Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 25, 2019

It turns out that the people who care the most about politics have the least understanding of their political opponents.

The More in Common project has just released the results of its latest deep dive into American polarization, and they make for a deeply discouraging read.

It turns out that most Americans have fundamentally mistaken notions about their political opponents, consistently believing that they are substantially more extreme than they really are. For example, Democrats are far less likely to support open borders, far more likely to support private ownership of firearms, and far more friendly to police than Republicans believe they are. Republicans support controlled immigration far more than Democrats believe, and an overwhelming majority believe that racism and sexism still exist in the United States.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I found this to be both interesting and sadly, not surprising given the broad-brushing I see from those who should know better.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-25 11:17 AM | Reply

When everything is in the generic sense it would appear to be true.

When you drill down to the details of each policy implementation is where I doubt either is wrong about the other.

The whole "racist" "sexist" thing is a tactic for the masses, the fact that a majority of Democrats believe this to be true should scare people into the power of suggestion, but instead it makes them more rabid and self righteous.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-25 11:30 AM | Reply

"For example, Democrats are far less likely to support open borders, far more likely to support private ownership of firearms, and far more friendly to police than Republicans believe they are."

I would say that these statements are partially true at most. Just look at this site - if asked outright - almost every one says that they are not for open borders. But, they are against a wall, against interior enforcement, block employers from verifying employees, and do everything they can to prevent the government from being able to control immigration - yet, they tell you that they are not for open borders. The same goes with firearms - Dems don't even know what the different type of guns are and, due to the media, are under the impression that fully automatic machine guns can be bought at WalMart and gun shows. Steven Crowder does a whole series on this on youtube - and yes, when Dems are actually informed about what their leaders are proposing - they are generally against it. Same goes with internet censorship and hate speech. Not all Dems are incapable of rational thought - it is just that most have been too busy to actually understand the issues or lied to by the media for so long that they just repeat talking points until those talking points are deconstructed.

But, this is a moot point - because any vote by moderate Democrat for a Democrat in an election is a vote for the most Left wing hack idea you can imagine because that is where their party leadership is driving the country. For example, I don't think most Dems in Virginia support post-birth abortion - but, that is what they got because that IS what their legislature and governor wrote into law.

#3 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:00 AM | Reply

"against interior enforcement"

Nonsense. They simply want the least costly, most efficient method: frog-march the hirers, going up the ladder each time.

But that upsets rural Republicans and their local Chambers of Commerce...so we get talking points instead of workable solutions.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:04 AM | Reply

I found this statement to be hilarious:

"while Democrats' knowledge of Republican beliefs "actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn." Moreover, "this effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree" in their perceptions of Republicans."

Proof positive about the quality of 'education' Dems actual receive - it actively makes them dumber.

#5 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:05 AM | Reply

"against interior enforcement"

Nonsense. They simply want the least costly, most efficient method: frog-march the hirers, going up the ladder each time.

But that upsets rural Republicans and their local Chambers of Commerce...so we get talking points instead of workable solutions.

#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I agree. However, par for the course with you, there is ZERO mention of why Democrats are also complicit in the illegal immigration problem/crisis we currently face.

Or is this 100% a GOP problem?

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 12:06 AM | Reply

"They simply want the least costly, most efficient method: frog-march the hirers, going up the ladder each time.
#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

And if they don't do that, and exclusively that - you are against ANY interior enforcement. We have had this discussion before. You are for Open Borders and are just too stupid or dishonest to admit where you stand. Given your post history, I am leaning towards too stupid at this point.

#7 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I agree.
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

You have fallen for the Dem immigration trap. Danforth is for that, and EXCLUSIVELY for that. Any deviation, and he chooses complete inaction as he knows there will never be a chance this will actually be implemented. Ask if he supports and ALL OF THE ABOVE plan - wall, ICE, crack down on employers, and he is not for this anymore even though it will be a component of the solution. It is the Dem Puritopian approach to immigration because they are for Open Borders.

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:10 AM | Reply

You have fallen for the Dem immigration trap. ...

#8 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

I haven't fallen for anything. Danforth is an absolute slappy for the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean that all of his criticisms of the GOP are tainted by bias.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 12:14 AM | Reply

"And if they don't do that, and exclusively that - you are against ANY interior enforcement. W"

No, but it's the cheapest method, and it works: grab the illegal, and not only does another take his place, but you just provided another job opening! But grab the hirer, and the reason for migration dries up.

"he knows there will never be a chance this will actually be implemented."

Because of rural Republicans, and Republican-led Chambers of Commerce. At least be honest about the central reason.

"there is ZERO mention of why Democrats are also complicit"

Feel free to chime in. Dems weren't the ones who chose to cut off aid to brown countries, screamed about building a wall, or purposely denied safe and sanitary conditions.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:20 AM | Reply

"#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

His stance on immigration is knowingly dishonest. Like I said, he has stated that he is for that solution and ONLY that solution - even if his solution is a major prong in a more inclusive plan, he no longer supports it. He does this because he knows that it will not be implemented so he can claim to be against Open Borders. It is a lie. Do you honestly believe that if his plan was signed into law that he would actually support it? It is a talking point only. Honestly, I would like to know your opinion - do you think Danforth would actually support his stated plan if signed into law?

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:21 AM | Reply

"Ask if he supports and ALL OF THE ABOVE plan - wall"

You can stop there. The Wall is a stupid boondoggle, and a waste of billions of dollars. Frog-marching illegal hirers will cost 1% of any stupid, useless wall.

"because they are for Open Borders."

Awww, isn't Ira cute? He's lying, just like his hero Donnie.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:22 AM | Reply

"His stance on immigration is knowingly dishonest. "

GFY. Try arresting the hirers ONCE, and we'll talk.

"even if his solution is a major prong in a more inclusive plan"

It's the plan that WORKS. Remove the worker, another takes his place. Remove the job, and there is no "place" to take.

"Do you honestly believe that if his plan was signed into law that he would actually support it?"

Absolutely. I've been consistent with this position for years, long before Trump exacerbated the problems.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:24 AM | Reply

"#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Thanks for proving my point - you are for Open Borders and don't even support your own plan if it is accompanied by any other border enforcement mechanism. You are a liar and that does make me sad....I was hoping that you were only stupid.

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Thanks for proving my point - you are for Open Borders"

When lies are all you have, all you can do is lie.
h/t Hans

"You are a liar and that does make me sad....I was hoping that you were only stupid."

My irony meter just exploded.

Who did you use to be? Special Eddie???

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"and don't even support your own plan if it is accompanied by any other border enforcement mechanism."

I never said that at all. All I've said is LET'S TRY THE METHOD THAT'LL WORK.

All your ideas embrace is status quo, with extra hearings of inhumanity.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:30 AM | Reply

hearings = helpings

elfin' auto-correct....

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:30 AM | Reply

No Democrat is going to "frog march" any employers. It'll be as effective as arresting a drug dealer; another one will replace him as long as there are millions of cheap laborers available.. And if anyone, Democrat or Republican, tried, the Left would scream that brown people were being deprived of jobs.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-26 12:31 AM | Reply

" It'll be as effective as arresting a drug dealer; another one will replace him as long as there are millions of cheap laborers available."

Then keep going up the ladder, until hirers get the message.

"No Democrat is going to "frog march" any employers."

Then I guess it's up to Republicans to uphold the law. Except of course, the rural Republicans and their Republican-led Chambers of Commerce will have none of it.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:33 AM | Reply

"if anyone, Democrat or Republican, tried, the Left would scream that brown people were being deprived of jobs."

Tough. Do we want to address the problem, or just barf talking points?

And when TF did Republicans EVER care what the left screams?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:34 AM | Reply

"I never said that at all. All I've said is LET'S TRY THE METHOD THAT'LL WORK.
#16 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Yes, continue to lie that you would support this plan. A border wall amounts to a one time charge of 0.3% of the federal budget and you cry and throw fits about it - not because it is wasteful, but because it is effective. Hell, Trump isn't even using new spending - he is just changing the allocation and you still throw your shht fit. So, you want complete inaction instead. Got it. Your position is called Open Borders.

Like I said, I like to think of you as just being stupid and not an outright liar but you keep making the case for liar.

#21 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 12:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm all for going after the employers as long as we ALSO eliminate ALL public assistances, like welfare, food stamps, etc.

Eliminate the work incentive and pretty much the only reason people will come here illegally is to leach our welfare state.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 12:40 AM | Reply

"I'm all for going after the employers as long as we ALSO eliminate ALL public assistances, like welfare, food stamps, etc. "

WTF? I have a tax client who's had multiple brain surgeries in the last 18 months, and just got proclaimed completely disabled. Her boyfriend and I had to reconstruct what we could just to file her taxes for the last two years. So she's out on the street?!? Retirees who need food stamps will go hungry? EITC will cease to exist???

There's a new opening for the Customs & Border Patrol Commissioner. You'd fit right in.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 12:50 AM | Reply

Do we want to address the problem, or just barf talking points?

Now you want to address it, under Obama and Democrat congress not so much, you scream "racist", "xenophobe".

Hillary and Obama distinctly avoided the GangOf8 solution via "poisonpill" amendments, to keep illegal immigration alive and well as a wedge issue in 08.

Both candidates voted for an amendment considered by many to be a "poison pill" for reform in 2007.
www.huffpost.com

Democrats could open the purse strings and fill these detention centers with luxury items, but would't look good would it.

Treating illegal immigrants better than homeless vets.

But now you care, riiiiiiight ... you care enough to sit on your hands and watch both homelessness and illegal immigration spin out of control.

All you have left is concern trolling.

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-26 12:50 AM | Reply

I'm all for going after the employers

US Gov issued 3 million permits, green cards, and work visas last year ....
workpermit.com

Employers aren't the issue, its gorilla dust ....

#25 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-26 12:54 AM | Reply

And if anyone, Democrat or Republican, tried, the Left would scream that brown people were being deprived of jobs.
#18 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The plan is to keep all minorities on welfare for the free votes.

The incentives to get up and got to work every day are few.

"You'll lose your benefits" = we don't cover the price of work boots.

#26 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-26 12:59 AM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You address my macro-argument with anecdotes?

Nulli said it earlier - enter here legally and most of these issues go away.

Economically this country has 2 basic advantages over countries that people are fleeing from - economic opportunity and welfare opportunity. If I could only eliminate one, it would be the latter.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:00 AM | Reply

"continue to lie that you would support this plan. "

Why can't you have an honest discussion? Why do you always have to make up ludicrous strawmen to make a point? Your points aren't so weak they need to wrap themselves in lies.

Seriously...try to have an honest discussion. I would support the plan. I've never been for open borders. I believe there's a crisis at the southern border, greatly exacerbated by Trump's irresponsible rhetoric and actions. I also believe removing the illegal simply adds a new "help wanted" sign. Removing the hirer removes the reason for the migration.

"A border wall amounts to a one time charge of 0.3% of the federal budget"

Nonsense. You're pretending there will be no costs for recompense, no legal challenges, and no costs for those challenges.

"Like I said, I like to think of you as just being stupid "

I'm sure you do.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 01:00 AM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You address my macro-argument with anecdotes?

Nulli said it earlier - enter here legally and most of these issues go away.

Economically this country has 2 basic advantages over countries that people are fleeing from - economic opportunity and welfare opportunity. If I could only eliminate one, it would be the latter.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:01 AM | Reply

#29 Newsworthy

Plenty of legal jobs to go around. Do it the right way.

#30 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-26 01:03 AM | Reply

Removing the hirer removes the reason for the migration.

#28 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No. It removes a reason for the migration.

I agree with you that we should eliminate the carrots that entice illegal immigration. The problem seems to be that you are only in favor of eliminating a single carrot...and it's a carrot that happens to appeal to the most productive illegal aliens.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:10 AM | Reply

Plenty of legal jobs to go around. Do it the right way.

#30 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Yep.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:11 AM | Reply

"You address my macro-argument with anecdotes?"

I'm trying to differentiate humane and inhumane.

In 2017, 30% of folks who experienced food insecurity in America were kids. And that's among the gladly counted legal group; what percent do you believe are kids in the immigrant population?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 01:12 AM | Reply

"I'm all for going after the employers as long as we ALSO eliminate ALL public assistances, like welfare, food stamps, etc. "

-----

WTF? I have a tax client who's had multiple brain surgeries in the last 18 months, and just got proclaimed completely disabled. Her boyfriend and I had to reconstruct what we could just to file her taxes for the last two years. So she's out on the street?!? Retirees who need food stamps will go hungry? EITC will cease to exist???

There's a new opening for the Customs & Border Patrol Commissioner. You'd fit right in.

#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Is your tax client here legally?

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:13 AM | Reply

No. It removes a reason for the migration.

How long are they staying without jobs?

"it's a carrot that happens to appeal to the most productive illegal aliens."

Then it should appeal to American workers, right?

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 01:14 AM | Reply

"I agree with you that we should eliminate the carrots that entice illegal immigration. The problem seems to be that you are only in favor of eliminating a single carrot...and it's a carrot that happens to appeal to the most productive illegal aliens.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

Not every illegal in this country is working under the table and not every one is on welfare. There is a huge percentage of illegals that survive based on crime. If you are in CA and you are friends with the Mexicans - attend a party and they will point out the ones involved in the drug trade (usually the belt buckle and boots are a tip off). If you cut off employment and welfare without deporting criminals, you will just push more into crime as that is still preferable to living in central America. But, Danforth is for punishing employers and ONLY for punishing employers and hoping for self-deportation. It is lunacy.

#36 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 01:14 AM | Reply

"I agree with you that we should eliminate the carrots that entice illegal immigration. The problem seems to be that you are only in favor of eliminating a single carrot...and it's a carrot that happens to appeal to the most productive illegal aliens.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

Not every illegal in this country is working under the table and not every one is on welfare. There is a huge percentage of illegals that survive based on crime. If you are in CA and you are friends with the Mexicans - attend a party and they will point out the ones involved in the drug trade (usually the belt buckle and boots are a tip off). If you cut off employment and welfare without deporting criminals, you will just push more into crime as that is still preferable to living in central America. But, Danforth is for punishing employers and ONLY for punishing employers and hoping for self-deportation. It is lunacy.

#37 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 01:14 AM | Reply

"You address my macro-argument with anecdotes?"
---
I'm trying to differentiate humane and inhumane. ..

#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I believe you. However in the context of this discussion you chucked the goalposts.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:15 AM | Reply

"In 2017, 30% of folks who experienced food insecurity in America were kids. And that's among the gladly counted legal group; what percent do you believe are kids in the immigrant population?
#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

I haven't seen too many skinny illegal kids. I see rampant obesity among the female partners of illegals though.

#39 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 01:16 AM | Reply

"In 2017, 30% of folks who experienced food insecurity in America were kids. And that's among the gladly counted legal group; what percent do you believe are kids in the immigrant population?
#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

I haven't seen too many skinny illegal kids. I see rampant obesity among the female partners of illegals though.

#40 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 01:16 AM | Reply

No. It removes a reason for the migration.

How long are they staying without jobs?

For as long as they can bilk our welfare state and get paid to either do nothing or procreate.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:19 AM | Reply

"Is your tax client here legally?"

My apologies; I thought you were ending ALL welfare.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 01:20 AM | Reply

"There is a huge percentage of illegals that survive based on crime."

Okay, right there. Your claim isn't true: It's NOT a "huge percentage"; that would be well over 50%. No need to impersonate Humpty Dumpty.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 01:26 AM | Reply

The incentives to get up and got to work every day are few.

Posted by SheepleSchism

Your user page evidences that daily. 20 hours on DR a day don't count as 'work' unless you're being paid by someone to spend every waking moment here on this little corner of the internet.

#44 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-26 01:27 AM | Reply

I thought you were ending ALL welfare.

#42 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No, not at all.

Solely for people who are here illegally.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-26 01:28 AM | Reply

"It's NOT a "huge percentage"; that would be well over 50%.
#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH A"

No, that is not how the English language works.

#46 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 01:35 AM | Reply

"No, that is not how the English language works.'

Nonsense; it's absolutely how the English language works. You couldn't say "a huge percentage" of people support Trump if it's less than half. Otherwise, "huge" becomes whatever percentage YOU deem huge, which is meaningless.

For example, what percentage was that in this case? What percentage did YOU deem "huge"?

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 01:49 AM | Reply

"For example, what percentage was that in this case? What percentage did YOU deem "huge"?
#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

No. Huge can be used relative to expectations and not as an absolute. Do you have an education? You seem to have a tentative grasp on financial things and now on language as well.

#48 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-26 01:02 PM | Reply

"No. Huge can be used relative to expectations"

Whose expectations? Yours, based on your agenda at the moment. No thanks.

That means the measurement is worthless, particularly in light of study after study showing immigrants-legal and otherwise-commit crimes at lower rates than residents.

So no, you don't get to to play Humpty Dumpty with definitions.

For example, would you claim a "huge percentage" of DR posters believe you're dishonest?

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-26 02:43 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort