In response to Mac 1958 s thread regarding partisanship.

[Pogo]

Almost nothing is as perishable as seafood, so controls on its preparation, storage and transportation must necessarily be stringent.

This reminds me of a travel tip.

If you ever land somewhere and the airline fails to find your luggage --- just tell them it's packed with frozen fish.
They'll find it wid a quickness.

 

[sakinago]

For those not oriented to the binary political ailment, there is no 'opposition' position to favor; we favor what works no matter who presents it.

That right there ^^ --- "binary". Seems to me in order to proceed with this one has to first pigeonhole everything into one of two camps and slap labels on them, which is counterproductive. As soon as we go binary we jettison context, and that's poisonous.

Case in point:

I thought of one. Term limits. Generally been a right vs lefty thing, and I am against them along with the lefties.

Term limits is a "lefty" thing? News to me. I don't see why it should naturally be either. Why put it in a bag?

It is a tad bit poisonous...but in this highly partisan climate, it is an exercise to help people stop thinking in binary terms. To help people see just because the people I vote for want this, doesn't mean I have to want it too.

The conversations are already poison, this can only help the way I see it Pogo.

I see it as enabling the entire binary paradigm. Proceeding with this exercise at all requires that we first pigeonhole all ideas --- and even ourselves --- into one of two boxes. That's a poison that's already forced on us on this board......... why encourage it further?

OldLady for instance pointed out she's not a Democrat but gets labelled one. I get that too no matter how many times I point out I've never had a party. One wag has followed me around for years bellowing about "your shameful party" ---- which does not exist. Doesn't matter how many times I point that out, he never hears it. Others come nipping with taunts of "you kill babies" even though, not being female I have never posted anything about abortion at all. These are foisted on us by the binary-bots who insist on that infantile two-box system. "I don't care what you say, I'll tell you what you think". Which they think they can do because they, unilaterally, have put the other person in a box of their own creation. And again, the boxed entity has no say in it.

That's complete fucking bullshit. Because it means the binary-bot is bellowing and not listening. That's monologue, not dialogue. And monologue is all that is possible when one is locked in one side of a binary box.

That's why I religiously avoid blanket generalizations. Same poison.

Agree 100% with you. What would you suggest to try to get people out of the box, and start honestly listening and honestly considering? If you call them out for being monolithic, they see that as just another tactic they need to ignore or defend against. I'm not sure what else to do.

I try to stay away from name calling, I try to stay away from getting frustrated, I try to politely use reason (very hard task). I'm out of ideas on how to get people out of their boxes.

I'm not sure, since I don't have a success story

I don't see name-calling as nearly the pitfall of binary thought. Name-calling is just frustration with the other party not hearing, and that can be expressed in myriad ways, though there are surely more productive ones. But once one decides the universe is all black and white with no middles or exceptions, one has locked onself into a prison of one's own making. Not easy to reach people who have already intentionally built walls to keep challenging ideas out.

It's not easy for sure. But it can certainly be accomplished. By treating those people with respect, asking HONEST questions, and trying exercises to get them out of their box, and being honest with yourself. If we give up being civil, based in reason, and consistency in our conversations (I can be guilty of this to), we're just adding to the problem, further pushing people into those boxes. Both sides have abandoned principles, and it's up to the people to hold their own side accountable. No one is listening to the other side anymore, they're only going to listen to those on their side, if they're going to listen at all

 

[BluesLegend]

You people need to catch up to conservatives, its not one party vs the other its the people vs the corrupt politicians in BOTH parties hello.

 

[Fueri]

We've had threads on this before. I'm conservative mostly, but disagree with plenty that some might consider positions of the right.


Citizens United- We have to get money out of politics, so I think this one is batshit crazy, as all it did was dump more money into it and further consolidate power in the hands of the few. That's just fucking stupid.

But I can also see then that unions etc., shouldn't be allowed to dump their cash in either. The door has to swing both ways.

Abortion- I fucking hate it but think the ship has long since sailed on this issue and see no reason to constantly give dems a stick to beat the pubs with every election season. That stops at late term/partial birth abortions. Those people should have their brains sucked out on national TV.

Gay marriage- Want to fuck another man, go ahead. want to fuck a goat, that's fine with me too. Don't push it (or the goat fucking) on my kid or try to jam it through via school indoctrination and we'll have no problems what-so-ever. Leave that shit to the parents.




I've advocated for years a swap meet of the parties.

We'll take abortion off the agenda in exchange for guns, for instance. Kick some of these long overbeaten dead horses to the curb and just move the hell on....

 

[ClosedCaption]

One of my conservative friends were talking about restaurant regulations. He made a point that the rise in Food Trucks were a result of people not being able to afford restaurants because of things like upgrading stoves, gas lines, etc. For example: McDonald's could go to politicians and tell them a new fire safety system is best and should be required. McDonald's can afford this new system when the local breakfast joint cant and creates a financial hardship.

I can agree with situations like that.

The federal government has always picked winners and losers… That is their job

You really have to come up with a better response than just it happens all the time. There are levels to things, everything isn't like everything else all the time

 

[NYcarbineer]

Political correctness kills brain cells

Is what rightwing PC did to you?

 

[Rustic]

Political correctness kills brain cells

Is what rightwing PC did to you?

Political correctness can only call progressiveness its mother... its an incestuous relationship

 

[there4eyeM]

Obviously, the duality mode is so deeply ingrained that some posters don't even recognize it in themselves.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't have a party or political affiliation. I've been told I'm on both the left and right at different times on this board, depending who I happen to be disagreeing with at the time.

That said, I'll just pick two issues that are usually described as left and right that I agree with.

On the left, same sex marriage. Government sanctioned marriage is a secular joining, the gender of the participants shouldn't matter. I would have preferred the states and federal government change the laws on their own, rather than seeing the intervention of the USSC, but I support the outcome, if not the means.

On the right, cutting government spending. I certainly believe the government wastes money, large amounts of it. I don't agree with many of the all-or-nothing cuts that are sometimes proposed, or the complete dismantling of various agencies. Instead, I would like to see wasteful spending within the various agencies addressed, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Whether it is the Department of Education, SNAP or other welfare programs, endowments for the arts, what have you, I would like to see spending cut by making a real effort to weed out abuse and waste.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

 

[sakinago]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

I would like to cut the cord between business and the parties.You should not be able to buy influence. I would like tighter controls on politicians going on to work for corporations/lobby groups.
I would like to see a limit on other jobs that elected MPs could take.
Im not bothered about term limitations. In fact that might prove counter productive. What we find very often is that the politicians get led by the civil service because they have more experience. Thats not how it should work.
I would like the devolved governments to have more powers so that issues could be solved locally.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You should not be able to buy influence.

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

 

[Montrovant]

You should not be able to buy influence.

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

 

[usmbguest5318]

You should not be able to buy influence.

Well, I absolutely don't agree with that. I also don't see money as the sole medium of exchange as goes buying political influence.

You think people should be able to buy political influence?

Of course. You do too, you just don't realize it.

Say you want to have blue widgets outlawed and you write a bill to make it so. You have to get some quantity of people to vote with you to pass the bill, and some or all of those people want something too. What do you do to get them to agree to outlawing blue widgets? You may not give them cash, but you give them something. Call it bartering. Call it buying; call it something else. I don't care what you call it; it's still exchanging one thing for another to influence people to concur with you, to give you their approbation, thus what you want -- blue widgets outlawed.

The example above is among the most simplistic, but make no mistake, simple or complex, the core principle is the same. People exchange what they have to offer in order to influence the actions of others. They buy influence and they have no problem doing so. They'd have it no other way. You, I, and everyone else must either be lying or ignorant/naive to seriously suggest otherwise.

 

[Pogo]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

"Democrat" and "Liberal" are two entirely different things though.

 

[Pogo]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

I would like to cut the cord between business and the parties.You should not be able to buy influence. I would like tighter controls on politicians going on to work for corporations/lobby groups.
I would like to see a limit on other jobs that elected MPs could take.
Im not bothered about term limitations. In fact that might prove counter productive. What we find very often is that the politicians get led by the civil service because they have more experience. Thats not how it should work.
I would like the devolved governments to have more powers so that issues could be solved locally.

Just off the top of my head.

Amen to that. I'd like to see elected representatives forced to live in a government-supplied dorm. Free meals, room and board but no salary. And you're not permitted to communicate with anybody except your own constituents and your family. Communicate with a lobbyist, go to jail. Make it more like the military, a true 'service'. See how many wanna make a career out of it after that.

 

[sakinago]

OP, is this the thread you mean? It's the only "Marc1958" thread on the "front page" of the Politics subforum when I went to look. (I did browser "CTL-F" on Marc1958.)

I'm not actually a Democrat, but folks here insist I'm a liberal

Yes, well, that's what one'll be called if, in their view, one expresses heterodox ideas.

Yes,thats the one.

What's the one area you'd want to see a limit of government. If there's more please divulge

I would like to cut the cord between business and the parties.You should not be able to buy influence. I would like tighter controls on politicians going on to work for corporations/lobby groups.
I would like to see a limit on other jobs that elected MPs could take.
Im not bothered about term limitations. In fact that might prove counter productive. What we find very often is that the politicians get led by the civil service because they have more experience. Thats not how it should work.
I would like the devolved governments to have more powers so that issues could be solved locally.

Just off the top of my head.

Amen to that. I'd like to see elected representatives forced to live in a government-supplied dorm. Free meals, room and board but no salary. And you're not permitted to communicate with anybody except your own constituents and your family. Communicate with a lobbyist, go to jail. Make it more like the military, a true 'service'. See how many wanna make a career out of it after that.

This is why the founders never intended our lawmakers to be solely lawmakers. There were to be lawmakers on the side, and still have to run their own practices as well, so they weren't insulated from the laws they make.

Bottom line we need term limits. The average day of the US lawmaker consist of fundraising, so they can remain in power. You put term limits on, and they will be more concerned about getting done what they need with their little time.

We should pass a law where every fundraising call a politician makes, they should have to make a call to a random constituent, and talk about the troubles they have, and never accept money from them.

 

[bripat9643]

Its on the first page here and is an interesting thread regarding the corrosive effect of partisanship on the national experience.

The thread throws up interesting points along with some predictable partisanship.

I would like to throw out a challenge to all on here.

Please list one opposition act or stance that you either support or have no problem with.

Dont try and be clever about this. As a leading opinion former on here I can sniff out bullshit a mile off.

I will kick off. I have no problem with tory policies to reduce the amount of inheritance tax that people have to pay.

So there you go, play nice.

I'm obviously a liberal but also consider myself to be fiscally conservative. I agree with the conservative principle but rarely the policy. Entitlement reform is going to have to be addressed. I just prefer that it's not done entirely by Repubs.

What "fiscal conservative" policies do you support?

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app