Conflating Patriotism, Party Loyalty, and Faith

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You will never find . . . a more wretched hive . . .

Fine, attorney general. @Midwest LDS is pretty corrupt, so he'll need your help. Be careful though, we don't want another Saturday Night Massacre. 
 

[Midwest LDS]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Fine, attorney general. @Midwest LDS is pretty corrupt, so he'll need your help. Be careful though, we don't want another Saturday Night Massacre. 
 

Hey now, I'm not corrupt. Corruption implies I'm hiding what I'm selling. I'm bringing back the spoils system. Come into my office and grovel properly and I'll hand out government jobs.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

Hey now, I'm not corrupt. Corruption implies I'm hiding what I'm selling. I'm bringing back the spoils system. Come into my office and grovel properly and I'll hand out government jobs.

Remember pal, you need my charm and charisma. I energize the base. Besides, you don't want me to write a tell all book about your many scandals and terrible personality. 

[prisonchaplain]

Some embrace the best that POTUS offers and support him whole-heartedly. Others do so begrudgingly (all the way from he's all right--perhaps not the best to he's horrible, but the alternative is even worse. Still others do the same on the opposite side of the aisle. There was a time in American society, and in American churches, when we could make these differing choices and still respect one another as loyal Americans and God-fearing Christians. I choose to emulate that approach.

Edited June 23, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[Guest MormonGator]

31 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Some embrace the best that POTUS offers and support him whole-heartedly. Others do so begrudgingly (all the way from he's all right--perhaps not the best to he's horrible, but the alternative is even worse. Still others do the same on the opposite side of the aisle. There was a time in American society, and in American churches, when we could make these differing choices and still respect one another as loyal Americans and God-fearing Christians. I choose to emulate that approach.

You can be the spiritual advisor to our administration @prisonchaplain. 

[Carborendum]

I just got an interesting perspective after reading some articles and blogs online.  And the title of this thread was perfect. 

The title of the thread seems to be saying that we're NOT supposed to conflate party loyalty, faith, and patriotism. And I'd agree.  But the problem with most people (and the OP was no exception -- neither am I) is that they try to justify their decisions by at least one of those three.  Some, more than one of the three.

But in reality, it's just a justification.  The reality is that most people have simply chosen whom to believe.  And 90% of the time that choice is either Trump or the Media.

This political battle is no longer between Red and Blue.  It isn't even between black and white, which recent protests seem to claim.  It isn't about faith vs. atheism.  It isn't about ideology.  It isn't about right or wrong or righteousness anymore.

Do you believe the media's attacks on Trump? Or do you believe Trump's attacks on the media?

Those who believe the media attacks on Trump have sided with the media (or they say that they're siding with the Democrats, or third party, or whatever other surrogate they can rationalize).  Those who believe Trump's attacks on the media have sided with Trump (or the free market, or judges, or anti-cancel-culture or whatever other surrogate they can rationalize).  But it seems pretty clear that the fundamental motivators are if they side with media or Trump.

Everyone hated politicians.  So Trump's rise could be attributed to the fact he was an outsider. Possible.  But who did the public have a worse impression of than politicians (based on polls in 2016)?  The media.

While Trump sends out a TREMENDOUS number of public statements and tweets, I just have a hand waving estimate that the majority of his comments are about the media more than the Democrats.  Most of his comments about Democrats aren't even about the party in general.  it is about Pelosi and Schumer.  Even when he references the Democrats in his criticisms, it is really that they are following Pelosi and Schumer that he has a problem with.  In his recent rally in Tulsa, the bulk of what his speech covered was the biased coverage of the Fake News.

And truly, if you were to consider all the tag lines and labels he's made up -- all the memes he's come up with, which is the one that has been the most enduring and the one that will probably outlive all the others?  In my mind it is "Fake News".

And the media is setting itself up as the opposing side.  If people hate Trump enough, then maybe they'll start listening to the media's attacks on Trump.  So, haters gotta hate.  The news is almost 90% attacks on Trump.  Why are people listening?  Because they hate Trump so much that they will listen to ANYthing negative about him. 

While we all know some people who have different reasons for taking sides, or staying out of it entirely, I tend to think that the sides they are picking is really Media vs. Trump.  Few people seem to care if anything is REALLY true on either side.  They just knee jerk reaction believe anything negative about the other side, while not wasting too many brain cells about what is wrong with the side they've chosen.

So, let me be the first to admit the simple fact:  I hate the media much more than I'll ever like Trump.  And for that reason, I like Trump more than I hate him.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest psych_murse]

I am considering if I really want to wade back into this conversation.  I think a major part of the problem was the wide misunderstanding of the intent in the beginning.  I am likely partly to blame, having not fully expanded upon my argument in the initial post and not having the time to adequately respond to criticism.  I was actually surprised at the hostile response and even the complaints of defensiveness; much of what people were arguing against was not even the real premise of my argument.  If I choose to give more time to this topic, I will respond to many of the questions.  In return, I would ask that people don't overwhelm me with an onslaught of unnecessarily rudely worded questions.  You may disagree with me without being rude in tone.

For now, I just want to reply to the last post.  When things are boiled down to two choices, someone could try to argue that this is a false dichotomy.  For example, "you either trust Trump or trust the media" could just as easily be accused of creating a false dichotomy as the items I had described that received similar criticism.  While one could easily come up with variants.  For the purposes of this argument, I do not believe there is any problem with this simplification, as most people do adhere to one side or the other, whether they recognize this or not.

So, within the context you have laid out, I largely agree with your premise.  I, personally, tend to trust the media more than the president.  However, when Obama was president, I was less trusting of the media and the president.  There is a 100% absolute left slant in most reporting.  However, having recognized that, it does not make all of their evidence or all of their conclusions wrong.  I actually read Fox News daily so that I can give myself balance.  I even agree with many of the items they cover.  As an example, there is generally tacit approval of defunding the police at most news outlets; an absolutely insane idea, in my opinion.  Fox News is the only major outlet that appears to actually be reporting on this in a critical light.

However, let me put it this way: when numerous outlets are reporting factual information, and the only evidence to the contrary is one individual's vehement denial, just because the news outlets have a liberal slant does not make the facts within the story inaccurate; sometimes the interpretations are off; sometimes there is biased wording; sometimes there is a focus on negative stories.  Yet, facts remain facts.  Consider the alternative: imagine a news agency that only reports the best on the president, that only promotes state-sanctioned stories, that never criticizes the government.  Such is the nature of the press in nations like China and N. Korea.  The limiting of a free press leads to ignorance and tyranny.  Whether you agree with the liberal media or not, they act as a check and balance on the government.  And I will believe a cited story from news outlet far left of my views long before I trust an uncited story from a politician I am aligned, especially with when that politician's arguments are built on an unsubstantiated theory.

[anatess2]

47 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I was actually surprised at the hostile response and even the complaints of defensiveness; much of what people were arguing against was not even the real premise of my argument.  If I choose to give more time to this topic, I will respond to many of the questions.  In return, I would ask that people don't overwhelm me with an onslaught of unnecessarily rudely worded questions.  You may disagree with me without being rude in tone.

We're never gonna get anywhere here.  The problem with this thread are those bolded statements above.  Nobody was rude to you here - you made your own interpretation of their tone.  I've been on this forum long enough to know the online persona of the people sharing with you their precious time.

But, even if people respond rudely, we are not your children nor your patients here.  You get what people give.  They have lives of their own, their own sensitivities, their own personalities, their own cultures, their own reasons for the way they parse their statements.  If you spend time long enough, you'll get to know the individual online personalities behind the avatar.  You are also free to ignore them.  Or you can report them to the mods if you so desire.

Edited June 23, 2020 by anatess2

[Guest psych_murse]

You're right, we're not going to get anywhere.  I received PMs from multiple people who agreed that I was treated rudely.  If my stating that I feel people were being rude is somehow perceived as offensive, then you're right, we will not get anywhere.

Usually, when I realize that my unintended words have caused offense, I apologize and try to reassure that such is my style and offense was not intended.  Oh well.  I think I shouldn't have started with such a hot political topic so that people could have gotten to know me as well.  It seems I just can't get off on the right foot.

Edited June 23, 2020 by psych_murse

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

I am considering if I really want to wade back into this conversation.

Here's my suggestion. If this is about the character of Trump, then you ought to seek input from several people here.

@Godless, @Scott, @JohnsonJones, @MarginOfError, @LiterateParakeet

They are 100% on the bandwagon of Trump's character (and other traits) being unforgivable enough to counter any good he has to offer.  You, no doubt received PMs from some of them.

I would reckon that they'd run the gamut on opinions of the "conservatives" on the forum.

• On the one end: You just have to get used to them.  Some of them actually have some pretty good insights to consider.
• On the other end: Quit wasting your time.  They're so full of themselves, you'll never convince them of anything.

No matter what, you have to understand the format of an online forum:

• You make an original post stating a position/opinion/belief and explain why.
• Others comment in agreement or disagreement and explain why.
• You can choose to respond or ignore various people as you see fit. 
  • Nothing says you have to care about what anyone says.  Nothing says you have to respond at all.  If someone posts enough times and you don't respond, most people will get the message.
• If you choose to respond, then understand that there will be an exchange.
  • To gain reputation
    • More logical your arguments need to be.
    • The more evidence you can provide (with sources),
  • Reputation weakens when
    • You "strategically" omit or ignore weaknesses in your arguments.
    • Commit logical fallacies.
    • Get negatively emotional over the thread.
    • Post factual inaccuracies or facts that are misleading.
• Multiple people will comment.  That's what an open forum allows.
• If you don't like that, just PM one person at a time.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Carborendum

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

You're right, we're not going to get anywhere.  I received PMs from multiple people who agreed that I was treated rudely.  If my stating that I feel people were being rude is somehow perceived as offensive, then you're right, we will not get anywhere.

Usually, when I realize that my unintended words have caused offense, I apologize and try to reassure that such is my style and offense was not intended.  Oh well.  I think I shouldn't have started with such a hot political topic so that people could have gotten to know me as well.  It seems I just can't get off on the right foot.

I wonder why they simply PM'd instead of adding their thoughts here...

Sorry we didn't respond to your attempts at disciplining us to be your perfect forum. 

 

[Guest psych_murse]

I used to participate heavily in an online forum and discussed politics heavily.  I was well respected there.  Perhaps, it is partly because I was able to devote more time to such a discussion at that point in my life.  At this point, I don't think I can participate to the extent that would be necessary for my enjoyment, especially given the audience.  Most people here will be pro-Trump and I do not have time to contend with so many on my own.

[Guest psych_murse]

 

 

️

1

Just now, anatess2 said:

I wonder why they simply PM'd instead of adding their thoughts here...

Sorry we didn't respond to your attempts at disciplining us to be your perfect forum. 

 

Because that's what I did (/sarcasm).  Literally, every post I make offends you, regardless of how I put it.  It was nice talking with you all.  I promise I shall not darken these hallowed halls again.

[anatess2]

Just now, psych_murse said:

Because that's what I did (/sarcasm).  Literally, every post I make offends you, regardless of how I put it.  It was nice talking with you all.  I promise I shall not darken these hallowed halls again.

Now you're putting words into our mouths.  Good luck elsewhere... and remember... respect is not always free - a lot of times, it is EARNED.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Because that's what I did (/sarcasm).  Literally, every post I make offends you, regardless of how I put it.  It was nice talking with you all.  I promise I shall not darken these hallowed halls again.

You promise?

[anatess2]

Well, since the OP seems to have abandoned this thread, I'm going to take this opportunity to add more material for discussion into it for anybody else interested.  Here's an interesting viewpoint by Eric Metaxas - I know him as a conservative christian radio host but most people know him as the author of Martin Luther.

 

[Carborendum]

On 6/23/2020 at 1:28 PM, Guest psych_murse said:

I, personally, tend to trust the media more than the president. 

I realize she's gone.  But I thought I'd throw this in to show just how the biased reporting tends to =  incorrect reporting.  It's called TDS.

So, before the article's text even begins, their graphic destroys their headline claims.

Then the article kinda mealie-mouths justification to think they are right.  But then admit they're wrong while stating it doesn't really matter that Trump was right.

Yeah, really accurate (but still biased) reporting.  Uh-huh.