Divided, We Stand?

[emilynghiem]

Worse, it's a self-inflicted wound. No one is forcing us to behave this way. Ego and tribalism.

So you believe Republicans should unit with Dims to destroy the country?

Absolutely. I think destroying the country would be really cool 'n stuff.
.

You must if you believe we should unite with the people intent on doing it.

But your opinions are completely bat shit, irrational nonsense. You see the entire left as a socialism embracing boogeyman when in reality their fringe embrace social policies you don't like. You see the entire right as a paragon of morality and financial stewardship when they're pretty much the opposite of that these days. No one will bother to have any rational conversation with someone espousing these huge blind partisan leaps of logic.

The difference Tumblin Tumbleweed
Is the majority of religious believers on the right acknowledge that the Constitution comes first,
and this checks against pushing those beliefs through govt.

While the majority of people on the left with political beliefs
DO NOT SEE THIS AS SEPARATE FROM GOVT but believe that
right to health care, right to marriage, and LGBT beliefs
SHOULD BE ENDORSED AND NATIONALIZED THROUGH GOVT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

There are some on the right who will keep pushing beliefs such as the right to life
through govt regardless of beliefs of others, as there are people on the left pushing pro choice beliefs.

They either come out pretty even, or there is a slight bias on the LEFT
toward institutionalizing their beliefs through GOVT and/or PARTY to VOTE IN Socialist beliefs,
while the bias on the right is to go through churches, businesses, and private
sector programs to use free market choices to promote their beliefs.

Where the right pushes beliefs through Govt it's more based on Constitutional laws and beliefs
they feel should be enforced through Govt, while Christian beliefs are generally understood to be optional.

Because the left pushed the LGBT beliefs into Govt, this opens the door for Christian beliefs to get pushed equally.
Because the left pushed "right to health care" beliefs through Govt, this opens the door for "right to life" beliefs to get pushed.

If both would be consistent in not pushing their beliefs through Govt at the expense of other creeds,
then we could all better enforce equal Constitutional standards and protections for people regardless of beliefs, religious or political.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Is the majority of religious believers on the right acknowledge that the Constitution comes first,
and this checks against pushing those beliefs through govt.

While the majority of people on the left with political beliefs
DO NOT SEE THIS AS SEPARATE FROM GOVT but believe that
right to health care, right to marriage, and LGBT beliefs
SHOULD BE ENDORSED AND NATIONALIZED THROUGH GOVT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

Good day, Emily:

It sounds like you're making a typical blanket assessment of entire parties based on nothing but an opinion. It's valid to you, but it's more partisan than factual to me. I try not to boil down politics to binary issues. I try to pro and con everything.

 

[B. Kidd]

not because of policy disagreements but only because of a desire to deny to America anything that might also benefit Trump.

Oh really? Is that why the republican senate rejects Trumps trade deals?

Senate rejects Trump's deal to save Chinese company ZTE

Is that why the Republican senate rejected trump's border emergency?

Senate votes to reject Trump's border emergency declaration

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on the saudi/yemen war?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6a24a8-45c2-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on tariffs?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/senate-trump-tariff-vote/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Or, on russian sanctions?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/sanctions-senate-republicans-trump/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1

It is why Pelosi refuses to consider the new trade agreements negotiated with Canada and Mexico, and why she refuses to consider infrastructure repair and development unless Trump rolls back his tax cuts and why she refuses the same immigration reforms Trump proposed which are identical to the immigration reforms the Democrats wanted in Schumer's 2013 Senate bill S. 744. There are no policy disagreements on these issues, but the Democrats refuse to deal with them because they are Trump initiatives and he would get some of the credit for the outcomes.

As I recall, the meetings between Pelosi and Trump seem to end with him storming out of the room. The president told reporters afterwards that he wouldn’t negotiate with Democrats on any policies as long as they continued investigations. Trump has absolutely no interest in passing any legislation before the election which is why he has not been willing to negotiate. He just wants put on a good show for his base which means being more contentious than the opposition.

Obama's proposed immigration reform addressed dreamers and Trump's did not. Obama strongly supported family based immigration. Trump introduced merit based immigration as a replacement. Obama supported improvements in border security focusing on technology. Trump plan for border security is his wall. The two proposals could not be further apart which is why Trump's plan will be DOA in the House.

You convienently left out Pelosi's cover-up accusation just before the meeting.
I'm sure you would just love to sit down with me to seriously develop infrastructure right after I just publicly inferred that you are a criminal asshole!

 

[McRocket]

Here is an idea...instead of just insulting most the world by inferring they have de-evolved - why not take a more positive approach and assume that people in general are not the problem but events/circumstances have simply brought more negative personalities to the fore.

I truly believe with instantaneous access to reliable and faulty information we as a species are de evolving. No one vets anything anymore. Every strong opinion these days seems to be rooted in more emotion than fact. So why would I assume people in general aren't the problem? Holding individuals accountable is seen as a 'negative' in our current society, so we bullshit ourselves so we don't have to feel 'bad' about our own stupid decisions. I don't know exactly how we remedy this, but more white washing of real issues that lead to our political division is a monumental waste of time. No thanks.

You are going to have to give at least some factual data from an unbiased source, taken over a long period of time to even to begin to convince me that people are 'de-evolving'. And I have seen nothing remotely like that.
Additionally, you will have to give me a logical reason for this.

Teenagers are miles ahead in general knowledge then they were a generation ago.

Television was a HORRIBLE way to teach people....especially about 30-40 years ago. Channels were limited, almost ALL profit-based, had to conform to societal norms and 'standards'. It sucked.
Thank god it is dying as a major news source. Almost no one who is under 50 watches the jokes that were the 'evening news' programs. People are cutting the cable every day.

The internet gives people a near-infinite source of knowledge from a myriad of sources. And knowledge brings wisdom.


Again, this is nothing but social backlash from the middle class losing power and falling into extremist camps. That is what humanity has ALWAYS done when things go badly for the masses. The right is going more conservative - the left, more progressive. Same old, same old.

I am not saying people are not making HUGE mistakes? They are. But they will learn from them. They ALWAYS have.
Have they yet? Nope. That is why things are getting worse. And the government's/central banks do NOT want them to learn (and/or many do not understand it themselves, fully) the truth.
But they will...guaranteed.

As soon as central banks lose credibility (run out of financial weapons that are working to artificially prop up economies while simultaneously routing new money into the hands of the wealthy...either intentionally or not) - the people will realize they put their faith in the wrong people.

But that is going to take a LONG TIME probably...possibly 10-15+ years.

However, the fact that people are starting to distrust mainstream politicians is a good sign that things are beginning to come to a head. The people are angry but they know not what exactly is wrong and/or whom is to blame.

But eventually they will figure it out. It's too ridiculously obvious - IMO - to ignore forever.

 

[BluesLegend]

not because of policy disagreements but only because of a desire to deny to America anything that might also benefit Trump.

Oh really? Is that why the republican senate rejects Trumps trade deals?

Senate rejects Trump's deal to save Chinese company ZTE

Is that why the Republican senate rejected trump's border emergency?

Senate votes to reject Trump's border emergency declaration

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on the saudi/yemen war?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6a24a8-45c2-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on tariffs?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/senate-trump-tariff-vote/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Or, on russian sanctions?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/sanctions-senate-republicans-trump/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1

It is why Pelosi refuses to consider the new trade agreements negotiated with Canada and Mexico, and why she refuses to consider infrastructure repair and development unless Trump rolls back his tax cuts and why she refuses the same immigration reforms Trump proposed which are identical to the immigration reforms the Democrats wanted in Schumer's 2013 Senate bill S. 744. There are no policy disagreements on these issues, but the Democrats refuse to deal with them because they are Trump initiatives and he would get some of the credit for the outcomes.

As I recall, the meetings between Pelosi and Trump seem to end with him storming out of the room. The president told reporters afterwards that he wouldn’t negotiate with Democrats on any policies as long as they continued investigations. Trump has absolutely no interest in passing any legislation before the election which is why he has not been willing to negotiate. He just wants put on a good show for his base which means being more contentious than the opposition.

Obama's proposed immigration reform addressed dreamers and Trump's did not. Obama strongly supported family based immigration. Trump introduced merit based immigration as a replacement. Obama supported improvements in border security focusing on technology. Trump plan for border security is his wall. The two proposals could not be further apart which is why Trump's plan will be DOA in the House.

You convienently left out Pelosi's cover-up accusation just before the meeting.
I'm sure you would just love to sit down with me to seriously develop infrastructure right after I just publicly inferred that you are a criminal asshole!

Trump bitch slapped Pelosi after she behaved like an asshole.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Teenagers are miles ahead in general knowledge then they were a generation ago.

Documentation, please.

The internet gives people a near-infinite source of knowledge from a myriad of sources

Yeah, when the batteries work.

In order to think critically, one must have something in one's head to think critically about.

 

[Flopper]

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people standing up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling them how wrong and how stupid they are.

Well said! I also find it useful to ask questions and allow the person you are engaged with to explain their ideas. It helps me understand their knowledge and perspective but also allows room to find commonalities and expose flaws in their logic should flaws exist. At that point introducing alternative ideas can be explored. But it does take two to tango and often both are using flawed sources for information and the debate never gets below the surface.

Most people are not that knowledgeable on issues they support. So asking them to explain what they believe followed by non-accusatory questions lead people to the conclusion that they don't understand their position they are taking as well as they thought they did which makes it easier to negotiate with them.

Of course none of this is likely to work on USMB because most everyone here has come to do battle and vanquish the enemy, not to change opinions.

Yeah I see it happening both ways. Some
People get angry when they can’t explain themselves or back up their arguments. I think that’s why politics and religion are such contentious topics. It always puzzled me why people got so mad when talking about these topics and one thing that this board has taught me is that ego and ignorance both play a large part in where the anger comes from.

Those with humility and open minds seem to be willing and able to engage at a much higher level than those who troll and insult

Have you notice how many people never read more than the first 2 or 3 lines of a post. I think they are just trying to determine what side you are on. Their reply is often not to your post but rather to state their opinion, which may have no relevance to your post or even the topic.

 

[Flopper]

Worse, it's a self-inflicted wound. No one is forcing us to behave this way. Ego and tribalism.

So you believe Republicans should unit with Dims to destroy the country?

Absolutely. I think destroying the country would be really cool 'n stuff.
.

You must if you believe we should unite with the people intent on doing it.

But your opinions are completely bat shit, irrational nonsense. You see the entire left as a socialism embracing boogeyman when in reality their fringe embrace social policies you don't like. You see the entire right as a paragon of morality and financial stewardship when they're pretty much the opposite of that these days. No one will bother to have any rational conversation with someone espousing these huge blind partisan leaps of logic.

The difference Tumblin Tumbleweed
Is the majority of religious believers on the right acknowledge that the Constitution comes first,
and this checks against pushing those beliefs through govt.

While the majority of people on the left with political beliefs
DO NOT SEE THIS AS SEPARATE FROM GOVT but believe that
right to health care, right to marriage, and LGBT beliefs
SHOULD BE ENDORSED AND NATIONALIZED THROUGH GOVT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

There are some on the right who will keep pushing beliefs such as the right to life
through govt regardless of beliefs of others, as there are people on the left pushing pro choice beliefs.

They either come out pretty even, or there is a slight bias on the LEFT
toward institutionalizing their beliefs through GOVT and/or PARTY to VOTE IN Socialist beliefs,
while the bias on the right is to go through churches, businesses, and private
sector programs to use free market choices to promote their beliefs.

Where the right pushes beliefs through Govt it's more based on Constitutional laws and beliefs
they feel should be enforced through Govt, while Christian beliefs are generally understood to be optional.

Because the left pushed the LGBT beliefs into Govt, this opens the door for Christian beliefs to get pushed equally.
Because the left pushed "right to health care" beliefs through Govt, this opens the door for "right to life" beliefs to get pushed.

If both would be consistent in not pushing their beliefs through Govt at the expense of other creeds,
then we could all better enforce equal Constitutional standards and protections for people regardless of beliefs, religious or political.

Both sides try to use the constitution to support their belief that the federal goverment either should or should not be involved. The right to health care, right to life, right to work, right to select your leaders, right to chose, right to an education, right to marry who you choose, etc all fall under a rather broad interpretation of human rights.

A few centuries ago most of our constitutional rights (state and federal) would have fallen under the category of human rights lacking any legal foundation. IMHO, the trend of history has been to incorporate more and more human rights into legal rights. Someday, many of these human rights such as healthcare are going enshrined into law.

 

[Slade3200]

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people standing up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling them how wrong and how stupid they are.

Well said! I also find it useful to ask questions and allow the person you are engaged with to explain their ideas. It helps me understand their knowledge and perspective but also allows room to find commonalities and expose flaws in their logic should flaws exist. At that point introducing alternative ideas can be explored. But it does take two to tango and often both are using flawed sources for information and the debate never gets below the surface.

Most people are not that knowledgeable on issues they support. So asking them to explain what they believe followed by non-accusatory questions lead people to the conclusion that they don't understand their position they are taking as well as they thought they did which makes it easier to negotiate with them.

Of course none of this is likely to work on USMB because most everyone here has come to do battle and vanquish the enemy, not to change opinions.

Yeah I see it happening both ways. Some
People get angry when they can’t explain themselves or back up their arguments. I think that’s why politics and religion are such contentious topics. It always puzzled me why people got so mad when talking about these topics and one thing that this board has taught me is that ego and ignorance both play a large part in where the anger comes from.

Those with humility and open minds seem to be willing and able to engage at a much higher level than those who troll and insult

Have you notice how many people never read more than the first 2 or 3 lines of a post. I think they are just trying to determine what side you are on. Their reply is often not to your post but rather to state their opinion, which may have no relevance to your post or even the topic.

Yes, that’s one of the first signs that you’re talking to a troll. They don’t address the points you are making and respond with generalized attacks against what the “Left” or “Right” believes. I don’t know why these people think it’s effective to incorrectly proclaim the beliefs of people they disagree with. To me it just makes them sound stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you believe Republicans should unit with Dims to destroy the country?

Absolutely. I think destroying the country would be really cool 'n stuff.
.

You must if you believe we should unite with the people intent on doing it.

But your opinions are completely bat shit, irrational nonsense. You see the entire left as a socialism embracing boogeyman when in reality their fringe embrace social policies you don't like. You see the entire right as a paragon of morality and financial stewardship when they're pretty much the opposite of that these days. No one will bother to have any rational conversation with someone espousing these huge blind partisan leaps of logic.

The difference Tumblin Tumbleweed
Is the majority of religious believers on the right acknowledge that the Constitution comes first,
and this checks against pushing those beliefs through govt.

While the majority of people on the left with political beliefs
DO NOT SEE THIS AS SEPARATE FROM GOVT but believe that
right to health care, right to marriage, and LGBT beliefs
SHOULD BE ENDORSED AND NATIONALIZED THROUGH GOVT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

There are some on the right who will keep pushing beliefs such as the right to life
through govt regardless of beliefs of others, as there are people on the left pushing pro choice beliefs.

They either come out pretty even, or there is a slight bias on the LEFT
toward institutionalizing their beliefs through GOVT and/or PARTY to VOTE IN Socialist beliefs,
while the bias on the right is to go through churches, businesses, and private
sector programs to use free market choices to promote their beliefs.

Where the right pushes beliefs through Govt it's more based on Constitutional laws and beliefs
they feel should be enforced through Govt, while Christian beliefs are generally understood to be optional.

Because the left pushed the LGBT beliefs into Govt, this opens the door for Christian beliefs to get pushed equally.
Because the left pushed "right to health care" beliefs through Govt, this opens the door for "right to life" beliefs to get pushed.

If both would be consistent in not pushing their beliefs through Govt at the expense of other creeds,
then we could all better enforce equal Constitutional standards and protections for people regardless of beliefs, religious or political.

Both sides try to use the constitution to support their belief that the federal goverment either should or should not be involved. The right to health care, right to life, right to work, right to select your leaders, right to chose, right to an education, right to marry who you choose, etc all fall under a rather broad interpretation of human rights.

A few centuries ago most of our constitutional rights (state and federal) would have fallen under the category of human rights lacking any legal foundation. IMHO, the trend of history has been to incorporate more and more human rights into legal rights. Someday, many of these human rights such as healthcare are going enshrined into law.

Dear Flopper

At least one of my friends explained right to health care
as "promoting the general welfare". Then I brought up that
principle still has to be balanced with other Constitutional
principles including NOT DEPRIVING citizens of LIBERTY
with DUE PROCESS (to prove they committed some abuse
or wrong for which the law warrants loss of liberty).

When I bring up the process of RATIFYING A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT to authorize federal govt to expand its authorities
and duties I get responses like "the Constitution is not binding
anyway. It's outdated and nobody is following it so it doesn't matter."
They assume politicians are just going to push and pass laws whichever way they can and fight it out, regardless what the Constitution prescribes "it's all political."

That's what I get with liberals Flopper who
DON'T BELIEVE IN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS VALID.

Instead they are going by political will and beliefs, first,
and then use "majority rule, judicial rule, and elections" second,
and only where that MATCHES and enforces what they believe in legislating. If it doesn't match, they fight to override it, again,
using POLITICS.

With Conservatives, there are both the Christians and Conservatives
who strive to obey the given principles and process and fight fair by the rules. There are some that have become liberalized and just rely on voting, elections and campaigns to push whatever is convenient by whatever means they can get away with.

But more Christians and Conservatives understand and respond to Constitutional principles and arguments.

When I try to CITE Constitutional laws and ethics with liberals, it's very rare to find people who relate to that. They mostly resort to whatever beliefs or reasoning THEY believe in, and use THAT as their basis of policy. Just their own beliefs and consent, and they general DO NOT use Constitutional terms to express or defend that.

Instead of using free exercise of religion to defend their beliefs, they use freedom of choice, right to marriage, right to health care, but don't consider these beliefs as under the First Amendment.

They don't see gun rights the same way because they don't see them as intrinsically inseparable from the other Rights in the Bill of Rights where gun rights cannot be abused to violate these other principles or it's taking those laws out of context with the whole. Because they don't see it that way, and don't follow the spirit of Constitutional laws in general, they don't interpret or apply it as conservatives do who believe these represent natural laws that don't rely on government.

The structure of beliefs is totally different towards law and govt.

 

[Slade3200]

Absolutely. I think destroying the country would be really cool 'n stuff.
.

You must if you believe we should unite with the people intent on doing it.

But your opinions are completely bat shit, irrational nonsense. You see the entire left as a socialism embracing boogeyman when in reality their fringe embrace social policies you don't like. You see the entire right as a paragon of morality and financial stewardship when they're pretty much the opposite of that these days. No one will bother to have any rational conversation with someone espousing these huge blind partisan leaps of logic.

The difference Tumblin Tumbleweed
Is the majority of religious believers on the right acknowledge that the Constitution comes first,
and this checks against pushing those beliefs through govt.

While the majority of people on the left with political beliefs
DO NOT SEE THIS AS SEPARATE FROM GOVT but believe that
right to health care, right to marriage, and LGBT beliefs
SHOULD BE ENDORSED AND NATIONALIZED THROUGH GOVT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

There are some on the right who will keep pushing beliefs such as the right to life
through govt regardless of beliefs of others, as there are people on the left pushing pro choice beliefs.

They either come out pretty even, or there is a slight bias on the LEFT
toward institutionalizing their beliefs through GOVT and/or PARTY to VOTE IN Socialist beliefs,
while the bias on the right is to go through churches, businesses, and private
sector programs to use free market choices to promote their beliefs.

Where the right pushes beliefs through Govt it's more based on Constitutional laws and beliefs
they feel should be enforced through Govt, while Christian beliefs are generally understood to be optional.

Because the left pushed the LGBT beliefs into Govt, this opens the door for Christian beliefs to get pushed equally.
Because the left pushed "right to health care" beliefs through Govt, this opens the door for "right to life" beliefs to get pushed.

If both would be consistent in not pushing their beliefs through Govt at the expense of other creeds,
then we could all better enforce equal Constitutional standards and protections for people regardless of beliefs, religious or political.

Both sides try to use the constitution to support their belief that the federal goverment either should or should not be involved. The right to health care, right to life, right to work, right to select your leaders, right to chose, right to an education, right to marry who you choose, etc all fall under a rather broad interpretation of human rights.

A few centuries ago most of our constitutional rights (state and federal) would have fallen under the category of human rights lacking any legal foundation. IMHO, the trend of history has been to incorporate more and more human rights into legal rights. Someday, many of these human rights such as healthcare are going enshrined into law.

Dear Flopper

At least one of my friends explained right to health care
as "promoting the general welfare". Then I brought up that
principle still has to be balanced with other Constitutional
principles including NOT DEPRIVING citizens of LIBERTY
with DUE PROCESS (to prove they committed some abuse
or wrong for which the law warrants loss of liberty).

When I bring up the process of RATIFYING A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT to authorize federal govt to expand its authorities
and duties I get responses like "the Constitution is not binding
anyway. It's outdated and nobody is following it so it doesn't matter."
They assume politicians are just going to push and pass laws whichever way they can and fight it out, regardless what the Constitution prescribes "it's all political."

That's what I get with liberals Flopper who
DON'T BELIEVE IN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS VALID.

Instead they are going by political will and beliefs, first,
and then use "majority rule, judicial rule, and elections" second,
and only where that MATCHES and enforces what they believe in legislating. If it doesn't match, they fight to override it, again,
using POLITICS.

With Conservatives, there are both the Christians and Conservatives
who strive to obey the given principles and process and fight fair by the rules. There are some that have become liberalized and just rely on voting, elections and campaigns to push whatever is convenient by whatever means they can get away with.

But more Christians and Conservatives understand and respond to Constitutional principles and arguments.

When I try to CITE Constitutional laws and ethics with liberals, it's very rare to find people who relate to that. They mostly resort to whatever beliefs or reasoning THEY believe in, and use THAT as their basis of policy. Just their own beliefs and consent, and they general DO NOT use Constitutional terms to express or defend that.

Instead of using free exercise of religion to defend their beliefs, they use freedom of choice, right to marriage, right to health care, but don't consider these beliefs as under the First Amendment.

They don't see gun rights the same way because they don't see them as intrinsically inseparable from the other Rights in the Bill of Rights where gun rights cannot be abused to violate these other principles or it's taking those laws out of context with the whole. Because they don't see it that way, and don't follow the spirit of Constitutional laws in general, they don't interpret or apply it as conservatives do who believe these represent natural laws that don't rely on government.

The structure of beliefs is totally different towards law and govt.

Much of that is due to the nature of each ideology. Progressives push for change so they will challenge existing law much more than conservatives will.

You are right that many do not take the time to learn, understand or respect the constitution or even how our government is supposed to operate and they shoot themselves in the foot when they try to sidestep the process we’ve used for centuries to govern our country.

The toxic politicalization in Washington also plays a huge part, especially when we are unable to progress. Something needs to be done with our campaign and election system so our leaders can focus on leading and less on fundraising and campaigning. I’ve always wanted to see our country operate more like a business but it’s been going in the opposite direction

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

The "Union" as a farce. We are not united.

Reds allegedly focus on economic freedom but not individual freedom.

Blues want certain individual freedom, but not all. They also hate free market capitalism.

Both have hard authoritarian slants.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From you link, "Pelosi, responding to Trump’s remarks, tweeted: “When the ‘extremely stable genius’ starts acting more presidential, I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.”

Which she said after he had his little tantrum. I don't think you are following..

And i posted a handful of facts that completely undermined all of your cultish bullshit.

 

[Flopper]

Absolutely. I think destroying the country would be really cool 'n stuff.
.

You must if you believe we should unite with the people intent on doing it.

But your opinions are completely bat shit, irrational nonsense. You see the entire left as a socialism embracing boogeyman when in reality their fringe embrace social policies you don't like. You see the entire right as a paragon of morality and financial stewardship when they're pretty much the opposite of that these days. No one will bother to have any rational conversation with someone espousing these huge blind partisan leaps of logic.

The difference Tumblin Tumbleweed
Is the majority of religious believers on the right acknowledge that the Constitution comes first,
and this checks against pushing those beliefs through govt.

While the majority of people on the left with political beliefs
DO NOT SEE THIS AS SEPARATE FROM GOVT but believe that
right to health care, right to marriage, and LGBT beliefs
SHOULD BE ENDORSED AND NATIONALIZED THROUGH GOVT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

There are some on the right who will keep pushing beliefs such as the right to life
through govt regardless of beliefs of others, as there are people on the left pushing pro choice beliefs.

They either come out pretty even, or there is a slight bias on the LEFT
toward institutionalizing their beliefs through GOVT and/or PARTY to VOTE IN Socialist beliefs,
while the bias on the right is to go through churches, businesses, and private
sector programs to use free market choices to promote their beliefs.

Where the right pushes beliefs through Govt it's more based on Constitutional laws and beliefs
they feel should be enforced through Govt, while Christian beliefs are generally understood to be optional.

Because the left pushed the LGBT beliefs into Govt, this opens the door for Christian beliefs to get pushed equally.
Because the left pushed "right to health care" beliefs through Govt, this opens the door for "right to life" beliefs to get pushed.

If both would be consistent in not pushing their beliefs through Govt at the expense of other creeds,
then we could all better enforce equal Constitutional standards and protections for people regardless of beliefs, religious or political.

Both sides try to use the constitution to support their belief that the federal goverment either should or should not be involved. The right to health care, right to life, right to work, right to select your leaders, right to chose, right to an education, right to marry who you choose, etc all fall under a rather broad interpretation of human rights.

A few centuries ago most of our constitutional rights (state and federal) would have fallen under the category of human rights lacking any legal foundation. IMHO, the trend of history has been to incorporate more and more human rights into legal rights. Someday, many of these human rights such as healthcare are going enshrined into law.

Dear Flopper

At least one of my friends explained right to health care
as "promoting the general welfare". Then I brought up that
principle still has to be balanced with other Constitutional
principles including NOT DEPRIVING citizens of LIBERTY
with DUE PROCESS (to prove they committed some abuse
or wrong for which the law warrants loss of liberty).

When I bring up the process of RATIFYING A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT to authorize federal govt to expand its authorities
and duties I get responses like "the Constitution is not binding
anyway. It's outdated and nobody is following it so it doesn't matter."
They assume politicians are just going to push and pass laws whichever way they can and fight it out, regardless what the Constitution prescribes "it's all political."

That's what I get with liberals Flopper who
DON'T BELIEVE IN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS VALID.

Instead they are going by political will and beliefs, first,
and then use "majority rule, judicial rule, and elections" second,
and only where that MATCHES and enforces what they believe in legislating. If it doesn't match, they fight to override it, again,
using POLITICS.

With Conservatives, there are both the Christians and Conservatives
who strive to obey the given principles and process and fight fair by the rules. There are some that have become liberalized and just rely on voting, elections and campaigns to push whatever is convenient by whatever means they can get away with.

But more Christians and Conservatives understand and respond to Constitutional principles and arguments.

When I try to CITE Constitutional laws and ethics with liberals, it's very rare to find people who relate to that. They mostly resort to whatever beliefs or reasoning THEY believe in, and use THAT as their basis of policy. Just their own beliefs and consent, and they general DO NOT use Constitutional terms to express or defend that.

Instead of using free exercise of religion to defend their beliefs, they use freedom of choice, right to marriage, right to health care, but don't consider these beliefs as under the First Amendment.

They don't see gun rights the same way because they don't see them as intrinsically inseparable from the other Rights in the Bill of Rights where gun rights cannot be abused to violate these other principles or it's taking those laws out of context with the whole. Because they don't see it that way, and don't follow the spirit of Constitutional laws in general, they don't interpret or apply it as conservatives do who believe these represent natural laws that don't rely on government.

The structure of beliefs is totally different towards law and govt.

Keep in mind that although we have sets of beliefs that we label as being conservative or liberal, people we identify as conservative or liberal do not necessary accept all beliefs association with that ideology. Studies have show that both liberals and conservatives strongly support only 25% to 30% of the key points in that ideology. 40% to 50% of the ideology is supported but not considered a major concern. The remaining points in the ideology is of little personal interest.

In regard to the constitution, in any discussion, the first issue that has to be addressed is how do you interpret the constitution?

The religious right interpret the Bible literally and tend to follow the same path with the constitution. They see no reason to interpret it. They accept it at face value.

Those on the far left believe the constitution is a living document to be interpreted based on problems we face today. They are interested in what the founders beliefs would be if they were alive today. They are concerned with principals rather than the exact wording.

Lastly, people interpret the constitution by examining the meanings of words and praise in the document during the 18th century. The also determine what the opinions and beliefs of the founders where by studying their writings. This is most the common method used by judges. IMHO, I think this is best method.

In many countries there is no interpretation of the constitution because the writers attempted to cover all issues that might arise. A constitutional convention is held regularly so new issues are added and changes are made to old ones as needed so there is no need for interpretation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Keep in mind that although we have sets of beliefs that we label as being conservative or liberal, people we identify as conservative or liberal do not necessary accept all beliefs association with that ideology. Studies have show that both liberals and conservatives strongly support only 25% to 30% of the key points in that ideology. 40% to 50% of the ideology is supported but not considered a major concern. The remaining points in the ideology is of little personal interest.

For this reason Flopper, I'd say it's best to take each issue one by one,
and just mediate between the different groups, parties and beliefs.

Just because people flip one way on one issue shouldn't dictate representation on another issue.

We can organize representation loosely by party. to start, but then on each issue, let
people represent their own views and make sure we include and cover each other.

After all points, objections and issues tied to each matter are spelled out,
then all sides can coordinate policies and solutions based on that input.

So it doesn't have to mean a blanket label across the board.
We should address each issue that involves beliefs, and work out all points pertaining
to arrive at policy decisions that include, address and resolve all grievances and objections people have
so their beliefs and interests are represented equally in solutions.

In regard to the constitution, in any discussion, the first issue that has to be addressed is how do you interpret the constitution?

Just the fact that people interpret it differently, is enough.
It isn't necessary to spell it all out and agree on everything, like a labeled denomination.
But just to respect where people have their different beliefs. That's good enough.

If we just let people represent themselves, they can answer yes and no for what
they agree with or not. It doesn't have to be perfectly defined, because it can change in the process,
and like you pointed out, people may not be uniform across the board but have mixed beliefs.

Again, I'd also take each Constitutional principle, article and issue separately.

At any point that people diverge in their beliefs, allow both sets of variations to co-exist equally.
And work out solutions that don't rely on putting one over the other.

Either they CONSENT to a solution, or they don't, or they come up with a better alternative.
That process of coming to consensual solutions is the real goal.
If we end up spelling out the specific beliefs and differences along the way, that's helpful but not necessary.

Also, each conflict addressed may lead to different solutions by different groups or regions.

The same solutions that works for one school or district, may not represent what works for another.

It's funny, that I was just talking with a friend about how to set up a process to handle political beliefs.
And he also brought up how do we DEFINE what is a belief.
And I said if we sat around arguing how to define it, we'd go in circles dissection and deconstructing the terms.
NO. I said we should just APPLY the process to issues we KNOW and AGREE involve conflicting beliefs,
and go for it, go ahead and address these and work out solutions. Not theorize and argue how to word and define it.

I think we can agree these type of issues involve beliefs that people cannot be forced to change by govt:
1. Right to health care as necessary through federal govt or separate from govt as a civil liberty reserved to people or States
2. Marriage, same sex or LGBT orientation/identity, and terms of benefits
3. Abortion, right to life, where the woman's right to due process and the right to life of the unborn should both be equally protected to prevent infringement (similar to gun rights and voting rights, where legislation should not deprive law abiding citizens of rights
because of attempts to regulate against criminal abuses)
4. Citizenship, immigration, birth rights, rights of taxpayers
5. Death penalty, restorative justice and criminal issues of rehab and restitution
So mediation is necessary to craft policies, reforms and solutions that "work around"
the conflicting beliefs instead of violating one set or another by compromising for "political expedience" or other compelling pressures

 

[Flopper]

Keep in mind that although we have sets of beliefs that we label as being conservative or liberal, people we identify as conservative or liberal do not necessary accept all beliefs association with that ideology. Studies have show that both liberals and conservatives strongly support only 25% to 30% of the key points in that ideology. 40% to 50% of the ideology is supported but not considered a major concern. The remaining points in the ideology is of little personal interest.

For this reason Flopper, I'd say it's best to take each issue one by one,
and just mediate between the different groups, parties and beliefs.

Just because people flip one way on one issue shouldn't dictate representation on another issue.

We can organize representation loosely by party. to start, but then on each issue, let
people represent their own views and make sure we include and cover each other.

After all points, objections and issues tied to each matter are spelled out,
then all sides can coordinate policies and solutions based on that input.

So it doesn't have to mean a blanket label across the board.
We should address each issue that involves beliefs, and work out all points pertaining
to arrive at policy decisions that include, address and resolve all grievances and objections people have
so their beliefs and interests are represented equally in solutions.

In regard to the constitution, in any discussion, the first issue that has to be addressed is how do you interpret the constitution?

Just the fact that people interpret it differently, is enough.
It isn't necessary to spell it all out and agree on everything, like a labeled denomination.
But just to respect where people have their different beliefs. That's good enough.

If we just let people represent themselves, they can answer yes and no for what
they agree with or not. It doesn't have to be perfectly defined, because it can change in the process,
and like you pointed out, people may not be uniform across the board but have mixed beliefs.

Again, I'd also take each Constitutional principle, article and issue separately.

At any point that people diverge in their beliefs, allow both sets of variations to co-exist equally.
And work out solutions that don't rely on putting one over the other.

Either they CONSENT to a solution, or they don't, or they come up with a better alternative.
That process of coming to consensual solutions is the real goal.
If we end up spelling out the specific beliefs and differences along the way, that's helpful but not necessary.

Also, each conflict addressed may lead to different solutions by different groups or regions.

The same solutions that works for one school or district, may not represent what works for another.

It's funny, that I was just talking with a friend about how to set up a process to handle political beliefs.
And he also brought up how do we DEFINE what is a belief.
And I said if we sat around arguing how to define it, we'd go in circles dissection and deconstructing the terms.
NO. I said we should just APPLY the process to issues we KNOW and AGREE involve conflicting beliefs,
and go for it, go ahead and address these and work out solutions. Not theorize and argue how to word and define it.

I think we can agree these type of issues involve beliefs that people cannot be forced to change by govt:
1. Right to health care as necessary through federal govt or separate from govt as a civil liberty reserved to people or States
2. Marriage, same sex or LGBT orientation/identity, and terms of benefits
3. Abortion, right to life, where the woman's right to due process and the right to life of the unborn should both be equally protected to prevent infringement (similar to gun rights and voting rights, where legislation should not deprive law abiding citizens of rights
because of attempts to regulate against criminal abuses)
4. Citizenship, immigration, birth rights, rights of taxpayers
5. Death penalty, restorative justice and criminal issues of rehab and restitution
So mediation is necessary to craft policies, reforms and solutions that "work around"
the conflicting beliefs instead of violating one set or another by compromising for "political expedience" or other compelling pressures

If we can work toward what we can agree on and set aside the rest for another day, then we have taken the first step toward making goverment work for the people. But how do you do that in a political environment that is so polarized? For example, there is no argument in congress or across the nation that we need a major overhaul of our infrastructure. Our bridges are literally falling down. Our highways are so inadequate that we are approaching gridlock in many of our major cities. Both parties have promised to overhaul our infrastructure for years. The problem of course is that the minority party is not willing to allow the majority party to shape the legislation and take credit.

We need republican liberals and democrat conservatives that can form coalitions in congress to get things done. We are so polarized that progress only occurs when one party controls government which is less than a third of time. When the other party gains control of government, the primary goal becomes to undue what the opposition accomplished. Just as republicans have tried to reverse everything the Obama administration accomplished, democrats will try to reverse everything Trump has done when they get control of goverment.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

 

[HappyJoy]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

Yeah!! it's baby boomers?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

Ummm ... well, there's my kid. He's Gen Y, even more opinionated than I am, and he's not alone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Keep in mind that although we have sets of beliefs that we label as being conservative or liberal, people we identify as conservative or liberal do not necessary accept all beliefs association with that ideology. Studies have show that both liberals and conservatives strongly support only 25% to 30% of the key points in that ideology. 40% to 50% of the ideology is supported but not considered a major concern. The remaining points in the ideology is of little personal interest.

For this reason Flopper, I'd say it's best to take each issue one by one,
and just mediate between the different groups, parties and beliefs.

Just because people flip one way on one issue shouldn't dictate representation on another issue.

We can organize representation loosely by party. to start, but then on each issue, let
people represent their own views and make sure we include and cover each other.

After all points, objections and issues tied to each matter are spelled out,
then all sides can coordinate policies and solutions based on that input.

So it doesn't have to mean a blanket label across the board.
We should address each issue that involves beliefs, and work out all points pertaining
to arrive at policy decisions that include, address and resolve all grievances and objections people have
so their beliefs and interests are represented equally in solutions.

In regard to the constitution, in any discussion, the first issue that has to be addressed is how do you interpret the constitution?

Just the fact that people interpret it differently, is enough.
It isn't necessary to spell it all out and agree on everything, like a labeled denomination.
But just to respect where people have their different beliefs. That's good enough.

If we just let people represent themselves, they can answer yes and no for what
they agree with or not. It doesn't have to be perfectly defined, because it can change in the process,
and like you pointed out, people may not be uniform across the board but have mixed beliefs.

Again, I'd also take each Constitutional principle, article and issue separately.

At any point that people diverge in their beliefs, allow both sets of variations to co-exist equally.
And work out solutions that don't rely on putting one over the other.

Either they CONSENT to a solution, or they don't, or they come up with a better alternative.
That process of coming to consensual solutions is the real goal.
If we end up spelling out the specific beliefs and differences along the way, that's helpful but not necessary.

Also, each conflict addressed may lead to different solutions by different groups or regions.

The same solutions that works for one school or district, may not represent what works for another.

It's funny, that I was just talking with a friend about how to set up a process to handle political beliefs.
And he also brought up how do we DEFINE what is a belief.
And I said if we sat around arguing how to define it, we'd go in circles dissection and deconstructing the terms.
NO. I said we should just APPLY the process to issues we KNOW and AGREE involve conflicting beliefs,
and go for it, go ahead and address these and work out solutions. Not theorize and argue how to word and define it.

I think we can agree these type of issues involve beliefs that people cannot be forced to change by govt:
1. Right to health care as necessary through federal govt or separate from govt as a civil liberty reserved to people or States
2. Marriage, same sex or LGBT orientation/identity, and terms of benefits
3. Abortion, right to life, where the woman's right to due process and the right to life of the unborn should both be equally protected to prevent infringement (similar to gun rights and voting rights, where legislation should not deprive law abiding citizens of rights
because of attempts to regulate against criminal abuses)
4. Citizenship, immigration, birth rights, rights of taxpayers
5. Death penalty, restorative justice and criminal issues of rehab and restitution
So mediation is necessary to craft policies, reforms and solutions that "work around"
the conflicting beliefs instead of violating one set or another by compromising for "political expedience" or other compelling pressures

If we can work toward what we can agree on and set aside the rest for another day, then we have taken the first step toward making goverment work for the people. But how do you do that in a political environment that is so polarized? For example, there is no argument in congress or across the nation that we need a major overhaul of our infrastructure. Our bridges are literally falling down. Our highways are so inadequate that we are approaching gridlock in many of our major cities. Both parties have promised to overhaul our infrastructure for years. The problem of course is that the minority party is not willing to allow the majority party to shape the legislation and take credit.

We need republican liberals and democrat conservatives that can form coalitions in congress to get things done. We are so polarized that progress only occurs when one party controls government which is less than a third of time. When the other party gains control of government, the primary goal becomes to undue what the opposition accomplished. Just as republicans have tried to reverse everything the Obama administration accomplished, democrats will try to reverse everything Trump has done when they get control of goverment.

Flopper What I do when I get stuck with one or more friends, butting heads and getting "el nowhere"
we turn to other people we trust to "get us out of our own heads." We ask other friends "well NOW WHAT do we do"
"this person is melting down and we can't even talk. WTF????"

With parties, we have overlooked the input and objections of major influences
in the Green party, Libertarian, and Constitutionalists. By reaching out to tap talent, insights and leadership
from these other groups, we create opening and avenues for new discussions and angles on the "same old deadlocks"

I just found out through a Constitution party group that was "butting heads"
one of the leaders in ANOTHER STATE is actually for life imprisonments instead of the death penalty.

This means a whole new opportunity to bring in a new ally where the right/life liberal/conservative blocs
in Texas cancel each other out. I've been arguing as a Constitutionalist to SEPARATE FUNDING.
Well now I can make that argument, and either get somewhere, or expose the conflict at a BROADER LEVEL nationally.

These people may still keep butting heads, but what if someone else GETS IT. Then THEY start interjecting
and we might break the deadlock.

That's where I think this is heading Flopper
Notice even Ms. AOC was borrowing material from the Greens,
and Al Gore and other "Global Awarmists" took the green message and twisted it beyond recognition for their elitist political agenda.

Since around 2009-2012, heads of the REAL progressives and libertarians, including Ralph Nader and Ron Paul,
started calling for alliances and partnership between third party movement. And have been meeting and hosting conferences.

When is THAT bubble they are building going to burst in public?
I'd been working on forming alliances with people across different parties, to compile and include the BEST solutions
and ideas from ALL sources I could find.

It's just a matter of time before the barriers break that these major parties have been enforcing through media
projections of agenda back and forth. If half the nation supports one agenda while the other contests it, and vice versa,
then CLEARLY those are NOT the positions that represent ALL AMERICA. It's going to take a MIX of all these,
so it's other parties and programs that have put together solutions that don't DEPEND on taking "one side or the other"
that are going to work and sustain in an environment where we have BOTH hard left and hard right stances going on.

The solutions are going to be built and work AROUND these factions, but can't depend on any one of them dominating
and excluding the others. So these solutions naturally arise from the grassroots up.

Given our democratic media, where everyone has freedom of speech and access to free press,
these solutions are going to rise to the top, as people give up "butting heads" on the one-way bullying that isn't changing the other person's mind. When we turn to our other colleagues and ask "what would you do, how do you solve this crap" that's when we will start getting and hearing answers from other sources that have had to work it out without depending on party leadership or positions.

Democratic Self-Government: Are we heading there or not even close?

^ Here Flopper I just posted a separate link or thread to a list I made of some of these "solutions from third parties" which I shared with someone else calling for anarchy and self-government. It was too long, and also includes the original anarchist links, so I broke this up into separate posts on a separate thread, and linked it back here.

But THAT'S where I believe we are heading as a society in developing
stages and steps toward democratic self-government.