Thursday, August 20, 2020

on political divisiveness, part II

you gotta hand it to trump.  until 2016, the engagement of most citizens in political conversation was quite a bit less than it is today.  and in a way, that's a good thing.  we should always stay engaged, learning, exchanging ideas.  it's just that most of us put more energy and time into our work, our families, our friends, our pastimes, and previously perhaps deferred politics to the elected officials that we put in office, specifically so that they could represent us.

but it seems to me, the polarizing affect trump has had on america in general, and each of us in particular, while good for getting us engaged, has been bad if we value unity as a people.  i mean, we're always going to have parties in opposition, differing viewpoints, and that's healthy.  the world has too many bad examples of what happens when one party or one ideology holds singular power for too long.  in a way, america benefits when the democrats and republicans, hold each other in check, to help defend against extremism, and hopefully end up in situation where most of what gets done are things that are agreeable to both sides.

in a more perfect world, we deal with opposing ideas but first starting the conversation finding and laying out the common ground, and then discussing and debating differences from there.  but lately (if ever?) that isn't how it works. when we disagree, we tend to start talking about the aspects of the issue that are the most opposite.

examples: 

1) when talking about abortion, rather than starting from the common ground of where life comes from and why the health of everyone involved is important, and going from there, we tend to start with the ideas of "i should have the freedom to do what i want, unpressured by government", versus "all life must be preserved and protected by government in spite of what those involved want or decide to do". 

2) when talking about immigration, rather than starting from the common ground that we want our immigration policy to best fit the social and economic needs of our country and its healthy growth, we tend to start with "illegals are breaking the law and must be kicked out, and a big wall for keeping them and everyone else out", versus "we should let anyone in who wants to live free".


Monday, August 3, 2020

on trump's unfitness for the office

TL; DR: just looking at hard evidence of words and actions, there are 759 reasons why trump is not fit to serve in the office of president.  confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance combine to cause trump supporters to either not see, or not care about any of them, or to consider "the other side" as worse.
 
 
while it might be easy to dismiss me as a never-trumper, hater, or whatevs... i'm actually not. 
i like to give points for results. 

in 2016, the idea that we had a solid chance to elect a businessman to be president meant to me that words and intentions that drive much of politics could possibly be replaced with actions and results.  and if trump delivered results, it would be disingenuous to say that he doesn't deserve a second term.  i mean, let's keep emotion out of this.  he either did a good job or he didn't.

but here we are in 2020.  the results are in, and the scoreboard is posted.  he failed.

this article below is the antidote for the illness of chronic confirmation bias that seems to afflict many in the maga cult.

meaning even if 95% of the article linked below are outright lies...
that still leaves 40 reasons why Trump is unfit to hold the office

and given that 100% of them have references to back them up...
i'm figuring that maybe the amount that are actually true is a little more than 5%

take a nice casual stroll thru this fairly comprehensive review of the past few years: