Leftards Beware When Assaulting Trump Fans

[Andylusion]

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.

.

Same. Growing up, we always had guns in the house. Never thought to grab one, and go on a rampage. But of course we were Christians, and I knew right from wrong, and something called absolute truth.

 

[jc456]

I love it when you pretend to be tough.

how was he pretending to be tough exactly? you aren't too bright light bulb.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet, that history of that building and what went on in it, is well known and documented, WITHOUT the plaque.

You're ASSUMING all these events are well known... I don't see Germany closing the tours of WW2 memorials.. In fact I was in tears when I was working in Kiel (a German Naval base) and went to see their Naval WW2 memorial....

It was MOVING and emotional.. Just standing there gaping a a wall full of silouhettes of sunken navy ships... Doesn't mean I PINE for the 3rd Reich -- does it POGO??? But NOT "everybody knows it" and even IF THEY DO -- remembering the sadder parts of history is NOT a crime..

Unless you're easily triggered. Or live in a state of constant fear... Or you're ISIS or the Taliban...

 

[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.

Also, I maintain, at least when it comes to our elected officials, and probably to most people, that nobody is really ever fully in one camp or the other. I think most people fall closer to the middle than they would probably admit.

Like I've stated before, not all republicans are pro gun, and not all democrats are pro abortion, but when it comes to the vote, they will almost always certainly vote along those party divides.

It makes you wonder, again, with respect to our elected officials, do they side with a party based on their beliefs, or does the party force them to mold their beliefs around itself.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

And I agree with that, but not to a great extent. Remember, most of the country are not politically inclined. Most of the country doesnt spend time on boards like this l, debating political issues. Most of the country either doesnt have time, or are simply not interested in the nuance of political theater.

Most of the country gets their information from talking points from radio and television talk shows, of which all are extremely biased. There are also a lot of people who hear a candidate say something they like, and decide that's the party they belong to, and on election day, just simply check the box marked (whatever), because that's what they have always done. There are also people who were raised a certain way, and in their adult life, they continued that way because it's all they've ever known, and are just not interested enough in politics to look at issues.

Then you have single issue voters.

I have a feeling that most people probably fall into the libertarian camp, or at least somewhere on the centrist spectrum. Most people probably have mixed views on things. Again, I dont think most people would really identify as a right or left winger.

Sure, you do have some people who are hard core, and they support all the views of whatever party they are aligned with, but I would think those people would be few and far between.

Maybe, maybe not. It's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before, so it wont be the first time.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Well, that's my point. Getting rid of parties would not prohibit people from organizing around beliefs, in fact it would promote it.

Rather than people arguing about party line issues, people could say "this candidate supports gun control, lower taxes, smaller government, and strong immigration control, I'm going to support them", another person could say "that candidate believes in higher taxes on the rich, loose border controls, anti abortion, and more social programs, I'm going to vote for them", and people could rally around the ideas they represent.

You dont need a D or an R after your name to don that.

I dont know, maybe I'm missing something, what I can see, however, as evident here on this forum, and from various talk radio shows I listen to, is that there is a CLEAR divide in America, and it's usually based on extreme party ideology.

Again, I dont think most people would actually consider themselves on an extreme end of either ideological spectrum, but we sure are divided by that in our rhetoric and voting patterns.

 

[daveman]

reaching for your HAT, is not life threatening... you know it, I know it, everyone else on this board knows it.... but heels are dug in, as they always are, on this board!!!

I have to wonder at your stance here.

A stranger, moves on another stranger, in a politically motivated attack. The person reaching for the hat is so far out of the bounds of normal and acceptable behavior, it is more than reasonable to think that the person is not sane and is a serious threat to your health, if not your life.

Who has such a lack of impulse control? Mentally ill people, that is who.

You are wrong here.

Likely crazy or a smart ass kid, a punk.....

The police report did not say any contact was made....

And what would the weapon guy do, if he did not have a gun, in this situation, like most people?

I see a positive to concealed carrying in true life threatening situations, stop a shooter in the mall, or in your church, or school teacher perhaps, or stop a rape in the park, or stop a robbery in the bank you are in.....

Hat stealing and political yelling, just does not rise to the occasion imho.

Granted, I was not there....maybe the guy was not just taking the easy, but dangerous, way out?....

He was not too bright of a guy either, he chose to break the law, and carry in the mall, when It was illegal to do such...then, chose to draw the gun for a hat hat snatcher in a mall with lots of people that could have accidentally gotten hurt, again for a hat swiper that never laid a hand on him.....

I see it as ...iff you draw your gun, have the reason, justifiable reason, and assumption that you will likely kill someone.... if the situation does not warrant you to kill the aggressor, then don't draw it.... use other means to settle the squabble.

You are speaking form opinion and not the law. First off, the no gun policy was of the mall, not the state. Secondly, the attacker did threaten assault. If somebody makes such a threat to me, I have every reason to believe he will carry out that threat, and if possible, I'm not going to allow that to happen.

And if you were not carrying, as the mall rule, how would you have handled it?

Try to defend myself the best I can. It's all you can do. But in doing so, I risk one of my health problems killing me, I risk serious injuries, I risk getting killed on purpose or by accident by the attacker. However once I pull out my gun, the fight never started, and I go home safely.

It's absolutely crazy how some people have a problem with people defending themselves against criminals.

It's like they believe the moral position is getting harmed by bad guys.

 

[daveman]

Perhaps you commies should get the timeline right. The torch march was the night before the protest of removing the statues. People form all walks were there the day of the protest. But that doesn't fit you lying propaganda, does it?

.

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".

No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?

They're already rewriting the books.

.

How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have to wonder at your stance here.

A stranger, moves on another stranger, in a politically motivated attack. The person reaching for the hat is so far out of the bounds of normal and acceptable behavior, it is more than reasonable to think that the person is not sane and is a serious threat to your health, if not your life.

Who has such a lack of impulse control? Mentally ill people, that is who.

You are wrong here.

Likely crazy or a smart ass kid, a punk.....

The police report did not say any contact was made....

And what would the weapon guy do, if he did not have a gun, in this situation, like most people?

I see a positive to concealed carrying in true life threatening situations, stop a shooter in the mall, or in your church, or school teacher perhaps, or stop a rape in the park, or stop a robbery in the bank you are in.....

Hat stealing and political yelling, just does not rise to the occasion imho.

Granted, I was not there....maybe the guy was not just taking the easy, but dangerous, way out?....

He was not too bright of a guy either, he chose to break the law, and carry in the mall, when It was illegal to do such...then, chose to draw the gun for a hat hat snatcher in a mall with lots of people that could have accidentally gotten hurt, again for a hat swiper that never laid a hand on him.....

I see it as ...iff you draw your gun, have the reason, justifiable reason, and assumption that you will likely kill someone.... if the situation does not warrant you to kill the aggressor, then don't draw it.... use other means to settle the squabble.

You are speaking form opinion and not the law. First off, the no gun policy was of the mall, not the state. Secondly, the attacker did threaten assault. If somebody makes such a threat to me, I have every reason to believe he will carry out that threat, and if possible, I'm not going to allow that to happen.

And if you were not carrying, as the mall rule, how would you have handled it?

Try to defend myself the best I can. It's all you can do. But in doing so, I risk one of my health problems killing me, I risk serious injuries, I risk getting killed on purpose or by accident by the attacker. However once I pull out my gun, the fight never started, and I go home safely.

It's absolutely crazy how some people have a problem with people defending themselves against criminals.

It's like they believe the moral position is getting harmed by bad guys.

She makes a good point if we were all able to see into the future; just knocking off a hat. However when you're attacked on any level by a stranger, you don't know what to expect next and you don't take chances unless you're the bigger guy, or at the least, the same size and age bracket as the attacker.

Like 25 years ago, if somebody around my age tried something like that, I would have leveled him. I wouldn't have thought about pulling a gun on the clown. The problem is that when somebody does something like that and you cower, it emboldens them to see how far they can go.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Moving something from a public sphere to a museum is “destroying” it?

No...it’s merely no longer celebrating whatever the statue was meant to commemorate.

As for “all sides” agreeing...that is simplistic. There can be a dozen sides to any issue. A statue of MLK for example may have those in favor or opposed to the man, those who may have admired the cause but not the man, disparaged the cause but liked the oratory, didn’t like his message but admired his civil disobedience... Demanding a consensus is problematic. Also, it would work against any further commemoration if “all sides” have to agree. We saw this in the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero...there were passionate disagreements about what to include and what to leave out.

 

[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.

And I agree with that, but not to a great extent. Remember, most of the country are not politically inclined. Most of the country doesnt spend time on boards like this l, debating political issues. Most of the country either doesnt have time, or are simply not interested in the nuance of political theater.

Most of the country gets their information from talking points from radio and television talk shows, of which all are extremely biased. There are also a lot of people who hear a candidate say something they like, and decide that's the party they belong to, and on election day, just simply check the box marked (whatever), because that's what they have always done. There are also people who were raised a certain way, and in their adult life, they continued that way because it's all they've ever known, and are just not interested enough in politics to look at issues.

Then you have single issue voters.

I have a feeling that most people probably fall into the libertarian camp, or at least somewhere on the centrist spectrum. Most people probably have mixed views on things. Again, I dont think most people would really identify as a right or left winger.

Sure, you do have some people who are hard core, and they support all the views of whatever party they are aligned with, but I would think those people would be few and far between.

Maybe, maybe not. It's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before, so it wont be the first time.

You're not too far off. I think what you describe mostly takes place on the Democrat side where people there are generally uninterested in politics, and just vote party because that's all they've ever known. Hey.....Democrat sounds like democracy.....right? I'll vote for them.

For people that do know what they are voting on, they understand the differences between the parties, and will vote for which party most represents their views. We on political blogs spend a hell of a lot of time on politics, but we are a small percentage of Americans. Most other Americans spend their leisure time with sports, or movies, or music, even video games. It takes a lot of time to truly understand politics beyond what the media tells us, and it's time they won't spend because they get no enjoyment from politics like we do.

As for those other people, they're confused enough as it is when it comes to voting. Taking the R or D out of the picture will confuse them even more. It's not going to make them study the candidates or issues any better. They may vote along gender lines, race if they know it, ethnic background, but not what the candidate or issues are really all about.

 

[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.

Also, I maintain, at least when it comes to our elected officials, and probably to most people, that nobody is really ever fully in one camp or the other. I think most people fall closer to the middle than they would probably admit.

Like I've stated before, not all republicans are pro gun, and not all democrats are pro abortion, but when it comes to the vote, they will almost always certainly vote along those party divides.

It makes you wonder, again, with respect to our elected officials, do they side with a party based on their beliefs, or does the party force them to mold their beliefs around itself.

It's all about strategy. All my friends and many family members are conservative, and they don't give a rats ass about abortion. I think the only reason the Republicans embrace it is to attract the religious vote. It puts a pretty good size wedge between the Republicans and Democrats for the religious folks.

I'm not 100% conservative. But I'm certainly nowhere near the middle either. On the right, the Tea Party types are trying to dominate the party, and TP people are generally constitutionalists. On the left, one of their front runners is an admitted Socialist, and the US Communist Party has endorsed their last three presidential nominees.

So where is this middle ground between constitutionalism and Communism? There simply is none, and with the left going even further left as time moves on, the middle-ground is something in history books.

 

[daveman]

Likely crazy or a smart ass kid, a punk.....

The police report did not say any contact was made....

And what would the weapon guy do, if he did not have a gun, in this situation, like most people?

I see a positive to concealed carrying in true life threatening situations, stop a shooter in the mall, or in your church, or school teacher perhaps, or stop a rape in the park, or stop a robbery in the bank you are in.....

Hat stealing and political yelling, just does not rise to the occasion imho.

Granted, I was not there....maybe the guy was not just taking the easy, but dangerous, way out?....

He was not too bright of a guy either, he chose to break the law, and carry in the mall, when It was illegal to do such...then, chose to draw the gun for a hat hat snatcher in a mall with lots of people that could have accidentally gotten hurt, again for a hat swiper that never laid a hand on him.....

I see it as ...iff you draw your gun, have the reason, justifiable reason, and assumption that you will likely kill someone.... if the situation does not warrant you to kill the aggressor, then don't draw it.... use other means to settle the squabble.

You are speaking form opinion and not the law. First off, the no gun policy was of the mall, not the state. Secondly, the attacker did threaten assault. If somebody makes such a threat to me, I have every reason to believe he will carry out that threat, and if possible, I'm not going to allow that to happen.

And if you were not carrying, as the mall rule, how would you have handled it?

Try to defend myself the best I can. It's all you can do. But in doing so, I risk one of my health problems killing me, I risk serious injuries, I risk getting killed on purpose or by accident by the attacker. However once I pull out my gun, the fight never started, and I go home safely.

It's absolutely crazy how some people have a problem with people defending themselves against criminals.

It's like they believe the moral position is getting harmed by bad guys.

She makes a good point if we were all able to see into the future; just knocking off a hat. However when you're attacked on any level by a stranger, you don't know what to expect next and you don't take chances unless you're the bigger guy, or at the least, the same size and age bracket as the attacker.

Like 25 years ago, if somebody around my age tried something like that, I would have leveled him. I wouldn't have thought about pulling a gun on the clown. The problem is that when somebody does something like that and you cower, it emboldens them to see how far they can go.

Exactly. You bloody a bully's nose, and he doesn't bully you any more.

 

[initforme]

It's a good thing most people are politically apathetic. Politics on the scale of importance is way down the list. The all encompassing God forsaken american ratrace takes all the energy one has.

 

[initforme]

People are so inclined to believing being an elected official is such a difficult job when in reality it's really not.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Exactly. The Duopoly sets that up, effectively shutting out any challenge to it, the WTA/EC being one of its major tools. Vast numbers of voters, probably the vast majority, vote not so much for one candidate as to block the other. And dominating both sides of the election each half of the Duopoly knows it has no incentive to present a quality candidate. All it has to do is present one that beats the other side of the Duopoly.

If the WTA/EC doesn't exist, that doesn't happen. A third or fourth party or no-party candidate then has an actual chance at scoring electoral votes. Without the WTA/EC, there are no "red" or "blue" states. The WTA system certainly isn't part of the Constitution but it remains informative that James Madison, a chief architect of the EC, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would ban the practice of WTA. He could see where it was heading even in his time.

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

Actually you're still voting for a person. Take away the WTA system and Bob's your uncle.

Walla by the way is half of a city in Washington. I think maybe you mean voilà.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Uh nnnnnnnnno. I'm saying that if, say, Charlottesville wants to remove a statue from its own land, it's Charlottesville's business, not David Duke's, not Richard Spencer's, not James Fields (etc), none of whom live there.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Your opening premise is absurd. There is no way a political party is anything like a religion.

 

[Pogo]

And yet, that history of that building and what went on in it, is well known and documented, WITHOUT the plaque.

You're ASSUMING all these events are well known... I don't see Germany closing the tours of WW2 memorials.. In fact I was in tears when I was working in Kiel (a German Naval base) and went to see their Naval WW2 memorial....

It was MOVING and emotional.. Just standing there gaping a a wall full of silouhettes of sunken navy ships... Doesn't mean I PINE for the 3rd Reich -- does it POGO??? But NOT "everybody knows it" and even IF THEY DO -- remembering the sadder parts of history is NOT a crime..

Unless you're easily triggered. Or live in a state of constant fear... Or you're ISIS or the Taliban...

Wow dood.

Try quoting the entire context. I'm telling the poster up there that history is recorded in books, not in statues. That's beyond dispute. And yes the history in those books IS well known to anyone who seeks out them there books.

How you make the leap from that to "you must be Taliban" is a question for the psychologists. But the whole "removing monuments is removing history" canard is absurd on its face and deserves to be plowed back into the earth like a weed.


Edit --- please see also below (next page) post 501.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Well, that's my point. Getting rid of parties would not prohibit people from organizing around beliefs, in fact it would promote it.

Rather than people arguing about party line issues, people could say "this candidate supports gun control, lower taxes, smaller government, and strong immigration control, I'm going to support them", another person could say "that candidate believes in higher taxes on the rich, loose border controls, anti abortion, and more social programs, I'm going to vote for them", and people could rally around the ideas they represent.

You dont need a D or an R after your name to don that.

I dont know, maybe I'm missing something, what I can see, however, as evident here on this forum, and from various talk radio shows I listen to, is that there is a CLEAR divide in America, and it's usually based on extreme party ideology.

Again, I dont think most people would actually consider themselves on an extreme end of either ideological spectrum, but we sure are divided by that in our rhetoric and voting patterns.

Well said. In effect the effect of having a two-party Duopoly in control of everything creates a dichotomy that we easily see on this board, every day. There ooze among us those who apparently believe the entire world is comprised of two types of atoms, called "Republican" and "Democrat" (the happy fact is that most voters are neither). That also leads to grand assumptions where if a given rhetorical adversary aligns with some idea or person who happens to have a D or R after his name, that person is then "awarded" every idea and every person that carries that letter.

That's how I come to demand proof that I ever took such a position hung around my neck via ass-sumption. I know they can't do it, but I don't know why they can't figure out how they dug themselves into that hole. Then they'll go on squeezing the toothpaste out of that same dichotomy-label tube. I doubt there's a single poster here who hasn't experienced the same bullshit.

We might ask ourselves how come most voters do not identify as either "Republican" or "Democrat", yet virtually all political candidates do. That should have told us something.

The sheriff in my town runs some years as a "Democrat", other years as a "Republican", depending on which way he thinks the casual voter's winds are blowing. Same guy doing the same job the same way. That's how meaningless it is.