The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-08-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first I don’t want lawlessness.  You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness.  It shows you lie and do not listen.

Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.

Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen.  Why should I expect you to start now?  You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change.  I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology.  I’d have as good a chance at success.

Fourth…. That is the debatable one.  I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one.  The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system.  The partisan does not change his system.  He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective.  He deals with a partial reality, if that.

For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order.  No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together.  I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response.  On the other hand, you still haven’t.

Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part.  In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you.  But you do not listen even to agreement.

And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law.  The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.  There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it.  It applies to the KKK and Nazi.  (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)  

Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.

I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction.   You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police.  You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with.  If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.

If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity.  It is just not my style.

Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise. You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?

This tack is just a political ploy by Trump. He sees that it worked for Nixon and George Wallace. He is exaggerating and distorting the lawless actions so that people will be afraid and vote for him as the law and order candidate. But as one pundit pointed out, that worked for Nixon because he was not the incumbent. Trump is now the incumbent, and if lawlessness gets worse before November, the people will blame him and a Lichtman Key will turn against him, costing him the election.

Electing a president who acts on the real issues of police brutality and neglect of social programs in the black community will decrease lawlessness and improve the cities and society as a whole.

It is your side who will instigate violence against the state. You will no doubt excuse this in some way as answering some kind of attack (probably on your gun rights or on some enforcement of gun laws). Or there may be more riots by those angry at society, perhaps sparked by more police violence, and this may be your excuse to make your own violence against them (via citizens' militias, probably). I don't see a competent liberal-Democratic state as unable to deal with either violent faction. But if Biden fails and the spiral of violence escalates, then he or his successor-candidate could face electoral trouble in 2024, no doubt.