partisanship. That was a war over economics (and slavery of course though at that time it was primarily an economic issue.) Completely different. It wasn't about who was on top, it was about the southern states having gotten themselves addicted to free labor and being forced to give it up, at great monetary cost to the wealthy who lived there.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
That was NOT partisanship.
Quote:
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Do you have a different definition? Because this definition encompasses the opposing political sides at the time of the War to Crush Treason in Defense of Slavery.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
That was NOT partisanship.
Quote:
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Do you have a different definition? Because this definition encompasses the opposing political sides at the time of the War to Crush Treason in Defense of Slavery.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
Cause and effect. The south broke away because of economics. They didn't consider it treason of course. They considered that to be their right, since it was only by common agreement that the states were incorporated. That led to a war, which obviously led the north to call it treason since they argued that the south didn't have the right to leave the union. And of course it wasn't a matter of left/right. Abraham Lincoln had to fight his own party over it matter pretty heavily. And, of course of course, once a war starts, then partisanship goes through the roof, because now it's not about politics anymore, it's about people getting killed and families torn apart and the economy nose diving and on and on. So it gets ugly fast, but not for the stupid 'who gets to sit in the big chair' reasons that I was talking about. The country was already torn apart, literally.
Explorans limites defectum
-
Cause and effect. The south broke away because of economics. They didn't consider it treason of course. They considered that to be their right, since it was only by common agreement that the states were incorporated. That led to a war, which obviously led the north to call it treason since they argued that the south didn't have the right to leave the union. And of course it wasn't a matter of left/right. Abraham Lincoln had to fight his own party over it matter pretty heavily. And, of course of course, once a war starts, then partisanship goes through the roof, because now it's not about politics anymore, it's about people getting killed and families torn apart and the economy nose diving and on and on. So it gets ugly fast, but not for the stupid 'who gets to sit in the big chair' reasons that I was talking about. The country was already torn apart, literally.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
The south broke away because of economics.
If you read their documents of secession or read the Cornerstone speech, the South went to war over slavery.
Dean Roddey wrote:
They didn't consider it treason of course.
Maybe, maybe not. It was still treason.
Dean Roddey wrote:
And of course it wasn't a matter of left/right.
Whether you chose to call it left/right or liberal/conservative or something else, it was still a partisan divide. One was right and the other was wrong.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
The south broke away because of economics.
If you read their documents of secession or read the Cornerstone speech, the South went to war over slavery.
Dean Roddey wrote:
They didn't consider it treason of course.
Maybe, maybe not. It was still treason.
Dean Roddey wrote:
And of course it wasn't a matter of left/right.
Whether you chose to call it left/right or liberal/conservative or something else, it was still a partisan divide. One was right and the other was wrong.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
Slavery WAS economics. Anyway, I'm not going any further down this road. This is how the internet works, it becomes some he said/she said argument over things that are not really relevant to the original point.
Explorans limites defectum
-
Slavery WAS economics. Anyway, I'm not going any further down this road. This is how the internet works, it becomes some he said/she said argument over things that are not really relevant to the original point.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
things that are not really relevant to the original point.
I'm still wonder why you don't think the political opponents at the time of that war were not partisan. They very much were.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Slavery WAS economics. Anyway, I'm not going any further down this road. This is how the internet works, it becomes some he said/she said argument over things that are not really relevant to the original point.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
Slavery WAS economics.
It was to the people who considered certain human beings as nothing more than property. They never were property. Slavery is not economics, it's a violation of human rights.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
Slavery WAS economics.
It was to the people who considered certain human beings as nothing more than property. They never were property. Slavery is not economics, it's a violation of human rights.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
Sigh... Of course it is, to us today. But they didn't keep slaves because they thought abusing Africans was fun (though some of them might.) They kept slaves because free labor was a massive benefit to their economy and having to give it up was going to cost them a lot. That's why they tried to leave the union, to keep that economic benefit.
Explorans limites defectum
-
Sigh... Of course it is, to us today. But they didn't keep slaves because they thought abusing Africans was fun (though some of them might.) They kept slaves because free labor was a massive benefit to their economy and having to give it up was going to cost them a lot. That's why they tried to leave the union, to keep that economic benefit.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
Of course it is, to us today.
Do you actually believe the abolitionists opposed slavery on economic grounds? No, they didn't. This was very much a partisan issue at the time.
Dean Roddey wrote:
they tried to leave the union, to keep that economic benefit.
The economic benefit of treating human beings as property and stealing their labor - and doing so with rape, murder, and destruction of families.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
Of course it is, to us today.
Do you actually believe the abolitionists opposed slavery on economic grounds? No, they didn't. This was very much a partisan issue at the time.
Dean Roddey wrote:
they tried to leave the union, to keep that economic benefit.
The economic benefit of treating human beings as property and stealing their labor - and doing so with rape, murder, and destruction of families.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
You are arguing about things I'm not even talking about, at all.
Explorans limites defectum
-
You are arguing about things I'm not even talking about, at all.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
I'm not even talking about
But you are. You chose to respond to my post that was explicitly about slavery. Curiously you did not respond to my post about you definition of partisanship. I still don't know what you mean when you use that word.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
I'm not even talking about
But you are. You chose to respond to my post that was explicitly about slavery. Curiously you did not respond to my post about you definition of partisanship. I still don't know what you mean when you use that word.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
OK, the last time and that's it. 1. Yes, there was partisanship. I went to great lengths above to explain that it was an effect, not a cause. Any time you have a very divisive issue (and civil was is pretty close to the top of the list) the ugliness will go ballistic. But it was partisanship ABOUT something, and something very substantive. The partisanship I was talking about in my original post was partisanship that is almost about its own self at this point, with haters on each side justifying their own existence by haters on the other side, grasping at anything they can use to undermine the other side, no matter how unimportant it might be to the bigger picture. And, the partisanship wasn't along party lines then, it was again about a specific issue. Lincoln had plenty of resistance in his own party. Today's partisanship is mostly just left/right bickering and the two sides trying to undermine each other and play angles to get back on top, and of course keeping anyone else not on the left or right out of the game. 2. Of course there were some people back then against slavery on moral grounds. But I was talking about the SOUTH and why they did what they did, and the fact that, without the ECONOMIC benefits of slavery it wouldn't have existed. Keeping slaves for fun would be an extraordinarily expensive thing to do. Though of course people will come up with moral, religious, etc... justifications for doing anything if it benefits them, unless you are the King of Eqypt or something, slavery was about economic benefit. And even the King Of Egypt could only keep slaves because he has the rest of the country effectively as his personal ATM. And, as I said above, these things reach the point of stupidity, because I'm now arguing with you about the freaking Civil War, which has nothing to do with anything I said in my original post, other than the (incorrect) assertion by someone that the Civil War proves our current horrible polarization isn't anything new. Of course it's not new in type, but it's new in scale. The internet and huge organizations with lots of money and applying a lot of science to manipulation of opinion is a fundamentally different thing from people putting out printed pamphlets on a small scale with fart jokes about their opponents. And that's it. I'm not going down this silly internet argument path any further.
Explorans limites defectum
-
OK, the last time and that's it. 1. Yes, there was partisanship. I went to great lengths above to explain that it was an effect, not a cause. Any time you have a very divisive issue (and civil was is pretty close to the top of the list) the ugliness will go ballistic. But it was partisanship ABOUT something, and something very substantive. The partisanship I was talking about in my original post was partisanship that is almost about its own self at this point, with haters on each side justifying their own existence by haters on the other side, grasping at anything they can use to undermine the other side, no matter how unimportant it might be to the bigger picture. And, the partisanship wasn't along party lines then, it was again about a specific issue. Lincoln had plenty of resistance in his own party. Today's partisanship is mostly just left/right bickering and the two sides trying to undermine each other and play angles to get back on top, and of course keeping anyone else not on the left or right out of the game. 2. Of course there were some people back then against slavery on moral grounds. But I was talking about the SOUTH and why they did what they did, and the fact that, without the ECONOMIC benefits of slavery it wouldn't have existed. Keeping slaves for fun would be an extraordinarily expensive thing to do. Though of course people will come up with moral, religious, etc... justifications for doing anything if it benefits them, unless you are the King of Eqypt or something, slavery was about economic benefit. And even the King Of Egypt could only keep slaves because he has the rest of the country effectively as his personal ATM. And, as I said above, these things reach the point of stupidity, because I'm now arguing with you about the freaking Civil War, which has nothing to do with anything I said in my original post, other than the (incorrect) assertion by someone that the Civil War proves our current horrible polarization isn't anything new. Of course it's not new in type, but it's new in scale. The internet and huge organizations with lots of money and applying a lot of science to manipulation of opinion is a fundamentally different thing from people putting out printed pamphlets on a small scale with fart jokes about their opponents. And that's it. I'm not going down this silly internet argument path any further.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
it was an effect, not a cause.
That is completely wrong. The partisan divide was on the issue of slavery. That partisan difference led to the war.
Quote:
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause,
Perhaps you are surprised to discover that there were many adherents to both sides of the slavery issue long before it turned into war.
Dean Roddey wrote:
But it was partisanship ABOUT something,
It's about something now. Perhaps you think that reproductive rights, voter rights, economic inequality, plutocracy, authoritarianism and white nationalism are trivial issues. No doubt some thought slavery was also trivial.
Dean Roddey wrote:
But I was talking about the SOUTH
I am well aware. That is why I said "It was to the people who considered certain human beings as nothing more than property. They never were property. Slavery is not economics, it's a violation of human rights."
Dean Roddey wrote:
because I'm now arguing with you about the freaking Civil War
That's your choice. I'm more interested in your bizarre definition of 'partisanship'.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Dean Roddey wrote:
it was an effect, not a cause.
That is completely wrong. The partisan divide was on the issue of slavery. That partisan difference led to the war.
Quote:
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause,
Perhaps you are surprised to discover that there were many adherents to both sides of the slavery issue long before it turned into war.
Dean Roddey wrote:
But it was partisanship ABOUT something,
It's about something now. Perhaps you think that reproductive rights, voter rights, economic inequality, plutocracy, authoritarianism and white nationalism are trivial issues. No doubt some thought slavery was also trivial.
Dean Roddey wrote:
But I was talking about the SOUTH
I am well aware. That is why I said "It was to the people who considered certain human beings as nothing more than property. They never were property. Slavery is not economics, it's a violation of human rights."
Dean Roddey wrote:
because I'm now arguing with you about the freaking Civil War
That's your choice. I'm more interested in your bizarre definition of 'partisanship'.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
You are being ignored because you are continuing to just make up stuff I've never said or implied or disagreed with.
Explorans limites defectum
-
You are being ignored because you are continuing to just make up stuff I've never said or implied or disagreed with.
Explorans limites defectum
Do run away. FYI - When I chose to ignore someone I neither read nor respond to the posts that I have chosen to ignore. TTYL
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Do run away. FYI - When I chose to ignore someone I neither read nor respond to the posts that I have chosen to ignore. TTYL
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
I am running away, from the silliness that makes up most internet 'debates'. You will continue to ignore what I say and change from one thing to another and three days from now you'll have me arguing about the Higgs Boson and crepes, none of which is relevant to anything I was saying. If you would go back and even remotely read what I've written you'd see that everything you keep bringing up I've already covered. There's no point in continuing around in a circle.
Explorans limites defectum
-
That was NOT partisanship. That was a war over economics (and slavery of course though at that time it was primarily an economic issue.) Completely different. It wasn't about who was on top, it was about the southern states having gotten themselves addicted to free labor and being forced to give it up, at great monetary cost to the wealthy who lived there.
Explorans limites defectum
Dean Roddey wrote:
That was NOT partisanship.
Comedy gold.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor