What's new
By:
Filters

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

A long, yet interesting read. My thoughts? I thought it sounded just like any other "party-x is Satan, and here's why" article. While I agree with most of what was written, it just reeked of Fox Newsesque language/information. Hmmm, that actually makes no sense. Screw it.

It was a good read, but I take it with a grain of salt. Both parties are pretty much worthless.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TroutBum again.
 
TroutBum said:
A long, yet interesting read. My thoughts? I thought it sounded just like any other "party-x is Satan, and here's why" article. While I agree with most of what was written, it just reeked of Fox Newsesque language/information. Hmmm, that actually makes no sense. Screw it.

It was a good read, but I take it with a grain of salt. Both parties are pretty much worthless.
Click to expand...

So what letter can we expect by your name when you step your game up to the House of Rep level?
 
Trout will be a libertarian or something at heart, but in the end, the whore that he is, he will hang his hat on the republican party to get elected.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
As long as Trout doesn't describe himself as being in the center, I'm okay with it. Moderate relativism usually means you don't take a firm stand on anything. That's kind of the feeling I get from the guy that wrote this piece. He's bored of caring. Should probably go take a 5 year sabbatical from the political world. He gave it 3 decades of his life - that's enough.
Click to expand...

To me this is a partisan way of saying that if you don't buy into the party-line you are wishy-washy and your opinions do not count. I am a mix of fiscal conservative (mostly....I actually think there are some aspects of social economics that would be beneficial to us), social liberal with some strong leanings the other way (on the abortion issue for one), but I am also for term limits. I try to understand the issues that are out there and form an opinion based on the issue itself, not just buy into a boxed set of opinions.

If there is an issue I am less familiar with I try to listen to and read whatever I can on the subject without bias (that is always hard to do, but I try), instead of instantly saying "oh he's a liberal, he must be a tree-hugging moron" or "oh that guy is a conservative, he is a gun-toting nut-job" and then smugly disregarding what they have to say out of hand, since I already know they are "evil" and always wrong in every way. In my experience that is the standard track for most everyone in the "dem" or "repub" camps. If Obama says it (or Moore or Clinton or pick a pundit), it is gospel (says the dem). ********, if Gingrich (or Limbaugh or McCain or pick a pundit) says it, then it is the only way to view the subject (says the repub). It gets old. I have a hard time having conversations with people firmly entrenched in the dogma of the left of right because as soon as you posit there might be a *gasp* THIRD way to view something - like maybe there is something between abortions-for-everyone-all-the-time-no-matter what and abortions-for-no one-no matter what - an idea that is neither entirely conservative or liberal, they look at you with a deer in the headlights look...I can almost hear it in their brain "does not compute....does not compute....does not compute".

It is easier for people to buy an entire dogma instead of developing their own. It is much easier to pretend we are never confused by issues, or puzzled over which side is closest to right, or might not know everything about the issues so we have to learn something, rather than actually spending the time to find out the differing views and forming your own opinion.

If you pick a topic, I can give you my opinion, or I might have to go find out. It might be somewhat left-leaning, or somewhat right-leaning, or completely in the middle or totally out there, but it is my opinion, not regurgitated sound-bites from Hannity or Colmes, et al.

It is no less firm a conviction than that of the staunchest Republican or Democratic demagogue.

Or actually maybe you could say it is. Because I am also capable of taking in new information and new evidence and allowing myself to form a new opinion if I find my understanding of an issue was wrong or incomplete. Most firm Democrats and Republicans are only capable of repeating the standard mantra "our party is infallible, perfect, and ordained of all the powers that be in the universe.....their party is the spawn of satan himself and everyone in it would be worse than Genghis Khan if they could get away with it" on every topic no matter what the discourse.
 
LogGrad98 said:
To me this is a partisan way of saying that if you don't buy into the party-line you are wishy-washy and your opinions do not count. I am a mix of fiscal conservative (mostly....I actually think there are some aspects of social economics that would be beneficial to us), social liberal with some strong leanings the other way (on the abortion issue for one), but I am also for term limits. I try to understand the issues that are out there and form an opinion based on the issue itself, not just buy into a boxed set of opinions.

If there is an issue I am less familiar with I try to listen to and read whatever I can on the subject without bias (that is always hard to do, but I try), instead of instantly saying "oh he's a liberal, he must be a tree-hugging moron" or "oh that guy is a conservative, he is a gun-toting nut-job" and then smugly disregarding what they have to say out of hand, since I already know they are "evil" and always wrong in every way. In my experience that is the standard track for most everyone in the "dem" or "repub" camps. If Obama says it (or Moore or Clinton or pick a pundit), it is gospel (says the dem). ********, if Gingrich (or Limbaugh or McCain or pick a pundit) says it, then it is the only way to view the subject (says the repub). It gets old. I have a hard time having conversations with people firmly entrenched in the dogma of the left of right because as soon as you posit there might be a *gasp* THIRD way to view something - like maybe there is something between abortions-for-everyone-all-the-time-no-matter what and abortions-for-no one-no matter what - an idea that is neither entirely conservative or liberal, they look at you with a deer in the headlights look...I can almost hear it in their brain "does not compute....does not compute....does not compute".

It is easier for people to buy an entire dogma instead of developing their own. It is much easier to pretend we are never confused by issues, or puzzled over which side is closest to right, or might not know everything about the issues so we have to learn something, rather than actually spending the time to find out the differing views and forming your own opinion.

If you pick a topic, I can give you my opinion, or I might have to go find out. It might be somewhat left-leaning, or somewhat right-leaning, or completely in the middle or totally out there, but it is my opinion, not regurgitated sound-bites from Hannity or Colmes, et al.

It is no less firm a conviction than that of the staunchest Republican or Democratic demagogue.

Or actually maybe you could say it is. Because I am also capable of taking in new information and new evidence and allowing myself to form a new opinion if I find my understanding of an issue was wrong or incomplete. Most firm Democrats and Republicans are only capable of repeating the standard mantra "our party is infallible, perfect, and ordained of all the powers that be in the universe.....their party is the spawn of satan himself and everyone in it would be worse than Genghis Khan if they could get away with it" on every topic no matter what the discourse.
Click to expand...

I am seriously handicapped by having sat through a lot of liberal arts types of classes, languages, history, anthropology, sociology and such, and having fed myself at up-Chuckarama a few hundred too many times. A starving budget-minded self-supporting perpetual student. . . .

One day it occurred to me that our political fare is served up pretty much the same as the standard Chuck at the all-you-can-eat Emporium. As voters we are supposed be all for "Chicken" or all for "Roast", and if we mix it up people are looking at us like we're trouts.

Truth is, it's all prepared for us and requires no thinking, just loyalty and being willing to believe there's something virtuous in us for gorging ourselves on it.

Partisan ideologues are the political equivalents of the SNL "Churchlady".
 
LogGrad98 said:
To me this is a partisan way of saying that if you don't buy into the party-line you are wishy-washy and your opinions do not count. I am a mix of fiscal conservative (mostly....I actually think there are some aspects of social economics that would be beneficial to us), social liberal with some strong leanings the other way (on the abortion issue for one), but I am also for term limits. I try to understand the issues that are out there and form an opinion based on the issue itself, not just buy into a boxed set of opinions.

If there is an issue I am less familiar with I try to listen to and read whatever I can on the subject without bias (that is always hard to do, but I try), instead of instantly saying "oh he's a liberal, he must be a tree-hugging moron" or "oh that guy is a conservative, he is a gun-toting nut-job" and then smugly disregarding what they have to say out of hand, since I already know they are "evil" and always wrong in every way. In my experience that is the standard track for most everyone in the "dem" or "repub" camps. If Obama says it (or Moore or Clinton or pick a pundit), it is gospel (says the dem). ********, if Gingrich (or Limbaugh or McCain or pick a pundit) says it, then it is the only way to view the subject (says the repub). It gets old. I have a hard time having conversations with people firmly entrenched in the dogma of the left of right because as soon as you posit there might be a *gasp* THIRD way to view something - like maybe there is something between abortions-for-everyone-all-the-time-no-matter what and abortions-for-no one-no matter what - an idea that is neither entirely conservative or liberal, they look at you with a deer in the headlights look...I can almost hear it in their brain "does not compute....does not compute....does not compute".

It is easier for people to buy an entire dogma instead of developing their own. It is much easier to pretend we are never confused by issues, or puzzled over which side is closest to right, or might not know everything about the issues so we have to learn something, rather than actually spending the time to find out the differing views and forming your own opinion.

If you pick a topic, I can give you my opinion, or I might have to go find out. It might be somewhat left-leaning, or somewhat right-leaning, or completely in the middle or totally out there, but it is my opinion, not regurgitated sound-bites from Hannity or Colmes, et al.

It is no less firm a conviction than that of the staunchest Republican or Democratic demagogue.

Or actually maybe you could say it is. Because I am also capable of taking in new information and new evidence and allowing myself to form a new opinion if I find my understanding of an issue was wrong or incomplete. Most firm Democrats and Republicans are only capable of repeating the standard mantra "our party is infallible, perfect, and ordained of all the powers that be in the universe.....their party is the spawn of satan himself and everyone in it would be worse than Genghis Khan if they could get away with it" on every topic no matter what the discourse.
Click to expand...

I'm totally fine with that. Maybe the better terminology I was looking for is Overton Window moderates. Just the slugs that always think the answer lies in the middle but aren't aware that the middle is constantly changing and therefore it isn't really ever the middle they are advocating. It's just the middle of the paradigm of whomever is controlling the debate advocates at that moment.
 
Last edited:
Duck Rodgers said:
So what letter can we expect by your name when you step your game up to the House of Rep level?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't believe how often I get asked this question even though the T-Ville city council is a non-partisan position.

Scat said:
In Taylorsville you'd better have an R next to it if you expect to win.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where you're getting your information on this one. Even though the council doesn't need to "declare", you can pretty much see that there are two left leaning members out of five, and after this election, there will likely be four out of five.

LogGrad98 said:
Trout will be a libertarian or something at heart, but in the end, the whore that he is, he will hang his hat on the republican party to get elected.
Click to expand...

Negative. If I ever tell anyone anything, it's that I am Independent. I know, I know, but there really just isn't a better way of describing it short of giving Log's answer above. (which I approve of, btw) The main reason I have decided to get involved in politics is because of the mentality that Log is talking about. I am going to come out and say exactly what my thoughts are, exactly how I see things, and exactly how I would go about fixing/changing/agree with them. If the people don't like it, then don't vote for me. Pretty simple, really. I would never sell out my integrity just to get elected.

Duck Rodgers said:
As long as Trout doesn't describe himself as being in the center, I'm okay with it. Moderate relativism usually means you don't take a firm stand on anything.
Click to expand...

I would truthfully say that I AM very much in the center, because once I start leaning one way, I find that my opinions change over time and I start to sway back toward the middle. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that politicians that DON'T flip-flop are a blight to our current system? What I mean is, topics/facts/thoughts change from time to time, so why shouldn't my opinions? I know that some of the things I believed in ten years ago are pure rubbish by today's standards.
 
TroutBum said:
I would truthfully say that I AM very much in the center, because once I start leaning one way, I find that my opinions change over time and I start to sway back toward the middle. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that politicians that DON'T flip-flop are a blight to our current system? What I mean is, topics/facts/thoughts change from time to time, so why shouldn't my opinions? I know that some of the things I believed in ten years ago are pure rubbish by today's standards.
Click to expand...
I've never understood the negative connotations of those whose opinions change. I'm much like you, in that my thoughts of things have changed severely in the last few years. As recently as four years ago, I would have been strictly against gay marriage. Now, if given the opportunity, I would vote in favor of it. As recently as last year, I was in favor of the death penalty. Now? Hell no. What's the big deal? My thoughts/opinions change. Are politicians not allowed the same privilege as any other human?
 
catratcho said:
I've never understood the negative connotations of those whose opinions change. I'm much like you, in that my thoughts of things have changed severely in the last few years. As recently as four years ago, I would have been strictly against gay marriage. Now, if given the opportunity, I would vote in favor of it. As recently as last year, I was in favor of the death penalty. Now? Hell no. What's the big deal? My thoughts/opinions change. Are politicians not allowed the same privilege as any other human?
Click to expand...

No, because they are supposed to be representing the people who voted them in and they were elected based on stated postions/opinions. If they go flip-flopping from "Thank God for the Democrat Party" to "both parties are pretty much worthless" within weeks, how can you trust them to tell you the truth when it really matters?
 
babe said:
I am seriously handicapped by having sat through a lot of liberal arts types of classes, languages, history, anthropology, sociology and such, and having fed myself at up-Chuckarama a few hundred too many times. A starving budget-minded self-supporting perpetual student. . . .

One day it occurred to me that our political fare is served up pretty much the same as the standard Chuck at the all-you-can-eat Emporium. As voters we are supposed be all for "Chicken" or all for "Roast", and if we mix it up people are looking at us like we're trouts.

Truth is, it's all prepared for us and requires no thinking, just loyalty and being willing to believe there's something virtuous in us for gorging ourselves on it.

Partisan ideologues are the political equivalents of the SNL "Churchlady".
Click to expand...

Teehee!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top