Is US politics becoming more extreme, or is it all just hyperbole?

lol, I'm not judging, but legitimately, the only reason you even mentioned epstein is because he just got arrested for raping kids. There is no way in hell his name would have come up a month ago.

I knew about Epstein before that, though.

Are you like 12? Do you think he's only recently newsworthy?

If you are telling me you honestly believe his name would have come up in this conversation before he got arrested I am telling you you are a liar. There are politics threads like this all the fucking time on here, his name has never once been mentioned.
That's fair, but I do not believe you would have dropped his name in this conversation before all the news. There are dozens of billionaires you could have referenced, you chose him, I belive, because of recent events

It was a dual. A pre-arranged contest of honor between 2 gentlemen. You make it sound like a drive-by

Retard

'i get my information and opinions from the most recent Joe Rogan podcast'

Kind of?
Conservatism is a chicken with its head cut off trying to burn the house down before it dies, and really every current political issue ties back to that desperate "If I can't stay, I'm taking you all with me" squeeling.

name one thing congress has actually done in the last three years other than bitch about the president or how the other half doesn't immediately cave to their bullshit (dem or rep)

>diversity is the death of democracy cause sooner or later you can't get a consensus and nothing gets done.

Attached: 1458495285345.jpg (480x621, 29K)

there's a witty retort that tries desperately to completely avoid the argument that burned you down. :) you got smoked, so Eat it Bitch, lol

I would've mentioned him if this was a thread filled with deep discussion and not blind anger and bad faith. Not everything is because someone reads a headline. You presume way, way too much in thinking every single person on this planet is a blank slate that gets their information through a pneumatic tube.

Epstein has been mentioned a number of times in conversations. Long, long before whatever sensational hitpiece dropped. Even here. It would naturally be treated as conspiracy, unsubstantiated, or unimportant hand-wringing over Trump's past, as it was. Evidently, now, it's not just "because you hate Trump". Or whatever the imagined story is. And yes, you could mention a ton of other so-called rich and famous people who seem to taint the big picture.

And? Imagine why Epstein was the focus. Perhaps there was something there that was a shred more credible than throwing out names and hoping it's an argument.

Then there's this.

he's right, but that is not surprising when you think about it
being liberal is more about wanting things to change
being conservative is more about wanting things to stay as they are

Dude . . . come on.

>t. 12 year old boomer

As a white middle class American male who works in the service industry and deals with people of all genders, races, classes, religions, sexual orientations, and age groups, I can confidently say this:

It’s mostly hyperbole. Regardless of being a conservative, liberal, centrist, or apathetic, most Americans don’t surround their entire lives with politics or news. I find that people who do are the most volatile regardless of their political affiliation, and even people who are in the same political spectrum as them tend to keep their distance because they’re mentally unstable. For example, you may be liberal and have an acquaintance who is also liberal, but is also an active member of Antifa. You’re more than likely going to avoid that guy like the fucking plague because even though you may agree on the same shit, you know that dude is fucking crazy and makes your side look bad. Same goes with conservatives.

All in all, I think most people get that people in general want the best for others and their country, we just have differing ideas of how to get their. The nutcases who get hyped up by the media into thinking there’s a war are just that - nutcases.

Attached: 22A7C222-E4BA-4618-8E58-C26541253925.png (560x407, 34K)

>yes, you could mention a ton of other so-called rich and famous people who seem to taint the big picture
But you didn't which is kind of my point. Like I said, I'm not saying you weren't aware of him, or anything else, but you just happened to pick the one billionaire (Incidentally, not the most influential, say the Koch brothers, STeyer, etc.) who is now on everyone's mind as a child rapist. I guess I'm just saying, it is suspect timing.

Blame can be squarely placed on the internet. There is so much competition for attention that the only way you can get attention is by being more extreme. The mainstream media is hemorrhaging money because of the internet so they have to be even more extreme to get attention. "To hell with the country, my holiday bonus was a half-million less this year" Add to this people's inability to comprehend large numbers and so any whack-a-mole concept can be portrayed as the norm by repeating it on the internet (50s a big number, lets not consider that against 2 billion internet users, 50 is a lot of people, must be a trend). Add to this the fact that social media has become isolated bubbles that spoon feed what they should think if they are to remain a member of the bubble. and so can push more extreme ideas. Most people are more moderate than what the internet would have you believe.

>you're not allowed to mention someone who was recently in the news or you haven't heard of him before now
You're just a dumbass who's trying to drag people down to your level.

Attached: 7150027602.jpg (1866x1620, 192K)

Kinda, the Dems have gotten way more extreme these past few years (Reparations, opposing even common sense border control, opposing everything Trump does just because he's Trump, etc). Republicans haven't really, they've just been opposing the left's extremism. A few red states made their abortion laws more strict as a counter to New York and Virginia's new abortion laws, but that's about as extreme as the right has gotten.

Attached: d.gif (498x490, 1.58M)

The democrats have been moving to the right for decades with its dumbass comprise triangulation bullshit. Only recently have actual "leftists" started shifting the Overton window to the left.

go have a lie down, the adults are talking

The media and hyper-political people are just living in their own bubble, while moderate Democrats stay Democrats while their party becomes ridiculous and almost unrecognizable.
Meanwhile the average Republican doesn't notice that their party is shifting away from them with the coming generation to be much more socially libertarian.

Bold of you to call yourself an adult

As an old fucker (50) with mostly moderate views, I would say that yes, both parties have moved further from center over the course of my lifetime and this has accelerated in recent years. Democrats have always called conservatives fascists and Republicans have always called liberals communists, but until recently these claims were mostly just partisan hyperbole. Now you literally have Republicans candidates being openly supported by fascist groups and Democrats running on socialist platforms. And moderates like me looking around wondering wtf happened.

I think it's cyclical, 'Cause I agree with you, but again, again, historically, this has happened before. Think the 1960's, when the KKK in the south supported George Wallace and the Republicans, or the 20's, when we had the first "red scare" and socialists openly supporting particular candidates. If you go back to FDR or Goldwater in 1964, these parties do not look anything like what they stood for back then. But I think we pushed hard left through the 70s, and we've been moving right since then, but it will eventually swing back the other way.

I think you are probably correct about the cyclical nature, but I do worry that the current social media influenced zeitgeist tends to by its very nature encourage further polarization.

>But you didn't which is kind of my point
Your point is moot because the conversation is neither organic nor the kind of conversation where I'd bring it up. For starters, it isn't 2 years ago. It's now. You're giving excuses.

2 years ago, I would've brought up Epstein if it were that important to discuss the negatives of, say, Trump. The Koch brothers? Everyone knows about Koch. Koch has been memed to hell and back. Koch is older than Dubya. There is no mystery with Koch. Everyone, everyone knows. You know about Koch, you felt free to bring it up. It's an off-hand reference with nothing new or damning besides the plain and obvious. Why is Epstein on everyone's mind as a child rapist now? Because the media broke a story about it, because he was finally arrested for it. But this is old news, and I am telling you, it has been brought up before. 2 years ago, at least.

It's only suspect because you want to believe everyone is a simpleton, and there is only one explanation for anyone mentioning Epstein today. For you, it's absolutely absurd for anyone to have talked about Epstein before today. But even if you use Google...

BEST FUCKING DISCORD THE WORLD HAS EVER FUCKING SEEN WE GOT FUN WE GOT TRAPS WE GOT EGIRLS WE GOT MOVIE NIGHTS WE GOT FUN FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY JOIN NOW!!

discord
.gg/Txu5pZs

5

Attached: __bedivere_fate_grand_order_fate_stay_night_and_fate_series_drawn_by_shijiu_adamhutt__09e77bc3523420 (671x1000, 101K)

I'll agree the right has barely moved. They've always been batshit crazy christcucks. They just look even crazier now that religion is finally dying out

Good post genx user

>>But you didn't which is kind of my point
You either misunderstood or are misrepresenting this sentence. This statement does not refer to you not mentioning Epstein, it refers to your failure to reference any other billionaire.
>yes, you could mention a ton of other so-called rich and famous people who seem to taint the big picture
You chose the one (and again, not the most influential one) who is in the news as a child rapist. Again, IDK if you intentionally ignored the point, but I'll say it again, my argument does not presume anything about your level of knowledge nor awareness, instead, it is premised on you choosing the most inflammatory name you could think of, becuase he is now known by everyone as a child rapist.
But this argument feels fruitless, becuase it is about your intent, which I cannot prove directly, instead only by circumstantial evidence. I find it suspect is all. (also I don't care, like I said in my first comment, I wasn't judging, just found it amusing). But I gotta go eat and shower so, w/e, if you need closure then go nuts in your response

To me it seems undeniable that we’re getting more extreme, but I still laugh when people talk about civil war or unrest or any of that garbage. Go out to somewhere like rural Indiana and see if you hear about any of this bullshit. You won’t. Most people don’t give a fuck. Most people are like my parents. They think trump is a retard but I’ll be damned if they would ever get off their asses to vote against him.

I continue to believe that this country’s biggest problem is the fact that we’re so ready and willing to let largely unknown people and corporations control our government. I think it’s those people and corporations who want us to be divided, to maintain the illusion that we have a choice.

>You either misunderstand
But you didn't, with is kind of my point. But I didn't, which is kind of your point; But I did not mention Epstein
>in this conversation before all the news
which is kind of your point. Kind of, because it's not the entirety of what you make in this thread.

Look.
>That's fair
>but I do not believe you would have dropped his name in this conversation before all the news
>There are dozens of billionaires you could have referenced
and my response is
>I would've mentioned him if this was a thread filled with deep discussion and not blind anger and bad faith
>Everyone knows about Koch
>There is no mystery with Koch
>It's an off-hand reference with nothing new or damning besides the plain and obvious

Your point is moot. No one is misunderstanding or misrepresenting the sentence; they can't do both. You'd either have to misrepresent the sentence and understand something else, or misunderstand the sentence and represent something else. You can't both represent the sentence and another sentence at the same time. Barring that, are you to tell me that because I literally did not mention Epstein, say, yesterday, and no such prompt for me mentioning Epstein happened yesterday or any day before the beginning of 2019 that you would've been present for, that I... didn't mention Epstein at all? Ever? Before the news? Do you know how old the news is? Do you know how long this has been going on for? At the beginning of this site's inception. Since the first republican president to serve 2 consecutive terms this millennium, that's how long ago. The speculation and digging didn't just come out of thin air yesterday.

There is a seriously critical reason that Epstein is what people focused on prior to today. It was partially because of the hyperpartisan memes, infographics, and echo chambers; Clinton had pedophiles and Pizzagate, Trump had
>literally Hitler
and
>grab em by the pussy
but then there was an actual billionaire pedophile. Do you think, that in that climate, no one would focus on, or dig up information on Epstein? Are you serious? Your argument absolutely presumes intelligence. You even state so.

>but legitimately
>the only reason you even mentioned epstein is because he just got arrested for raping kids

>I do not believe you would have dropped his name in this conversation before all the news

>you just happened to pick the one billionaire (Incidentally, not the most influential, say the Koch brothers, STeyer, etc.) who is now on everyone's mind as a child rapist
>just saying
>it is suspect timing
Just saying, you believe. You, believe. And with all the rationalizations, in spite of any explanations or given reasoning that seeks to dispel how it truly can't be that anyone could know before today, except
>???
it only stands to reason that
>I'm not judging
is anything but. It's tantamount to saying
>I'm not racist
>but

>it is about your intent
>which I cannot prove directly
>instead only by circumstantial evidence
Do you want me to prove that Epstein is old news for you?
>go nuts in your response
That's a cop-out. Nothing but bad faith.

I would say both sides are the exact same. They just fight for what they perceive as the *right thing to do*

Attached: 1562700962176.png (430x430, 291K)

Come on, faggot. It's two men shooting each other with guns.