Leftards Beware When Assaulting Trump Fans

[Pogo]

Yet, the more people who arm, the less shootings we have. Until the Ferguson Effect, our violent crime and gun crimes were on the decrease since the mid 90's. During that time, more and more states adopted CCW programs that allowed Americans to carry their loaded weapons just about anyplace we go.

Yeah, but even as you decrease, it is still way above other nations. NZ and Australia are polite societies, yet we have strict gun control laws. Just saying Satrebil's quote is a load of hogwash. Totally unproveable.

Probably nation most associated with "polite" would be Canada, which reminds me of one of my golden oldie hits.
From the wayback machine, begin paste:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, but even as you decrease, it is still way above other nations. NZ and Australia are polite societies, yet we have strict gun control laws. Just saying Satrebil's quote is a load of hogwash. Totally unproveable.

Probably nation most associated with "polite" would be Canada, which reminds me of one of my golden oldie hits.
From the wayback machine, begin paste:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.

Bullshit, you try to blame machines and not the people using them. Hint machines do nothing by themselves. Are you saying Windsor would be just as violent as Detroit if they had guns?

.

 

[candycorn]

The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?

So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

you sort of missed the point.

 

[Pogo]

Probably nation most associated with "polite" would be Canada, which reminds me of one of my golden oldie hits.
From the wayback machine, begin paste:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.

Bullshit, you try to blame machines and not the people using them.

Oh do I now.

Why don't you quote me. Oh wait that's right, you can't quote that which does not exist. All you can do is make it up.

Hint machines do nothing by themselves. Are you saying Windsor would be just as violent as Detroit if they had guns?

Not at all. The point there is sailing right over your noggin.

 

[OKTexas]

Detroit has more than 3 times the population of Windsor and totally different culture. Nothing like comparing Apples to a pile of shit.

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.

Bullshit, you try to blame machines and not the people using them.

Oh do I now.

Why don't you quote me. Oh wait that's right, you can't quote that which does not exist. All you can do is make it up.

Hint machines do nothing by themselves. Are you saying Windsor would be just as violent as Detroit if they had guns?

Not at all. The point there is sailing right over your noggin.

Thanks, you just proved my point, it boils down to the people involved, not the machines they have. BTW are you aware that 1 in 4 Canadians own firearms.

26. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?

.

 

[emilynghiem]

So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Orwell, 1984

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

you sort of missed the point.

Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual

If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are

1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.

People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.

Nobody wants that done to them!

That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.

When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.

However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.

I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.

If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.

We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.

That's what I support and advocate.

But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.

 

[Pogo]

You just hit the nail on the head --- culture.

However unwittingly.

Gun culture -- "polite" culture. "Soory for stabbing you, eh?" versis BLAM.

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.

Bullshit, you try to blame machines and not the people using them.

Oh do I now.

Why don't you quote me. Oh wait that's right, you can't quote that which does not exist. All you can do is make it up.

Hint machines do nothing by themselves. Are you saying Windsor would be just as violent as Detroit if they had guns?

Not at all. The point there is sailing right over your noggin.

Thanks, you just proved my point, it boils down to the people involved, not the machines they have. BTW are you aware that 1 in 4 Canadians own firearms.

26. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?

How vaguely interesting. Snore.

Yes, it is down to people and the culture they practice. As in Gun Culture. That culture exists whether you have one or not.

 

[Hellbilly]

You be looking down the barrel of a 9mm with hollow points.

Trump Supporter Draws Gun In Self-Defense After Politically Motivated Attack

Some of us don’t want to look at trump fans let alone assault them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pogo]

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

you sort of missed the point.

Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual

If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are

1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.

People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.

Nobody wants that done to them!

That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.

When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.

However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.

I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.

If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.

We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.

That's what I support and advocate.

But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.

Moving said monuments to museums etc is exactly what's been done in every case I'm aware of. The point was to cease the implicit endorsement of the public for the propaganda it was put up for by the propagandists, in other words the municipality saying "this is not what we believe so get it off our land".

And the fact remains undisputed that it's no business of outsiders to come marching in under the light of Tiki torches to dick-tate what Charlottesville or New Orleans or any other municipality is allowed to do with its own public spaces. There's no argument for that.

 

[OKTexas]

No it's a difference of whether the lives and property of others is respected. I've had guns or access to guns all my life and have never harmed anyone with them.

Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.

Bullshit, you try to blame machines and not the people using them.

Oh do I now.

Why don't you quote me. Oh wait that's right, you can't quote that which does not exist. All you can do is make it up.

Hint machines do nothing by themselves. Are you saying Windsor would be just as violent as Detroit if they had guns?

Not at all. The point there is sailing right over your noggin.

Thanks, you just proved my point, it boils down to the people involved, not the machines they have. BTW are you aware that 1 in 4 Canadians own firearms.

26. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?

How vaguely interesting. Snore.

Yes, it is down to people and the culture they practice. As in Gun Culture. That culture exists whether you have one or not.

So now you're back to blaming machines, I guess you're indoctrination won't allow you to admit the truth. In your own words, define "gun culture".

.

 

[candycorn]

Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.

NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

you sort of missed the point.

Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual

If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are

1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.

People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.

Nobody wants that done to them!

That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.

When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.

However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.

I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.

If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.

We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.

That's what I support and advocate.

But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.

ohhhh Kay.


My thing is this. If you’re going to have statues to X and X falls out of favor one day, removing the statue doesn’t erase X from the history of the nation. It means that the current society doesn’t want to highlight X.

I still don’t see how torch carrying Nazis had any role to play in the removal of a statue. Me thinks most are using that as cover to explain what the true motives were...hate and intimidation

 

[ThisIsMe]

Uhhh... no we dont. This is exactly the ammunition the left LOVES to use against the right.

Someone is going to to post "see, these gun nut just want to shoot everybody", and statements like this give them all the proof they need.

How about instead of killing the dems, maybe try to help them understand that difference of opinion is good, and just because we all disagree, you are not the enemy, and it's ok that we dont see eye to eye.

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

The only purpose of a political party is to consolidate power into a collective. Has nothing to do with ideologies, which will change with the winds. I think a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a period of 20 years, nonrenewable. After that time it's gone whether it's accomplished what it set out to do 20 years before or not. Because if you didn't, you haven't been effective, and if you did, 20 years is about the span of time a collective's interests start drifting away and whatever the original ideals were get supplanted by the one that all parties devolve to, which is perpetuating its own power for the sake of power.

Of course the other major factor that creates this division is the frickin' Electoral College, more specifically the WTA system, without which the bullshit concepts of "red" states and "blue" states would not exist.

Well, ar least the electoral college is constitutional. I dont remember the constitution saying anything about political parties.

Again, just like political parties, there should be no red states or blue states, because there are people of all ideology living in every state. The whole idea basically pits one group of people against another.

As for the electoral college, I think it would work much better if we werent voting for Republicans and democrats. The reason why there is so much turmoil right now is exactly because of this division of people, brought on by an "us against them" mentality.

Take away political parties and walla, the electoral college seems more reasonable now, because you are not voting on a person, but an idea.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

you sort of missed the point.

Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual

If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are

1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.

People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.

Nobody wants that done to them!

That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.

When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.

However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.

I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.

If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.

We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.

That's what I support and advocate.

But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.

Moving said monuments to museums etc is exactly what's been done in every case I'm aware of. The point was to cease the implicit endorsement of the public for the propaganda it was put up for by the propagandists, in other words the municipality saying "this is not what we believe so get it off our land".

And the fact remains undisputed that it's no business of outsiders to come marching in under the light of Tiki torches to dick-tate what Charlottesville or New Orleans or any other municipality is allowed to do with its own public spaces. There's no argument for that.

The government works on behalf of the people. It was their statue, so they have the right to protest it being taken down. So you are saying that you don't support people protesting?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Uhhh... no we dont. This is exactly the ammunition the left LOVES to use against the right.

Someone is going to to post "see, these gun nut just want to shoot everybody", and statements like this give them all the proof they need.

How about instead of killing the dems, maybe try to help them understand that difference of opinion is good, and just because we all disagree, you are not the enemy, and it's ok that we dont see eye to eye.

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

I'm sure that does exist, but I'm pretty sure also that people are so hard core on being tied to a "party", that they would vote against what could be a great candidate just because they have the wrong letter at the end

 

[emilynghiem]

???

Dear Pogo
The same way SOME posters on the wall are political propaganda,
but some are framed art prints, and others might be both,
doesn't the same apply to STATUES?

The ancient Buddha statues carved into the mountainsides
were considered landmarks of world history.

The fertility goddess statues unearthed at various sites
serve as historical records of those previous matriarchal cultures.
Certainly those are a key stages in both art history and world cultural history.

Why would you assume that just because certain statues
are interpreted as propaganda to pit one class above others,
that ALL of these are limited to only THAT interpretation in that limited context?

Why would you impose your beliefs about this on everyone else.
Don't all people deserve equal freedom to research, process
and decide their own beliefs. How is it fair to dictate and push your view on others?

Let me first say that you’re imposing your beliefs in your post.

That being said, the entire discussion of removing statues vs preserving them is a wash. Again, not sure how angry torch carrying Nazi wannabe’s landed in this discussion over statues.

I do wonder though...I’ve been to Vicksburg and saw the monuments most states erected to their participation in the battle. If the NPS were opening Vicksburg today, how many of these pathetic southern shitholes would spend tax money to commemorate their crushing defeat. Lol

Different times.

Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"

Do you understand the difference?

If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"

WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn

MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.

If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.

So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.

All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."

I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.

Is this more clear? Thank you!

you sort of missed the point.

Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual

If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are

1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.

People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.

Nobody wants that done to them!

That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.

When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.

However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.

I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.

If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.

We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.

That's what I support and advocate.

But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.

ohhhh Kay.


My thing is this. If you’re going to have statues to X and X falls out of favor one day, removing the statue doesn’t erase X from the history of the nation. It means that the current society doesn’t want to highlight X.

I still don’t see how torch carrying Nazis had any role to play in the removal of a statue. Me thinks most are using that as cover to explain what the true motives were...hate and intimidation

Dear candycorn
That's fine if all sides agree to remove or move the statue someplace else where it can still be preserved.

But I don't agree with
a. removing it just because one side outbullies and forces the other when they didn't both agree
b. destroying the statue as with Freed Slave history and Civil Right landmarks destroyed where I live
where these are not something that can be replaced or recreated

From consulting with historic preservationists, including African American cultural and political history,
even moving a historic house two inches off its original foundation destroys its historic significance and value.
Moving historic houses to a part for convenience destroys the integrity and value
rather than leaving them where they were originally built.

Unknowingly candycorn this is already "imposing" the "white cultural thinking" that you
can just "relocate" Native Americans or Freed Slave sites and culture "to another location"
and the "history can still be taught and preserved."

That's NOT the same as preserving the culture on the original site.

Because of cultural differences in beliefs on WHEN it is better to relocate rather
than destroy something altogether, THAT is why I would insist on a CONSENSUS
between the people who want to preserve a cultural site or landmark and those
who want to move or remove it. Because if it's destroying something, I'd rather
work out a solution that protects the people on both sides of the conflict.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

I'm sure that does exist, but I'm pretty sure also that people are so hard core on being tied to a "party", that they would vote against what could be a great candidate just because they have the wrong letter at the end

Or, they vote against a candidate because their views are totally opposite of theirs. Take Hillary for instance. I voted for Trump because his border message. Hillary is an open borders person. Then there's DumBama. I don't care for McCain, but I hated Obama. Same thing with Romney. I have no good words for him, but anybody was better than Obama.

So you are correct that we vote more against somebody than for our own candidate, but again, it's because the opposing candidates has totally opposite views of yours, not because of the party so much.

 

[emilynghiem]

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

I'm sure that does exist, but I'm pretty sure also that people are so hard core on being tied to a "party", that they would vote against what could be a great candidate just because they have the wrong letter at the end

Dear ThisIsMe
by proportional representation by party, this could create jobs for EACH candidate (to set up and run their own
policies funded by their own support base). So each person CAN vote for just the leadership they want, and put their funding there. You don't have to vote against other candidates,
just vote for yours and you have the right to put your money there to get that program going.

Everyone can get their way when it comes to which leaders/groups they want to represent their
health care benefits or terms for running and paying for schools, etc. Even beliefs about gender
identity and expression, and abortion/reproductive care. All that can be democratized if we
organize it by party where people can choose and fund their own policies and leaders instead
of depending on getting that elected or voted in on a state/federal level "for everyone else" before they can have it for themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

We've tried this approach. Doesn't work. Still, they are attacking Trump supporters for wearing a hat that triggers them. Even in some liberal run cities, some assaults perpetrated by the left have been ignored.

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

The only purpose of a political party is to consolidate power into a collective. Has nothing to do with ideologies, which will change with the winds. I think a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a period of 20 years, nonrenewable. After that time it's gone whether it's accomplished what it set out to do 20 years before or not. Because if you didn't, you haven't been effective, and if you did, 20 years is about the span of time a collective's interests start drifting away and whatever the original ideals were get supplanted by the one that all parties devolve to, which is perpetuating its own power for the sake of power.

Of course the other major factor that creates this division is the frickin' Electoral College, more specifically the WTA system, without which the bullshit concepts of "red" states and "blue" states would not exist.

Well, ar least the electoral college is constitutional. I dont remember the constitution saying anything about political parties.

Again, just like political parties, there should be no red states or blue states, because there are people of all ideology living in every state. The whole idea basically pits one group of people against another.

As for the electoral college, I think it would work much better if we werent voting for Republicans and democrats. The reason why there is so much turmoil right now is exactly because of this division of people, brought on by an "us against them" mentality.

Take away political parties and walla, the electoral college seems more reasonable now, because you are not voting on a person, but an idea.

Dear ThisIsMe
Taking away someone's political party is like taking away their religion.
The govt cannot prohibit religion, but just can't be abused to establish it.

We can't be in the business of prohibiting people from congregating and organizing around their creeds or beliefs,
religious, political or political religions.

What we can do is prohibit these from being IMPOSED through Govt
where it violates the free choice/consent of other citizens of other such political or religious beliefs.

How can we know what policies are in violation and what are solutions that satisfy all beliefs?

That's where people need a system to facilitate between parties so these issues
can be addressed and worked out. At worst, if we can't agree on beliefs,
we need help to separate jurisdiction and taxes to keep such conflicting beliefs out of govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

I'm sure that does exist, but I'm pretty sure also that people are so hard core on being tied to a "party", that they would vote against what could be a great candidate just because they have the wrong letter at the end

Or, they vote against a candidate because their views are totally opposite of theirs. Take Hillary for instance. I voted for Trump because his border message. Hillary is an open borders person. Then there's DumBama. I don't care for McCain, but I hated Obama. Same thing with Romney. I have no good words for him, but anybody was better than Obama.

So you are correct that we vote more against somebody than for our own candidate, but again, it's because the opposing candidates has totally opposite views of yours, not because of the party so much.

Now Ray From Cleveland
Imagine a system where the minute you vote yes or no to a policy or person not representing you,
you automatically are protected from having to fund or be under that policy or person.

You can even change your mind, instead of waiting 2, 4 or 6 years for the next election or vote.
With nonprofits running programs, you can choose to donate or invest or change your mind if they change policies to something you don't agree with. We vote with our dollars we donate.

What if we didn't have to wait to get 51% majority rule or a court ruling to be able to say NO
to one policy and YES to another. What if we could approve funding to go where we agree is a solution,
and either direct taxes there or put our own donations/investments there and get a tax write-off where it's basically the same
except we control which process to use to direct funding to that program or policy we believe in supporting.

What if we didn't need to "vote the other party" out of office in order to start funding what we believe in
without fear of being forced to fund or follow otherwise?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.

Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!

When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.

Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.

I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.

It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.

What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.

I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".

Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.

Chances are you don't agree with your party or candidate on some things. You vote for your party because they are the closest to your beliefs.

I'm sure that does exist, but I'm pretty sure also that people are so hard core on being tied to a "party", that they would vote against what could be a great candidate just because they have the wrong letter at the end

Or, they vote against a candidate because their views are totally opposite of theirs. Take Hillary for instance. I voted for Trump because his border message. Hillary is an open borders person. Then there's DumBama. I don't care for McCain, but I hated Obama. Same thing with Romney. I have no good words for him, but anybody was better than Obama.

So you are correct that we vote more against somebody than for our own candidate, but again, it's because the opposing candidates has totally opposite views of yours, not because of the party so much.

Now Ray From Cleveland
Imagine a system where the minute you vote yes or no to a policy or person not representing you,
you automatically are protected from having to fund or be under that policy or person.

You can even change your mind, instead of waiting 2, 4 or 6 years for the next election or vote.
With nonprofits running programs, you can choose to donate or invest or change your mind if they change policies to something you don't agree with. We vote with our dollars we donate.

What if we didn't have to wait to get 51% majority rule or a court ruling to be able to say NO
to one policy and YES to another. What if we could approve funding to go where we agree is a solution,
and either direct taxes there or put our own donations/investments there and get a tax write-off where it's basically the same
except we control which process to use to direct funding to that program or policy we believe in supporting.

What if we didn't need to "vote the other party" out of office in order to start funding what we believe in
without fear of being forced to fund or follow otherwise?

If that's what we wanted, then we would need to divide the country up. One side for the Democrats, and the other side for the Republicans. Then each could have what you described. As I have been saying on this board for sometime, I'm all for it too. But if we are to have one government, then it can only be run one way. And that is why we vote.