# (Invite Only) -- What happened to Debate in the USA?



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

*This is an Invite Only thread. If your member name does not appear in the alert call list -- DO NOT POST HERE -- do not even use the rating buttons on posts in this thread. *

Refer to Invite Only Rules posted here ====




__





						Debate Now - Trial for "Invite Only" threads in Structured Debate Forum
					

We are opening the Invite Only threads in this forum. You may continue to post threads under the OLD structured debate rules OR identify the thread as Invite Only as given in the auxiliary rules below..  READ THEM CAREFULLY. There have been a couple edits since the Announcement of the feature...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Invite List Below.
Shelzin
westwall
Sun Devil 92
katsteve2012
Mac1958
NewsVine_Mariyam
WinterBorn
Tom Paine 1949
OldLady
FA_Q2
K9Buck 
The Professor 

Welcome to the big experiment.. We designed this optional form of discussion a couple years ago now to create little foxholes for folks to gather from the bigger wars around us.. It's hardly been used.. I'm thinking it's time to create some distance from the raging incitements and partisan clashes and attempt to revive the ability to have discussions. The intent was not EXCLUDE, but to allow smaller groups to have discussions that don't get constantly "photo-bombed" by folks really NOT interested in discussion..

Hope you've seen the Breakfast Club... One of my fav movies of all time.. A bunch of folks from radically different backgrounds and principles get randomly tossed together by the principal and end up having the most HONEST discussions of their lives..  Actually DID change them.. BECAUSE of the honesty and the seclusion of the process. The door is not locked -- you don't have to do detention here. But I'm hoping that at LEAST we have an honest discussion while we're here..

The "list" was my best guess at people I've talked with that are more interested in solutions and principles than they are in "winning" elections.. My HOPE is that this is just first of MANY "detentions" we'll have to WORK on solutions and problem solving instead of constantly suffering shell shock from the din of partisan warfare.,..

So for starters, the obvious problem is how in hell did we lose the ability to rationally discuss issues and problems that are stacking up like an ice jam on a Maine river in March??

Everything is political..  Politics is very hypocritical and dishonest. So when every discussion is DRIVEN by politics, all ya got is hypocrisy, dishonesty and division.. That's expected...  But when that dishonesty, hypocrisy and division starts killing your country and making social media a virtual wasteland of shouting and bickering -- what CAN YOU DO???

Media is no help...  Elected leaders aren't really a help. They are the generals in this war. From MY foxhole, things are pretty rough and desperate and bringing out the WORST in America...  How do we convince people to check their principles and weigh in on THOSE -- rather than their party affiliations?


----------



## katsteve2012 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> *This is an Invite Only thread. If your member name does not appear in the alert call list -- DO NOT POST HERE -- do not even use the rating buttons on posts in this thread. *
> 
> Refer to Invite Only Rules posted here ====
> 
> ...



Staying focused on solutions will obviously be challenging. Far too many in the forum now equate principles with political party affiliation. 

So the first question is how do you even begin to talk to people who think that way if their thought process is totally based on who is on "the left or the right"?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 14, 2020)

It's kind of late here for me and I have work in the morning so I'm not able to contribute much at this moment other than to acknowledge my intent to participate and thank you for inviting me to your forum.

One thing I will say and maybe you and/or the other participants can help fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge base, is that one of the challenges I have is the way people use words such as Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, etc. as slurs.  It's almost as if they're angry that they can't use the N-word anymore, at least not if they dont' want to be censured in someway, so they've come up with other words they use as a substitutes.  I can't remember who explained it, but they've essentialy abstracted what they are saying to a non-offensive form however the manner in which they use the words still  conveys their derision.

Another part of the problem with the way they use these terms is the blanket condemnation of their target group.  Anyone with half a brain knows that very few things in life are absolute and generally there are exceptions to everything.  They don't seem to understand (or care) that even if the term is applicable to 51% of the group, 49% is not a small number when representing people who don't fit the stereotypes they're tossing out.  And realistically, it's not even that close to being 50/50.

Lastly, the ills that plague our society are complex and cannot be solved by simple-minded thinking.  These problems have to be broken down into components and each component examined and if necessary broken down even further until they're small enough to be thoroughly understood and a solution crafted.


----------



## katsteve2012 (Jul 14, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It's kind of late here for me and I have work in the morning so I'm not able to contribute much at this moment other than to acknowledge my intent to participate and thank you for inviting me to your forum.
> 
> One thing I will say and maybe you and/or the other participants can help fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge base, is that one of the challenges I have is the way people use words such as Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, etc. as slurs.  It's almost as if they're angry that they can't use the N-word anymore, at least not if they dont' want to be censured in someway, so they've come up with other words they use as a substitutes.  I can't remember who explained it, but they've essentialy abstracted what they are saying to a non-offensive form however the manner in which they use the word conveys their derision.
> 
> ...



Agreed. It is late here as well, Newsvine, and I have a consulting conference in the morning, but I wanted to give some thought to your observations. Political labels have indeed become substitutes for "other" terms. Truthfully this is nothing new.

Throughout history, people have reinvented their language for the sake of placing  those who they disagree with into a category that they feel comfortable with, and at the same time sounds less offensive than what their actual thoughts are.

Given that this will never change, what are your suggestions besides moderator intervention that can make a positive difference?

Speaking for myself, I have found that it normally takes very little time to identify that people who attach political labels to human behavior, do not think, they react out of emotion and anger and more than anything else, misinformation.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> How do we convince people to check their principles and weigh in on THOSE -- rather than their party affiliations?


Well, I've thought a lot about this, I think the root of this problem, as it is with most, is* cultural,* and so far I've only settled on a couple of thoughts:

First, nothing of substance can be accomplished unless and until each tribe holds its own accountable for its actions and intellectual dishonesty.  I do see some of that on both ends, so there actually is some hope there.  There's the Lincoln Project on the Right, and individual progressive pundits like Krystal Ball, Sam Harris and Matt Taibbi on the Left.  Just show us some honest, constructive critical thinking and self-reflection, instead of your latest round of childish poo-flinging.

Second, given that we are such a celebrity-driven society, I strongly suspect it's going to take some high-level names on each end to say "enough is enough".  Sports?  Popular culture?  There will have to be several, so that a _*momentum*_ can be created.  And most likely, it will require an important (even catastrophic) event to get the ball rolling.  Right now, I don't think we're anywhere near this.  And worse, each tribe is waiting for the other to be the adult in the room and make the first move.

My biggest concern is about a question I saw a couple of years ago:  Has it been so long since we knew how to communicate properly and effectively that we have literally lost the skill?  If that's the case, we're in serious trouble.  Obviously the jury is still out.  If we really have lost that skill, if reason and civility are like muscles - use 'em or lose 'em - this just continues to decay.


----------



## Shelzin (Jul 14, 2020)

I have to go to work... But.. This is interesting.  I will be back.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

I will be rude and say you are all way ahead of the game.

I spend a lot of time talking with people about problem definition.

If someone does not like something, they perceive that it is a "problem", but when asked to define it in clear terms they often cannot.

I work from:

What is it that you want ?

What is reality ?

What is the gap ?

How are you measuring it ?

How will you know when you have achieved what you want in specific terms.

This was my approach when we discussed Obamacare.  People would say Medicare for all or Universal health care for all.  I would ask, just what does that mean...in specifics.

ONCE you've agreed upon a definition of the problem, the solutions become pretty straightforward and much of the antipathy that exists around different points of view ceases to be relevant.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> So for starters, the obvious problem is how in hell did we lose the ability to rationally discuss issues and problems that are stacking up like an ice jam on a Maine river in March??



A case in point.

I don't know that the problem is so obvious.  Just what is it that you think should be taking place and what is that happens that you don't like ?

You said: Everything is political.. Politics is very hypocritical and dishonest. So when every discussion is DRIVEN by politics, all ya got is hypocrisy, dishonesty and division.. That's expected... But when that dishonesty, hypocrisy and division starts killing your country and making social media a virtual wasteland of shouting and bickering -- what CAN YOU DO??? 

I don't agree.

Why don't we step back and examine what it is that you anticipate should be happening.....or what you would like to see happen.


----------



## Shelzin (Jul 14, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So for starters, the obvious problem is how in hell did we lose the ability to rationally discuss issues and problems that are stacking up like an ice jam on a Maine river in March??
> ...


Damn... Work in the quality field?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

Shelzin said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



People don't like it.

It takes time.

It takes stepping out of the fire, back into the frying pan, and even further....to get the perspectives you need to make quality decisions.

A lot of my professional life has been spent dealing with cleaning up the shitty jobs people have done because they just wanted to "get on with it".


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

katsteve2012 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *This is an Invite Only thread. If your member name does not appear in the alert call list -- DO NOT POST HERE -- do not even use the rating buttons on posts in this thread. *
> ...



Yeah, I sometimes get the feeling that if folks on social media dont match you up as a square or round peg -- they just don't know how to speak anymore...  LOL.... 

In reality, there are no "uniform principles" attached to a party allegiance... Not even for Libertarians as I am.. We bicker a lot amongst ourselves, but DO generally agree on the basics.. Parties that don't EXPECT to win can HAVE principles I guess...   

I think most Americans will listen to solution based thinking that isn't the usual Dem/Rep talking point nonsense. After all, the idea is to FIX things, not perpetuate a party in power...


----------



## Shelzin (Jul 14, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> People don't like it.
> 
> It takes time.
> 
> ...


Yeah...   Well...  I was once a Quality Manager for the ...  I guess it really doesn't matter to my point.  I think you would do pretty good job at it.   They have this procedure for when you get non-conforming product.  It's called a 8D 

It's a problem solving exercise that you give the customer to show that you addressed their problem.   Like you were talking about, there is a "Root Problem" that needs to be addressed.   However, almost everybody gets that "Root Problem" wrong, because people flat out like to finger point.  It's not my fault.

They like to promote the "5 Why" system, which more or less means you come up with the problem.  And ask "Why did that happen?"   Ok...  Now ask "Why did THAT happen?"  And so on down the line.  It absolutely never fails if you do this exercise honestly.  * The fault always lies with the person in charge of that department, or the department of HR.  *It is never the workers fault that actually made, shipped, or did anything with the product.   

Every time this has to be done it is a self evaluation of the Management team.   It's all about taking responsibility for those things you are paid, and you have accepted, to be responsible for.  Processes are changed, retraining of workers, or more/different quality checks are done.  Sometimes all of the above.   Then it's verified that it did actually address and fix the problem before another order is ran of that part to be shipped to the customer.

Problem solved.

It all starts with Personal Responsibility.  To actually question what you could or should have done, rather than what you did.   

The majority of people who follow politics aren't even embarrassed for being hypocrites anymore, how the hell are they going to take responsibility for themselves, let alone anything/anyone else around them when identity politics, rather than personal responsibility, drives the behavior.   

Being a Republican or Democrat has come to mean I agree with everything, or disagree with everything, the RNC or DNC is saying.   Just on principle, and trying to vilify the "other team" rather than saying "What is the problem, how can I help fix it?"

Lying isn't going to help anything.   Acting like a bigot/hypocrite isn't going to do it either.  It only hurts your chosen ideology, and frankly you aren't taking responsibility for it, but will happily claim the win if voted in!!!   But if you lost, why did you lose?  What's broken?

5 Why system...   

Why matters.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

katsteve2012 said:


> So the first question is how do you even begin to talk to people who think that way if their thought process is totally based on who is on "the left or the right"?



That's a better way of expressing this topic.. Pick a thread on USMB. By page 2 it devolves into a bidding war of -- which party did this first? -- or which party did this worse? How do you come into that to point out what's RIGHT and what's WRONG as a mere "independent" thinker? There are no winners if BOTH sides have committed the same sin -- but the current issue is dismissed because "Both sides have done this"... So it's a draw.. Even if it's horribly wrong.. 

Like for instance, it was apparent to me that our MidEast policies sucked way back in the 80s. We never learned the lesson that we were not gonna "democratize" the Arab world.. But yet, we've bombed or mucked with almost ALL of the countries in that region at one time or another.. And thru it all, I was on the "outs" with one or BOTH parties until just the past 10 years or so... It was WRONG stupid policy.. But all the discussions were about which parties did it MORE or WORSE... Not about whether it was right thinking or not... 

I'm sure Mac is agree when I say, it's a lack of HONESTY to ADMIT that they're party was ever wrong -  and probably a sin that can get your (D) or (R) credentials revoked.. We're just not making decisions on right or wrong anymore..  The noisy ones are making decisions on what gets their POWER retained...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> One thing I will say and maybe you and/or the other participants can help fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge base, is that one of the challenges I have is the way people use words such as Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, etc. as slurs. It's almost as if they're angry that they can't use the N-word anymore, at least not if they dont' want to be censured in someway, so they've come up with other words they use as a substitutes. I can't remember who explained it, but they've essentialy abstracted what they are saying to a non-offensive form however the manner in which they use the words still conveys their derision.



It's the ultimate stereotyping to try to fit ALL of us into a "left right"  Hogwarts style sorting.. (Harry Potter reference).. At least Hogwarts had 4 or 5 bins to sort into..,. LOL....  It's impossible that the ENTIRE NATION is either Repub or Dem -- left wing or right wing..  Largely BECAUSE those party principles are NOT solid and NOT consistent and CANNOT cover the spectrum of what people believe are principles or priorities... Both sides are suffering fractures in their diminishing bases.. And you're correct, it has more value as a derision, than it does in locating what anyone actually believes or knows..



NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Another part of the problem with the way they use these terms is the blanket condemnation of their target group. Anyone with half a brain knows that very few things in life are absolute and generally there are exceptions to everything. They don't seem to understand (or care) that even if the term is applicable to 51% of the group, 49% is not a small number when representing people who don't fit the stereotypes they're tossing out. And realistically, it's not even that close to being 50/50.



Absolutely.. And it's not at all elitist to point out that 85% of those fractions do not really invest time or effort in UNDERSTANDING the issues.. When these "labels" are so EASY to scapegoat and stereotype, there is not a LOT of work or thought that goes into understanding WHY one should be on one side of the issue or the other...  If you've been divided into the wings, all ya need to know are the current talking points.,.  No history, no numbers, no consideration of bad side effects of the issues...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

Mac1958 said:


> First, nothing of substance can be accomplished unless and until each tribe holds its own accountable for its actions and intellectual dishonesty. I do see some of that on both ends, so there actually is some hope there. There's the Lincoln Project on the Right, and individual progressive pundits like Krystal Ball, Sam Harris and Matt Taibbi on the Left. Just show us some honest, constructive critical thinking and self-reflection, instead of your latest round of childish poo-flinging.



They should be doing this all along the 150 history of HAVING these 2 parties as a duopoly... But it's the ultimate form of cult behavior to defend the indefensible..  Legislation dies and withers simply on the calculation that the minority can't give the majority the credit for passing anything needed (like DACA or criminal justice reform)..  It's a massive show of belligerence and cynical opposition.. Caused MOSTLY because both parties have perverted the PROCESS in Congress to support a 2 party system which is NOT the idea of the founders or in the interest of the people to have them "nesting there" with their extra-legal rules and procedures..

I just don't have the URGE to HELP them reform or re-invent themselves.. I think that's a fool's errand to change ANY CULTURE that's foreign and slightly antagonistic to you...  

I know I've posted these a dozen times on USMB -- but THIS crisis was predicted at the very start of our nation...
*There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.*
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

*However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.*
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796



Mac1958 said:


> Second, given that we are such a celebrity-driven society, I strongly suspect it's going to take some high-level names on each end to say "enough is enough". Sports? Popular culture? There will have to be several, so that a _*momentum*_ can be created. And most likely, it will require an important (even catastrophic) event to get the ball rolling. Right now, I don't think we're anywhere near this. And worse, each tribe is waiting for the other to be the adult in the room and make the first move.



Certainly this aint gonna come from within the party structures. Or even from the loyal zealots attached to the parties.. Both sides are suffering leadership crises, structural failure from lurching left and right and that honesty thingy...

I think OUTSIDERS who have had enough of the dicing and slicing of loyalty and the dishonesty and hypocrisy are gonna have to get loud... Could be celebrities involved, but those are just "influencers".. These would be in the form of independent thinkers that just RIP thru all that and find a resonance with the LARGER alienated electorate..  It's dangerous in the fact, this could give rise to some awful "populist" manipulators. But there could also be "populist" independents that care more about EXPOSING the decay and the cynical calculations of these aging, inept party organizations -- then they care about "winning"..  And that's a BIG start to deprogramming the anger and division... 

NONE of that happens until the COUNTRY can focus and think out of the boxes we've been packed into.. But the arguments for INDEPENDENT leadership or even new parties are just so damn easy to tick off right now...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

Mac1958 said:


> If we really have lost that skill, if reason and civility are like muscles - use 'em or lose 'em - this just continues to decay.



I don't think WE'VE lost that skill..  But the media sure has.. And the media DRIVES the conversations in this country..  With both sides dividing up the media into the Left Twix and Right Twix models (must need desert) -- they've REMOVED honesty and objectivity from the national conversation..  So in addition to those "influencers" and role models you're searching for -- we need some of THEM in journalism also to call out right and wrong and bring things back to reality and common sense...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> I will be rude and say you are all way ahead of the game.
> 
> I spend a lot of time talking with people about problem definition.
> 
> ...



Agree... I'm a scientist/engineer.. So I can't skip over spending the most productive time doing THAT part correctly or I'm wasting time... 



Sun Devil 92 said:


> What is it that you want ?
> 
> What is reality ?
> 
> ...



I want MORE "signal" and less noise.. And definitely less anger and suspicion of "the other"... 

Reality is -- the noise is deafening and the signal of intelligence behind it is exponentially decreasing every day.

The "gap" has separated the country into a Dolby Sound Stereo squeal of jibberish and bad faith between the speakers..

The metrics of this are the poorer and poorer choices we get to choose from for leadership or media and the rate at which I'm turning off corporations, media, and politics and BANNING IT from my life...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> A lot of my professional life has been spent dealing with cleaning up the shitty jobs people have done because they just wanted to "get on with it".



Time to use those skills to clean up politics...  LOL...  Go volunteer for Mac's army of sane people.,..


----------



## Shelzin (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> That's a better way of expressing this topic.. Pick a thread on USMB. By page 2 it devolves into a bidding war of -- which party did this first? -- or which party did this worse? How do you come into that to point out what's RIGHT and what's WRONG as a mere "independent" thinker? There are no winners if BOTH sides have committed the same sin -- but the current issue is dismissed because "Both sides have done this"... So it's a draw.. Even if it's horribly wrong..


It's not a draw.  They are both wrong.   Not to go all Vulcan on this, but...  That's the long and short of it... Both are correct, in that they are both wrong.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > I will be rude and say you are all way ahead of the game.
> ...



While a I agree with your statements, I don't know that it really defines a problem.  This is more a manifestation of an issue.  

Many times people will say....in the end we all want the same thing.  I don't agree with that.  Do you think that is true.

If so, then how do you proceed.

And if you don't think everyone wants the same thing...then how do you balance those different wants.  

It is as much a question of process as it is results.

Now, you have to decide if emotion is the key to decision making for many people.  To get to emotion, you have to generally get past or penetrate some level of mental (logical) awareness.  Do people succumb to that to easily.

Is everyone made the same ?

And your first statement is key......trust is gone.  And without trust, it is very difficult to cooperate.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If we really have lost that skill, if reason and civility are like muscles - use 'em or lose 'em - this just continues to decay.
> ...



I once read an article by a fellow who decried the fact that people were now almost exclusively sending their kids to be money managers.  This fellow taught at a university and he said anthropology, sociology, and other key humanities were being ignored and forgotten at a time when we needed them the most.  

Nobody is really looking at how our fast evolving society (with so much technology) is affecting things.  Nobody can tell us if "the next best thing" is really a good thing at all.

So I do think we've lost some collective capability of self-evaluation.

One place that it is key is the internet's killing of local papers.  Local papers were how you watched your mayor and city hall.  But we've lost interest in those mundane things. Many city councils now operate very much under the radar.  And in some cases, the operate pretty poorly.  

And the internet is no help.  For years...I've been countering the "information age" with "the disinformation age" and it is now more evident than ever.


----------



## Shelzin (Jul 14, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


*nods*   I've given money to SubVerse news as part as a go fund me.   Raised over a million to get it going.  It's not big, it's not flashy... But it's actual news.  I don't know if I'll ever get my money back, or...  If it'll stay what it is now.  But...  Why matters.  They're trying.

I bitch about the news.   I'm trying to fix it, to make sure I'm not what I tell others they are.  I don't want to be a hypocrite.

SCNR


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

Shelzin said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's a better way of expressing this topic.. Pick a thread on USMB. By page 2 it devolves into a bidding war of -- which party did this first? -- or which party did this worse? How do you come into that to point out what's RIGHT and what's WRONG as a mere "independent" thinker? There are no winners if BOTH sides have committed the same sin -- but the current issue is dismissed because "Both sides have done this"... So it's a draw.. Even if it's horribly wrong..
> ...



Of course.. If both sides have condoned something evil -- they THINK they are absolved from that evil act every time it's committed... But they aren't -- and we should point that out -- because THEY wont.. 

To be specific -- think "leaking classified info" or "disregard for safe-guarding" national security info..  Or think using the powers of incumbency to SPY on an opposing campaign during an election.. At the moment this news breaks -- the party under attacks gets it's talking points from the media (usually flawed) about how the party that's charging this offense has done it before.. 

If you're a rational personal pointing out it's flat out WRONG -- it won't help you make the point since you're marginalized as supporting the accusing party.. But we have to DO that. And no one will remember the next time YOU ARE CONSISTENT and they aren't when the party roles are reversed.. 

There's the problem.. They've developed a guilt free model of committing and absolving political/societal sins.. They're BOTH guilty..  In Intel terms, THEY ARE ALL COMPROMISED.. And personally I believe the entire D.C. establishment is severely compromised because they've been sinning non-stop for so long...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Many times people will say....in the end we all want the same thing. I don't agree with that. Do you think that is true.



Nope.. We don't.. Couldn't even agree on what's for dinner or who's invited.. We DONT all want the same things. Well at least not ALL of them.. And compromises and bipartisanship just end up with 1/2 the solution at 2 times the cost... I GUESS that's the optimum for a representative democracy..  Which WORKED in the past BECAUSE we weren't so divided. 

Personally, I think govt is WAAAAY too important in our lives today..  And the expectations for performance are kinda silly given the reality of govt produces lately..  This is REALLY a person to person kind of resolution that needs to happen..  Kinda like the culture/mind shifts in the 60s on civil rights and inclusiveness...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Many times people will say....in the end we all want the same thing. I don't agree with that. Do you think that is true.
> ...



O.K.

We don't all want the same things.

I would say that is part of the problem statement.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 14, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Personally, I think govt is WAAAAY too important in our lives today..  And the expectations for performance are kinda silly given the reality of govt produces lately..  This is REALLY a person to person kind of resolution that needs to happen..  Kinda like the culture/mind shifts in the 60s on civil rights and inclusiveness...



Here is part of the problem to (IMHE) which needs further fleshing out.

What you say govt is too important, I think you (and most folks generally) mean the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The more local you get the more person-to-person it becomes.

There is only one FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  

There are 50 STATE GOVERNMENTS.

There are countless COUNTY and MUNICIPLE GOVERNMENTS.

Hmmmmm.............

No choice vs 50 choices.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



It's not THAT simple tho.. In terms of making decisions on how we all "get along", we have the freedoms and liberties that ALLOW US to operate (under the law) as we please..  The LESS complicated the law is and the LESS govt makes all those decisions for us -- the less we HAVE to "get along" and the less likely we can GET as polarized as we are now....  Govt can't fix culture..  Too slow, too dumb.. I LOVE multiculturalism for example when it's NOT FORCED on me.. OR I get confused whether wearing a sombrero is a sign of SUPPORT or a "cultural appropriation".. 

There ARE some basic truths that can't be violated.. Like -- all people have the right to be RESPECTED and given the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise on an INDIVIDUAL basis.. And judgements should never be made against GROUPS based on individual actions.. All that CURRENTLY getting violated by our candidates for office, the media, social media, and various fringe groups that get way too much attention...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 15, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You have to acknowledge that simple fact first.  You have people who take the attitude that they know whats better for you than you do.....so you should (for you own sake) get on board with their opinion.  Drives me crazy.

We all don't want the same thing.  We need to state it flat out.  

You, once again, are going down the road without the basic premises in place.

Yes, there are basic truths that SHOULD NOT BE VIOLATED WITHOUT CONSEQUENC.  You list one you think is an issue.

You then complicate it by bringing in media, social media, etc.  Why ?

We should agree to a list of things that should not be violated as we discuss various issues.  What the clowns in the media think is of no import to me.

Now, if you say that their message is important....I would say that is part of the problem....we have to much power in the hands of a few people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2020)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> The more local you get the more person-to-person it becomes.
> 
> There is only one FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> ...



Absolutely..  The key to not being divided is to have the ability to make choices at that local level.. 

IN FACT, most of stuff like criminal justice reform, healthcare, environment, -- REALLY ARE rooted in how that most local/state govt operates and governs. The justice treatment you get, the availability of healthcare, the air/water --- MOSTLY comes from state/local.

 We can poke at places like Seattle and Portland all we want -- but millions WANT to live there -- til they dont anymore...  LOL... 

AND YET -- there's too many threads on USMB about folks worrying about those other 49 states that they DONT live in... And using THEM as examples of how evil the "other side is"...  This COVID thingy has just magnified that voyeurism all the hell out of proportion..  With folks arguing about using the same damn Fed restrictions for EVERY state regardless of the situation there.  Worry about your OWN state first.  Life is less complicated..  Not everybody RUNS the whole country.

 I got ripped the other day for mentioning buying fireworks...  LOL...


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 15, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > If we really have lost that skill, if reason and civility are like muscles - use 'em or lose 'em - this just continues to decay.
> ...


Well, I see a lot of it from We the People too.  What got me focused on that was speaking to clients and acquaintances in real life.   Something struck me.

Swerve to within a *MILE* of politics, and many will now immediately launch into this angry diatribe of completely one-sided winger (side irrelevant) talking points like they're being interviewed on a freaking TV debate show. Just a seemingly pre-canned string of shallow talking points,

That's when I started getting worried, and it's clear now -- with partisan politics infecting everything from sports to restaurants -- that it's only getting worse.


----------



## katsteve2012 (Jul 15, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Which is exactly why I have believed in the value of a one party political system since I became old enough to vote. Possibly that could force more Americans to place the country first over party loyalty.

It is human nature to "pick a side" that we think is "better" and defend it, even at a risk of compromising meaningful solutions for the sake of "winning".


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2020)

Mac1958 said:


> Swerve to within a *MILE* of politics, and many will now immediately launch into this angry diatribe of completely one-sided winger (side irrelevant) talking points like they're being interviewed on a freaking TV debate show. Just a seemingly pre-canned string of shallow talking points,
> 
> That's when I started getting worried, and it's clear now -- with partisan politics infecting everything from sports to restaurants -- that it's only getting worse.



My OWN BROTHER pulled that crap on me last month.. We USED to be able to talk about anything.  He launched off on how Trump was killing people with Covid.. I simply gave him the date that the China ban was made and he went flaming ninja on me.. 

THAT'S how bad it is... I'll heal up and make amends, but maybe he wont.. 

This division has been ENGINEERED and WEAPONIZED by the 2 ruling parties.. One only needs to look at a gerrymandering map to see the extent of that engineering..  Gerrymandering has a few GOOD effects, but it's brazenly about marking territory...  

I don't WANT to live in a one party state..  But the REALITY IS about 80% of us DO.. I left a TRULY GONE one party state to move to Tennessee where at LEAST the govt is functional and not seeking to ANNIHILATE the minority... 

How can we NOT SEE where all this originates?  They (the mysterious they) have us wound up about things happening in OTHER STATES that we fight over when it's really not our concern.. BECAUSE even the STATES are marked as targets in this war... 

This is why we can't talk to each other any more..


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 15, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Swerve to within a *MILE* of politics, and many will now immediately launch into this angry diatribe of completely one-sided winger (side irrelevant) talking points like they're being interviewed on a freaking TV debate show. Just a seemingly pre-canned string of shallow talking points,
> ...


It is, there are people with a vested professional interest in keeping us screaming and not listening, or thinking....

.... however....

....it's still on us to choose to let them win.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jul 15, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> Time to use those skills to clean up politics... LOL... Go volunteer for Mac's army of sane people.,..


This made me laugh! I often feel like there’s an army of demons and zombies approaching, and all reasonable people have to man the gates. Many lunatics on USMB use memes to proudly show their dark side. But mainly of course this language is most often used by *others *characterizing *us* as barbarians and them as ... “defenders of Western Civilization.”

I once had a nice dream in which I was manning the gates, throwing down stones and boiling oil onto the heads of the poor barbarians. Later somehow I was outside the gates, looking back as the city fell. But what I remember most was a voice — mine or someone else’s — warning that under no circumstances could we break up a *Rosetta Stone *to throw down on their heads.



Sun Devil 92 said:


> Many times people will say....in the end we all want the same thing. I don't agree with that. Do you think that is true.


Others have spoken well on this. But I think in the end it may not matter so much what everybody _*wants*_. Too many people want the impossible. Without any idea of what is really happening in the world, what is possible under new conditions, old “wants” are too often feeble, emotional, irresponsible things. Some people “want” to be wizards in a Harry Potter world, to change their sex, while others want a 1950s like MAGA. Neither are *possible*. The best democratic process and procedures in debate, and having respect for all people and their opinions, doesn’t mean much if our collective assumptions are fundamentally wrong.



katsteve2012 said:


> Which is exactly why I have believed in the value of a one party political system since I became old enough to vote. Possibly that could force more Americans to place the country first over party loyalty.
> 
> It is human nature to "pick a side" that we think is "better" and defend it, even at a risk of compromising meaningful solutions for the sake of "winning".


This is a rather radical and unique thought in our country, and I congratulate you for even imagining it. We all know your idea has roots going back to our nation’s origins, Washington, etc. — though it is usually conceived of as being necessarily “totalitarian” today. It is useful to try to imagine how reasonable, democratic decisions might be arrived at in a one party or non-party system, just as it is to think about fundamental government restructuring. Of course what is just idle, perhaps even frightening, imagining today in America, may one day (if the world is _very_ lucky) turn out to be sensical, practical reform proposals in China.

I don’t have any easy answers to the OP question,  “What Happened to Debate in the USA?” But I suspect the answer is probably related to the fact that our country today is not at all the “good old USA” that we all remember, and probably never really was.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2020)

katsteve2012 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > katsteve2012 said:
> ...



I dont think a one party system is workable..  Because they GOT THERE by engineering a coupe against dissent, and debate..  And you're disenfranchising a large swath of people and leaving them WITHOUT choices on leadership.. Cali is ALREADY there. And that ONE party is CONSOLIDATING their power over elections to effectively BAN competition..  That's why I left there..

Rather have a "coalition" style model with MANY parties coming and going if we had to..  THERE -- your power depends on making allegiances and concessions./deals..

MY preference is simply BYPASS the 2 crumbling, inept, power focused parties and encourage a small group of qualified, problem solving people with people skills to DECLARE as Independents.. Just a FEW of them would WRECK the "gerrymandering' of power that the 2 parties have installed.

These folks could even come from the RANKS of the 2 existing parties..  Because most politicians are muzzled and leashed by their party bosses and NOT happy about being "just show votes".. There are 535 members of Congress and only FOUR party bosses control EVERY MOVE an elected rep makes..

That's a kind of revolution that puts a cork in "vote counts" due to party allegiances..  And I GUARANTEE -- if a current member of Congress decided to became an (I),  they would get MORE attention from the media because they would not SOUND like every other Dem or Repub...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2020)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Others have spoken well on this. But I think in the end it may not matter so much what everybody _*wants*_. Too many people want the impossible. Without any idea of what is really happening in the world, what is possible under new conditions, old “wants” are too often feeble, emotional, irresponsible things. Some people “want” to be wizards in a Harry Potter world, to change their sex, while others want a 1950s like MAGA. Neither are *possible*. The best democratic process and procedures in debate, and having respect for all people and their opinions, doesn’t mean much if our collective assumptions are fundamentally wrong.



That's an important common sense point there Mr "common sense"...  LOL... But it should be EASY to show people WHY unworkable things are unworkable.. This is yet another aspect of why people can't civilly debate anymore... Proposals to go "carbon neutral" don't take into account that the US ROLLED BACK it's CO2 emissions to 1990s levels IN SPITE of govt interference to fracking and nat gas... Just that ONE CHANGE had MORE of a dramatic effect on reducing CO2 than 30 years of MASSIVE renewable subsidies and "green initiatives"...  Trying to SHOW that there are days when the wind dont blow and the sun dont shine just fall on deaf, uninformed, slightly propagandized ears... For instance..

But you  can't send folks with not enough background back to the drawing board to get context and perspective on their unworkable plans because they are POLITICALLY inspired..  Not necessarily solution inspired...

So -- they fester and linger and there are DOZENS of other "zombie" proposals that you can't kill because they are religious ICONS of partisan dogma... Outright BANNING of abortions is yet another example of zombie proposals that heat the anger to glass blowing temperatures...


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jul 15, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> I dont think a one party system is workable.. Because they GOT THERE by engineering a coupe against dissent, and debate.. And you're disenfranchising a large swath of people and leaving them WITHOUT choices on leadership..


Oh, I absolutely agree with you here. I don’t think the U.S. needs, or our democracy could tolerate, a one-party dictatorship that suppresses other parties. Heaven forbid!


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 15, 2020)

I think the problem is evident on several fronts.

First, the inability to disagree without anger.   I remember my parents having friends over in the 1960s.  As curious children, my sister and I would eavesdrop on the "grown-up" conversations.   There was often disagreement on things.  The Vietnam War was one that came up several times.  Some of the conversations got a little spirited, but there was no name-calling or hostility.   At the end of the evening, everyone was still friends.  They shared a lot, and did not always agree.  That was the long and short of it.

Second is the news media in this country.   When I was growing up, the news was a service provided by the networks.  Facts were presented.  News stories told as completely as the information allowed.   And then came the first 24 hour cable news outlets.   Their entire focus was on news.  It ceased to be a service and became a business.  What news was presented and how it was presented became an income producing product.   And, in  my opinion, they soon discovered that the public watched the news much more heavily when they were scared.  So if the news media scared us, they made more money.   Even now the arguments over which media outlet is best is more often based on ratings than on accuracy.  Fox News recently argued that one of their news anchors was under no legal obligation to tell the truth.   I am sure there are similar sentiments expressed by other media outlets.  The idea that we have to fact-check the news outlets is scary.   Not to mention unlikely.

The third issue is the popularity of social media.  Many of my friends on FaceBook call me "Spoiler" because I call people on inaccurate postings.  From Covid-19 nonsense to celebrity deaths to inaccurate news, I will check to verify before I repost something.   And I think others should too.  At one time doing research to verify something meant, at the very least, a trip to the library.   Now, we have vast amounts of information at our fingertips.   Whether celebrity died or not can be verified by a quick Google search.  But no one bothers.

I also think many, many people want to be cheered on rather than have an actual discussion.  They want to speak with people who agree with them and have their views returned in someone else's words.  One of the reasons I have always loved to debate is that I learn more about my views when I explain them or defend them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 15, 2020)

WinterBorn said:


> First, the inability to disagree without anger. I remember my parents having friends over in the 1960s. As curious children, my sister and I would eavesdrop on the "grown-up" conversations. There was often disagreement on things. The Vietnam War was one that came up several times. Some of the conversations got a little spirited, but there was no name-calling or hostility. At the end of the evening, everyone was still friends. They shared a lot, and did not always agree. That was the long and short of it.



The anger comes from the pre-existing DIVISIONS that have been drawn..  It's the "We've SEEN the enemy and we will engage the enemy" kinda war mentality.. And folks that aren't in friendly or enemy uniforms just become "collateral damage".. 

 I remember my Dad's face when we had that Vietnam debate and I brought up the SEATO Treaty and how Vietnam was sliced liked a sandwich by the victors of WW2..  He kind of settled down..   LOL.... 



WinterBorn said:


> Second is the news media in this country. When I was growing up, the news was a service provided by the networks. Facts were presented. News stories told as completely as the information allowed. And then came the first 24 hour cable news outlets. Their entire focus was on news. It ceased to be a service and became a business. What news was presented and how it was presented became an income producing product. And, in my opinion, they soon discovered that the public watched the news much more heavily when they were scared. So if the news media scared us, they made more money. Even now the arguments over which media outlet is best is more often based on ratings than on accuracy. Fox News recently argued that one of their news anchors was under no legal obligation to tell the truth. I am sure there are similar sentiments expressed by other media outlets. The idea that we have to fact-check the news outlets is scary. Not to mention unlikely.



Even more ridiculous is folks that shove "fact checkers" in your face that are PART AND PARCEL of the SAME news orgs that have junked up journalism !!! Only way to survive is to read all sources for possible important stuff and do the fact-checking yourself..  

You'd think a degree that basically teaches to do -- who, what, when , where, why -- question answering would be elementary enough to survive political allegiances.. I read a couple Marshall McCluhan books including "The Media is the Message"..  Was written about a decade before electronic communications started to explode..  He asserted that more remotely anonymous dialogue would result in severe TRIBALISM of society...  Only thing he did not get right was -- there would only be TWO tribes in the war... I think what he had in mind, was that opinions and values would coalesce into a LOT of tribes that developed distrust, misunderstandings, confrontations with the others.. 

The other thing that McCluhan noted that YOU mentioned about the old "3 network news and a morning paper" era is that the producers of all that KNEW they were guests in your home and KNEW not to PROVOKE you or get you upset.. Or they'd be unwelcomed..  He might have been right about the professionalism and ethics of it -- but obviously a large fraction of the public now LOVE to be provoked and upset IN THEIR OWN HOME by the media IF it supports their political alignment..


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 16, 2020)

Mac1958 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > How do we convince people to check their principles and weigh in on THOSE -- rather than their party affiliations?
> ...


Two things and I really wish that I wasn't beginning our exchange with a disagreement but perhaps I just need more information.

I disagree with the sentiment of tribes and holding their own accountable.  Perhaps you can elaborate by what you mean by "tribes" because in my opinion, a signifcant part of the problems we face in society is people trying to regulate and control the behavior of others.  It's bad enough that we have elected officials who don't actually represent us, our viewpoints or have concerns for the things that impact us yet pass laws that can diminish our freedoms and we basically get no say so in the matter.  I personally have better representation through my professional affiliations that I do from my legislators, although I have communicated with a couple of them in support of specific bills they were attempting to get passed into law in spite of me not being one of their constituents.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 16, 2020)

So I have a couple of things I can think of that I "want" that I suspect others would not want granted.

1.  When a person causes harm to another, irrespective of the nature of the harm (physical, financial, emotional, psychological, etc.)  as long as it results in some type of loss caused by their act (money, job, business, relationships, reputation, etc.) I want a clear path of redress that is not dependent upon jurisdiction or the whim of a judge, court clerk, attorney, etc.  This is what statutory damages achieves because the money damages are written into the laws.

For example, if a person or company does X, Y and/or Z then that is a violation of say the Consumer Protection Act and in the act itself, it can provide for statutory damages of say $500 per offense up to a maximum of $2,500.  If this can be done for consumer issues what is preventing it from being done when it comes to acts against another individual because of animus due to them being a member of a protected class (their race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, color, religion, etc.)

The first thing that comes up when this is mentioned is how are you going to prove that they did it based on animus or more frequently we hear "you can't prove that they did it based on animus".  This is a valid question however the courts  have already answered it because they understand that people who commit these types of offenses generally do not provide their target with a smoking gun, therefore they allow the animus to be inferred. 

If you're alleging that the defendant's behavior is motivated by bias and animus, conversations such as the ones we see daily on U.S. Message Board are proof of both, particularly when they go back several years and they keep making the same racially insensitive and derogatory comments about a specific group.  This includes sexual harassment as well.

When I first tried to introduce the topic, it immediately went from racist slurs and insults to vulgar sexual comments.

Statutory damages is the only way I know of to make the penalties for harassing people in this way more uniform across the board.  Without them, it still can be done, but because it's much more of a crap shoot, it makes the process more of a scorch the earth with a flame thrower kind of thing and that's not necessarily good.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 16, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Look at what has happened across the country:  We have politicized everything, even down to sports and restaurants.  And the breakout is the same: The American Left vs. the American Right.  Those are the tribes.  Humans remain a tribal species.

For a growing percentage of our society, you can make a fairly accurate guess how one person thinks of issue B by knowing what they think of issue A.  For example, if a political partisan is pro choice, there's a better than even chance that they pro-gay rights.  That's the nature and manifestation of tribalism.  _*My question there is how many people defend a position based more on their tribal instincts and affiliation than on their true beliefs. *_

To your point about authoritarianism ("trying to regulate and control the behavior of others"), I agree completely.  While we are in the process of dividing ourselves more and more into those two very well-defined tribes, there are _*also many similarities*_ in the behaviors of both tribes.  I point this out all the time.   Authoritarianism is certainly one of those behavioral similarities.

What I see, every single day, is the "Political Horseshoe" theory in action, in which the two authoritarian ends of the spectrum *become more like each other than like the rest of us:*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I disagree with the sentiment of tribes and holding their own accountable. Perhaps you can elaborate by what you mean by "tribes" because in my opinion, a signifcant part of the problems we face in society is people trying to regulate and control the behavior of others.



I get that totally..  When I use tribes or tribal organization of our society it's NOT in a derogatory manner at all.. It's a sociological observation on HOW we've become divided and HOW the divisions are deepening BECAUSE we can't civilly talk.. 

I also buy the argument that we are getting angered over stuff that doesn't ACTUALLY concern us..  Think I said earlier that now even states you DONT LIVE IN -- are part of war zone.. The news feeds up instigating stories on "how the other half governs", that MOST people just ADD to their list of why the other side is crazy, insane, dangerous, etc..  

If Portland, Seattle WANTS to super quirky, a bit anarchist, and dangerous to live in -- by golly gee, let it be.. I'll sleep. Only concerns me when it becomes so violent that it affects the country by guilt and shame.... I'll be DAMNED if I would "bail them out", refinance their damages, or do a "disaster relief bill" tho...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> It's bad enough that we have elected officials who don't actually represent us, our viewpoints or have concerns for the things that impact us yet pass laws that can diminish our freedoms and we basically get no say so in the matter. I personally have better representation through my professional affiliations that I do from my legislators, although I have communicated with a couple of them in support of specific bills they were attempting to get passed into law in spite of me not being one of their constituents.



Maybe you've got a bit of libertarian in you !! LOL..  Like I said above, this divide is also because MOST people let govt be a bigger part of their lives than it deserves to be.. And in fact, IF you were libertarian, you'd KNOW that they take on way too much, and perform way too little... Dont FOCUS on their PRIMARY duties like law/justice, impeccably CLEAN and reliable elections, education, etc...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> So I have a couple of things I can think of that I "want" that I suspect others would not want granted.
> 
> 1.  When a person causes harm to another, irrespective of the nature of the harm (physical, financial, emotional, psychological, etc.)  as long as it results in some type of loss caused by their act (money, job, business, relationships, reputation, etc.) I want a clear path of redress that is not dependent upon jurisdiction or the whim of a judge, court clerk, attorney, etc.  This is what statutory damages achieves because the money damages are written into the laws.
> 
> ...



If CERTAIN consumer complaints can be handled that way with statutory awards -- I have no problem with that if the specified awards are fairly small.. Besides short circuiting a bunch of legal hijinks, it CUTS off these MONUMENTAL attempts to get $250,000 for emotional distress if someone finds a piece of mousetail in their sandwich... 

But I'm not a fan of deep anal probing everyone's past looking for transgressions..  It's messy and time consuming.  Still requires subpoenas, expert testimony, context, etc..  Did NOT work well during the Cavanaugh confirmation when you had to sort out the PHONY from the facts back in his High School days..  And justice was NEVER served on the Gov, Lieutenant Gov, and Speaker of House in virginia when THEIR past coughed up some racist and sexual abuse issues... 

Look at how difficult that REALLY is to do...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2020)

Mac1958 said:


> For a growing percentage of our society, you can make a fairly accurate guess how one person thinks of issue B by knowing what they think of issue A. For example, if a political partisan is pro choice, there's a better than even chance that they pro-gay rights. That's the nature and manifestation of tribalism. _*My question there is how many people defend a position based more on their tribal instincts and affiliation than on their true beliefs. *_



I refuse to allow myself to be characterized that way, because I can't.. I'm just not a stereotype.. People DO that all the time to me, but my feedback is, if i'm sorted semi-equally into BOTH those boxes, I'm doing it right. I USED to be a leftist.. Then I became a liberal. And now, I'm a more zealous Liberal as a "small L" libertarian...

We'll never know about people's REAL beliefs from the USUAL message board posturing. My hope is -- that this "Breakfast Club" therapy provides the massive context you need to pigeon hole a person.. My pigeon hole isn't on a one dimensional political scale because my beliefs don't lie on a line defined by people's concepts of "party"..  FREEDOM and LIBERTY have MORE dimensions than one.

There's a thing called the Nolan Chart that lays out beliefs in TWO dimensions.. One being social liberties and the 2nd axis is economic liberties..  On that CHART -- Nazis and Commies never meet.. But you CAN separate FASCIST dictators from Commie dictators and you can see where ANARCHISTS live for instance... You can even separate Reagan from Eisenhower, Kennedy from Obama by looking at their SOCIAL actions and ECONOMIC actions.

In reality, there's at LEAST a 3rd axis which is your take on foreign affairs and our ROLE in that.. And a good 4th axis would be your views on our current Constitution and law... Make your head spin a bit???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2020)

People in what everybody calls the "Center" are NOT milquetoast roadkill... MOST have strong opinions on a LOT of stuff.. Also people in the center probably STILL believe in TOLERANCE and freedom.. 

Tolerance is GONE with this division.. THe idea of folks being "different politically" equating to "enemy" just kills that notion..  The whole concept of freedom is predicated on tolerance. And tolerance does not mean that can't hate something that you'll "allow" others to do.. 

In fact, free speech is based on tolerance. I HATE some of the stuff I hear and see, but I realize the alternative of letting govt or the courts (or this message board) decide what I hear and see is much worse..  So it's "tolerated"...


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 18, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> If CERTAIN consumer complaints can be handled that way with statutory awards -- I have no problem with that if the specified awards are fairly small.. Besides short circuiting a bunch of legal hijinks, it CUTS off these MONUMENTAL attempts to get $250,000 for emotional distress if someone finds a piece of mousetail in their sandwich...
> 
> But I'm not a fan of deep anal probing everyone's past looking for transgressions..  It's messy and time consuming.  Still requires subpoenas, expert testimony, context, etc..  Did NOT work well during the Cavanaugh confirmation when you had to sort out the PHONY from the facts back in his High School days..  And justice was NEVER served on the Gov, Lieutenant Gov, and Speaker of House in virginia when THEIR past coughed up some racist and sexual abuse issues...
> 
> Look at how difficult that REALLY is to do...


It's not as difficult as you might think.  And besides the only thing that makes it difficult generally are people who will lie and distort the truth in an attempt to save their hides.

Give you an example.  In digital forensics, we always make a copy of the medium we want to examine, we secure the original and then only work from the copy.  I recently made a stupid mistake when taking possesion of some devices in that I took an old SD card, copied the files from it to another device and then used the card without first wiping it.

In this instance, my mistake had no impact at all on the case because I was using it in one of *my *cameras to take pictures of the devices for the case file, even though I included it when I sent the devices off to the lab.   Now if I had done that (failed to wipe the drive) with the medium which received the copy of the original devices and opposing counsel became aware of this mistake they could attempt to use that mistake to try to invalidate the entire examination, claiming that any illicit data found was not from their client's device but was instead left over on the drive I copied the image to because I neglected to wipe it. Luckily the mistake was moot.

My two favorite types of evidence are 1) electronic evidence (emails, online postings, photos, video, audio, online profiles, etc.) and 2) admissions/confessions that support the existing electronic evidence.  I also really like police communications, reports, court filings, etc.  

Having to investigate a case _properly _can be a long and sometimes painful process but when your investigation produces the evidence you need to prove your case it's well worth it, especially when the evidence you uncover substaniates the claims of other individuals as well.  I was once able to provide an investigator with evidence of my claim of harassment that not only I had made but over 50 other people as well.  I just happened to collect and save the evidence that proved all of our allegations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Having to investigate a case _properly _can be a long and sometimes painful process but when your investigation produces the evidence you need to prove your case it's well worth it, especially when the evidence you uncover substaniates the claims of other individuals as well. I was once able to provide an investigator with evidence of my claim of harassment that not only I had made but over 50 other people as well. I just happened to collect and save the evidence that proved all of our allegations.



We agree it's harder than it looks.  Expensive and time consuming..  So it kind of ruins the concept of prescribed renumerations thru consumer rights..  Because if those statutory payments are limited to small amounts -- I'm doubting the risk/time is anywhere near proportional to the rewards..  

If you're willing to build those kind of cases, probably need to target the DEEP pockets and bigger rewards... Or get some biased "public servants" removed...


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 21, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > Having to investigate a case _properly _can be a long and sometimes painful process but when your investigation produces the evidence you need to prove your case it's well worth it, especially when the evidence you uncover substaniates the claims of other individuals as well. I was once able to provide an investigator with evidence of my claim of harassment that not only I had made but over 50 other people as well. I just happened to collect and save the evidence that proved all of our allegations.
> ...


Well consumer protection was just an example because there are a bunch of circumstances in which the violations and damages are written into the code.  For example

*RCW  46.71.045
Unlawful acts or practices.*
Each of the following acts or practices are unlawful:
(1) *Advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading*. A single or isolated media mistake does not constitute a false, deceptive, or misleading statement or misrepresentation under this section;
(2) _*Materially understating or misstating the estimated price for a specified repair procedure*_;
(3) Retaining payment from a customer for parts not delivered or installed or a labor operation or repair procedure that has not actually been performed;
(4) Unauthorized operation of a customer's vehicle for purposes not related to repair or diagnosis;
(5) Failing or refusing to provide a customer, upon request, a copy, at no charge, of any document signed by the customer;
(6) Retaining duplicative payment from both the customer and the warranty or extended service contract provider for the same covered component, part, or labor;
(7) _*Charging a customer for unnecessary repairs. *_For purposes of this subsection "unnecessary repairs" means those for which there is no reasonable basis for performing the service. A reasonable basis includes, but is not limited to: (a) That the repair service is consistent with specifications established by law or the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, component, or part; (b) that the repair is in accordance with accepted industry standards; or (c) that the repair was performed at the specific request of the customer.
[ 1993 c 424 § 9.]
*NOTES:*
Severability—Effective date—1993 c 424: See notes following RCW  46.71.005.

*Consumer Protection Act—Defense.*
The legislature finds that the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, chapter  19.86 RCW. Violations of this chapter are not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business. _*A violation of this chapter is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, chapter*_ 19.86 RCW. In an action under chapter  19.86 RCW due to an automotive repair facility's charging a customer an amount in excess of one hundred ten percent of the amount authorized by the customer, a violation shall not be found if the automotive repair facility proves by a preponderance of the evidence that its conduct was reasonable, necessary, and justified under the circumstances.
Notwithstanding RCW  46.64.050, no violation of this chapter shall give rise to criminal liability under that section.
[ 1993 c 424 § 12; 1982 c 62 § 9; 1977 ex.s. c 280 § 7.]
*NOTES:*
Severability—Effective date—1993 c 424: See notes following RCW  46.71.005.

*RCW  19.86.020
Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful.*
_*Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce*_ are hereby declared unlawful.
[ 1961 c 216 § 2.]

*Civil action—Unfair or deceptive act or practice—Claim elements.*
In a private action in which _*an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW  19.86.020*_, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it:
(1) Violates a statute that incorporates this chapter;
(2) _*Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative declaration of public interest impact*_; or
(3)_*(a) Injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.*_
[ 2009 c 371 § 2.]
*NOTES:*
Application—2009 c 371: See note following RCW  19.86.090.


*RCW  19.86.090
Civil action for damages—Treble damages authorized—Action by governmental entities*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 21, 2020)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> *RCW 46.71.045
> Unlawful acts or practices.*
> Each of the following acts or practices are unlawful:
> (1) *Advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading*. A single or isolated media mistake does not constitute a false, deceptive, or misleading statement or misrepresentation under this section;
> ...



This section should be on the local news AHEAD of all the other "Public Service" stuff...  But you hardly ever see it..  Same with some of the other sections you quoted...  If the MEDIA was REALLY engaged in PSAnnouncements -- this would be more valuable than the vape or "tide pods" hysteria .,.....


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jul 21, 2020)

flacaltenn said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > *RCW 46.71.045
> ...


Well when you're intentionally hamstrung by the laws and system you have to get creative.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2020)

Just a note..  I spaced out sometime on Tuesday and this thread got moved to the Recycle bin by me..    Was NOT a comment or reaction to the contributions of this thread. Very pleased to have had this discussion...

There's a weak spot in the Mod tools where mods "mark threads for moderation" and those threads selected are STILL marked for as long as you are logged in..  Mustof ran out of popcorn and then came back to move another thread to trash and this one was in the queue.. 

Doesn't happen often, but it can..


----------

