Mid Term Elections- Lessons Learned

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the people saying “you’re proving my point. the country is moving left”. Are politicians supposed to be representative of THE PEOPLE. Shouldn’t a politician progress with the people he represents? I’m seriously asking because that would be the answer to why Obama and Biden changed their positions. You simply can’t get elected as a democrat and not being in support of marriage equality. Likewise, both also changed their positions on marijuana.

It’s call progress. Show me the Republican that doesn’t want to keep us in the dark ages and maybe they can get my vote

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
A red state now has two blue senators because of one orange man.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
No really looking to defend Oz and he may have become a quack diet doctor but he had a pretty impressive career as a cardiac surgeon
I’m also not looking to defend Ben Carson who was an excellent neurosurgeon but im not sure id want him running the country or representing me in Senate
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Hmm
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Just curious - why do we care about the definition of a man or a woman? How does that affect you? Why is it a political issue, outside of one party constantly sticking its nose in our homes/bedrooms?

If a Democrat says a woman is both someone with a uterus but also someone with a penis who transitions and declares themself a woman, why does anyone care?
My naïve assumption that STEM fields, especially healthcare (doctor's for God's sake), would care about the definition of men and women. Physical differences, emotional differences, clinical treatments. I mean come on. So a trans woman comes into your clinic and you go along and play pretend until you actually have to treat something that has to do with his penis. When the rubber hits the road you go back to reality, but not until then. What a way to live. Please tell me what other delusions you participate in during your practice and then suddenly change when a health issue presents itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
For the people saying “you’re proving my point. the country is moving left”. Are politicians supposed to be representative of THE PEOPLE. Shouldn’t a politician progress with the people he represents? I’m seriously asking because that would be the answer to why Obama and Biden changed their positions. You simply can’t get elected as a democrat and not being in support of marriage equality. Likewise, both also changed their positions on marijuana.

It’s call progress. Show me the Republican that doesn’t want to keep us in the dark ages and maybe they can get my vote
Your last sentence shows you don't actually want a dialogue on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No really looking to defend Oz and he may have become a quack diet doctor but he had a pretty impressive career as a cardiac surgeon

N=1, but one of the CT surgeons I work with (big time conservative like 99% of CT surgeons I've met in the south) was a fellow at Presbyterian back in the early 00's. Says everyone in the dept thought oz was an average surgeon but an outstanding media wh*re even back then
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Then name a moderate Republican and discuss why a moderate Democrat should vote for him or her
Even the Wikipedia entry only lists 4 governors considered moderate Republicans. Any Republican politicians outside New England that's gun totin', low taxin' but also cool with a little weed smokin' and right to choosin'?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Then name a moderate Republican and discuss why a moderate Democrat should vote for him or her
It all depends on definitions. I'd need to know what you want/consider to be a mod R and what you consider a mod D. Nationally, Bill Maher and Elon are extremely popular cases of my point.
 
Then name a moderate Republican and discuss why a moderate Democrat should vote for him or her
Brooklyn City Councilman Ari Kagan, who represents the 47th district, said he is changing parties and is set to challenge Democrat Justin Brannan in a redrawn district.

“Over the last several years in my personal humble opinion, [the] Democratic Party in New York became moving to the left at such a speed that they could not even keep up,” he said on Monday. “And on issue after issue every year, every month, I started to feel that it’s not me leaving the Democratic Party, but [the] Democratic Party very quickly started to leave me. Especially on [the] most important issue of the day, public safety.”


“Every month I found myself like ‘what am I doing in the Democratic Party?’” he said. “In my own district, in southern Brooklyn, everywhere I knocked [on] the doors people saying ‘when are you switching to the Republican Party? “I believe right now, the Democratic Party is doing everything possible in New York City to make everybody less safe.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My naïve assumption that STEM fields, especially healthcare (doctor's for God's sake), would care about the definition of men and women. Physical differences, emotional differences, clinical treatments. I mean come on. So a trans woman comes into your clinic and you go along and play pretend until you actually have to treat something that has to do with his penis. When the rubber hits the road you go back to reality, but not until then. What a way to live. Please tell me what other delusions you participate in during your practice and then suddenly change when a health issue presents itself.
I pretend to give more roc so that the surgeon believes they have better relaxation, but then actually give roc when they move under stimulation. :laugh:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
trump wanted desperately to run with the "elites" in NYC but they wanted nothing to do with him because they recognized what a boorish clown he was. Then Obama made fun of him and he just couldn't take it anymore. He has no political allegiance. He is only in it for himself.
If he was allowed to join the NFL years ago we wouldn't be dealing with a TBI-ridden American society. Fate is funny. Basically I hate NFL owners ha!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Just curious - why do we care about the definition of a man or a woman? How does that affect you? Why is it a political issue, outside of one party constantly sticking its nose in our homes/bedrooms?

If a Democrat says a woman is both someone with a uterus but also someone with a penis who transitions and declares themself a woman, why does anyone care?
I care a little bit. I don't have a strong opinion on the labels people give themselves. But being forced or socially pressured to speak untruths, or to go along with others speaking untruths, is very 1984ish. Altering language to obfuscate the truth is doubleplus ungood. And at its core, the left's demand that I say and believe a M-to-F transgender person is a woman is simply that.

I'm willing to work with them on the limits of language, so if that M-to-F transgender person wants me to use she/her pronouns, I'm happy to extend the courtesy. It doesn't seem quite right, but I don't have a better solution that's usable and respectful of their choice. I have a little less patience for made-up pronouns like "ze" or using "they" to address a singular person - now we're voyaging into the uncanny valley of grammar, and I can't even tolerate people who write **** like "where r u? c u tonite" in texts.

And I say this as someone who's on the extreme end of the personal liberty wing of the libertarian party. I think anybody should be free to do anything they want so long as they don't harm another person, whether it's cooking meth while smoking crack, riding a donorcycle without a helmet, having sex with whatever willing partner(s) for fun or profit, aborting 10wk fetuses for whatever reason, owning semiautomatic rifles even if they're black and have shoulder thingies that go up, altering their bodies with tattoos or hormones or surgery, living in New York, even listening to jazz if that kind of obscene auditory assault is their perverted idea of fun. Demanding that others lie to help you suspend your own disbelief about what you think you are or wish you were, is a big ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
I care a little bit. I don't have a strong opinion on the labels people give themselves. But being forced or socially pressured to speak untruths, or to go along with others speaking untruths, is very 1984ish. Altering language to obfuscate the truth is doubleplus ungood. And at its core, the left's demand that I say and believe a M-to-F transgender person is a woman is simply that.

I'm willing to work with them on the limits of language, so if that M-to-F transgender person wants me to use she/her pronouns, I'm happy to extend the courtesy. It doesn't seem quite right, but I don't have a better solution that's usable and respectful of their choice. I have a little less patience for made-up pronouns like "ze" or using "they" to address a singular person - now we're voyaging into the uncanny valley of grammar, and I can't even tolerate people who write **** like "where r u? c u tonite" in texts.

And I say this as someone who's on the extreme end of the personal liberty wing of the libertarian party. I think anybody should be free to do anything they want so long as they don't harm another person, whether it's cooking meth while smoking crack, riding a donorcycle without a helmet, having sex with whatever willing partner(s) for fun or profit, aborting 10wk fetuses for whatever reason, owning semiautomatic rifles even if they're black and have shoulder thingies that go up, altering their bodies with tattoos or hormones or surgery, living in New York, even listening to jazz if that kind of obscene auditory assault is their perverted idea of fun. Demanding that others lie to help you suspend your own disbelief about what you think you are or wish you were, is a big ask.
Lol I agree
 
For the people saying “you’re proving my point. the country is moving left”. Are politicians supposed to be representative of THE PEOPLE. Shouldn’t a politician progress with the people he represents? I’m seriously asking because that would be the answer to why Obama and Biden changed their positions. You simply can’t get elected as a democrat and not being in support of marriage equality. Likewise, both also changed their positions on marijuana.

It’s call progress. Show me the Republican that doesn’t want to keep us in the dark ages and maybe they can get my vote
I appreciate that you ask questions and listen to responses. I think our representatives should have our best interests in mind and yes, represent us. But not just vote whatever the majority want. That would be mob rule and it could get really ugly really quick.
I’m also not looking to defend Ben Carson who was an excellent neurosurgeon but im not sure id want him running the country or representing me in Senate
I think he is thoughtful and considerate. I don’t think he makes rash or irrational decisions. I think he will do what he believes is right. I know he can learn the job. He has my vote over 90% of politicians. I would rather go down with the guy that I know is going to do what they think is correct, than place my bet on politicians that are beholden to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users





Bc it leads to this insanity. And the definition was not broke and didn't need fixing. Why is it okay to "fix" the definition for 1% bc it doesn't hurt anyone.... But it's not okay to "leave it" as it is for 99% bc it doesn't hurt anyone? And this goes way beyond "sticking its nose in homes/bedrooms." No one cared until it came outside people's homes/bedrooms. It is weird to pretend that the left doesn't care about it...but they are the ones changing it.

To earnestly try to answer your question: It feels like gaslighting the rest of the world that disagrees. It feels like a sociology experiment that is trying to see how much crazy stuff people will accept and regurgitate even though they know it isn't true.


You could apply your some '1%, 99%' rule to a lot of things, in particular legal gay marriage. Nothing prevents organizations (MMA, NCAA, olympic committees, school systems, etc.) from creating rules on competition based on biologic hormonal activity (males have a distinct clear advantage if they've gone through puberty as a male and transitioned after).

There is a line that the right wants to cross with telling people how to live their lives based on their Christian values (which they often don't follow). Removing rape and incest clauses with abortion. Not allowing male-female hormonal therapy/surgery to transition if they wish. Clarence Thomas letting the cat out of the bag in saying SCOTUS should go after gay marriage.

My point is that it doesn't affect my life. It certainly affects my life far less than the alcohol abusers of the world that fill up hospital beds and require continual care. But of course society accepts that as 'people choosing to live as they wish'. If and when it does affect me, perhaps as in sports, then you're right rules needs to be set. But the right wants to make it so that the ability to transition is restricted, or their rights are so restricted that they don't live their lives as they feel appropriate, or they are pigeonholed into certain jobs (Starbucks, Target, etc.), or that they aren't acknowledged at all as productive and useful members of society.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
  • Okay...
Reactions: 2 users
I care a little bit. I don't have a strong opinion on the labels people give themselves. But being forced or socially pressured to speak untruths, or to go along with others speaking untruths, is very 1984ish. Altering language to obfuscate the truth is doubleplus ungood. And at its core, the left's demand that I say and believe a M-to-F transgender person is a woman is simply that.

I'm willing to work with them on the limits of language, so if that M-to-F transgender person wants me to use she/her pronouns, I'm happy to extend the courtesy. It doesn't seem quite right, but I don't have a better solution that's usable and respectful of their choice. I have a little less patience for made-up pronouns like "ze" or using "they" to address a singular person - now we're voyaging into the uncanny valley of grammar, and I can't even tolerate people who write **** like "where r u? c u tonite" in texts.

And I say this as someone who's on the extreme end of the personal liberty wing of the libertarian party. I think anybody should be free to do anything they want so long as they don't harm another person, whether it's cooking meth while smoking crack, riding a donorcycle without a helmet, having sex with whatever willing partner(s) for fun or profit, aborting 10wk fetuses for whatever reason, owning semiautomatic rifles even if they're black and have shoulder thingies that go up, altering their bodies with tattoos or hormones or surgery, living in New York, even listening to jazz if that kind of obscene auditory assault is their perverted idea of fun. Demanding that others lie to help you suspend your own disbelief about what you think you are or wish you were, is a big ask.

I agree with you on the 'ze' or 'they' pronouns. Certainly things can easily go too far and get ridiculous. I fully acknowledge that. I'm on record here as saying Lia Thomas shouldn't have been allowed to swim. But restricting simple personal freedoms such as transitioning M-to-F and using 'she/her' doesn't seem a huge ask in my opinion. As in, I certainly can't get worked up or bothered enough to tell someone what they should or shouldn't be doing with their life, or what they can or can't do, especially in the name of religion. I see that the lines can easily get blurred here in the direction of the right, who wants a Christian state, where we don't acknowledge those who transition or ostracize them in society (more than we already do), or we don't allow gay marriage, further restrict abortion rights, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You could apply your some '1%, 99%' rule to a lot of things, in particular legal gay marriage. Nothing prevents organizations (MMA, NCAA, olympic committees, school systems, etc.) from creating rules on competition based on biologic hormonal activity (males have a distinct clear advantage if they've gone through puberty as a male and transitioned after).

There is a line that the right wants to cross with telling people how to live their lives based on their Christian values (which they often don't follow). Removing rape and incest clauses with abortion. Not allowing male-female hormonal therapy/surgery to transition if they wish. Clarence Thomas letting the cat out of the bag in saying SCOTUS should go after gay marriage.

My point is that it doesn't affect my life. It certainly affects my life far less than the alcohol abusers of the world that fill up hospital beds and require continual care. But of course society accepts that as 'people choosing to live as they wish'. If and when it does affect me, perhaps as in sports, then you're right rules needs to be set. But the right wants to make it so that the ability to transition is restricted, or their rights are so restricted that they don't live their lives as they feel appropriate, or they are pigeonholed into certain jobs (Starbucks, Target, etc.), or that they aren't acknowledged at all as productive and useful members of society.

I agree with you on the 'ze' or 'they' pronouns. Certainly things can easily go too far and get ridiculous. I fully acknowledge that. I'm on record here as saying Lia Thomas shouldn't have been allowed to swim. But restricting simple personal freedoms such as transitioning M-to-F and using 'sher/her' doesn't seem a huge ask in my opinion. As in, I certainly can't get worked up or bothered enough to tell someone what they should or shouldn't be doing with their life, or what they can or can't do, especially in the name of religion. I see that the lines can easily get blurred here in the direction of the right, who wants a Christian state, where we don't acknowledge those who transition or ostracize them in society (more than we already do), or we don't allow gay marriage, further restrict abortion rights, etc.
Good take and great points. I essentially agree on most everything you said.

I would say that these rational concerns you have about too much restriction are greatly unwarranted. I think there is sensationalized reporting that leads to this. But I agree that the pendulum can swing too far back to the right. With good discussion we can moderate that. Also, Christians are guaranteed to not follow their values. Just like the rest of humans. They just believe that when the person messes up they should repent and do better. Finally, I don’t know anyone that wants to restrict adults from transitioning. I think those are mostly exaggerated stories based off very small minority.
 
My naïve assumption that STEM fields, especially healthcare (doctor's for God's sake), would care about the definition of men and women. Physical differences, emotional differences, clinical treatments. I mean come on. So a trans woman comes into your clinic and you go along and play pretend until you actually have to treat something that has to do with his penis. When the rubber hits the road you go back to reality, but not until then. What a way to live. Please tell me what other delusions you participate in during your practice and then suddenly change when a health issue presents itself.

Are you a physician? Are you an anesthesiologist?

It's neither fair nor appropriate to say that I 'go along and play pretend' until I actually have to provide real care to a trans patient. I can understand that she is a biologic male, I can treat her with the respect that she deserves as a fellow human being, I can address her as she wishes, and I can also treat her appropriately given a physician-patient relationship that is protected. That is what I strive for and it's also what I'd hope for as a patient.

I do a lot of OB anesthesia. You know what I encounter, more than ANYTHING ELSE, that I deem socially and medically unacceptable? Men dictating care for women.

I could not care less if a biologic male who has transitioned to a woman sees me, needs anesthesia for surgery, and asks to be addressed as 'she/her'. If you find that so absurd or so ridiculous then I think it says more about you and your own issues.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 9 users
Are you a physician? Are you an anesthesiologist?

It's neither fair nor appropriate to say that I 'go along and play pretend' until I actually have to provide real care to a trans patient. I can understand that she is a biologic male, I can treat her with the respect that she deserves as a fellow human being, I can address her as she wishes, and I can also treat her appropriately given a physician-patient relationship that is protected. That is what I strive for and it's also what I'd hope for as a patient.

I do a lot of OB anesthesia. You know what I encounter, more than ANYTHING ELSE, that I deem socially and medically unacceptable? Men dictating care for women.

I could not care less if a biologic male who has transitioned to a woman sees me, needs anesthesia for surgery, and asks to be addressed as 'she/her'. If you find that so absurd or so ridiculous then I think it says more about you and your own issues.
I'm not sure what world we're living in where it's not fair to point out what you're doing. If you don't like it, then stop doing it. Coddling people with untruths isn't helpful and isn't the role of a physician. Since common sense and all of history can't persuade you then maybe look into the suicide rates of trans (even after surgical transitions) people. "Embracing" this falsehood doesn't help them, as the numbers bear out.

Please address me as Northpaw, king of Southpaw, premier OB anesthesiologist of Great Britain.
 
I'm not sure what world we're living in where it's not fair to point out what you're doing. If you don't like it, then stop doing it. Coddling people with untruths isn't helpful and isn't the role of a physician. Since common sense and all of history can't persuade you then maybe look into the suicide rates of trans (even after surgical transitions) people. "Embracing" this falsehood doesn't help them, as the numbers bear out.

Please address me as Northpaw, king of Southpaw, premier OB anesthesiologist of Great Britain.

how about I address you with your appropriate title, med school applicant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I care a little bit. I don't have a strong opinion on the labels people give themselves. But being forced or socially pressured to speak untruths, or to go along with others speaking untruths, is very 1984ish. Altering language to obfuscate the truth is doubleplus ungood. And at its core, the left's demand that I say and believe a M-to-F transgender person is a woman is simply that.

I'm willing to work with them on the limits of language, so if that M-to-F transgender person wants me to use she/her pronouns, I'm happy to extend the courtesy. It doesn't seem quite right, but I don't have a better solution that's usable and respectful of their choice. I have a little less patience for made-up pronouns like "ze" or using "they" to address a singular person - now we're voyaging into the uncanny valley of grammar, and I can't even tolerate people who write **** like "where r u? c u tonite" in texts.

And I say this as someone who's on the extreme end of the personal liberty wing of the libertarian party. I think anybody should be free to do anything they want so long as they don't harm another person, whether it's cooking meth while smoking crack, riding a donorcycle without a helmet, having sex with whatever willing partner(s) for fun or profit, aborting 10wk fetuses for whatever reason, owning semiautomatic rifles even if they're black and have shoulder thingies that go up, altering their bodies with tattoos or hormones or surgery, living in New York, even listening to jazz if that kind of obscene auditory assault is their perverted idea of fun. Demanding that others lie to help you suspend your own disbelief about what you think you are or wish you were, is a big ask.
1000% agree
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
how about I address you with your appropriate title, med school applicant.
^^^^Now you've joined me in my line of argumentation (which I'm overjoyed to see), address people with their appropriate titles.

Picking and choosing when and when not to align with reality, got it. You'll only respect some people when they want to be called different things. Consistency at it's peak.

***
1670537710857.png
Why'd I get this? I've seen people be warned in other forums.

@Neopolymath This dude is asking for consistency. The gall! Holier than thou? I've been put out by the high priests of SDN from even replying to comments simply because I spoke against the dogma. Now, I don't want my account banned so I'll let you guys carry on. Some robust back and forth would have been nice rather than censorship. Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Even the Wikipedia entry only lists 4 governors considered moderate Republicans. Any Republican politicians outside New England that's gun totin', low taxin' but also cool with a little weed smokin' and right to choosin'?
I mean I'm not sure Wikipedia should be considered the definitive source for accurate political labeling but I would bet the dude Nevada just elected is probably all or most of that... plus pro-prostitution too!
 
Are you a physician? Are you an anesthesiologist?

It's neither fair nor appropriate to say that I 'go along and play pretend' until I actually have to provide real care to a trans patient. I can understand that she is a biologic male, I can treat her with the respect that she deserves as a fellow human being, I can address her as she wishes, and I can also treat her appropriately given a physician-patient relationship that is protected. That is what I strive for and it's also what I'd hope for as a patient.

I do a lot of OB anesthesia. You know what I encounter, more than ANYTHING ELSE, that I deem socially and medically unacceptable? Men dictating care for women.

I could not care less if a biologic male who has transitioned to a woman sees me, needs anesthesia for surgery, and asks to be addressed as 'she/her'. If you find that so absurd or so ridiculous then I think it says more about you and your own issues.
The dude is a premed making this holier than thou attitude he has in a previous post laughable.
 
  • Okay...
Reactions: 1 user
I still have serious questions about people who voted not once but twice for a man who was caught on tape admitting he sexually assaults women because he can get away with it.
Serious questions about their ethics and basic humanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I still have serious questions about people who voted not once but twice for a man who was caught on tape admitting he sexually assaults women because he can get away with it.
Serious questions about their ethics and basic humanity.
I don't feel that way. I voted against Trump twice. Michael Moore brilliantly explained why good people can vote for a vile, appalling man for the highest office in the land. From 2016:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Democrats should rejoice. Trump will lose the general against Biden. Not so much for pretty much any other person on that list.
Umm not so sure about that--voter apathy over Biden combined with gerrymandered hostile state legislatures means Trump could conceivably win. I used to think that way but if Trump wins it will be a likely country-ending catastrophe with his revenge tour mentality, it isn't worth the gamble, Desantis can win instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Also, national polls don't mean anything. It's the states and the electoral votes that matter. So I would be more interested in a state-by-state breakdown.

Anyway, it's way too early. If Trump gets on the Republican ticket, there will be a wave of republicans and independents voting against him in the general elections, who had voted with him before. People haven't forgotten January 6. He's only running because he needs immunity for all the felonies he has committed in his life. He should die in prison. He's a traitor to the Constitution, not to mention his tax fraud.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8 users
Hilarious because this is the latest from wsj today

Republican primary voters have high interest in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a potential 2024 presidential nominee and view him more favorably than they do former President Donald Trump, a new Wall Street Journal poll shows.

In a hypothetical contest between the two, Mr. DeSantis beats Mr. Trump, 52% to 38%, among likely GOP primary voters contemplating a race in which the first nomination votes will be cast in just over a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is more in line with the polls I've been seeing. Trump is rapidly losing his appeal.
But that narrative doesn't sound so good for Democrat sympathizers, does it? The big bad wolf is not so big anymore.
 
This is more in line with the polls I've been seeing. Trump is rapidly losing his appeal.

The problem is that the primaries will not be Trump v. DeSantis.

They will be Trump, DeSantis, Halley, Pence, Pompeo, etc., etc. the others are likely to split the Republican vote giving Trump the win. His supporters are fiercely loyal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The problem is that the primaries will not be Trump v. DeSantis.

They will be Trump, DeSantis, Halley, Pence, Pompeo, etc., etc. the others are likely to split the Republican vote giving Trump the win. His supporters are fiercely loyal.
They may get a situation like the Democrats with Biden in 2020, where the only nationally-viable candidate will be DeSantis. That will be the moment of the truth. My guess is that Trump will lose the primary, unless the other guy (DeSantis or whoever) messes up.
 
Regarding narratives and echo chambers...

This could have been written by any moderate independent in this discussion, but it's taken from here.

"I’ve tried something with an old friend, a retired liberal physician in my Bible study, who suggested we have “bridging our differences civilly” conversations. Fine with me, why not try? We proceeded comfortably the first few times by mostly sharing personal information, getting acquainted more deeply to establish a foundation for eventually turning to culture and politics. But our mutual comfort dissipated when we got to politics.

I wrote out two lists, one of 20 commentators and relatively obscure politicians on the left, and the other of 30 conservative academics, politicians, and commentators. My suspicion, which he confirmed, was that I could identify all of those on the left, whereas he could identify NONE of those on the right - not even Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, or Winsome Sears. You see, every one of those 30 conservatives, well known to me but unknown to him, is black! He was astonished, and somewhat chagrined to learn how narrow and dishonest are his news sources (you know them: CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, PBS, WaPo, etc.).

Then I gave him a range from which to choose of the number of unarmed black men shot by police in 2019: 1,764, 781, 159, 12. He chose 781; the official number is 12. Again, he was startled at learning the facts, which did not conform to the narrative pushed on him by “news” from the left.

I asked him, a physician, if he agrees that there are only two genders. He informed me that dozens of genders exist, depending on a person’s self-identification. Touching on communism, he thinks of it as strictly an economic theory and is ignorant of its murderous, subversive history. I suggested he read David Horowitz’s book, “Radical Son.” He had never heard of Horowitz.

We became uncomfortable at seeing what a chasm of political opinion separates us, and, at least in my case, at thinking that my esteemed friend’s left-informed opinions are too firmly entrenched to be unlearned. I fear for my country because of the legions of younger people who are being schooled in leftist propaganda.

My friend and I haven’t been in touch to resume our conversations. Maybe we’ll stick to the Bible’s safer terrain - although, even there...."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Regarding narratives and echo chambers...

This could have been written by any moderate independent in this discussion, but it's taken from here.

"I’ve tried something with an old friend, a retired liberal physician in my Bible study, who suggested we have “bridging our differences civilly” conversations. Fine with me, why not try? We proceeded comfortably the first few times by mostly sharing personal information, getting acquainted more deeply to establish a foundation for eventually turning to culture and politics. But our mutual comfort dissipated when we got to politics.

I wrote out two lists, one of 20 commentators and relatively obscure politicians on the left, and the other of 30 conservative academics, politicians, and commentators. My suspicion, which he confirmed, was that I could identify all of those on the left, whereas he could identify NONE of those on the right - not even Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, or Winsome Sears. You see, every one of those 30 conservatives, well known to me but unknown to him, is black! He was astonished, and somewhat chagrined to learn how narrow and dishonest are his news sources (you know them: CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, PBS, WaPo, etc.).

Then I gave him a range from which to choose of the number of unarmed black men shot by police in 2019: 1,764, 781, 159, 12. He chose 781; the official number is 12. Again, he was startled at learning the facts, which did not conform to the narrative pushed on him by “news” from the left.

I asked him, a physician, if he agrees that there are only two genders. He informed me that dozens of genders exist, depending on a person’s self-identification. Touching on communism, he thinks of it as strictly an economic theory and is ignorant of its murderous, subversive history. I suggested he read David Horowitz’s book, “Radical Son.” He had never heard of Horowitz.

We became uncomfortable at seeing what a chasm of political opinion separates us, and, at least in my case, at thinking that my esteemed friend’s left-informed opinions are too firmly entrenched to be unlearned. I fear for my country because of the legions of younger people who are being schooled in leftist propaganda.

My friend and I haven’t been in touch to resume our conversations. Maybe we’ll stick to the Bible’s safer terrain - although, even there...."


Interesting the author needs to exchange personal info and get acquainted with “an old friend” and returns to the Bible after all that. Seems like a disingenuous reply.
 
Interesting the author needs to exchange personal info and get acquainted with “an old friend” and returns to the Bible after all that. Seems like a disingenuous reply.
It was a Bible study group, so I guess that's the safer common ground for them. The same way anesthesia can be the common ground for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Meh. Polls aren't very accurate now as noted in the last mid terms. Way too early to panic.

Yes, we all know it's too early for polls to have significant predictive power at this stage.

It's just more a commentary that after everything that's happened, GOP voters will still pick trump out of a varied lineup when a reasonable person would go with literally anyone else, even if they'd never heard of them.

Which furthermore speaks to the point that "trump was bad for the midterms" is a narrative which probably won't have any significant effect soon. If trump loses the primary it will be for other reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yes, we all know it's too early for polls to have significant predictive power at this stage.

It's just more a commentary that after everything that's happened, GOP voters will still pick trump out of a varied lineup when a reasonable person would go with literally anyone else, even if they'd never heard of them.

Which furthermore speaks to the point that "trump was bad for the midterms" is a narrative which probably won't have any significant effect soon. If trump loses the primary it will be for other reasons.
Trump is very popular in our area. I believe roughly one third of Republicans are die hard Trumpers, and would not vote for DeSantis. I think the WSJ poll and what you point out illistrates this. I don't think you get the "Magic" the 2nd time around......but then Biden got it on the third time around, so maybe don't listen to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Trump would beat Desantis. Desantis is a mini version of trump, why would a republican vote for him if they voted for trump. If you previously voted for trump, despite all the lies, scandals, ridiculous statements, then why would current events change your vote. Republicans have no real “policies” to run on, it’s all fluff.

Desantis is trump, trump is Desantis.
 
Trump would beat Desantis. Desantis is a mini version of trump, why would a republican vote for him if they voted for trump. If you previously voted for trump, despite all the lies, scandals, ridiculous statements, then why would current events change your vote. Republicans have no real “policies” to run on, it’s all fluff.

Desantis is trump, trump is Desantis.
Einhorn is a man!!!!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Trump would beat Desantis. Desantis is a mini version of trump, why would a republican vote for him if they voted for trump. If you previously voted for trump, despite all the lies, scandals, ridiculous statements, then why would current events change your vote. Republicans have no real “policies” to run on, it’s all fluff.

Desantis is trump, trump is Desantis.
Trump will destroy Desantis in a debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top