What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Moving The People In The MIddle? Can They Move? Should We Try? (1 Viewer)

Do You Think There Are People In The MIddle Who Can Be Moved?

  • Absolutely. The people in the middle can be moved and we should try to include and persuade them.

    Votes: 26 70.3%
  • Maybe. Not sure they're worth the effort though.

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Probably not. Doubt they can be moved.

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Definitely not. The people in the middle aren't moving and we should push harder for what we want an

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
@Jackstraw wrote in the Mueller Testimony thread:

I think that’s a bit myopic and internet focused. While it’s true on the edges for the partisan twitter type crowd, that’s not the fight that’s being fought. The ten percent in the middle can be moved. 


I very much agree with him. And I think it applies to way bigger things than the Mueller Testimony. 

Yes, it's true there are tons (maybe most) people who are so dug in and blinded by passion for the subject that they'll never move their position regardless of what happens. 

I do think though there are reasonable people in the middle who can be moved. I saw it in my Dad years ago. A lifelong Republican voter who was moved to vote Democrat by the "It's about the economy" push from Bill Clinton. It happens. A lot I think. I think it's happening now. 

I don't know if enough people can change to make a difference. 

I do know I believe the surest way to make certain they don't change is to accuse those people in the middle in sweeping generalizations and label them evil / clueless / vile / stupid / racist when the accuser knows very little about them. And yes, I believe this to be true for both sidez. 

But if we do try to include and persuade the movable people in the middle, it means we might have to try and understand and listen to them. Is that worth it?

What do you think? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stop trying to 'move' people, that's what got us here.

If information outlets, whatever they may be, news, papers, elected officials, would just provide just that, information, without all the tilt and let people decide for themselves we would be in a much better place.

As it stands now, everyone has an agenda

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do know I believe the surest way to make certain they don't change is to accuse those people in the middle in sweeping generalizations and label them evil / clueless / vile / stupid / racist when the accuser knows very little about them.
I agree with this part.

The answer to your question, I think, is that we generally can’t move the people in the middle. They have to move themselves. What we can do is get out of the way and let that happen instead of battering them into a defensive position that causes them to resist giving any ground.

(There are a few exceptions — people who are good at presenting arguments in a way that promotes understanding and consideration and even buy-in from people who don’t initially agree with their position. Scott from slatestarcodex.com is the most effective person I know at this. He’s changed my mind on a number of topics.)

But labeling other people evil etc. is pretty much never effective at changing their minds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I reckon the 2018 elections are evidence that people in the middle can be moved. This is obviously a generalization, but in 2016, for example, Trump did very well with suburban white women. The GOP did much worse with that group in the 2018 elections. 

Obviously there are a lot of factors beyond just Trump when considering why there was a shift in that demographic. But its at least partly explained by the group moving away from Trump. 

Shifts like those happen all the time.

 
But if we do try to include and persuade the movable people in the middle, it means we might have to try and understand and listen to them. Is that worth it?
Why wouldn't it be worth it to listen to and try to understand the movable middle people?

Hell, it’s worth it to listen to and try to understand the immovable partisan people across the aisle rather than just making them out to be the caricature we have in our mind.

 
what do you mean by moved?  make them permanently on one political side or the other?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have said this before, but there is no way for a middle to exist with someone like Trump. If you would vote for him still, you are not in the middle. There is no educated voter who just needs to be convinced to vote one way or the other. It is all about turning out voters who do not typically vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary Coal Man said:
Why wouldn't it be worth it to listen to and try to understand the movable middle people?

Hell, it’s worth it to listen to and try to understand the immovable partisan people across the aisle rather than just making them out to be the caricature we have in our mind.
There's a pretty strong sentiment that doesn't want to listen to the "other" side at all. 

That's why I asked the question. 

 
I have said this before, but there is no way for a middle to exist with someone like Trump. If you would vote for him still, you are not in the middle. 
Would you agree for people who would potentially vote for Trump in 2020, there is a spectrum from "weak support of Trump to strong support of Trump"?

 
Not really at this point, especially with any relevance to an undecided middle. I feel any weak support is more people too embarrassed to say they are strong supporters, rather than actual weak support where their minds could be changed before the election.You are either ok with everything going on or you are not. The weak support is more straight ticket R voters complaining that he is saying the racist stuff out-loud rather than using code words like the last 50 years, but they will still never vote for an icky democrat. 

 
First off, of course enough people can change to make a difference. 2016 was decided by a few thousand votes in 3 states. In 2018 a lot of those voters were reversed. Whether or not they reverse again will decide 2020. So it makes a difference every time. 

But call me an optimist, or naive or whatever: I believe EVERYBODY can change. It doesn’t just have to be the middle. The reason is that, when you put aside party affiliations, it turns out most of us are in the middle anyway. Actual bigots, racists, extremists are a tiny minority (which is why it’s always important to call them out.) if you examine the views of the most progressive people on this board, along with those of the most conservative people on this board, you will discover that on matters of policy and world view they have much more in common than they disagree on. There are obviously exceptions to this rule, abortion probably being the most obvious. But in general I think it’s true. 

As far as listening: always. It’s always wise to listen to any honest person stating their concerns, full stop. Disregard the liars. But if you’re an honest person I will always listen to you no matter how extreme or wrong I think you might be. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The answer to your question, I think, is that we generally can’t move the people in the middle. They have to move themselves.
Coming to post exactly this.  The only thing the "sides" can do is provide reasons/motivations for people to "move"....I don't really like that term, but we'll use it.  The problem the "sides" seem to have is they believe "at least I'm not x" is a valid reason/motivation.  This has been my hangup for years.  That bar is unacceptable to me.

 
I've voted in every Presidential election since I turned 18.  Never voted for a Democrat (don't confuse that with always voting Republican) and knew if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 nomination that I wouldn't be in 2016 either.  And somehow the Republican party nominated someone who forced me to do so.  Generally speaking, I don't care for the right's social policies, and it's been a while since I've cared for either party's fiscal policies.

What I've seen since the 2016 election from the Republican party leads me to believe it'll be a long time before I feel good about voting for anyone who is currently enabling this ridiculous administration.  Yet I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of voting for any of these Democrats, other than the fact that it's seemingly the only chance to end the #### show we're currently living through.  

Middle? Move?  I don't know. But if you haven't made up your mind about this incarnation of the Republican party, you're either being willfully ignorant or you're part of the problem.  

 
I am a middle democratic.  Your not moving me to the socialists side.  Many of my friends feel the same way.  However, we are all 50+ and pride ourselves in voting.  I will also say we don’t like Trump, but are turned off by the bashing of him. I guess we were brought up if you can’t say something good, don’t say anything.  Some people think that the middle will vote for any democratic candidate in 2020, I don’t believe that is true.  My hope is Biden is the guy.

 
Not really at this point, especially with any relevance to an undecided middle. I feel any weak support is more people too embarrassed to say they are strong supporters, rather than actual weak support where their minds could be changed before the election.You are either ok with everything going on or you are not. The weak support is more straight ticket R voters complaining that he is saying the racist stuff out-loud rather than using code words like the last 50 years, but they will still never vote for an icky democrat. 
Thanks. We'll have to disagree there. I think among potential 2020 Trump voters, there is a range of level of support. 

 
I've voted in every Presidential election since I turned 18.  Never voted for a Democrat (don't confuse that with always voting Republican) and knew if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 nomination that I wouldn't be in 2016 either.  And somehow the Republican party nominated someone who forced me to do so.  Generally speaking, I don't care for the right's social policies, and it's been a while since I've cared for either party's fiscal policies.

What I've seen since the 2016 election from the Republican party leads me to believe it'll be a long time before I feel good about voting for anyone who is currently enabling this ridiculous administration.  Yet I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of voting for any of these Democrats, other than the fact that it's seemingly the only chance to end the #### show we're currently living through.  

Middle? Move?  I don't know. But if you haven't made up your mind about this incarnation of the Republican party, you're either being willfully ignorant or you're part of the problem.  
:goodposting:

Pretty much sums me up...though my votes at a national level have all been independent votes.  Unfortunately, it really does make it feel like pissing into the wind is the better alternative.  This election will probably be the first time I vote against someone instead of for them.  Something I have railed against for a really long time :kicksrock:  

 
Joe Bryant said:
@Jackstraw wrote in the Mueller Testimony thread:

I very much agree with him. And I think it applies to way bigger things than the Mueller Testimony. 

Yes, it's true there are tons (maybe most) people who are so dug in and blinded by passion for the subject that they'll never move their position regardless of what happens. 

I do think though there are reasonable people in the middle who can be moved. I saw it in my Dad years ago. A lifelong Republican voter who was moved to vote Democrat by the "It's about the economy" push from Bill Clinton. It happens. A lot I think. I think it's happening now. 

I don't know if enough people can change to make a difference. 

I do know I believe the surest way to make certain they don't change is to accuse those people in the middle in sweeping generalizations and label them evil / clueless / vile / stupid / racist when the accuser knows very little about them. And yes, I believe this to be true for both sidez. 

But if we do try to include and persuade the movable people in the middle, it means we might have to try and understand and listen to them. Is that worth it?

What do you think? 
Sure.  

But its that assymetrical thing. You listen, you're slow and methodic, reasonable, accept norms etc. Make your case. 

And then the President is slashing your backside with a kitana sword and KISS fireworks blaring and the media follows him every step of the way. 

 
Question: “Trump and his campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference?”

Mueller: “Yes.”

Question: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”

Mueller: “Yes.”

Schiff: "The Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents?"

Mueller: "Generally, that's true."

Schiff: "And then they lied to cover it up?"

Mueller: "Generally, that's true."
These were exchanges from the hearings yesterday and here's the headline from Fox News:

Savior no more? Distraught Dems turn on Mueller after stumbling hearing

Meanwhile, today, Trump vetoed the restriction to sell WMDs to the country where almost all of perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 where from. 

A segment of the country has willingly surrendered. There's no middle anymore. 

 
First off, of course enough people can change to make a difference. 2016 was decided by a few thousand votes in 3 states. In 2018 a lot of those voters were reversed. Whether or not they reverse again will decide 2020. So it makes a difference every time. 

But call me an optimist, or naive or whatever: I believe EVERYBODY can change. It doesn’t just have to be the middle. The reason is that, when you put aside party affiliations, it turns out most of us are in the middle anyway. Actual bigots, racists, extremists are a tiny minority (which is why it’s always important to call them out.) if you examine the views of the most progressive people on this board, along with those of the most conservative people on this board, you will discover that on matters of policy and world view they have much more in common than they disagree on. There are obviously exceptions to this rule, abortion probably being the most obvious. But in general I think it’s true. 

As far as listening: always. It’s always wise to listen to any honest person stating their concerns, full stop. Disregard the liars. But if you’re an honest person I will always listen to you no matter how extreme or wrong I think you might be. 


I came here tonight, I didn't know what to expect. I seen a lot of people hate me and I didn't know what to feel about that so I guess they didn't like much nothin' either. During this fight, I've seen a lot of changing, the way you felt about me, and in the way I felt about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than 20 million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!

 
People in the middle are usually listeners. If you are having a conversation with someone about something, odds are they aren't in the middle, unless their side of the conversation is just questions that they truly are looking for answers to, and aren't just leading questions. 

 
MT has posted an interesting long read in one of the other threads about the country's "fragmentation" and why it will be the norm going forward. We're gonna have to figure out how to deal with it and still be able to move forward, not end it in the hopes of re-discovering some unattainable "middle."

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Absolutely. Assuming they’re in the middle.
Also you have to assume you are moving them in the direction you want. Same when parties say "Get out and vote"  well they only want them to get out and vote if they are voting for them, if they are voting for another party then please stay home.

 
Joe Bryant said:
@Jackstraw wrote in the Mueller Testimony thread:

I very much agree with him. And I think it applies to way bigger things than the Mueller Testimony. 

Yes, it's true there are tons (maybe most) people who are so dug in and blinded by passion for the subject that they'll never move their position regardless of what happens. 

I do think though there are reasonable people in the middle who can be moved. I saw it in my Dad years ago. A lifelong Republican voter who was moved to vote Democrat by the "It's about the economy" push from Bill Clinton. It happens. A lot I think. I think it's happening now. 

I don't know if enough people can change to make a difference. 

I do know I believe the surest way to make certain they don't change is to accuse those people in the middle in sweeping generalizations and label them evil / clueless / vile / stupid / racist when the accuser knows very little about them. And yes, I believe this to be true for both sidez. 

But if we do try to include and persuade the movable people in the middle, it means we might have to try and understand and listen to them. Is that worth it?

What do you think? 
It's not the Middle that moves...it's the politicians around them.  

 
If your question is, "Can a person in the middle be convinced to vote for one Democratic [or Republican] candidate in a specific election?" -- then the answer is absolutely Yes.

If your question is, "Can a person in the middle be convinced to join the Democratic [or Republican] party?" -- then I think the answer is probably No.

 
Joe Bryant said:
What do you think? 
It would be helpful to define middle. People who are true independents or people who have voted one way for a long time but are truly open minded? Do people who are politically apathetic count?

I also think this poll should be worded differently. Of course there are some people in the middle and they can be swayed. The real question is, "are there enough to be worth the effort?"

If enough people actually get out and vote, we won't have our current problem. So it's a real strategic question of if efforts should be focused on getting people to vote or turning the few remaining independents. Resources are limited, so it's not as easy as just saying "do both."

I know the pro-T crowd will think I'm full of it, but I consider myself a true independent. I've only voted maybe 5-6 times, but when I take the time to do it, I vote each position based on policies. In 2016 I voted for Gary Johnson. I voted in the Republican primary this last time and voted for many Republican candidates at the local level, but given voting patterns at the national level, I don't know when I'll be able to trust a Republican to vote in interest of the majority of their constituents. These guys are clearly voting how their lobbyists and super PACs tell them to and it's disgusting. Anyone in the middle should absolutely look closely at voting patterns. We can't trust that anything will be handled appropriately in the future until corruption has been rooted out. It's the single most important issue today.

Something that will affect all of us still planning to be alive and in the US in the next 10-12 years or so is the national debt. Being a fiscal conservative has fallen out of favor in politics, even though some people still choose to lie about itNeither party seems interested in this anymore. I'm as opposed to the government paying student loans as I am opposed to the wasteful war on drugs. If we've significantly paid down our debt and have a plan to keep it up, I'm not opposed to listening to ideas for some well thought out social programs, but first things first. Either way, we're not going to balance the budget until we get rid of the corruption, so even if I don't agree with all of some people's policies, I think we need to convince "the middle" to vote for people with these values and goals.

Something else that will affect all of us planning to live a while longer is climate change. It's an absolute embarrassment that we still have climate change deniers in high offices. This should be a high priority topic when speaking to anyone in the middle.

I don't mean to minimize other issues, but the three I just mentioned (corruption, federal debt, and climate change) are unfortunately so important that issues such as abortion, racism/bigotry, healthcare, gun laws, etc. are just noise at the moment. If that's what it takes to sway someone in the middle, so be it, but I think it is worth the time to help them prioritize the issues.

 
I am a middle democratic.  Your not moving me to the socialists side.  Many of my friends feel the same way.  However, we are all 50+ and pride ourselves in voting.  I will also say we don’t like Trump, but are turned off by the bashing of him. I guess we were brought up if you can’t say something good, don’t say anything.  Some people think that the middle will vote for any democratic candidate in 2020, I don’t believe that is true.  My hope is Biden is the guy.
I’m sorry but I find this post to be disingenuous. 

 
So many who claim to be in the middle...clearly are not.

I used to be much more in the middle.  And I think with local stuff I still am.  There are still county and state level Republicans I will vote for.

Nationally?  I have moved left and cannot support the current GOP at all.  They are a shell of what they once were.  They would have to change a lot to get me even back to the middle on the national stage.

 
So many who claim to be in the middle...clearly are not.

I used to be much more in the middle.  And I think with local stuff I still am.  There are still county and state level Republicans I will vote for.

Nationally?  I have moved left and cannot support the current GOP at all.  They are a shell of what they once were.  They would have to change a lot to get me even back to the middle on the national stage.
How do you know who clearly isn't in the middle when they claim to be?  Wouldn't you need to have access to their full voting history on all levels of government to make that assessment?

 
It would be helpful to define middle. People who are true independents or people who have voted one way for a long time but are truly open minded? Do people who are politically apathetic count?

I also think this poll should be worded differently. Of course there are some people in the middle and they can be swayed. The real question is, "are there enough to be worth the effort?"

If enough people actually get out and vote, we won't have our current problem. So it's a real strategic question of if efforts should be focused on getting people to vote or turning the few remaining independents. Resources are limited, so it's not as easy as just saying "do both."

I know the pro-T crowd will think I'm full of it, but I consider myself a true independent. I've only voted maybe 5-6 times, but when I take the time to do it, I vote each position based on policies. In 2016 I voted for Gary Johnson. I voted in the Republican primary this last time and voted for many Republican candidates at the local level, but given voting patterns at the national level, I don't know when I'll be able to trust a Republican to vote in interest of the majority of their constituents. These guys are clearly voting how their lobbyists and super PACs tell them to and it's disgusting. Anyone in the middle should absolutely look closely at voting patterns. We can't trust that anything will be handled appropriately in the future until corruption has been rooted out. It's the single most important issue today.

Something that will affect all of us still planning to be alive and in the US in the next 10-12 years or so is the national debt. Being a fiscal conservative has fallen out of favor in politics, even though some people still choose to lie about itNeither party seems interested in this anymore. I'm as opposed to the government paying student loans as I am opposed to the wasteful war on drugs. If we've significantly paid down our debt and have a plan to keep it up, I'm not opposed to listening to ideas for some well thought out social programs, but first things first. Either way, we're not going to balance the budget until we get rid of the corruption, so even if I don't agree with all of some people's policies, I think we need to convince "the middle" to vote for people with these values and goals.

Something else that will affect all of us planning to live a while longer is climate change. It's an absolute embarrassment that we still have climate change deniers in high offices. This should be a high priority topic when speaking to anyone in the middle.

I don't mean to minimize other issues, but the three I just mentioned (corruption, federal debt, and climate change) are unfortunately so important that issues such as abortion, racism/bigotry, healthcare, gun laws, etc. are just noise at the moment. If that's what it takes to sway someone in the middle, so be it, but I think it is worth the time to help them prioritize the issues.
For me, I think it's mostly what I said to SID above:

That's a good point. "Middle" is a murky area. I'd probably call "middle" someone that isn't just dug in so deeply that they'll never change. 

Which can be a pretty big group.

 
I think the "middle" can be swayed from election to election but the way to do it is through issues.  As others stated, you aren't convincing open minded voters to listen to you by calling them racists, vile, and other similar names.

 
For me, I think it's mostly what I said to SID above:

That's a good point. "Middle" is a murky area. I'd probably call "middle" someone that isn't just dug in so deeply that they'll never change. 

Which can be a pretty big group.
That's fine, but I think regardless of the definition, we can all agree there are some. Now that we've got a definition, we can move on to the real question which is "are there enough of them to be worth the effort?"

My answer to your original question would be a combination of two of your given choices:

  • Absolutely. The people in the middle can be moved and we should try to include and persuade them.
  • Maybe. Not sure they're worth the effort though.
Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to answer the question I posed, which is what makes it an intriguing question to me. Ultimately, one must determine how many people can be swayed in each state, the cost (and opportunity cost, since resources are limited) of reaching them, and what percentage of them will actually show up and vote.

 
It's not just the middle because people actually do change.  There are a lot of liberal posters here who were once conservative.  I assume some of the reverse too.

 
Actions always speak louder than words.  It's relatively easy to get enough information to make an informed guess as to where they really sit based on voting record.  You can look at their last handful of years to see where they're at right now.  Looking at their history and how it's evolved (or not) might be helpful in attempting to guess if their current soundbyte (that goes against their voting record) is legit or just :hophead:  but outside of that, I'm not sure I care how a politician voted 35 years ago on issue X.

I learned the above by observing Lindsey Graham specifically.  It's also part of the reason I laughed off all the racists, xenophobic and misogynistic things Trump mumbled through during the primaries.  I won't be making that mistake again.  

 
I’d assume that it’s pretty rare that people “in the middle” are being called racist or labeled as “evil”. Not sure why that was even thrown in there. 

Those labels are appropriately reserved for those who are, you know, racist and evil, and likely relatively few of these people reside “in the middle”. Now, that labeled segment of the population is frighteningly larger than anyone anticipated but they aren’t “moving” regardless of what you do or do not call them. 

People seem to have trouble understanding that there really are nasty, terrible human beings out there (though I’ll admit to personally having trouble understanding just how many there are).

 
I’d assume that it’s pretty rare that people “in the middle” are being called racist or labeled as “evil”. Not sure why that was even thrown in there. 

Those labels are appropriately reserved for those who are, you know, racist and evil, and likely relatively few of these people reside “in the middle”. Now, that labeled segment of the population is frighteningly larger than anyone anticipated but they aren’t “moving” regardless of what you do or do not call them. 

People seem to have trouble understanding that there really are nasty, terrible human beings out there (though I’ll admit to personally having trouble understanding just how many there are).
Using the definition I've been using for middle as anyone not so dug in that they can't move from their position, there are lots of those people. And when the "Democrats hate America" or "Republicans are evil" stuff gets thrown about flippantly, it's unfortunately not rare at all for them to be be called those things. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’d assume that it’s pretty rare that people “in the middle” are being called racist or labeled as “evil”. Not sure why that was even thrown in there. 

Those labels are appropriately reserved for those who are, you know, racist and evil, and likely relatively few of these people reside “in the middle”. Now, that labeled segment of the population is frighteningly larger than anyone anticipated but they aren’t “moving” regardless of what you do or do not call them. 

People seem to have trouble understanding that there really are nasty, terrible human beings out there (though I’ll admit to personally having trouble understanding just how many there are).
I see way too much of this general obtuseness...it has to be on purpose just to argue or ignore the legit point being made.  Someone will say "for those Republicans who willingly vote for a racist and support racist comments from X, chances are you're racist" and then random Republican guy says, "don't call us all racist" :mellow:   Well, I didn't.  I was very specific.  If those traits don't apply to you, I'm not talking about you.  This isn't complicated.  Goes the other way too.  Right now the GOP is in charge so I see it more from them, plus they have feel the duty to defend the party with Trump at the head.  That's a heavy lift.

 
Joe Bryant said:
@Jackstraw wrote in the Mueller Testimony thread:

I very much agree with him. And I think it applies to way bigger things than the Mueller Testimony. 

Yes, it's true there are tons (maybe most) people who are so dug in and blinded by passion for the subject that they'll never move their position regardless of what happens. 

I do think though there are reasonable people in the middle who can be moved. I saw it in my Dad years ago. A lifelong Republican voter who was moved to vote Democrat by the "It's about the economy" push from Bill Clinton. It happens. A lot I think. I think it's happening now. 

I don't know if enough people can change to make a difference. 

I do know I believe the surest way to make certain they don't change is to accuse those people in the middle in sweeping generalizations and label them evil / clueless / vile / stupid / racist when the accuser knows very little about them. And yes, I believe this to be true for both sidez. 

But if we do try to include and persuade the movable people in the middle, it means we might have to try and understand and listen to them. Is that worth it?

What do you think? 
I take as A paradigm, not THE paradigm, Supreme Court Justices who are thought to be ideologically set when appointed who, over time, come to change strongly held beliefs and views.  Folks do evolve. Some continue to take in information and to adjust their world view.  It does happen.  It often happens as life situations change.  Folks tend to become a bit more classically conservative (not what it has become the last 20 years or so) when they have kids, own homes, start and run their own businesses.  As they continue to age they worry about college costs for their kids and retirement issues including health care and maybe they change again.   It happens.  I think it happens often.  I also think it happens in response to revulsion over actions of each party when they obtain power.  We see that the promises used to obtain power were often insincere, used to sway votes and to obtain power, but not followed through on. We then reject that party, hold out hope for the new promises of the other party, only to be fooled again. They have a saying in Tennessee, well they have it in Texas and maybe in Tennessee, fool me once, shame on you, fool me, fool me, ..., we won't get fooled again.  and yet we do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see way too much of this general obtuseness...it has to be on purpose just to argue or ignore the legit point being made.  Someone will say "for those Republicans who willingly vote for a racist and support racist comments from X, chances are you're racist" and then random Republican guy says, "don't call us all racist" :mellow:   Well, I didn't.  I was very specific.  If those traits don't apply to you, I'm not talking about you.  This isn't complicated.  Goes the other way too.  Right now the GOP is in charge so I see it more from them, plus they have feel the duty to defend the party with Trump at the head.  That's a heavy lift.
Right. And when one of those people votes for a third party, they still receive the wrath. 

Basically, the left has made it clear. Vote Democrat or be labeled a racist by association. (even if the association is 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon)

 
Right. And when one of those people votes for a third party, they still receive the wrath. 

Basically, the left has made it clear. Vote Democrat or be labeled a racist by association. (even if the association is 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon)
Yup, remember all the "A vote for 3rd party/not voting is a vote for Trump" nonsense? Was good shtick.

 
Yup, remember all the "A vote for 3rd party/not voting is a vote for Trump" nonsense? Was good shtick.
Has to be something more to your plight.  I have received no "wrath" from anyone and I've voted third party almost exclusively in my voting career.  Of course, I outwardly condemn and don't even attempt to justify the crappy acts of politicians or try to create false equivalence narratives in an effort to deflect from the problem.  I tend to keep the focus on the problem. 

 
I am a middle democratic.  Your not moving me to the socialists side.  Many of my friends feel the same way.  However, we are all 50+ and pride ourselves in voting.  I will also say we don’t like Trump, but are turned off by the bashing of him. I guess we were brought up if you can’t say something good, don’t say anything.  Some people think that the middle will vote for any democratic candidate in 2020, I don’t believe that is true.  My hope is Biden is the guy.
"on one side you have kids being separated from their parents and thrown into cages, but on the other side you have people who condemn that, and I see those as equally negative so here I am in the middle" 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top