Eager to learn

[Tommy Tainant]

Good evening everybody.

Joined up to get a bit more insight into American politics ahead of the election.

I live in the UK and am not a US voter.

To be honest, I am laid up with a broken ankle and I am finding it difficult to occupy myself between meal times.

Hoping to have it all explained to me over the next few weeks.

Many thanks,

TT.

 

[Compost]

Welcome TT. Gird your loins, you'll learn....

 

[The Great Goose]

Hello

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Tommy Tainant
Behind all the political conflicts and battles going on there are basically two schools of thought driving the left and right sides of the spectrum

A. the conservatives came from the Classic Liberal approach of Locke
favoring LIMITED govt, the role of the Constitution to check govt where natural rights are inherent in human nature as given by God
and not dependent on govt but the opposite. that the role of the Constitution and people is to check govt to prevent collective authority from usurping too much

So these are the people who believe in states' rights and sovereignty and are as against depending on a central federal govt controlling everything
as the anti-federalists were back in the day. Same thing, different stage of history.
Belief in people having maximum freedom and liberty through free market and private sector,
and keep govt as much as possible out of the way.

B. the liberals come from the Radical Liberal approach of Rousseau
and the idea of using govt to establish and enforce the will of the people

so one side trusts government to be the way of the people
the other side doesn't trust government but trusts the people directly

A = pushes for minimum govt = if it isn't specifically in the Constitution then it can't be assumed to be within govt jurisdiction
B = pushes to use govt to make things public and equal for all people = if it isn't BARRED by the Constitution specifically, then it's fair game to make laws
that go there until stopped by courts etc.

Now what gets REALLY messed up is how these camps place the relationship between church and state

A. the Christians and a lot of conservatives/Constitutionalists will put
God and God's laws first as the default (many using the Bible or religion to express this)
and then say Govt is supposed to supplement and be in accord with God's law not against it

B. the secular will make Govt the default for all people
and then say the church and religions are OPTIONAL under that.

So they don't even stack the authority and priorities the same way.
It's no wonder the sides cannot see each other's views, they are coming from the opposite directions.

The solution I see is to have CONSENSUS between the camps and sets of laws.

For example if we agree murder is wrong, it doesn't matter if someone puts church/God's laws first and then say govt/secular laws follow and agree.
Or if someone puts the govt/secular laws first, and then notes that the religious laws happen to agree.

We agree either way, so it doesn't matter how each side arrives at that justification or explains it.

But where we don't agree, this gets messy.
In order to push one set of beliefs over the others, people collectively
use their political parties and media to bully and bulldoze by cutting down and discrediting the other side.

So that's where we are right now.
Instead of people agreeing to work together including our differences,
it is still a battle of trying to get the majority to push one party's platform of beliefs over the opposing side,
usually by hate campaigns, negative fear based propaganda,
exploiting fears about guns, abortion, homosexuality, immigrants, Muslims
any hot button issue to get people stirred up to go vote for their candidates or against the others.

It's not about solutions, it's about winning control out of fear the other party will dominate.

That's what I see happening.
There are solutions in the background, but these don't get media attention.
All the fighting, backbiting, etc. is what sells the hype to get people to donate to the election campaigns
where the media makes more and more money the longer they can stretch out the election seasons and cycles.

 

[Moonglow]

Good evening everybody.

Joined up to get a bit more insight into American politics ahead of the election.

I live in the UK and am not a US voter.

To be honest, I am laid up with a broken ankle and I am finding it difficult to occupy myself between meal times.

Hoping to have it all explained to me over the next few weeks.

Many thanks,

TT.

Did you hurt your ankle from dancing?

 

[Moonglow]

Actually Mate, it's a toss up between a socialist, a liar, a fascist and a few choir boys...

 

[williepete]

Welcome.

Where in the UK?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Welcome and hope you enjoy...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welcome.

Where in the UK?

Wrexham.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Good evening everybody.

Joined up to get a bit more insight into American politics ahead of the election.

I live in the UK and am not a US voter.

To be honest, I am laid up with a broken ankle and I am finding it difficult to occupy myself between meal times.

Hoping to have it all explained to me over the next few weeks.

Many thanks,

TT.

Did you hurt your ankle from dancing?

My wife left the lid off the inspection pit in the garage.. She didnt actually push me down the hole but.....................

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Many thanks for this. It does seem to be very polarised.

I have noticed that religion seems to be very important in US politics. Religious politicians tend to keep their heads down in the UK. Its considered a bit weird.

I noticed that the US Episcopals have had problems with the Anglicans over Gay Marriage but they dont seem to be as vocal as the church groups who dont like homosexuality. Thats a shame.

Hi Tommy Tainant
Behind all the political conflicts and battles going on there are basically two schools of thought driving the left and right sides of the spectrum

A. the conservatives came from the Classic Liberal approach of Locke
favoring LIMITED govt, the role of the Constitution to check govt where natural rights are inherent in human nature as given by God
and not dependent on govt but the opposite. that the role of the Constitution and people is to check govt to prevent collective authority from usurping too much

So these are the people who believe in states' rights and sovereignty and are as against depending on a central federal govt controlling everything
as the anti-federalists were back in the day. Same thing, different stage of history.
Belief in people having maximum freedom and liberty through free market and private sector,
and keep govt as much as possible out of the way.

B. the liberals come from the Radical Liberal approach of Rousseau
and the idea of using govt to establish and enforce the will of the people

so one side trusts government to be the way of the people
the other side doesn't trust government but trusts the people directly

A = pushes for minimum govt = if it isn't specifically in the Constitution then it can't be assumed to be within govt jurisdiction
B = pushes to use govt to make things public and equal for all people = if it isn't BARRED by the Constitution specifically, then it's fair game to make laws
that go there until stopped by courts etc.

Now what gets REALLY messed up is how these camps place the relationship between church and state

A. the Christians and a lot of conservatives/Constitutionalists will put
God and God's laws first as the default (many using the Bible or religion to express this)
and then say Govt is supposed to supplement and be in accord with God's law not against it

B. the secular will make Govt the default for all people
and then say the church and religions are OPTIONAL under that.

So they don't even stack the authority and priorities the same way.
It's no wonder the sides cannot see each other's views, they are coming from the opposite directions.

The solution I see is to have CONSENSUS between the camps and sets of laws.

For example if we agree murder is wrong, it doesn't matter if someone puts church/God's laws first and then say govt/secular laws follow and agree.
Or if someone puts the govt/secular laws first, and then notes that the religious laws happen to agree.

We agree either way, so it doesn't matter how each side arrives at that justification or explains it.

But where we don't agree, this gets messy.
In order to push one set of beliefs over the others, people collectively
use their political parties and media to bully and bulldoze by cutting down and discrediting the other side.

So that's where we are right now.
Instead of people agreeing to work together including our differences,
it is still a battle of trying to get the majority to push one party's platform of beliefs over the opposing side,
usually by hate campaigns, negative fear based propaganda,
exploiting fears about guns, abortion, homosexuality, immigrants, Muslims
any hot button issue to get people stirred up to go vote for their candidates or against the others.

It's not about solutions, it's about winning control out of fear the other party will dominate.

That's what I see happening.
There are solutions in the background, but these don't get media attention.
All the fighting, backbiting, etc. is what sells the hype to get people to donate to the election campaigns
where the media makes more and more money the longer they can stretch out the election seasons and cycles.

 

[saveliberty]

Visit the Coffee Shop thread found in the USMB Lounge section, we have a fellow countryman of yours as a regular.

 

[saveliberty]

My wife left the lid off the inspection pit in the garage.. She didnt actually push me down the hole but.....................

Life insurance premiums all paid?

 

[emilynghiem]

Many thanks for this. It does seem to be very polarised.

I have noticed that religion seems to be very important in US politics. Religious politicians tend to keep their heads down in the UK. Its considered a bit weird.

I noticed that the US Episcopals have had problems with the Anglicans over Gay Marriage but they dont seem to be as vocal as the church groups who dont like homosexuality. Thats a shame.

Hi Tommy Tainant
Behind all the political conflicts and battles going on there are basically two schools of thought driving the left and right sides of the spectrum

A. the conservatives came from the Classic Liberal approach of Locke
favoring LIMITED govt, the role of the Constitution to check govt where natural rights are inherent in human nature as given by God
and not dependent on govt but the opposite. that the role of the Constitution and people is to check govt to prevent collective authority from usurping too much

So these are the people who believe in states' rights and sovereignty and are as against depending on a central federal govt controlling everything
as the anti-federalists were back in the day. Same thing, different stage of history.
Belief in people having maximum freedom and liberty through free market and private sector,
and keep govt as much as possible out of the way.

B. the liberals come from the Radical Liberal approach of Rousseau
and the idea of using govt to establish and enforce the will of the people

so one side trusts government to be the way of the people
the other side doesn't trust government but trusts the people directly

A = pushes for minimum govt = if it isn't specifically in the Constitution then it can't be assumed to be within govt jurisdiction
B = pushes to use govt to make things public and equal for all people = if it isn't BARRED by the Constitution specifically, then it's fair game to make laws
that go there until stopped by courts etc.

Now what gets REALLY messed up is how these camps place the relationship between church and state

A. the Christians and a lot of conservatives/Constitutionalists will put
God and God's laws first as the default (many using the Bible or religion to express this)
and then say Govt is supposed to supplement and be in accord with God's law not against it

B. the secular will make Govt the default for all people
and then say the church and religions are OPTIONAL under that.

So they don't even stack the authority and priorities the same way.
It's no wonder the sides cannot see each other's views, they are coming from the opposite directions.

The solution I see is to have CONSENSUS between the camps and sets of laws.

For example if we agree murder is wrong, it doesn't matter if someone puts church/God's laws first and then say govt/secular laws follow and agree.
Or if someone puts the govt/secular laws first, and then notes that the religious laws happen to agree.

We agree either way, so it doesn't matter how each side arrives at that justification or explains it.

But where we don't agree, this gets messy.
In order to push one set of beliefs over the others, people collectively
use their political parties and media to bully and bulldoze by cutting down and discrediting the other side.

So that's where we are right now.
Instead of people agreeing to work together including our differences,
it is still a battle of trying to get the majority to push one party's platform of beliefs over the opposing side,
usually by hate campaigns, negative fear based propaganda,
exploiting fears about guns, abortion, homosexuality, immigrants, Muslims
any hot button issue to get people stirred up to go vote for their candidates or against the others.

It's not about solutions, it's about winning control out of fear the other party will dominate.

That's what I see happening.
There are solutions in the background, but these don't get media attention.
All the fighting, backbiting, etc. is what sells the hype to get people to donate to the election campaigns
where the media makes more and more money the longer they can stretch out the election seasons and cycles.

Hi Tommy Tainant
I notice the fear and intolerance runs both ways.
As many people want to bash and reject Christians as all being hypocrites
as the people rejecting all homosexuals as all being unnatural.

When I studied this in depth, it made sense to me how the conflict was two-sided:
A. people who know someone who is naturally gay or transgender
and "cannot change" will tend to think everyone must be that way, naturally occurring by birth
where it isn't a choice and isn't a mental illness to be treated or cured;
B. people who know or heard of people changing their orientation and healing of
unwanted attractions tend to think that all cases are unnatural, such as caused by abuse,
and can be changed by healing that abuse since they understand "some cases" are this way

That doesn't mean all cases are the same:

I find both types are out there
A. those who cannot change
B. those who can

So the conflict is either group trying to say ALL CASES are the same,
and one saying they're all A=naturally born that way ie not a choice
and the other saying no they're all B/unnatural = choice of behavior and not genetic

What is sad to me is that the same process of spiritual healing
that helps people come to terms and come out being homosexual or transgender
is also what helps people come out as heterosexual if that's their natural default.

It's NOT about converting people or making people gay or straight, etc.
it's about making peace and restoring what is someone's natural self,
regardless what orientation that turns out to be.

And this same spiritual healing has also been used to heal a wide variety of problems.
From mental and physical illness, to broken relations, to restore health by healing the whole person, body mind and spirit. Once you heal the person, then any other issues can also be resolved in that spirit of letting go, acceptance, and reconciliation.

Because America is going through this phase of questioning everything and demanding secular proof, it will likely take medical scientific study and replicated research to show this healing process is natural and universal, where science and religion would agree it is beneficial and based on forgiveness.

There had been such prominence and dominance of Christian values, to the point of haranguing
and harassing people for being homosexual, that the pendulum has swung the other way;
and now people have been bashing and rejecting Christianity while overly defending homosexuals,
to compensate for the discrimination in the past.

Instead of equalizing the situation, it's like two wrongs not making things right.
Now both sides feel the other is bashing them, and it goes back and forth in karmic circles.

They are both right, from their own experiences that back up their beliefs.
But they are both wrong to impose and insist on their way as explaining "all the cases out there"
to the point of excluding the others they assume to be WRONG and pushing an agenda.

I hope we get past this soon, because this is very damaging to people and relations on all sides.

I am hoping that by proving how spiritual healing works, that will show there are both cases going on (people who can
change and people who can't) so both sides are right. It is not all one way or another, but different cases depending on the people's
spiritual path, process and circumstances they are experiencing in life.

And since it is a spiritual process internal and faith based, it is not the govt's place to dictate or regulate
beliefs on this, but up to people to work it out and keep the conflicts out of govt that isn't designed to decide this for people.

 

[Hossfly]

Good evening everybody.

Joined up to get a bit more insight into American politics ahead of the election.

I live in the UK and am not a US voter.

To be honest, I am laid up with a broken ankle and I am finding it difficult to occupy myself between meal times.

Hoping to have it all explained to me over the next few weeks.

Many thanks,

TT.

Did you hurt your ankle from dancing?

My wife left the lid off the inspection pit in the garage.. She didnt actually push me down the hole but.....................

 

[Hossfly]

Welcome.

Where in the UK?

Wrexham.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Good evening everybody.

Joined up to get a bit more insight into American politics ahead of the election.

I live in the UK and am not a US voter.

To be honest, I am laid up with a broken ankle and I am finding it difficult to occupy myself between meal times.

Hoping to have it all explained to me over the next few weeks.

Many thanks,

TT.

Hi Tommy, nice to meet you!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

There are some really angry people on here. I am quite glad that there is an Ocean between us !

Is there anything that everyone agrees on ?

 

[Carla_Danger]

There are some really angry people on here. I am quite glad that there is an Ocean between us !

Is there anything that everyone agrees on ?

I know. They are truly an embarrassment. Please don't go away hating American's.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There are some really angry people on here. I am quite glad that there is an Ocean between us !

Is there anything that everyone agrees on ?

I think most American's agree that we've got too many non violent drug offenders locked up. At least that's one topic I have found many on the left and the right agree on.