Are you an ally of peace, civility and reason in politics, or are you an opponent?

[Confounding]

The beef between his supporters and Clinton's was about political strategy, not political ideology.

I think most "Bernie bros" would strongly disagree with you. Do you suppose you understand their views better than they do? Maybe there's a little more there than you realize, being somebody that disagrees with both of them strongly. I bet not a lot of lefties can see the difference between people like Cruz and Trump either. There are big ones nonetheless.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It can begin by mandating that news stations promote news first.

Who gets to decide what is news? Should there be an official news and should there be a punishment for unofficial news?

customers must be allowed to choose their own stations.

I have hundred of stations to watched and an eclectic source of news across the web.

I don't think more regulation is the answer.

No, more regulation isn't the answer. And, people wanting "their" version of the news to take priority is disturbing in and of itself.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You’re one of the biggest name callers on this board.

Just for fun once in a while, and it took me years to get to that point. If you sort through my first years here you'll see that I was never anything but cordial, and I always attempted to have respectful disagreements no matter how cruel the other posters were. I was an immovable object when it came to that because to me it was important. After years of dealing with hate-fueled people and realizing the extreme futility of my efforts I've learned to roll with and have some fun with it from time to time. I have no real hatred for those who disagree with me, and even if I get a little spicy sometimes I still make an attempt at constructive content. Also I have never stopped examining criticisms fairly because to me not being ignorant is more important than winning an internet debate. Lastly I couldn't eat that bag of dicks even if I wanted to because you gobbled them all up already.

So you admit you’re the asshole your OP was meant for. The rest is an excuse and flat out bullshit.

 

[impuretrash]

The beef between his supporters and Clinton's was about political strategy, not political ideology.

I think most "Bernie bros" would strongly disagree with you. Do you suppose you understand their views better than they do? Maybe there's a little more there than you realize, being somebody that disagrees with both of them strongly. I bet not a lot of lefties can see the difference between people like Cruz and Trump either. There are big ones nonetheless.

Sanders, Clinton, mainstream GOP. The only difference is not should we go left but how fast.

 

[Gdjjr]

Sanders, Clinton, mainstream GOP. The only difference is not should we go left but how fast.

Same destination. Different rate of descent.

 

[Gdjjr]

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody here is interested in listening to opposing views. They're here to make fun of people who disagree with their own opinions.

While that is largely true- that is rather the point of the OP.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I am a voter with my own independent opinion. It is not my duty to make others feel good about how I feel.

 

[healthmyths]

All reason ends when one is a partisan. Partisans are tribal in nature and instead of forming opinions based upon their own value systems, they simply conform to the groupthink of their tribe.

How can there be any civility with so many who are simply preprogrammed warriors out to do battle?

Again... in my case I'm attempting to convince the on-the-fencers and not the partisan/illogical.irrational ideology.
When you have had the journalism experiences I've had, it is important to understand how hard it is to get unbiased news.
Case in point... how many news people are:

In 1971, Republicans made up 25.7% of all journalists.
Democrats were 35.5%, and independents were 32.5%. Some 6.3% of responses were "other."

By 2014, the year of the last survey, the share of journalists identifying as Republican had shrunk to 7.1%, an 18.6 percentage point drop.
From having near-parity with the journalist Republicans in the 1970s, Democrats today outnumber Republicans today by four to one.
Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows | Investor's Business Daily

So it is hard for "undecided" people to accept news reports.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.
An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes. The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.
Fact check/Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats - Ballotpedia

It should make any person who is a "fence-sitter" take that into account as to when they read headlines like these, are this truly unbiased?
“Trump administration to house migrant children at Fort Sill, which once served as a Japanese internment camp”
blared the headline from one national news media outlet.

For starters, the 150-year-old Oklahoma military base that will house the unaccompanied minor illegal immigrant children hasn’t been an internment camp … since June 1942. It is not going to be used as a “child prison.”
Secondly, this is only meant as a temporary solution. The Trump administration has a long-term plan to address the issue by way of building new Health and Human Services facilities due to overcrowding at existing facilities.
But Democrats have refused to move on the administration’s request for $4.5 billion in funding for this plan, which would help alleviate the problem.
Thirdly, using Fort Sill to house unaccompanied migrant children is not a new practice. President Obama housed 1,200 of them there in 2014. In stark contrast to how current reports have been negatively framed, not a single media outlet that reported the news in 2014 noted it used to be an internment camp.

Not a single one.
It was media sensationalism at its worst, playing on people’s emotions. They insinuated the children were going to face the same conditions that the Japanese-Americans who were interned there did.
MATTHEWS: The MSM’s biased coverage of illegal immigration deepens reader distrust

 

[sparky]

If one can employ critical thinking skills ,and can absorb , one can learn , as well as view things differently than in one's past

i have personally many times changed my views , over time

one thing i have learned, there are no simple answers to complex issues

the world is not black / white

~S~

 

[JWBooth]

Are you an ally of peace, civility and reason in politics, or are you an opponent?

When you talk about politics is your intent to burn bridges or build them? Are you weaponizing words or using them to provoke calm and good dialogue? Are you furious at the ones you disagree with or are you trying your best to understand them? Be honest with yourself. Most of you do nothing but provoke tension and vitriol. Most of you dehumanize the other side to the extent that you actually believe they are evil and not just people that see things differently. Most of you don't actually care about the truth of any given situation and automatically take a defensive position against the other side. If you actually cared about being right you would welcome criticism of your own beliefs and examine it honestly, changing your opinions when necessary, because obviously nobody it right about everything, right? You think in extremes in a grey reality. It doesn't work. The problem isn't left or right; the problem is left and right. If you're filled with anger and hate, if you lose it when your views are questioned, then you are the problem.

Bring on the boogaloo

 

[initforme]

I think both major parties are full of fecal matter. They claim this, say that, same empty rhetoric and I don't believe a word of it. Never have never will. So I don't try and build anything towards those who actually buy into the nonsense. Politics is at its its best more about entertainment and grandstanding. Call me a political nonbeliever.

 

[JWBooth]

Problem being is that the socialists will never be satisfied with their lot, and will constantly work to expand their avaricious grasp.....And if you oppose them it's not because of any principled stance, it's because you have a character flaw that they are above, and as such you need their view imposed upon you by force.

In the end, there is no dealing with such intellectually dishonest and fundamentally violent people.

Meh, toss their leftist asses out of a helicopter door, Pinochet style.

 

[Confounding]

So you admit you’re the asshole your OP was meant for. The rest is an excuse and flat out bullshit.

If you say so.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[Alan Stallion]

Are you an ally of peace, civility and reason in politics, or are you an opponent?

When you talk about politics is your intent to burn bridges or build them? Are you weaponizing words or using them to provoke calm and good dialogue? Are you furious at the ones you disagree with or are you trying your best to understand them? Be honest with yourself. Most of you do nothing but provoke tension and vitriol. Most of you dehumanize the other side to the extent that you actually believe they are evil and not just people that see things differently. Most of you don't actually care about the truth of any given situation and automatically take a defensive position against the other side. If you actually cared about being right you would welcome criticism of your own beliefs and examine it honestly, changing your opinions when necessary, because obviously nobody it right about everything, right? You think in extremes in a grey reality. It doesn't work. The problem isn't left or right; the problem is left and right. If you're filled with anger and hate, if you lose it when your views are questioned, then you are the problem.

You are correct when you say "Most of you do nothing but provoke tension and vitriol." That doesn't create healthy thought and dialogue, and most threads aren't worth bothering with; they're just click-bait to start arguments, not to conduct anything of value.

When discussing politics, people will tend talk to individuals differently than as an anonymous avatar on a public forum. Let's say I'm talking to a neighbor, let's say she's young, college-age and she says something I don't agree with, it would behoove me to try to find out why she believes what she believes, where she gets her information from and what is the world-view she was brought up in, rather than calling her an "ignorant slut" (SNL Dan Aykroyd reference). Perhaps I can persuade her with reason, logic, facts, historical evidence, or at least plant some seeds of thought that might blossom later in her life as she gets more experience in life. I'd at least want to be a good neighbor and not be someone she would want to avoid or loathe. Civility goes a long way. If one person chooses to be not civil, that's his/her choice.

On a public forum, it can be easy to cheer one side and root against an other. But it is worth noting that your posting may not just be seen by partisan sides. There could be somebody out there who may not have a formulated opinion on a matter. Maybe little Timmy from his sixth grade social studies class may have clicked on a link for some research and is now watching how people are conducting themselves on a public forum. Maybe he's persuaded by reason, logic, facts, historical evidence, etc. that somebody is posting. Maybe he is disgusted by how one side is conducting themselves... or both sides (or all sides).

It's easy to get caught up in name-calling, once one person starts it (none of us are immune from this temptation). Sometimes it's easier to just walk away (of course you may be taunted as "running away from the discussion") if you're tired of the crap-fest. Ask yourself, "is this worth my time and effort?" "Is it of value?"

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All reason ends when one is a partisan. Partisans are tribal in nature and instead of forming opinions based upon their own value systems, they simply conform to the groupthink of their tribe.

How can there be any civility with so many who are simply preprogrammed warriors out to do battle?

Again... in my case I'm attempting to convince the on-the-fencers and not the partisan/illogical.irrational ideology.
When you have had the journalism experiences I've had, it is important to understand how hard it is to get unbiased news.
Case in point... how many news people are:

In 1971, Republicans made up 25.7% of all journalists.
Democrats were 35.5%, and independents were 32.5%. Some 6.3% of responses were "other."

By 2014, the year of the last survey, the share of journalists identifying as Republican had shrunk to 7.1%, an 18.6 percentage point drop.
From having near-parity with the journalist Republicans in the 1970s, Democrats today outnumber Republicans today by four to one.
Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows | Investor's Business Daily

So it is hard for "undecided" people to accept news reports.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.
An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes. The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.
Fact check/Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats - Ballotpedia

It should make any person who is a "fence-sitter" take that into account as to when they read headlines like these, are this truly unbiased?
“Trump administration to house migrant children at Fort Sill, which once served as a Japanese internment camp”
blared the headline from one national news media outlet.

For starters, the 150-year-old Oklahoma military base that will house the unaccompanied minor illegal immigrant children hasn’t been an internment camp … since June 1942. It is not going to be used as a “child prison.”
Secondly, this is only meant as a temporary solution. The Trump administration has a long-term plan to address the issue by way of building new Health and Human Services facilities due to overcrowding at existing facilities.
But Democrats have refused to move on the administration’s request for $4.5 billion in funding for this plan, which would help alleviate the problem.
Thirdly, using Fort Sill to house unaccompanied migrant children is not a new practice. President Obama housed 1,200 of them there in 2014. In stark contrast to how current reports have been negatively framed, not a single media outlet that reported the news in 2014 noted it used to be an internment camp.

Not a single one.
It was media sensationalism at its worst, playing on people’s emotions. They insinuated the children were going to face the same conditions that the Japanese-Americans who were interned there did.
MATTHEWS: The MSM’s biased coverage of illegal immigration deepens reader distrust

There are no on the fencers on this site lol

 

[Dogmaphobe]

All reason ends when one is a partisan. Partisans are tribal in nature and instead of forming opinions based upon their own value systems, they simply conform to the groupthink of their tribe.

How can there be any civility with so many who are simply preprogrammed warriors out to do battle?

Again... in my case I'm attempting to convince the on-the-fencers and not the partisan/illogical.irrational ideology.
When you have had the journalism experiences I've had, it is important to understand how hard it is to get unbiased news.
Case in point... how many news people are:

In 1971, Republicans made up 25.7% of all journalists.
Democrats were 35.5%, and independents were 32.5%. Some 6.3% of responses were "other."

By 2014, the year of the last survey, the share of journalists identifying as Republican had shrunk to 7.1%, an 18.6 percentage point drop.
From having near-parity with the journalist Republicans in the 1970s, Democrats today outnumber Republicans today by four to one.
Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows | Investor's Business Daily

So it is hard for "undecided" people to accept news reports.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.
An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes. The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.
Fact check/Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats - Ballotpedia

It should make any person who is a "fence-sitter" take that into account as to when they read headlines like these, are this truly unbiased?
“Trump administration to house migrant children at Fort Sill, which once served as a Japanese internment camp”
blared the headline from one national news media outlet.

For starters, the 150-year-old Oklahoma military base that will house the unaccompanied minor illegal immigrant children hasn’t been an internment camp … since June 1942. It is not going to be used as a “child prison.”
Secondly, this is only meant as a temporary solution. The Trump administration has a long-term plan to address the issue by way of building new Health and Human Services facilities due to overcrowding at existing facilities.
But Democrats have refused to move on the administration’s request for $4.5 billion in funding for this plan, which would help alleviate the problem.
Thirdly, using Fort Sill to house unaccompanied migrant children is not a new practice. President Obama housed 1,200 of them there in 2014. In stark contrast to how current reports have been negatively framed, not a single media outlet that reported the news in 2014 noted it used to be an internment camp.

Not a single one.
It was media sensationalism at its worst, playing on people’s emotions. They insinuated the children were going to face the same conditions that the Japanese-Americans who were interned there did.
MATTHEWS: The MSM’s biased coverage of illegal immigration deepens reader distrust

I'm not a fence sitter by any means. I have very strong opinions towards many issues.

What you have said about the media is certainly true, however. There is a downright Orwellian quality to their reporting these days, as they select otherwise obscure events, make them national headlines and then twist the real story on its heels to fit their narrative. No intelligent and unbiased person could possibly view the footage of the Covington Kids or of Michael Brown and come away with any impression other than the national media is corrupt and manipulative.

There is a certain "boiling Lobsters" aspect to politics. When changes are incremental, highly conformist individuals just go with it as each step is rationalized and internalized which sets the ground level for the next step. German didn't go Nazi in one fell swoop, otherwise people would have reacted. It happened gradually over a period of years. Similarly, the hard left turn of the Democratic party has been gradual, as it didn't go overnight from acknowledging the rights of gay people to live free from fear to 57 genders and wanting to punish anybody who called a biological girl a girl instead of a boy. It used to be "do your own thing" (libertarian tinged liberalism) but now it is "do OUR thing or we will punish you!!" (leftist authoritarianism).

If you were to go back in time 20 years and ask people if a teacher should be fired for not calling a biological female a male, I doubt if any of the idiot leftists in this forum would have answered yes. They have been pulled so far to the left in the intervening years and too unintelligent to even notice, so today many DO say yes. That is because they are incapable of thinking for themselves and just marching in lockstep with their little mates.

 

[Confounding]

There are no on the fencers on this site lol

I guess it depends on what you mean by that. I could vote D or R depending on the candidate and the state of politics.

 

[Jets]

I always believe in having the discussion. I’m not here to joust with people or pull out a flamethrower. Looking for areas of agreement is more productive than digging ones heels in and denigrating the other person or their perspectives. My response tends to be (why do you think that), rather than (here is why you are wrong).