Scandinavia and the World
Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9690375:

Halloween appropriation 19 10, 4:29am


"Then you should try to speak to more than a handful of people and maybe read a book. Offence is in it's nature and by definition always taken. Why? Because it's an offence in taste, taste is subjective and by the mere fact that there are 7.4 billion people on the world someone is bound to be offended by anything."

OK, then show me the people offended by air.
And before you decide to go with "bitchy snark" in your next reply - remember other people may actually know a thing or two as well.

"And I know where she was brought up. I was pointing to the stupidity of judging purely on state instead of inquiring about the circumstances."

Well that wasn't what you wrote, but:

"That logic makes sence until you realize that the city in question is a Democrat strongholds, People just tend to look at state maps."

But I or no one else who read that conversation couldn't "realize" where she lived at the time, as she never wrote that.
There is also no proof you actual do - you could just be full of shit, trying to backtrack from you putting your foot in your mouth in the first place.

Personally, I think she deliberately chose not to say exactly where she grew up since she didn't want to disclose the location, and thus I didn't want to press her on it.
But by choosing to say the state was Texas she made it perfectly fair to make the general comment I did:

"Texas (which is not known for being a bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state)"

I didn't claim her story wasn't true or that it couldn't be true. I didn't claim every single person in Texas is a Republican. I simply stated the very well known fact that Texas isn't known as a "bleeding-heart-liberal kind of state".
Which is a fact. It's not.

"But then again I love listening to people from continental Europe trying to tell me what I know based on where I live. And try to learn how political polarisation works."

Aha, so that's why you're acting like a bitch? Someone from ""continental Europe" hurt your feelings? Poor thing.

"Yes it was started by the Republicans and then the two sides grow distant from one another. I see you started with the Obama administration, no the problem started with the Clifton administration when Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House as a Republican decided to change when congress was in session."

Yes, I chose to not go further back then the Bush-years (the partisanship of which I did mention) - but going further back only strengthens the point I made, as you say.

Because the Clinton-years where of course marked by incredibly partisan Republican politics as well.
I mean the entire investigation and ultimate impeachment of Bill Clinton was just one big fishing expedition, desperately trying to find any dirt they could on the Clinton's.
And after years of investigations and millions of dollars in costs - what did they find?
A blowjob - which isn't even illegal of course.

"The party is still talk to each other this was later made even worse when Obama decided to kick certain conservative outlets from The White House which later Trump has decided to do in return."

Not "certain" - one. Fox News.
And to be fair Fox News isn't a serious news channel - it's just Republican propaganda.
And to be ever fairer - the Obama White House couldn't actually put that plan into action as the other news media making up the White House press corps threatened to walk out in support of Fox News if they did.

So Fox News White House press credentials was saved by newspapers like New York Times and The Washington Post, and TV channels like CNN and MSNBC standing up for their democratic right to be a terribly biased propaganda outlet for Republican views - but still have a place in the White House briefing room.

And how does Fox News in turn react now when Trump calls all those media outlets "fake" as soon as they report something true he doesn't like to hear - like his inaugurations crowd size being smaller then Obama's? They say nothing in support of those media outlets of course, but blow Trump every chance they get.

Trump hasn't actually shut any news media out either - he just threatens too and bitch about them on twitter all the time. But instead the Trump White House has given press credentials to "journalists" from actual fake news sites like Inforwars and Breitbart.

"It's the problem with polarisation and, well, just picking side saying these are the good guys is the exact problem that is causing the polarisation. Also don't assume that the political parties and the news outlets that favour them actually represent the viewpoints of the voters of the partys. I mean look at Trumps approval rating, it is in the gutter but he's still manages some how to be more popular than both the Democratic and the Republican party."

The Republicans are the ones causing the polarization - that's perfectly clear if you actually study the issue.
Sure, there are individuals that define themselves as Democrats - both ordinary citizens and elected politicians - who want to see more polarization and are acting like the Republicans.
But the DEMOCRATIC PARTY isn't doing that and it's most prominent leaders (like former presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama) aren't doing that.

And consequently Trump isn't more popular then the Democratic party. Instead they have a higher approval rating then both him and the Republican party:
Democratic party: 41%
Trump: 38%
Republican party: 29%


From the first link you also have this very telling polling result:

"Going forward, 74% of Democrats say the party should mainly work with Republicans to try to get some of the party's ideas into law while 23% say the party should mostly work to stop the GOP agenda."

I.E. the vast majority of Democrats don't actually want their party to just obstruct everything the Republicans do. But then their party isn't actually doing that and telling their voters that's what they should do.
Instead they - like the majority of their voters - are open to working with the Republicans, if they can find bi-partisan solutions.

"I also see that you haven't read up on way the political parties is in the United States stand for. Of course Obama was never going to get the Republicans on his side with obamacare, the platform this time for say that thing should done on a state by state basis at least when it comes to things like Healthcare. So I don't expect that Obama was truly trying to get them on board with it. You might as well try to persuade the Sweden Democrats to join a motion for Sweden to take in all the refugees that came to the migration wave a few years back. Somethings just aren't going to happen."

That's not actually true.
Before Obamacare was labeled as "Obamacare" by the Republicans as they thought it would make the policy more unpopular - it was actually a REPUBLICAN policy.

Obama was never the extreme lefty the Republican tried to paint him as - he was in fact very much a centrist.
And when he decided to try to expand healthcare for more Americans, he didn't go for a complete plan that would cover everybody with a "single payer" system like the rest of the developed world.
Instead he chose to push for the Republican alternative to that - the plan that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had implemented as governor in his state of Massachusetts.

But of course that made no difference to the Republicans, who just lied and branded Obama as an evil socialist and his healthcare plan as a giant government takeover that would institute "death panels" and all that nonsense.

You might fault Obama for being naive in not understanding that when he chose to push a centrist plan Republicans had in fact themselves endorsed, they would just retreat even further to the right and still blame him and the Democrats for not going far enough - but it's not at all like the example you gave.
If Obama had acted like your example says, he would have pushed a plan for universal healthcare coverage like every other developed nation has. That would actually have been "socialized medicine" like the Republicans label it, and that would have been like "offering" the Sweden Democrats to "join a motion for Sweden to take in all the refugees".
But Obama never ever did anything that extreme.

The Republicans just claimed he did, and lied, lied, lied about that to their base until they believed it.

The same thing happened in the end of his term when he put up Merrick Garland as his pick for Supreme Court justice to succeed Antonin Scalia, when he died.
The Republicans had earlier - when they wanted to stop Obama from appointing Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - instead pushed for Merrick Garland, saying they would happily support his nomination.
But when Antonin Scalia died in the last year of Obama's term and he did nominate Merrick Garland, the Republicans refused to even hold a hearing in the senate for him.
It was all a technical move to block Obama from appointing anyone, instead hoping a Republican would win the next presidential election so he could instead nominate an even more right-wing judge then Garland.
And it succeeded, when Trump won the election.

So as I said - the Republicans have played that extreme partisan politics for decades now, always lowering the bar by exploiting every possible rule they can and lie, lie, lie about everything all the time to keep their base supporting them.
Sure - once they've lowered the bar the Democrats have sometimes done the same thing they did first, but they haven't always chosen to be completely partisan on every issue.
As Obama's many attempt to work with the Republicans shows.

And sure - there are still a few Republicans who sometimes do buck their party and are open to working with the Democrats on some bi-partisan issue - but that's EXTREMELY rare.

"But then again it's always best to persuade yourself that things are just thought about in the terms of Good and Evil rather than actually try to get a complete comprehension of what the fuck is going on. But at least you read up on one side of this issue, that's more than most. ^^ "

It's not a question of Good vs. Evil - it's a question of actually knowing what's been going on.
I don't know everything by far, but I seem to at least have a better knowledge of the issue then you do.