Odds and Ends
19 10, 8:32am
Okay, after a quick reading this responce, I'll just throw a few things your way because you seem to have no grasp on ether the baisics of American politics nor what the word "polarisation" means, nor subjectictivity for that matter.
"OK, then show me the people offended by air."
Depends where the air came from. =P
That question is stupid by it's design. Rhetorical tactic, not an actual point.
Also, as bad as fox news has been, throwing them out just increased the distance between the avarage Democrat and Republican. So yes, it added to it.
And the reason I mentioned Newt Gingrich was to point out that, yes the Republicans started this shit, but once you start reading about what he did, you learn that it pushed the parties further away from each other and when partisanship increased so did the population, the parties are moving in seprate direction, that's what polarisation means....
I never claimed the republicans innocent of anything, but you seem to think in very basic black an white terms about politics. It's more or less "The Republicans don't want to do things on the federal level" to which there's only one anwser: "No fucking shit". The platform of the republican party(well at least the liberterian wing of the party) is more or less to cut as much on the federal level as possible and throw it to the state level, and cut the federal debt, that's why the republican party was in flames with Trump by the end of the election, he doesn't follow that mantra. The Neocons seem to have fallen out of favour and now it's mostly liberterians and evengelicals(mostly evengelicals) that hold power in the party. You're well versed on the democratic front, but you don't even seem to know what a republican is. The debate is not as much "left/right" as much as "federal/state"
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
That's why I think that you have a bad grasp on the politics over there.
So, from all this it still looks to me like you haven't done proper research on the US political climate, just a few google searches without knowing ether the party platforms within the parties nor how the federal system of the USA works. That's the problem with google debating, you might be overlooking the bare basics of the debate.
And yes, it seems that they democrats have picked up steam from last time I checked, both parties were in the mid 20's when I checked up on it in June.
By the way.
"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."
That I understand, but I was trying to point out that the divide between the Dems and Reps are not really north/south, it's urban/rural. The bigger population outside of major cities, the more the state leans republican.
"Excuse me? GrayFenix never once said which city she was talking about, so here you're just making stuff up."
How are you, honey.