What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bridging the Political Divide (1 Viewer)

AAABatteries

Footballguy
Start with a blueberry and cherry crisp

I stumbled across this op-ed piece and in light of what @Joe Bryant has tried to foster in this forum, I thought it may be a good thread/topic of discussion.  I think the author echos some of the sentiments that Joe has and what he hopes for the PSF.

I know it's a lot to ask but let's do our best to keep this thread "neutral" and not attack each other.  I love the metaphor of blueberry and cherry becoming purple.

*Note - this editorial is on CNN so it may immediately be dismissed by some folks and embraced by others - I'd say read it with an open mind.  I don't think the author says anything controversial but I'm willing to hear and want to hear what others think.

 
Thanks. I didn't get to read in detail but I think it's right in line with the "find common ground" thing. And it's certainly in line with my objections to labeling every Trump voter as evil people. I personally know too many who are not. 

I LOVE the dinner angle. Food is the great equalizer. Just thinking out loud, I'd love to see it done where people bring a food that's meaningful to them. Be it their culture or history or something. Food is a great way to share yourself. 

 
I commented in another thread that we had a perfect example of what the FFA/PSF once was watching the four Constitutional Scholars on TV yesterday...it was pretty refreshing to remember it's possible.  

 
Can you give a synopsis of the story?  I'm not familiar with it.
Listen Here.

It's obviously much simpler than this article as it's geared towards kids and only about 20 pages, but basically the main kid's #1 enemy at school moves in down the street.  His dad tell him he has a surefire way to get rid of enemies, "enemy pie", but he needs to convince his enemy to come eat it if it .  The kid goes out to try to lure the kid in to eat the pie, which he assumes is either disgusting or poisonous, only to find out that he enjoys playing with him.  The dad calls them in for pie, and the main kid warns the neighbor not to eat the pie, who then sees the dad already gobbling it down.  Once realizing it's not tainted they all enjoy pie and it cements their friendship.

 
Thanks. I didn't get to read in detail but I think it's right in line with the "find common ground" thing. And it's certainly in line with my objections to labeling every Trump voter as evil people. I personally know too many who are not. 

I LOVE the dinner angle. Food is the great equalizer. Just thinking out loud, I'd love to see it done where people bring a food that's meaningful to them. Be it their culture or history or something. Food is a great way to share yourself. 
It's not very long but essentially she's saying try to understand the other side and don't assume bad intent or that the person is evil or bad.  That we are all Americans and we shouldn't define what being an American is for others.  It's pretty basic stuff tbh, I just really liked the idea of hosting an event and the imagery of the blueberry-cherry crisp.

Maybe an idea for this thread is for people, if they are so inclined, to give their background and experiences and how they've gotten to where they are with regards to their political views.

I'll start (and maybe I'll be the only one) :)

I was raised in the south (Atlanta), divorced parents who took me to church weekly (Southern Baptist) and sent me to a private Christian school for 12 year.  Went to GT for school.  Politics-wise had parents that would (and still do) listen to Hannity and Limbaugh.  I always considered myself a Republican although I wasn't big in to politics.  I voted for mostly R over the years but again, I never campaigned for people, never donated money and mostly wanted to ignore it - never watched the news or listened to talk radio.  2016 did kind of change things for me.  And not about Trump - it was more about Bernie.  I was still thinking there was no chance that Trump would be the nominee but I was all-in on Bernie and started donating him money. 

So what changed?  I've thought about that and I'd say 3 things:

1. my work - I won't go in to details but I finally came to the realization that large corporations don't really care about much of anything but the bottom line - that along with the 1% message that Bernie threw out made me really evaluate things.  It was hard for me to reconcile why the uber rich and corporations could essentially keep their thumb on the scale and impact the lives of so many negatively.  I also felt that the uber rich were one of the main causes of dysfunction in DC.

2. religion - I became very dissatisfied with the church and church people - many (most?) starting coming off as hypocrites to me.  Also, I felt that too many people conflated politics and religion.  I felt like Christians were more concerned with identifying as Republicans than they were as Christians.

3. two party system - I feel like it puts us on teams and it becomes like an SEC football game

I think there's some other folks in here with similar stories but I would like to hear in more detail how you got to where you are and maybe it will help us understand each other and make things better :shrug:

 
If this is something people are interested in, check out USTomorrow.

Its a non-profit started by a friend - Joseph Kopser. He lost a House race to Chip Roy in 2018 (disastrous decision by my fellow Texans). He's a very impressive guy.

From the website - 

"To meet the challenge, I co-founded USTomorrow, a non-profit building cross-partisan coalitions to increase civic participation and reduce hyper-partisanship. And I need your help.

There’s plenty of room. Our launch footprint is the 17 congressional districts that surround and include Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

This isn’t about flipping blue, turning red, or throwing bums out. It’s about supporting our democracy by strengthening the bridge between communities and candidates and reintroducing the tools that deliver respect, compromise, progress, and, perhaps most importantly, a higher expectation of civic participation and public service to a new generation of Texans."

 
It's not very long but essentially she's saying try to understand the other side and don't assume bad intent or that the person is evil or bad.  That we are all Americans and we shouldn't define what being an American is for others. 
I also found interesting the examples of immigrants who want to be stronger on immigration. When I read that, I thought about the typical political mindset that women should be pro-choice or rich people should vote for candidates who want lower taxes. In reality, tons of women are pro-life and tons of rich people vote for people who favor higher taxes. We like to think that we know what people should favor based on their demographics or background and many times we are wrong about them; and that can be baffling to us.

 
I also found interesting the examples of immigrants who want to be stronger on immigration. When I read that, I thought about the typical political mindset that women should be pro-choice or rich people should vote for candidates who want lower taxes. In reality, tons of women are pro-life and tons of rich people vote for people who favor higher taxes. We like to think that we know what people should favor based on their demographics or background and many times we are wrong about them; and that can be baffling to us.
Yes. I strongly dislike how we as society feel the need to put everyone in the convenient box we have lined out for them. 

The Republican must be _______

The Democrats must be _________

The Christian must be __________

It's lame and it's a big part of our problem I think.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. I strongly dislike how we as society feel the need to put everyone in the convenient box we have lined out for them. 

The Republican must be _______

The Democrats must be _________

The Christian must be __________

It's lame and it's a big part of our problem I think.
Think I need to push back on this a bit.  This isn't societal.  It's based on the individual IMO.  It appears societal because those of like mind will flock together and appear larger than they really are.  In my experience, society is much more unassuming than these groups.  It does seem to be most strong when politics is a factor.  It almost seems like a requirement for many otherwise they have to engage the individual specifically rather than engage them through vague generalities based on a title often times given them rather than earned.

 
All folks gotta do is stop arguing for arguing's sake. That's all social media is is one long chain of nyaahnyaah.

You won't see me on most threads with Trump in the title and you'll never see me in a long harangue about anything. I'll either use my savage wit to shut the "opponent" up, point out that there probably isn't anything we're going to convince each other of and/or ask if there's anything about the subject upon which we can agree. If there isn't, i stop. Anyone who goes beyond that point is going for ego or pleasure's sake.

A small percentage of folks who won't budge are inflexible on points because they've already given it maximum consideration, but the great majority of shouters/true believers have been marketed their viewpoints and support them because it is their way of belonging. On rare occasions, i can appeal to enough of a person's citizenship or decency to get them to consider joining another club. This also happens to be the major political strength of Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and is why i like him so. But i let opponents off the hook or declare that i'm simply not interested in the subject any longer after a while. We Irish have a saying, "The only good part of a fight is the end".

 
Went to GT for school. 

3. two party system - I feel like it puts us on teams and it becomes like an SEC football game
Ah, yes. The best way to bridge our divides is for Georgia Tech alums to throw shade at SEC football fans. What could possibly go wrong?  :lol:   

Just kidding, GB. Nice post.

 
Yes. I strongly dislike how we as society feel the need to put everyone in the convenient box we have lined out for them. 

The Republican must be _______

The Democrats must be _________

The Christian must be __________

It's lame and it's a big part of our problem I think.

 
Maybe an idea for this thread is for people, if they are so inclined, to give their background and experiences and how they've gotten to where they are with regards to their political views.
I definitely grew up with the mindset of Christianity/American/Republican were linked. More so the Christian/American than the Republican part. Looking back, though, I don't think I was necessarily taught that; just being a stupid kid who linked things in my mind that aren't linked. I grew up in a Christian household where we talked some about God in our house. We were at church every week, multiple times a week. My closest friends were always from church. I grew up in America, the DC area no less, and my dad was in the military and then worked for the government as a civilian so I think that is what gave me the Chrisitan/American link in my childhood mind. Of course, the Soviets were all Satan worshipers. My parents rarely talked much about politics, but somewhere along the line I got the sense that they voted Republican, which is what probably gave me the Christian/American/Republican link. That was my elementary view of what "We" were as a family.

As I grew older, it became obvious that the three aren't necessarily linked. Democrats can be Christian and Atheists can be Republicans. And, of course, people from different countries can be all sorts of different things. I do remember a couple very brief "conversations" I had with my mom that were kind of aha moments. (They weren't really conversations because I'm pretty sure I just asked a question and she responded and that was the end.) I remember once making some comment about what I perceived to be a potential conflict between the death penalty (a Republican position, in my mind) and forgiveness (a Christian position, in my mind). Pretty sure my mom's response was kind of a chuckle and "Forgiveness?" My mom was a Christian and definitely a believer in the importance forgiveness. I still have no idea exactly what she meant by her response, but I think it was a moment that started to show that the Christian/Republican link my not have been what I thought it was. My second "conversation" with my mom involved me saying something along the lines of "I don't understand minimum wage. If someone accepts an offer to work for a certain amount, then they've agreed to that amount and I assume they have determined that's what's best for them at that time." Something like that. My mom's response was in the ballpark of "Minimum wage is needed to make sure people have enough money." This exchange might have been the moment that I started to wonder what Republicans are for and against. I was under the impression that Republicans were the party for limited government, yet here was a Republican (as far as I knew, and still assume that's true) who was advocating for bigger government by way of minimum wage. It was kind of a dog tilting their head moment for me.

I was a bad student starting around 5th grade. From 5th grade through over 2 years of college, I had my fair share of bad grades. I didn't do homework and rarely studied. There were almost no classes or subjects that interested me. Then, I was in an intermediate microeconomics class. The professor made it interesting (infinitely more interesting than the boring professor I had for intro micro and macro, which I mostly slept through), it made sense to me,  so I declared it as my major. As I continued through the courses, I started getting good grades. I was interested in the topic. Learning about the theories made sense to me and the way I thought. This is when I started learning that there's more than just Republican and Democrat. There are Libertarians. If I had to pick a party (which I don't have to), I'd claim the Libertarians. None of this led me to be super political (I've voted twice my whole life and don't follow politics a ton), but it was a philosophy that clicked in my brain and one that I could even relatively easily reconcile with my faith.

As for the American aspect of my early thinking, I don't know when that link started to fade. At some point, I became turned off by a high level of patriotism. I'm glad to be an American. I like it here. I think it's a great place to live and I'm thankful I was born here. But, I don't think that makes us better and others worse. I don't have any more love for Bob in Ohio than I do Sergei in Russia or Li in China. I don't know any of them and their nationality doesn't make me like one more than the other. I'm turned off by those who put country over humanity. And, as a Christian, I'm turned by putting country over God.

While I've moved away from being Republican and the thinking that American automatically means good, I have not moved away from Christianity. I'd say my faith continues to grow stronger and I, hopefully, keep maturing in my relationship with God. That doesn't mean I haven't changed some of my beliefs in this area. I have. And I'd say this place has been a big part of that. The discussions here have altered my perspective on a number things within religion and outside of it.

So, today, I'm a Christian who happens to live in America who theoretically favors limited government (despite working for the government 🤔) but understands the need in practice and isn't overly concerned when the government, yet again, increases their presence in certain areas.

 
I also found interesting the examples of immigrants who want to be stronger on immigration. When I read that, I thought about the typical political mindset that women should be pro-choice or rich people should vote for candidates who want lower taxes. In reality, tons of women are pro-life and tons of rich people vote for people who favor higher taxes. We like to think that we know what people should favor based on their demographics or background and many times we are wrong about them; and that can be baffling to us.
I think this is a really good point - people make too many assumptions.  I think two in here that happen frequently are:

  • if you voted for Trump or support Trump's policies you are ok with everything Trump does
  • if you didn't vote for Trump or don't support him you are a liberal
I think we have enough personal evidence in here to know that's not true.

 
I think this is a really good point - people make too many assumptions.  I think two in here that happen frequently are:

  • if you voted for Trump or support Trump's policies you are ok with everything Trump does
  • if you didn't vote for Trump or don't support him you are a liberal
I think we have enough personal evidence in here to know that's not true.
It's been explained here multiple times over though that the bold, while held by some, isn't the majority (at least here).  Many of us have gone out of our way to explain that our view is Trump supporters might not be "ok" with "everything" he does, but they are absolutely enabling it.  There's a significant difference and I suspect that's why some of the Trump supporters continue to assert the position you did in the above.

 
And it's certainly in line with my objections to labeling every Trump voter as evil people. I personally know too many who are not.
I'm really think this is going to be the downfall of the Dems... I've heard so many political people just write Trump voters off as unreachable.  Yes there are some who voted that way for nefarious reasons, some who just want to troll the libs, but most are just regular folks who lean a certain way and have decent enough reasons.

I know Bernie and Tulsi have made an effort to reach out to people in "trump areas" (Tulsi gets hit for it for some reason), i assume some others have but I'm certain other candidates have not. If they want to win they need to learn from Hillary's deplorables comment

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been explained here multiple times over though that the bold, while held by some, isn't the majority (at least here).  Many of us have gone out of our way to explain that our view is Trump supporters might not be "ok" with "everything" he does, but they are absolutely enabling it.  There's a significant difference and I suspect that's why some of the Trump supporters continue to assert the position you did in the above.
I'm not sure I asserted any position - I pointed out two assumptions I've seen frequently.  It's not an exhaustive list nor any kind of attempt to legitimize anything.  What position are you thinking I asserted?

 
I'm really think this is going to be the downfall of the Dems... I've heard so many political people just write Trump voters off as unreachable.  Yes there are some who voted that way for nefarious reasons, some who just want to troll the libs, but most are just regular folks who lean a certain way and have decent enough reasons.

I know Bernie and Tulsi have made an effort to reach out to people in "trump areas" (Tulsi gets hit for it for some reason), i assume some others have but I'm certain other candidates have not. If they want to win they need to learn from Hillary's deplorables comment
That's my feeling too. It feels pretty hopeless to me though. I see so many anti Trump folks pushing to the max the condescending, snark and contempt for anyone who isn't smart enough or decent enough to see it their way. I think that ship may have sailed. But hopeful it hasn't. 

 
That's my feeling too. It feels pretty hopeless to me though. I see so many anti Trump folks pushing to the max the condescending, snark and contempt for anyone who isn't smart enough or decent enough to see it their way. I think that ship may have sailed. But hopeful it hasn't. 
My take on this part is almost all of us have a tendency not to admit to the flaws of our side or ourselves.  The proverbial speck versus the plank.  It's one of the biggest causes of arguments in this forum.  Instead of saying something like, "you know Trump/Pelosi/whoever shouldn't do that and I wish they wouldn't" folks dig their heels in, won't call out out mistakes or bad behavior and then the other side jumps on it as either someone being ok with the behavior or disingenuous for not calling it out.  Then the hypocrisy claim.  Showing or stating flaws or admitting when you are wrong isn't weakness - it's a strength and shows great character.

 
I'm not sure I asserted any position - I pointed out two assumptions I've seen frequently.  It's not an exhaustive list nor any kind of attempt to legitimize anything.  What position are you thinking I asserted?
I said Trump supporters assert the position and it's your second bullet point:

if you didn't vote for Trump or don't support him you are a liberal
Sorry....I see the confusion...poor word choice on my part.  Should read "assert the position you suggest in the above".

 
My take on this part is almost all of us have a tendency not to admit to the flaws of our side or ourselves.  The proverbial speck versus the plank.  It's one of the biggest causes of arguments in this forum.  Instead of saying something like, "you know Trump/Pelosi/whoever shouldn't do that and I wish they wouldn't" folks dig their heels in, won't call out out mistakes or bad behavior and then the other side jumps on it as either someone being ok with the behavior or disingenuous for not calling it out.  Then the hypocrisy claim.  Showing or stating flaws or admitting when you are wrong isn't weakness - it's a strength and shows great character.
Agreed. And it's made even worse when it's not just pointing out the speck in the eye.

Instead of asking, "This seems weird. Do you see it like this?"

They poke the other person in the eye and say, "How can you be so blind that you can't see?". Or passive aggressively convey the message, "If only you weren't a bigot, then maybe you could see". Or, "If only you weren't so dense then maybe you could see" or "If only you were as enlightened as me, then you'd see". 

It's tough to break out of any of those cycles. 

 
I said Trump supporters assert the position and it's your second bullet point:

Sorry....I see the confusion...poor word choice on my part.  Should read "assert the position you suggest in the above".
Ah, yes - more likely poor reading comprehension by me.  Either way, that's definitely something that happens around here.

 
The other thing that makes it tough is the structure of a message board where people love to drop a zinger and take their shot. 

The structure of a forum makes it easy to do those type of comments. Not sure anything can be done there. Other than to call out and discourage those. 

 
My take on this part is almost all of us have a tendency not to admit to the flaws of our side or ourselves.  The proverbial speck versus the plank.  It's one of the biggest causes of arguments in this forum.  Instead of saying something like, "you know Trump/Pelosi/whoever shouldn't do that and I wish they wouldn't" folks dig their heels in, won't call out out mistakes or bad behavior and then the other side jumps on it as either someone being ok with the behavior or disingenuous for not calling it out.  Then the hypocrisy claim.  Showing or stating flaws or admitting when you are wrong isn't weakness - it's a strength and shows great character.
I used to defend Dan Snyder when talking to non-Redskins fans. If a Cowboys fan started bashing Snyder, I might come back with arguments about how he spends money, he cares about the team, etc. I'd pick out the small detail within their criticism that I honestly disagreed with and focus on that. And I'd definitely come back with something negative about Jerry Jones. But, among other Redskins fans, I'd be like, "You know, Snyder is really awful and the cause of all our problems." I didn't used to admit that to the "other side".

I used to liken Snyder to having a relative who is a drunk. It's fine for the family to sit around and talk about how that person's addiction is creating problems, but they'll fight against outsiders who might make comments about how he got a DUI, all the while knowing that the situation is a mess.

 
I'm going to quote @Maurile Tremblay's post from another thread as I think it's relevant for this thread

In particular, these comments made me think (something I don't do enough of at times):

"So when you look at a Trump voter and ask, "How could you support a man when you know he did [fill in the blank]"? The short answer is they don't know...."

"Anyway, it's worth understanding where people really are, and they really don't believe or know as many facts about Trump as you think."

 
I'm going to quote @Maurile Tremblay's post from another thread as I think it's relevant for this thread

In particular, these comments made me think (something I don't do enough of at times):

"So when you look at a Trump voter and ask, "How could you support a man when you know he did [fill in the blank]"? The short answer is they don't know...."

"Anyway, it's worth understanding where people really are, and they really don't believe or know as many facts about Trump as you think."
As in, "they don't know he's done bad thing X"?

 
That's my feeling too. It feels pretty hopeless to me though. I see so many anti Trump folks pushing to the max the condescending, snark and contempt for anyone who isn't smart enough or decent enough to see it their way. I think that ship may have sailed. But hopeful it hasn't. 
It's really hard to comprehend how someone can support Trump's rhetoric.  I think once he is replaced with a normal person that politics will go back to what they were.  Every other President in my lifetime has served the office with honor and dignity, despite policy disagreements with the opposition.  Trump's inauguration speech was divisive and petty, and he's only gotten worse.  If the GOP rejects his rhetoric, but agrees with his policy then they should put forth a primary challenger or remove him via impeachment.  Anti-Trumpers view it as the GOP supporting everything that Trump is.  Even if that's not 100% true, they aren't willing to jeopardize their power and be perceived as weak to rectify it.

 
I'm going to quote @Maurile Tremblay's post from another thread as I think it's relevant for this thread

In particular, these comments made me think (something I don't do enough of at times):

"So when you look at a Trump voter and ask, "How could you support a man when you know he did [fill in the blank]"? The short answer is they don't know...."

"Anyway, it's worth understanding where people really are, and they really don't believe or know as many facts about Trump as you think."
On one hand, I get this. On the other, I think it's everyone's responsibility to vet the information they absorb. So if they are only going to soak in information that fits inside their comfort zone then deflect anything that astrays I think trying to redirect is a waste of resources. Spend your finite time and energy trying to get through to those that haven't already isolated themselves in a box. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top