Political So now what

[johngottfredson]

Just like if I don’t support black lives matter I’m a nazi racist fascist right?

I don’t buy into the pedophile thing but tomato tomato both sides hurl garbage arguments at each other

Exactly, both sides DO hurl garbage arguments, and garbage arguments should be thrown out based on being garbage.

I think Kamala Harris and Co. should be held accountable for damages caused and lives lost last summer. I think Trump and Co. should be held responsible for the capitol riots. It's bewildering how many people rush to defend their guy and condemn the same behavior on the other side. Bad ideas, behavior, and rhetoric should never be acceptable, period.

 

[TRD270]

I think Kamala Harris and Co. should be held accountable for damages caused and lives lost last summer.

Said the exact same thing when the latest Congress circus started. Unfortunately this will NEVER happen

I don’t recall who anymore but an elected house or senate representative was marching at one of the “protests” I think in Illinois holding a no justice no peace sign and charging up the mob with a megaphone. But hey no biggie right?

 

[Herzog]

Pretty much the most epic conspiracy storyline. "What, you disagree with me? You must support pedophilia."

Epstein?

 

[glockman]

Exactly, both sides DO hurl garbage arguments, and garbage arguments should be thrown out based on being garbage.

I think Kamala Harris and Co. should be held accountable for damages caused and lives lost last summer. I think Trump and Co. should be held responsible for the capitol riots. It's bewildering how many people rush to defend their guy and condemn the same behavior on the other side. Bad ideas, behavior, and rhetoric should never be acceptable, period.

The obvious difference being many democrats actually calling for violence while Trump is an ass hole but actually said be peaceful, while impuning the election process. I'm all for arresting and prosecuting all elected officials who implied or actually incited violence but we have to use the same standard.

 

[Herzog]

No seriously, how did we go from Epstein island to "That's a conspiracy"? That's pretty amazing to me. The denial of reality is a bigger problem than I thought.

Oh well, I'd rather be at the fun table than at the egotistical table anyways.

 

[Noahfecks]

Prominent anti-Trump Republicans reject 3rd party

A group of former Republican officials considering a new center-right political party to counter former President Donald Trump's influence would face steep challenges in shaking up a U.S. political system that has favored two-party rule throughout its history.

www.ksl.com

This is the kind of article that frustrates me. The 2 party system at its finest. Vote for us or "they" win. The system is designed to devide the county . I honestly think that a third party formed from centralists pulled from both sides could do a lot for our country, but its a leap of faith thats hard for most people to take.

Honest question, where do you think the "center" is?

Personally I think we currently have left and lefterer, both are way to the left of say Kennedy.

 

[xjtony]

I would call "center" a group of politicians willing to come accross the party lines to enact legislation that compromises and at least makes an attempt to show bipartisan effort

 

[Pike2350]

Honest question, where do you think the "center" is?

Personally I think we currently have left and lefterer, both are way to the left of say Kennedy.

To me the center is people (on both sides) looking at the other and not immediately thinking the other side is "out to destroy XX" I'm sick of this argument on both sides. Right somehow thinks the Dem's ultimate goal is to destroy America and somehow make it subservient to other nations. Left somehow thinks that the Republicans are out to keep people in poverty and continue to use systematic racism to keep the white man on top.

Center is people having differing opinions but not immediately writing off the other side because it doesn't line up with theirs.

This, IMHO is the problem with modern politics. Both sides think the other side is somehow doing EVERYTHING with some sort of malicious intent and are hell bent on destroying what their side holds dear. This is hardly ever the case...but for some reason fear is so prevelant in this country it's actually disgusting.

I look at both sides trying to "solve" similar problems. The path and way they take are completely different, but that doesn't mean they are seeking a similar result. Get out of your bubble and think about what people are hoping to accomplish and why.....be objective and try to think, "Why would they really want to destroy xxxx"

Today I learned that I’m an extremist for wanting the country to follow the constitution and for wanting justice against ruling pedophile elite class. Cool. I guess it’s an honor.

Things like this are part of the problem. You are not an extremist, however you claim you want to country to follow the constitution, but are implying that the other side isn't/doesn't want to follow the constitution. It's a "holier than thou" type of thought....that your interpretation of the Constitution is somehow better and more accurate then the other sides.

Now, completely ignoring the constitution is a big problem for both sides, and both sides are known to do it...don't think your side is somehow more virtuous than the other.

Willingness to compromise is the center that has been missing for quite a while now. Too many votes are "down party lines" and those that may not follow those party lines are now censured and ridiculed for feeling/believing differently. It's ridiculous and disgusting.

Personally, the USA has lost a lot of it's glory in the past 30 years. I think the infighting, has become too much "winner take all"

 

[Spork]

I'm sorry if you believe Biden's gun grab has any middle ground.

 

[TRD270]

I'm sorry if you believe Biden's gun grab has any middle ground.

Gun grab, climate accord, immigration, land use..... need to go on?

 

[johngottfredson]

I'm sorry if you believe Biden's gun grab has any middle ground.

You don't think there's any middle ground on guns? As in, zero gun regulation whatsoever? Because if so, I respect your position. But if you think at least some regulation, somewhere, at all, is acceptable, then there is middle ground to debate. Biden might be going too far, but that doesn't mean middle ground doesn't exist.

 

[Spork]

You don't think there's any middle ground on guns? As in, zero gun regulation whatsoever? Because if so, I respect your position. But if you think at least some regulation, somewhere, at all, is acceptable, then there is middle ground to debate. Biden might be going too far, but that doesn't mean middle ground doesn't exist.

I believe we are already past middle ground. I don't believe Biden is going to remove any laws that already infringe. Example suppressors.

 

[Pike2350]

Gun grab, climate accord, immigration, land use..... need to go on?

so no middle ground? This is where I have issues with many on the right side (mainly because that's what I see more since I hang out on wheeling forums) They act like they will never give in on anything....they seem unwilling to compromise. I'm not saying Dem's won't because I'm sure there are a few issues they seem to refuse to compromise. Everyone thinks that somehow compromise is a slipper slope....and to men, that points back to the deeper feeling that the other side is "Out to destroy xxxx" So they only compromise to slowly erode at things.

In many ways, it seems we need to have a common outside enemy and majorly horrific event to bring our country together in any sense. Even then, it doesn't last long. We turn on each other and start to point fingers and infight with each other.

 

[TRD270]

so no middle ground? This is where I have issues with many on the right side (mainly because that's what I see more since I hang out on wheeling forums) They act like they will never give in on anything....they seem unwilling to compromise. I'm not saying Dem's won't because I'm sure there are a few issues they seem to refuse to compromise. Everyone thinks that somehow compromise is a slipper slope....and to men, that points back to the deeper feeling that the other side is "Out to destroy xxxx" So they only compromise to slowly erode at things.

In many ways, it seems we need to have a common outside enemy and majorly horrific event to bring our country together in any sense. Even then, it doesn't last long. We turn on each other and start to point fingers and infight with each other.

I didn't say there was no middle ground. I'm saying as demonstrated by the first week in office trying to be near any sort of middle was immediately thrown out the window. I'd like middle ground on all these issues. But the overbearingness the left tends to have has already shown its ugly head in less than a month.

Also i'm not "right side". The latest iteration of government has me favoring siding with the right. Lots of stuff I loathe about the republican party as well. I voted for some "left" candidates this election. I don't vote party lines I vote for who I believe represents my interests. Of late we only seem to have a shit sandwich or a giant douche to choose from in the highest offices

 

[Herzog]

The problem with "middle ground" is that it changes as the overton window shifts. "Middle ground" today does not have the same social meaning to most as it did a couple decades ago. Hell, even a few years ago.

 

[DesertRam]

With the exception of concealed carry improvements, the middle ground of gun control is always moving left. Those who seek second amendment freedoms have been compromising for a century, and we have lost ground most of the time. The left has no interest in common ground, they seek only to further restrict individual rights. When we compromise with them, we lose part of our rights we are nearly certain to never see again. We feed them a little something, and they bite our hand. Most will not clearly articulate their desired end-state (i.e. when is enough enough?). Those who do hold little back - they want you and me nearly totally disarmed. How is that middle ground? How do you compromise with a completely unacceptable proposition?

 

[Unimog]

I look at both sides trying to "solve" similar problems. The path and way they take are completely different, but that doesn't mean they are seeking a similar result.

I don't disagree with the major premise of your approach, but this one statement is where there is a pretty wide divide that there may not be a compromise to. While I may have a similar goal of "solving" similar problems in society, I personally believe that the government is the wrong institution or "tool" to solve most of the problems in our society. I truly believe that most legislation and legislators have good motives. The devil is in the details or how things are implemented. Every law passed has unintended consequences. Most problems must be solved by the individuals with the problem. When they are "solved" by outside sources, the solutions tend to cover up the original problem, rather than make it go away.

My agenda is to get government too govern less and step back from some of the things that they now try to control and allow people to solve those problems through other means. This also corresponds with spending less of the citizens money on "programs". The major problem our lawmakers have today is that they see problems and feel they must "do something" to prove their worth to us as citizens, when in reality, in many cases, the people would be better off if they did nothing. There are too many in all political parties who see this approach as blasphemy.

That being said, I am not for anarchy. I do think there is a place for well thought out laws. I think the founding fathers were on the right track and since then, a little progress has been made, but in many ways, we have departed from the simple principles of good government. All in my personal opinion, of course.

 

[Pike2350]

I don't disagree with the major premise of your approach, but this one statement is where there is a pretty wide divide that there may not be a compromise to. While I may have a similar goal of "solving" similar problems in society, I personally believe that the government is the wrong institution or "tool" to solve most of the problems in our society. I truly believe that most legislation and legislators have good motives. The devil is in the details or how things are implemented. Every law passed has unintended consequences. Most problems must be solved by the individuals with the problem. When they are "solved" by outside sources, the solutions tend to cover up the original problem, rather than make it go away.

My agenda is to get government too govern less and step back from some of the things that they now try to control and allow people to solve those problems through other means. This also corresponds with spending less of the citizens money on "programs". The major problem our lawmakers have today is that they see problems and feel they must "do something" to prove their worth to us as citizens, when in reality, in many cases, the people would be better off if they did nothing. There are too many in all political parties who see this approach as blasphemy.

That being said, I am not for anarchy. I do think there is a place for well thought out laws. I think the founding fathers were on the right track and since then, a little progress has been made, but in many ways, we have departed from the simple principles of good government. All in my personal opinion, of course.

I agree with you. I think the federal government has become involved in far too many things. However my statement still stands.

Your approach to fixing things is through people and private entities...not government interference. Things that the .gov are trying to fix.may very well be fixed without a .gov action...but generally the end goal.is roughly the same.

The example I usually use is student loan debt. I am 100% against any sort of forgiveness. I am also for the government stopping to back student loans and make students justify their degrees and borrowing to get loans. Now my overall goal is to make college less expensive....because i believe that by doing those things colleges will be more competitive and will become cheaper. That is generally the goal of the Dems....we just believe in completely different approaches.

I am sure there is some middle ground in there...but rarely is it brought up or even discussed.

 

[Unimog]

@Pike2350. I have completed confidence that any one of us could sit down around a campfire or table and really come up with reasonable solutions. My confidence level that any republican federal lawmakers would be willing to do what we are talking about is extremely low and my confidence that any democrat lawmaker that I know of would do this and consider doing nothing or rolling back existing legislation an appropriate response is 0%. I could be wrong and we can always hope...

 

[Houndoc]

This. When you start generalizing people as "Trumpers" or writing people's opinions off as "Trumpism" you lose credibility with me.

I think there are two very distinct groups- people who voted for Trump out of either a tightly held positions he supported (land use, pro-life etc) or opposition to specific Democratic policies (gun rights, abortion etc.) and those who stand by Trump no matter what (i.e. the Capitol attack, lies on stolen election etc.) that fit the title of "Trumper" and politically best fit under "Trumpsim."

I would call "center" a group of politicians willing to come accross the party lines to enact legislation that compromises and at least makes an attempt to show bipartisan effort

The key is recognizing that just because someone has a different solution to our nations problems does not mean they 'hate America' or are out to destroy the Constitution.

While this crowd I dare say is overall conservative leaning, I would also think it safe to say we are upset by mass gun violence, don't like that people live in poverty or are homeless, want to preserve natural areas and like clear air and water. Sadly not much discussion happens because efforts to address those issues are quickly written off as 'left' or 'Democratic' ideas

, I personally believe that the government is the wrong institution or "tool" to solve most of the problems in our society. I truly believe that most legislation and legislators have good motives. The devil is in the details or how things are implemented. Every law passed has unintended consequences. Most problems must be solved by the individuals with the problem. When they are "solved" by outside sources, the solutions tend to cover up the original problem, rather than make it go away.

That being said, I am not for anarchy. I do think there is a place for well thought out laws. I think the founding fathers were on the right track and since then, a little progress has been made, but in many ways, we have departed from the simple principles of good government. All in my personal opinion, of course.

The problem lies in what is the alternative? Big issues like slavery and civil rights would never be solved without direct government action. Other areas like education, roads and other infustructure, public safety etc. are not ones I can see private sector solutions to.

Nonprofit and religious organizations can play key roles in poverty, but how far is their reach?