Yet in those statements you seem to be generalizing just as much as the people you're accusing of generalization.

You write that you're a democrat and that you've never killed a baby.  As a platform, the democratic party currently declares that every woman should have access to abortion, and that the party will seek to oppose all laws and policies that impede a woman's access to abortion.   If you use the same generalization that leads you to say "Russia is a giant gangster ran state", then by similar reasoning if you're a democrat you want babies to die.

That brings back why so much of partisan politics is so stupid. When it reaches the point of parties all the details are so generalized as to become straw-man arguments.  The generalization becomes easy to knock down.  Even though both parties agree on 90%, maybe even 95% of the same stuff, both parties focus on the extremes and hyperbole to demonize each other.   Party politics by their nature are diluted to the point of making debate and discussion nearly meaningless.

It's usually one aspect of a particular leader that people follow. What that aspect is different per individual.

Some people say yes to abortion, but no to illegal immigration. Some others love guns and the 2A, but also welcomes illegal immigrations. The people that stand in between these policies, that don't feel like they belong to either, are the ones swaying left and right, and receiving the blunts of insults from both parties. Just because you voted Trump doesn't make you a racist or a Russian bot, who loves their guns, rednecks, hates the gays and the mexicans, and so on. Yes, those people exist, but that's not 50% of America. Sometimes it's just one tiny teeny thing he said/did that made people voted him. Not his whole life or persona. Remember the red-sweater Ken Bone? He, at least when viral, admitted to leaning to support Trump's economic policies. Was he a Russian bot then?

So, really, stop with the labeling. The Democrats love to say "If you voted for Trump, then you must also be racist." And the Republican side is no better, and has their own stupidities. I think anyone who exercise a bit of critical thinking won't like both parties. Left side is correct on certain things, right side is correct on these other things. For most people, it's never 100% commitment to a party unless you actually work at the DNC or GOP (i.e. politics is your career).

On 8/18/2018 at 11:01 PM, frob said:

Yet in those statements you seem to be generalizing just as much as the people you're accusing of generalization.

You write that you're a democrat and that you've never killed a baby.  As a platform, the democratic party currently declares that every woman should have access to abortion, and that the party will seek to oppose all laws and policies that impede a woman's access to abortion.   If you use the same generalization that leads you to say "Russia is a giant gangster ran state", then by similar reasoning if you're a democrat you want babies to die.

 

That brings back why so much of partisan politics is so stupid. When it reaches the point of parties all the details are so generalized as to become straw-man arguments.  The generalization becomes easy to knock down.  Even though both parties agree on 90%, maybe even 95% of the same stuff, both parties focus on the extremes and hyperbole to demonize each other.   Party politics by their nature are diluted to the point of making debate and discussion nearly meaningless.

I am not entirely following you when you say "russia... generalization". Russia *is* a gangster state. It's not a generalization, it's a fact.

50 minutes ago, grumpyOldDude said:

The last 3 posts points to and reinforces a very obvious flaw in US politics....

the 2 party system

If you disagree with 83% of what a candidate/party stands for and disagree 95% with the other candidate/party (minor parties and independents don't count as they have approx 0% votes), you are forced to vote for the candidate you disagree the least with and not because you agree with much of what that candidate stands for. But because you're so short of better choices

It forces you to make a binary black/white decision

That's killing democracy or maybe its better to say democracy is 75% dead in a country that thinks its a democracy and leader of the free world 

The problem isn't that it's a two party system, not entirely. The problem is that there are a ridiculous amount of naive and uneducated or stupid voters in the country, coupled with crazy corruption and misinformation. 

7 hours ago, h8CplusplusGuru said:

Russia *is* a gangster state. It's not a generalization, it's a fact.

You seem to be using those words in a way I'm not familiar with.  I dislike loaded terms in discussions like this since they muddy the waters.  Saying "I hate the right" or "I hate the left" is too general, "immigration is good/bad" is too loaded. They need better descriptions.

When I search for that phrase it is a quote from a popular news headline that seems to have gone viral, based on a book of the title Mafia State. I understand a bit of the Mafia, read about the history of the mafia up through the 1990s, even had some friends and former co-workers from southern Italy and we talked about the Mafia extensively.  I've also studied a bit of Russian government, including some past and current co-workers from the country.  From what I understand about the mafia and from what I understand about the current government of Russia, those words and accusations don't really jive.  

Can you explain to me what YOU mean by the term? 

As long as there is demand there will be something to fill the gap in the economy of all the people. Thus, "Trumpism" will last as long as there is a meme about it, hyped up groups and it works like in every industry.

Whenever they notice it falling down in popularity, they push for a new agenda to spice up the narrative and people who are stiff now jumps in hype again.

Again, there wouldn't be anyone in power if people didn't give them power. Demand gives power to those who notice it. 

8 hours ago, frob said:

Can you explain to me what YOU mean by the term? 

I simply mean what I said in a prior post, the mob is in association with the Russian leaders/ "government", and to such an extent as to imply that it is ran by gangsters or that the leaders themselves are indeed gangsters. The point I made earlier is that they are not interested in anything resembling Democracy and they do not want anything good for the US, and that is because they are, gangsters, in practice. 

9 hours ago, frob said:

I've also studied a bit of Russian government, including some past and current co-workers from the country.  From what I understand about the mafia and from what I understand about the current government of Russia, those words and accusations don't really jive.  

 

OK! So you seem to be saying that you do not believe that Russia is a corrupt mafia state? I fail to understand your position. From what I understand, what I have said is undeniable, there seems to be overwhelming evidence and I am simply failing to understand your understanding. Can you please describe how Russia is not a gangster state?

Let me say how I'm defining gangster:

People that do whatever to whomever whenever they want, to obtain more money and power, and are completely criminal about it. 

Google defines it easily like this:

A gang of violent criminals.

Also, if I may ask, what are your motivations in this argument?

A quick google reveals the following headlines:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+russia+a+gangster+state&oq=how+is+russia+a+gangster+state&aqs=chrome..69i57.4931j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8