By:  Perrie Halpern  •  3 months ago  •  335 comments

A Life Nuanced
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right... Here I am!

Leave a comment to auto-join group Stuck in the Middle with You (song included)

Stuck in the Middle with You (song included)

I realize that I am not the easiest person to understand. It might look to some that my positions are all over the map, and they are. Even within a position, I might sit down in a spot that is somewhat surprising, even to those who thought they knew me. I live in that dangerous place in the twilight zone known as independent. The unicorn of rational thought. It has taken a big part of my life to get to a place where I speak up for what I believe in. It has also brought me a lot of grief. It is a lonely place to dwell.

I don't fit in anywhere. I am neither a square or round peg. I'm not even a triangle. I am a squiggly line that can't fit in anywhere and knows that there is no hole cut out for me, and I am good with that, most of the time. 

But life is full of people and relationships and to those, I propose a very difficult problem. Just when they think they know me, I do something that is unexpected. Now it could be I changed my position on something, due to new information I have considered, or that I had always had these thoughts but an aspect of a topic never came up before. But the reaction from my friend is usually disappointment, if not total dismay. The usual reaction is that the friend or acquaintance will become upset with me, maybe to the point that they question if they ever knew me at all. I still find this shocking when I feel a divide starting to happen. You would think that I would be used to it by now, but I am not. 

I find it equally hard to understand absolutism. To me, life is such a shade of gray and I can't understand when presented with facts or lack thereof, people still hold on to their original beliefs. I think for most people, there is a level of discomfort in being fluid with their beliefs, while for me, it is part of the journey of life. The difference is that I want to try to get you to understand where I came from and discuss it. Most people are not interested in doing that. In fact, it either makes them uncomfortable or dismisses what I said, and worse, even doubting if they ever really knew me. Again, I can feel the divide happening, and try as I can to reach across, usually the other person does not. The rigidity is the one aspect that I can't wrap my head around. It haunts me when it ends a relationship. 

Now, that is not to say that I am not attached to any beliefs. Of course, I am. To not be, would make me a wishy-washy individual, and anyone who really knows me knows that is the one thing that I am not. But I am always open to listen to what the other person has to say if what they say has a valid argument behind it. Since so many things in life are not black or white, I might be the yin to your yang and both positions are true and valid. 

As we approach the next election cycle I am sure I will become harder and harder to understand. It always happens. But if I am willing to hear you out, I am asking the same in kind. We may walk away disagreeing, but I would hope we can do that with a level of respect. And isn't that something we all want?

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 months ago

Btw, this would be a good time to ask anyone who is interested in joining this group to please do so.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 months ago

Life is never easy. In the last year I lost a wife, was told I am going to die of cancer, then told I will be ok, then pissed off a lot of people because all of the other things drove me to get drunk and be an ass. 

.

Be true to yourself, do the best you can. If you love someone, tell them, be they family or friend. 

Don't judge someone based on one action....everyone has a bad day and none of us are at our best every single day.

Before you turn your back on a friend, ask them if something is bothering them. 

Never fail to tell someone that you love them, you never know when it will be the last time you get a chance to do so. 

Lastly...

No one is perfect, we all make mistakes, if you judge someone because of one incident, you are likely the problem, not them. 

.

"life is 10% of what happens to you and 90% of how you react". 

Charles L. Swindoll

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    2 months ago

Wise words

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    2 months ago

Very True Mr.Frost. Thanks for the sound advice. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago

Thanks Vic, good to see ya. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    2 months ago

My pleasure... 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.5  squiggy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    3 months ago
As we approach the next election cycle I am sure I will become harder and harder to understand. It always happens. But if I am willing to hear you out, I am asking the same in kind.

"The right decision is the decision you make for yourself, be it right or wrong." Be true to yourself. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MrFrost @2    2 months ago

I am true to myself. The problem is that it that my personal honesty, is resented sometimes. I would love to just explain my position, but that is not always possible. 

 
 
 
luther28
3  luther28    2 months ago

I don't fit in anywhere. I am neither a square or round peg. I'm not even a triangle. I am a squiggly line that can't fit in anywhere and knows that there is no hole cut out for me, and I am good with that, most of the time. 

Welcome to my world Perrie, the only difference being that I am good with it all of the time. I have worn a hole in the top of my noggin ( head scratching ) in my attempt to figure it out, suppose I'll just have to drill down harder it's a hard head.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  luther28 @3    2 months ago

Luther, 

I feel ya pain. But instead of drilling a hole in my head, I have a dent in it from smacking it against the wall. But isn't it good to know you have company? 

There will be more discussions in here as we move forward. I am aiming for good talks and not one-liners. 

And if you are feeling a bit left blue, you can always watch the video, LOL!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4  dave-2693993    2 months ago

Nope.

My line of sight is straight as an arrow.

It is the partisan extremists (in particular) who have the squiggly lines.

Quick example: In a prior administration, redacting was considered absolutely necessary on one side and reviled by the other. Just recently roles have reversed and IIRC the same lines of reasoning.

Just one quick example of things noticed pretty much every day.

I rest my case.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  dave-2693993 @4    2 months ago

A case well taken!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @4    2 months ago

Hi Dave, 

A very good point. But here is the thing. Most of them don't see the irony in that. They just belong to their partisanship. 

Issues, not parties matter to me. And even within issues, I am not going to belong to one side or the other totally. It is hard for people to understand and I think in a black and white world, gray is not a great color to have. 

My plan for the future is to bring up a topic (probably one we have seen on the before) but discuss the various aspects, without the hyperbole, if possible. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2    2 months ago
A very good point. But here is the thing. Most of them don't see the irony in that. They just belong to their partisanship. 

Perrie, BINGO.

Plain English just seems like talking into a brick wall some times. The ideological partisans have difficulty getting it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
5  Snuffy    2 months ago

All I can say is good luck and stay strong.  You're right, too many people want to believe their own truth and refuse to think outside of their pre-defined ideas.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Snuffy @5    2 months ago

I totally agree, Snuffy. I hope you stick around and join us in the future for some good discussions. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6  Raven Wing    2 months ago

I have had to face a good many emotional, mental and physically painful events in my life, but, they have only made me stronger. At least I think so.

I do not let yesterday take up too much time of my today, or tomorrow. What has been cannot be undone, and there is no use in wasting time and mental and emotional time on them. 

Some people think I am nuts, that I am living in denial. But, if I let yesterday control my life, I will not have the courage to live for today or tomorrow, and for me, that is just not worth living at all. 

I don't know what the Creator has in store for me in my journey ahead, but, I will not be discouraged to face it head on. I sometimes think that the Creator thinks I am stronger than I truly am and tests me in ways that confuse me sometimes. However, no one knows me better than He does, and He has always given me the strength to see things through when I thought I could not.

My beliefs and opinions are my own, and I don't ask others to understand, or agree with them. All I ask is that others respect my right to them and to express them if I choose to do so, as I respect the right of others to do the same. 

I am human and I make mistakes, just like every other human being. I think I am no better than anyone else. And no one else is better than me. We are all one people, no matter the color of our skin, ethnic background, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or where we came from. We are all one people. Those who deny this are denying their own existence. 

I don't ask anyone to like me, to understand me, nor befriend me. All I ask is for others to respect my right to be ME.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1  lib50  replied to  Raven Wing @6    2 months ago

You described me better than I could.  I don't think anybody in my life understands all of me, different people know different parts and very few can handle all of me.  I often think I signed up for more than I can handle, but I always do in the end.  And we are all on the same ride, trying to figure it out.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  lib50 @6.1    2 months ago

When I was younger I tried to fit in with others, even if it meant changing the way I thought, what I believed and how I viewed life itself. What I discovered is that I was living someone else's life, not mine. I was not being me. I was being what someone else expected me to be. I worried that others would not like me, accept me or would totally shun me. Even some in my own family. I thought that I was happy being that someone else, but, my true self knew it was a lie.

It took a the loss of my Son at a young age from cancer that woke me up from my make believe life. While everyone else leaned on me for emotional support during and after he walked on, there was no one for me to lean on. And I was the one who had to be strong for my Son to lean on during his battle with that which would end his life.

That is when I learned to find the strength I needed to be strong, stronger than I ever thought possible. I had to deal with my own emotions and mental anguish in my own way. I no longer cared what people thought I should be, I found the real me inside, and I liked who I really was. 

Some people were surprised that I no longer catered to their every whim, or wanted to be like them and they shunned me. But, I felt a huge relief, and decided to live my own life and wasn't afraid to do so. 

There are some people who don't like me, but, most people do. For those who don't like me, I do not waste time on trying to seek their approval. However, I am willing to give everyone a chance. If they do not give me the same respect that they demand from me then I don't owe them my time. 

Life is short, and getting shorter. I intend to make the best of what time I have left. And I intend on doing that being ME.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.2  lib50  replied to  Raven Wing @6.1.1    2 months ago

The loss of my daughter was also a major point of change in my life.  These massive life shifts can be pivotal for growth. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  lib50 @6.1.2    2 months ago

I am so very sorry for the loss of your Daughter lib50. There is not greater pain than the loss of ones child.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @6    2 months ago
My beliefs and opinions are my own, and I don't ask others to understand, or agree with them. All I ask is that others respect my right to them and to express them if I choose to do so, as I respect the right of others to do the same. 

So Raven, are you saying that you are not open to a discussion? I respect the right to everyone to have their opinions. I don't have to respect their opinion, especially if presented with new or different information that is ignored. (btw, this is in no way an attack on what you said. I am trying to understand you better).

I don't ask anyone to like me, to understand me, nor befriend me. All I ask is for others to respect my right to be ME.

Friendships are organic in nature. They happen for various reasons and under different circumstances. But I would have to agree, that I do expect my friends to respect me and take me for who I am, as I do with them. 

 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    2 months ago
So Raven, are you saying that you are not open to a discussion?

Not at all! I am very open to discussions. If others are truly interested in having a serious and informative dialog on a topic I am very eager to engage with them. I am very open, even eager, to learn from others, and that can be done with mutually respectful discussions. I have learned a lot from members here over the years.

While I may not change my own belief or opinion, I am interested to hear what others think, feel, believe or thoughts on various topics. If they are sincere in their responses I can learn a good deal about the person from them. Sometimes I find that I may have misunderstood something about them, and finding out about their inner selves can clear those misunderstandings, which is good.

However, those who are only here to denigrate or demean others, or try to push their own beliefs and POV on me, I don't owe them the time of day. And while they may think they are are being clever in their actions, they are simply making a total fool of themselves, not me.

So, yes, I may have my own thoughts, beliefs and opinions, but, that does not mean I am not open to valid discussion with anyone. Some things we may strongly disagree on, but, there are those that we can find common ground on. And it is only through honest and open discussion that one can learn from others. 

The world is very small these days, and we are learning more and more about ourselves as a species and interacting with each other. And finding common ground to share in mutual respect.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.1    2 months ago
The world is very small these days, and we are learning more and more about ourselves as a species and interacting with each other. And finding common ground to share in mutual respect.

Well said! 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.2    2 months ago

I've very recently had my mind changed on a subject and I'm still trying to sift thru how I feel about it and how it affects me and my family. I also think about how it affects people who are unable to defend themselves.

I'm pretty much left of center but that doesn't mean I'm a lefty puritan. I think I've had my leftist card torn up a time or two.

So stick to your guns, Perrie. I'm behind you, reloading

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    2 months ago

The truth is that everything is in a relation to other things. It is the very nature of existence. We can't even say something is hot or cold without something to compare it to. So the idea that there are two sides to every story is of course true, if for example you are walking down the street and you see two kids fighting. When you asked them what happened and who started it you will probably get two different answers. Are they both right? That also likely depends on individual points of view.  One kid thinks they are right and the other kid thinks they are right. 

What would someone who watched the fight develop from a porch nearby think?  Maybe they saw who caused it. 

It is easy to say that things are not black and white , but we have to reach conclusions and maybe defend our beliefs. And maybe extoll our beliefs. 

I think that in the political realm people should express their ideology and try to persuade others if that is what they want to do, and then , when it comes time to collectively put ideas into action, such as in a legislative body, then you compromise. You don't compromise your beliefs, but you compromise on actions. Because otherwise nothing may get done. 

These days though we have another problem, which I think does require a black or white answer, and that is Trumpism. 

There isn't the slightest bit of doubt that Trump is unqualified to be president of the United States. He is intellectually unfit and he is psychologically unfit. And of course he is ethically unfit.  We see this every day. For moderates to take a blase attitude about Trump is damaging to our society, imo. 

It is interesting to read the comments of the so called moderates or independents. They almost always assume that they are right and everyone else is "wrong". We even see this in your article  "clowns on the left of me , jokers to the right". 

So given that, just how are those in the middle different from everyone else? 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 months ago
It is easy to say that things are not black and white

I often wonder how folks get that interpretation of those who are disgusted with the partisan games..

To help with the understanding, how did you get it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1    2 months ago

Get what? 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.2  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    2 months ago
I often wonder how folks get that interpretation of those who are disgusted with the partisan games.. To help with the understanding, how did you get it?

I hope I don't need to get in to a circular restatement of your original statement.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.2    2 months ago

It is easier to say "both sides have good points" than to argue for one of the sides. 

OK?  

Does that answer your question? 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.4  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.3    2 months ago
It is easier to say "both sides have good points" than to argue for one of the sides. 

OK?  

Does that answer your question? 

Well it answers my question from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand, regardless of how often said person has been told they could not be anymore wrong.

No, that perspective is wrong.

Both sides are f'ing ass, selfish mf'ing liars. There are no longer 2 parties making up a single entirety in this country anymore. There are 2 opposing factions who don't give a shit about "WE the People". They're concern is "OH IS THIS GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATS" (straight from msnbc last week) and "OH IS THIS GOOD FOR THE REPUBLICANS".

F these factions and anyone anyone contributing to the divisions of these factions.

The extremes of both have a history of bloody murder.

F the extremists. F them, F them, F them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.4    2 months ago

wow, someone was triggered. 

In a better world it would be much more understandable to be "stuck in the middle" because you are then considering all sides and every argument. 

We live in a country and a world where foreign governments try and undermine our country and our way of life. Do you really think we need to look at "both sides" of whether it was good for Russia to meddle in our election. The FBI and the intelligence community investigated the Trump campaign after they got court orders. Do you think there are two sides to the story of whether or not Trump should have been investigated after he called for an enemy nation of America to meddle in our election?

We have a farce running our executive branch. Do you think there are two sides to Donald Trump lying to the public 9000 times? 

When we get a better world in our politics it will be more rational to talk about "both sides". 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.6  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.5    2 months ago
wow, someone was triggered.

Triggered? BS. That has been my mind set for a good long while now.

Dozens of normal responses never worked for you and in your words a "triggered" (bs) response didn't sink in either.

You are coming across an extremist John with a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail, otherwise you would not have asked the questions you just did.

Quick example:

Do you really think we need to look at "both sides"

Did you not get that part of F both of them? Did it allude you? Seriously?

F them.

The factions only care about the survival of their faction. We the People are fodder to thrm.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.6    2 months ago
Do you really think we need to look at "both sides"
Did you not get that part of F both of them? Did it allude you? Seriously?

Ok, so you think that both the people who support investigating trump and the people who oppose investigating trump are wrong. 

Thats the problem. 

I have to stop talking to you , because you are going to get me more aggravated with "independents" than I should be. 

"F both of them"  is not an answer. Not even close.  Yes there are two sides to every story and some of the time one of the sides is completely wrong.  Therefore the other side needs to be supported. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.8  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.7    2 months ago
Ok, so you think that both the people who support investigating trump and the people who oppose investigating trump are wrong. 

Where did I say that?

You have that hammer in your hand. Everything is a nail.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.9  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.7    2 months ago
I have to stop talking to you , because you are going to get me more aggravated with "independents" than I should be.  "F both of them"  is not an answer. Not even close.  Yes there are two sides to every story and some of the time one of the sides is completely wrong.  Therefore the other side needs to be supported. 

Why? Because you expect independents to be appeasers? You found one who is not?

Yeah F both of them until one or the othe rthe other or both put WE the People above their selfish ideologies.

P.S. You still don't get it. Of course the are at least 2 sides to every story. If you are paying attention, that is not the problem here.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.4    2 months ago
Both sides are f'ing ass, selfish mf'ing liars. There are no longer 2 parties making up a single entirety in this country anymore. There are 2 opposing factions who don't give a shit about "WE the People". They're concern is "OH IS THIS GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATS" (straight from msnbc last week) and "OH IS THIS GOOD FOR THE REPUBLICANS".

Thanks for saying that for me. I feel so much better. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.6    2 months ago

I'm with Dave. Triggered is a word that has become part of the vocab, to dismiss what another person is trying to say and make them lose it. It does not add to the discussion at all. It borders on the insulting.

The factions only care about the survival of their faction. We the People are fodder to thrm.

I agree and that is a huge problem for me.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.9    2 months ago
P.S. You still don't get it. Of course the are at least 2 sides to every story. If you are paying attention, that is not the problem here.

What is the side of the story that justifies a Trump presidency? Prior to the election he was a known liar , cheat and scoundrel. Please tell me Dave what qualifies him to be president?

For Christs sake, he should have been shunned as a presidential possibility simply because he was the king birther. Or do you think buffoons belong in office?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.12    2 months ago
What is the side of the story that justifies a Trump presidency?

I guess the states sent a giant F.U. to the established politicians, the established pundits, and the established media. 

we know why the national plurality does not have a clue as to why we did that...

but why would the majority of people in the majority of states do that? is a fair question.

and that question deserves an answer.

512

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.14  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.12    2 months ago
What is the side of the story that justifies a Trump presidency? Prior to the election he was a known liar , cheat and scoundrel. Please tell me Dave what qualifies him to be president?

None that I am aware of.

Unfortunately, as I have been told many times in my own life, it is what it is.

Now we either uphold the constitution or not and move this country forward as best we can or not.

All the political energy goes in to f'ing the other side over these days, as in Punishment Politics, rather than dedicated to We the People.

I am one who is luckily alive these days because family who came before me survived the worst of racial genocide and on the other side "do good" murderous political revolutions.

I can smell that bs a mile away and the stench is strong these days.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.15  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.12    2 months ago

This article is not about the Trump presidency. My suggestion would be find one that is.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.14    2 months ago

I'm with you Dave! 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7.1.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.12    2 months ago
Prior to the election he was a known liar , cheat and scoundrel

THey may as well put those as qualifications for POTUS given modern history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.15    2 months ago

You are unhappy with my comments on this article , so I asked you to remove all my comments on this article. I wish you would do so now. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.19  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.18    2 months ago

I am going to say stand by your comments and that is not to appease anybody but me.

Selfishly, I will say the majority of my comments are meaningless without yours in place.

I will admit to selfishness.

 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.20  dave-2693993  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.14    2 months ago
I am one who is luckily alive these days because family who came before me survived the worst of racial genocide and on the other side "do good" murderous political revolutions.

Actually, this is a mis-statement.

I failed to give proper granularity.

Though we had cousins in Poland and later, by marriage in France, They were the ones shooting nazi command personnel in the back of the head with their own Lugers.  From this side of the war we were the Jews pulling triggers and dropping bombs. Some Jews shoot back.

Without wanting to take away from the genocide of the nazis attempt to extinguish European Jews, my original reference to genocide was of the 10s of millions of Native Americans slaughtered as a result of the European invasion during the 500yr+ resistance.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.6    2 months ago
Did you not get that part of F both of them?

I'm an independent, but I do see a danger in this sort of thought.  When we have one side bent on committing crimes without accountability, with supporters aiming to either cover up those crimes or prevent prosecution for those crimes committed in plain sight, and the other side advocating for rule of law, I can't in good conscience say "F both of them."  In the case of Trump, it is hardly only the far left who sees a problem with the Trump administration; moderates and many conservatives see it, too.  But his hard-core supporters paint opposition to him as entirely a far-left state of mind, too many fall for it, and we end up thinking we're more polarized than we are, and fall for the false narrative that there are two extremist groups on each side of the argument, each equally deserving of condemnation.  IMO, they're not.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.22  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.21    2 months ago

I can see your POV, Sandy, but I think when Dave says F both of them, he means that nothing ever changes... that the problem started long before Trump and that is how we got Trump. It is the radicals of both sides that caused this to happen. Now we have a huge mess, and I am not sure if it is fixable. But yes, when it comes to culpability, in this case, one side is worse than the other. 

 
 
 
JBB
7.1.23  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.21    2 months ago

False equivalencies are false on their faces. Both sides of all arguments are not equally valid. Compassion for and tolerance of all our others is not morally equivalent with a primal tribal hatred of those different than ourselves. A quantitatively different societal value should be and thus is assigned to evolved humanity as compared with those who only care about themselves and their own. 

There are such things as right and wrong. There is both good and evil in this world. Positivity and a can do attitude will always accomplish lots more than resignation and hopelessness. Love can only conquer what hate has not killed first...

Politically, today, those who cannot see the differences are either unwilling or unable to understand this. Evil so often prevails not just because good people do nothing but because some actually are evil and others are just too damn dumb or too uncaring to recognize these difference and to stand up against injustice, intolerance and ignorance. To stand with their less fortunate others and not just for themselves and their own selfish self interests. 

There is no excuse for adults not knowing right from wrong. Most children can and do get the concept. Most instinctively grasp the not so subtle difference. Those who cannot are deemed mentally emotionally developmentally impaired and thus pitiable...

Social Justice and equality for all under the law should be universal human values. That they are not is testament to the fact that large percentages of people remain willfully or else unwittingly mentally and emotionally unevolved. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.24  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.9    2 months ago
I have to stop talking to you , because you are going to get me more aggravated with "independents" than I should be.

This is why indies don't want to talk. It is because when we find a more nuanced way of looking at something, the partisans get angry at us, and label us, and berate us. It's a lousy place to be. 

I have been fighting this battle since my days on NV. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.25  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.24    2 months ago

I don't belong to any political party, yet, I have my own views about all of them. Some here like to try to link me to the Democrats, saying, "I can tell from your comments." And that is because that is what they want to think about me, thus they denigrate me for being a "Lefty", or secular progressive, whatever the heck that is. Others claim I am a Republican.

They don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that I can be a totally free thinker, unbridled by party loyalty. There are a few good ones in each group, but, they get fewer and fewer all the time. 

There is no one in any of the parties that are qualified to be the leader of America and its people. And because of that our country is suffering on the world scale, and so are our people from all walks of life, with the exception of the super rich, who worship their money as their God. 

And although I no longer tethered by any party loyalty, having been a Republican most of my adult life, I used to respect the policies of each party. But, both parties have become so toxic in both their policies and their actions that they are not fit to run our country. 

I had hoped that we could have a strong 3rd party to challenge them and put America and its people first. But, that may not be seen in my lifetime. I can only hope that my Granddaughter and her children and their children may one day see a party that offers the kind of strong leadership and put our country and its people first. 

JMOO

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.26  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.25    2 months ago

Well, that comment is the whole reason for me writing this article and for this group. It's so that those of us who are moderates and nonpartisans can talk and have a good discussion without insults or judgments. I hope you have enjoyed the discussion.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.27  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.26    2 months ago
I hope you have enjoyed the discussion.  

Indeed I have. I have read all the comments here in this article and thus far is seems that there are a few who are truly interested in earnest discussion, while others are just here for the same old Trolling and deliberate pot stirring BS without any true interest in the topic of the article.

I look forward to further such discussion in this group, and hope to see more earnest participants who are truly interested in mutually respectful dialog on the topics. 

Thank you for providing this group so that members from all sides can share their views in a round-table discussion type manner. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.28  dave-2693993  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.21    2 months ago
In the case of Trump, it is hardly only the far left who sees a problem with the Trump administration; moderates and many conservatives see it, too.  But his hard-core supporters paint opposition to him as entirely a far-left state of mind, too many fall for it, and we end up thinking we're more polarized than we are, and fall for the false narrative that there are two extremist groups on each side of the argument, each equally deserving of condemnation.  IMO, they're not.

Let me put it this way; we can't take our eyes off of one ball because the other is so far out of bounds at the moment.

There are elements on the far left that are just as dangerous as where the light is shining now.

We have been moving in the direction of an ever wider swinging pendulum of political punishment each time the baton passed.

The cycle must be broken if we are going to save the situation.

BTW, just as an FYI, I am about as dead center as anyone on the political compass right about 0.1 from dead center on both axis in the lower left quadrant. Yes, I have problems with the current administration. Not happy.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.29  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.22    2 months ago
I can see your POV, Sandy, but I think when Dave says F both of them, he means that nothing ever changes... that the problem started long before Trump and that is how we got Trump. It is the radicals of both sides that caused this to happen. Now we have a huge mess, and I am not sure if it is fixable. But yes, when it comes to culpability, in this case, one side is worse than the other

Kind of sums it up pretty well, except I would emphasize to not take our collective eye off the other ball, as the saying goes. From my perspective, I see that happening right now. There are elements on the other side that are just as bad and have a deadly record in the last century.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.30  dave-2693993  replied to  JBB @7.1.23    2 months ago
False equivalencies are false on their faces. Both sides of all arguments are not equally valid. Compassion for and tolerance of all our others is not morally equivalent with a primal tribal hatred of those different than ourselves. A quantitatively different societal value should be and thus is assigned to evolved humanity as compared with those who only care about themselves and their own. 

There are such things as right and wrong. There is both good and evil in this world. Positivity and a can do attitude will always accomplish lots more than resignation and hopelessness. Love can only conquer what hate has not killed first...

Politically, today, those who cannot see the differences are either unwilling or unable to understand this. Evil so often prevails not just because good people do nothing but because some actually are evil and others are just too damn dumb or too uncaring to recognize these difference and to stand up against injustice, intolerance and ignorance. To stand with their less fortunate others and not just for themselves and their own selfish self interests. 

There is no excuse for adults not knowing right from wrong. Most children can and do get the concept. Most instinctively grasp the not so subtle difference. Those who cannot are deemed mentally emotionally developmentally impaired and thus pitiable...

Social Justice and equality for all under the law should be universal human values. That they are not is testament to the fact that large percentages of people remain willfully or else unwittingly mentally and emotionally unevolved. 

...and a failure to take the full discussion into consideration, while fixating an a predetermined understanding/interpretation is no better.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.25    2 months ago
There is no one in any of the parties that are qualified to be the leader of America and its people.

I think there is somebody on both sides that are qualified....they're just keeping their heads down

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.32  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.31    2 months ago
I think there is somebody on both sides that are qualified....they're just keeping their heads down

I can understand why they are keeping quiet. The louder ones will make sure they don't last long, and won't have a chance to be effective in ways that will benefit our country and its people.

They will choose not to run for the Presidency because so many voters have been brainwashed over the years to be more interested in their faults rather than their qualifications for the job they are trying to fill. It seems the less qualified and ruthless the candidates are, the more people will vote for them. Trump is a a good example of that mentality, and the Dems are just as guilty. 

I would like to see candidates who are qualified and understands the urgent needs of our country and our people, instead of those who only interested in dividing our people and playing dictator. 

I too, think there are those on both sides who are very qualified for the Oval office, but, may have wet the bed as a 2 y/o and fear that will be blown way out of truthfulness and used to destroy them.

The ruthlessness in our politics on both all sides today is bound to ruin the effectiveness of our government, and we can see that happening everyday in many areas of our country.

JMOO

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1.33  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.3    2 months ago

It is easier to say "both sides have good points" than to argue for one of the sides. 

That reminds me of what Trump said about the confrontation between the Nazis & others during the Charlelottesville riots:

There are good people on both sides

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.34  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @7.1.33    2 months ago
There are good people on both sides

It's really too bad that we don't hear more about them, only the ones who try to drown out the good ones.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1.35  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.13    2 months ago
but why would the majority of people in the majority of states do that?

Actually they didn't.

If you're interested in actual facts: some 3 millions more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump.

(The reason Trump because president is the Electoral College system which makes it possible for the candidate that the most people want to actually not get elected.)

But then again-- you knew that.

(Or did you?) 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    2 months ago

Comment removed by author [ph]

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 months ago
just how are those in the middle different from everyone else? 

I think she explains that. They're different in that you can't presume to know where they will come down on an issue based on where they stand on some other issue.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
7.5  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 months ago
So given that, just how are those in the middle different from everyone else? 

That question has perplexed numerous extremely wise men down through the ages!

To best answer that age-old conundrum, perhaps it is best to turn to that font of wisdom throughout history-- that of the Orient.

Specially, the sayings of the hollowed and highly veneered Confucius himself:

Confucius say: "Man who stand in middle of road get hit by cars going in both directions".

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8  The Magic Eight Ball    2 months ago
I don't fit in anywhere. I am neither a square or round peg. I'm not even a triangle. I am a squiggly line that can't fit in anywhere and knows that there is no hole cut out for me, and I am good with that, most of the time. 

I feel ya

I like being a squiggly line no one can put their finger on or shove in a pre defined box

and have much respect for those who do not bend to others regardless of their shape.

besides, I would rather debate one who does not agree with me than one who does.

although we do not seem to talk much about "middle ground issues"  around here... LOL

it seems it is always the fringe issues

cheers :)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 months ago
You're in a box.

of my own design.

but it is not a safe space

so, don't be scared john... show me your hate like ya mean it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    2 months ago
Are you trying to write poetry?

are you trying to make any sense?

What is that? 

the english language...  

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.1.3    2 months ago

Guys (this is not directed to M8B)

Please stop fighting. I am trying not to delete comments. I don't want to break up the stream of discussion.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.4    2 months ago

no worries I think we both bailed on that thread long ago.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.1.5    2 months ago

Thanks M8B. I hope that you will participate in the future. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    2 months ago
I would rather debate one who does not agree with me than one who does.

Me too! 

although we do not seem to talk much about "middle ground issues"  around here... LOL it seems it is always the fringe issues

I love middle ground issues, but even fringe issues can be talked about if you actually read what the other person wrote, or you go looking for information that is unbiased. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2    2 months ago

word...

we used to agree on the right things to do.  it was only the funding we debated for hours on end.

hell, even hillary and bill supported securing the border way back when... 

my bet is we get back to arguing over the simple things again soon enough. by that I mean, when the left gets back to where the clintons used to be. until then, the rage will never end from either side.

today's politics has been infected with a virus and the only cure is time. 

patience is a virtue, humor is mandatory. a shot of whiskey helps.

  • not one soldier from our past has given his life fighting for socialism.
  • most every veteran alive today will gladly die fighting against socialism.

there is no middle ground to be found there. not even a little bit.

and if that is not a recipe for never-ending conflict?  maybe betty crocker has the correct mix?

as long as all we throw around are words?  call it lucky.

because once we start throwing around bullets?  everyone loses.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.2.1    2 months ago
as long as all we throw around are words?  call it lucky.

I actually think sites like this provide a sort of pressure release valve...

tis better to blow off some steam in text than out on the street.

so, thanks for your service perrie

your country thanks you :)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.2.2    2 months ago

My pleasure! :)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.2.1    2 months ago

I disagree. I think that there is a middle ground on almost every topic. You just have to be willing to compromise, and no one is interested in that, since it doesn't serve their purpose, so they make excuses for why it can't be done. It's a sad state of affairs.

 
 
 
Krishna
8.3  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8    2 months ago
I would rather debate one who does not agree with me than one who does.

Yes, I have the same experience-- I also find it difficult to actually debate someone who has the exactly same views as I do!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  JohnRussell    2 months ago
I live in that dangerous place in the twilight zone known as independent. The unicorn of rational thought.

This stance assumes that those who are not independents struggle with rational thought. That is a little insulting. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @9    2 months ago

John,

How does me describing indies as "The unicorn of rational thought", make insult anyone else? How come you are the only one here who thinks that? Do you not get that most people don't even believe that there are real indies? People who are nonpartisan and decide issue by issue? 

Wow.. I didn't see that one coming.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9    2 months ago
This stance assumes that those who are not independents struggle with rational thought. That is a little insulting.

A lot of times they do. It's an unpleasant truth. There are plenty of examples of people who appear to change their stance on an issue in response to the political winds blowing around them and not in response to personal reflection or analysis.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @9.3    2 months ago
There are plenty of examples of people who appear to change their stance on an issue in response to the political winds blowing around them and not in response to personal reflection or analysis.

Exactly. I know I have changed my POV many times because of the material I read and then discussed. It doesn't mean I am wishy-washy. It means that I am actually trying to be open minded. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
9.3.2  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.1    2 months ago
Exactly. I know I have changed my POV many times because of the material I read and then discussed. It doesn't mean I am wishy-washy. It means that I am actually trying to be open minded.

That is the single most stupid comment or inference from those who, I can only say. pretend to not understand plain English comments to the contrary.

Such idiots can can try pounding on my door to ram that bs down my throat and they will find out in a hurry how wishy washy I am.

There are at least 2 Deutch Bund nazi who went home unexpectedly in caskets after trying to intimidate my maternal grandfather in the 30s. He learned he lesson well about extremists of any side when he came home from school one day to a house of dead people thanks to the leftists of Lenin at the time.

Extremists are extremist are extremists.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.3.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @9.3.2    2 months ago

Dave,

Have I missed something? How did we get to Nazis?

and yes extremists are extremist are extremists. I have never said otherwise. 

Maybe we're having a communication breakdown.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
9.3.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.3    2 months ago
How did we get to Nazis?

It needs to be clear, failure to identify who the extremists are, and they are clearly alive and well today, is a failure to identify the targets which must be of concern.

There is absolutely no communication breakdown in my mind.

We see extreme tendencies to the left and right in our time right now.

Failure to identify them is a failure to learn from history and understand the appropriate frame of reference of what they mean.

Unless I am mistaken, we have 2 predominant factions tearing at the very fabric or our society. This is not good.

"We" have placed fancy facades over what is really Leninists/Stalinists/Maoists and nazis,  which scatter to every corner they want to hide in. They need a spotlight on them regardless of left or right.

Does this help Perrie?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.3.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dave-2693993 @9.3.4    2 months ago
"We" have placed fancy facades over what is really Leninists/Stalinists/Maoists and nazis,  which scatter to every corner they want to hide in. They need a spotlight on them regardless of left or right. Does this help Perrie?

Very much so. Now I get what you are trying to say and I totally agree. There is great evil in both extremes left and right. The death and destruction both have caused over the last century is a testament to them. We need to still be ever mindful that it can happen again. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
10  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    2 months ago

I don't particularly care about political parties. In my humble opinion most of their followers care more about winning then actual policy in this country. Give me a jersey, did we score? Did we win?

People want to belong to something and they want their team to win no matter how awful their candidate is. George Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, started the longest war in US history based on a lie.  The conservative then grew government and racked up more National debt. He was neither compassionate nor a conservative.

The Next President ran as a liberal and then signed two of the biggest pieces of crony legislation in US history. The liberal then decided keep the wars going and drone 5100 people including 1124 civilians. We hoped our government would change. No change came and he was no liberal.

After 16 years of failure the electorate was served up two of the worst choices in our history. While it's debatable which candidate would be worse for America the choice the electorate made was then met with a soft coup. Our own government tried to reverse the electorate's decision with a hoax.

We all want to get rid of Trump and one would think the electorate would demand higher quality candidates but that isn't going to happen. The democrat party are pushing out the moderates for a cackle of delusional virtue signaling socialists. Democrats are once again going to re-elect the idiot.

The most normal candidate on the goony parade right now is Howard Schultz. Democrats should dismiss the clowns and embrace someone that actually knows what an economy is and how it operates.

One thing is guaranteed, 2020 is going to be weird, entertaining and disappointing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
10.1.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 months ago

You won the partisan award this decade, accept your trophy and sit down please. We're having a rational discussion for a change.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10.1.1    2 months ago

I have never said I am non partisan, although I do have some conservative opinions on certain issues.

You keep saying you are non partisan when there is a mountain of evidence that you only attack one side. It is absurd and most people here see that. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
10.1.3  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    2 months ago

Did you read my first comment? I am an equal opportunity basher. Your favorite politicians are just low hanging fruit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10.1.3    2 months ago
I am an equal opportunity basher.

Everyone who has observed you on this site for 5 years knows that is utter nonsense. We have the most ludicrous excuse for a president we have ever had. What do you do? You attack the people who oppose Trump. I don't recall you ever seeding an article or making a comment that ridicules Trump.  And we know how much you like to ridicule people in the news. What is he, sacred to you? lol. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
10.1.5  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.4    2 months ago

You know this article has a topic John, start at the top and read your comments. Just a series of insults and disruptions. We can talk about one another and insult one another but you will lose. Are we going to go there or perhaps continue discussing the topic?

Get over it John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10.1.5    2 months ago

You're right I will leave the thread. And ask Perrie to remove everyone of my comments on this seed. 

I can't partake in the hypocrisy of you claiming to be non partisan. It is absurd. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.6    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
dave-2693993
10.1.8  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.6    2 months ago

NO.

Leave your responses.

They are your thoughts.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.7    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
10.1.10  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.6    2 months ago
You're right I will leave the thread. And ask Perrie to remove everyone of my comments on this seed.  I can't partake in the hypocrisy of you claiming to be non partisan. It is absurd. 

Has it ever occurred to you that we all are here having fun and sometimes we push each others buttons. 

Most often people read comments lightheartedly and laugh.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.9    2 months ago

Comment removed by author [ph]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10    2 months ago

I can't say that disagree with you. It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 

I am not sure about virtual signing from socialist. I think that the Dems do have them as a bit of a problem. They are going to fracture the party. Where I am looking for a moderate (I would have done the same if the Repubs were running a group), there are those who only want the extremes. That is how we got Trump. If the dems don't watch it, there will be Trump part 2. 

The most normal candidate on the goony parade right now is Howard Schultz. Democrats should dismiss the clowns and embrace someone that actually knows what an economy is and how it operates.

Not everyone has entered the race as of now. I am hopeful for some more candidates that represent more of the issues that are important to me.

We all want to get rid of Trump and one would think the electorate would demand higher quality candidates but that isn't going to happen.

And this is what bothers me the most. Our founding fathers were the best of their time. Somehow, we ended up with candidates that are sub-par. How the heck did that happen? When did we, as Americans stop caring about the quality of the Presidency or any of our other representatives? 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2    2 months ago
Our founding fathers were the best of their time. Somehow, we ended up with candidates that are sub-par. How the heck did that happen?

Living in a country with an average IQ of 98?

https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html

Living in a country with rising income inequality where some people are working inordinate hours to survive could mean that they don't have time to educate themselves on a level to have any idea of what is happening in our government. 

But, then again, how many of us really know what our government reps are doing in our country and on the world stage until some whistleblower dares to tell us?

How many of our reps leave government and start lucrative businesses via privatizing government services?  How many of our reps leave government and become high paid lobbyists? 

Or public speakers raking in millions of dollars a year?  What do these folks have to say that are worth this kind of money?  What kind of lifestyle do our reps really lead that they require this much money to support it?  And why should we vote for these folks who won't even support a $10 minimum wage in the US because it might undermine Wall Street profits?

Let's compare the very real differences in recent past presidents when it comes to how they work & live compared to how their electorate works & lives.

https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

Former President Bill Clinton has made the most of any modern president on the speaking circuit. He gives dozens of speeches a year and each brings in between $250,000 and $500,000 per engagement, according to published reports. He also earned $750,000 for a single speech in Hong Kong in 2011. 

In the decade or so after Clinton left office, from 2001 through 2012, he made at least $104 million in speaking fees, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

Clinton makes no bones about why he charges so much.

“I gotta pay our bills,” he told NBC News.

Former President George W. Bush earns between $100,000 and $175,000 per speech and is considered one of the most prolific speech-makers in modern politics.

The news source Politico has documented Bush's appearances on the speaking circuit and found he's been the keynote in at least 200 events since leaving office.  

Do the math. That amounts to at least $20 million and as much as $35 million in speaking fees he's raked in. Though it should come as no surprise given his stated intentionupon leaving off to “replenish the ol’ coffers.”

Former President Jimmy Carter "seldom accepts speaking fees," The Associated Press wrote in 2002, "and when he does he typically donates the proceeds to his charitable foundation." His fee for speaking about healthcare, government and politics, and retirement and aging was listed at $50,000 at one time, though.

Carter was openly critical of Ronald Reagan at one time, though, for taking $1 million for a single speech. Carter said he'd never take that much, but added quickly: "I've never been offered that much."

"That's not what I want out of life," Carter said in 1989. "We give money. We don't take it."
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  mocowgirl @10.2.1    2 months ago

Hard to argue with that comment mocowgirl. 

Is the national average IQ really that low?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.2    2 months ago

Intelligence quotient was designed to aim for 100 as average, so it's possible, and if it's true, it's really not as bad as all that.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.2.4  mocowgirl  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.2    2 months ago
Is the national average IQ really that low?

According to the link that I provided, it is.  I don't make any claims that the link has the definitive answer on country ranking by IQ, but provided it for food for thought.  Maybe someone else will share more info.

I would not be surprised with the ranking when comparing it with how US schools rank with other countries.

I googled literacy in the US.  If the info below is correct, then I expect income disparity to continue to widen in the coming decades as the US economy continues to seek an uneducated workforce to perform low skill jobs that cannot be outsourced and to bring back jobs to the US once a workforce that is wage competitive with third world countries is established.  (Also, must eliminate any EPA rules that don't allow widespread environmental pollution.)

https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/education-news-roundup/illiteracy-in-america/

The United States is facing a literacy crisis. Yes, crisis. It isn’t new, but its impacts upon our kids, our economy, and our society are far-reaching and expanding. How bad is it? Take a look at some numbers.

  • More than 30 million adults in the United States cannot read, write, or do basic math above a third-grade level. — ProLiteracy
  • Children whose parents have low literacy levels have a 72 percent chance of being at the lowest reading levels themselves. These children are more likely to get poor grades, display behavioral problems, have high absentee rates, repeat school years, or drop out. — National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
  • 75 percent of state prison inmates did not complete high school or can be classified as low literate. — Rand Report: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education
  • Low literacy is said to be connected to over $230 billion a year in health care costs because almost half of Americans cannot read well enough to comprehend health information, incurring higher costs. — American Journal of Public Health
  • The achievement gap

    In the United States, literacy rates vary greatly between racial and socio-economic groups. Even today, minorities are still oppressed by lower literacy levels. Literacy continues to be a mechanism of social control and oppression. On the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress 12th Grade Reading Level Assessment (2015), 46 percent of white students scored at or above proficient. Just 17 percent of black students and 25 percent of Latino students scored proficient. Females scored higher than males.

  • The literacy crisis today

    Comprehensive national literacy studies are not conducted annually, but the National Commission on Adult Literacy released its report in June 2008 naming several factors contributing to the nation’s literacy crisis. Minority and immigrant groups are growing in population, but remain low in educational achievement.

    The report claims that 1 in 3 people in the U.S. drop out of high school and that 1 in 4 American families is low-income with parents who lack education and skills to improve their economic status. This maintains a cycle of poverty, affecting each new generation of children.

    In addition, 1 in every 100 adults is in prison in the United States, and more than half of those inmates have low literacy skills. Lastly, language barriers resulting from increased immigration have contributed to lower literacy levels in modern America. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 41 percent of adult immigrants score at or below the lowest level of English literacy and 28 percent have not completed high school, limiting access to higher education, employment and increasing the likelihood of living in poverty.

    What other studies are finding about literacy

    In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics released the results from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). The PIACC provided an overview of proficiency in adult literacy, numeracy and problem-solving. In literacy, people born after 1980 in the U.S. scored lower than 15 of the 22 participating countries. Overall, U.S. adults aged 15-65 scored below the international average in all three categories— ranking near the very bottom in numeracy.

    Other studies by testing agencies and literacy organizations confirm the widening literacy gap, the perpetuation of poverty and a resultant expanding unskilled workforce in the coming years—the economic, social, and health-related results of which could be dreadful for the United States as a developed nation. The NCAL report notes that the U.S. is less educated than it was a generation ago, and our growing levels of illiteracy will foster a downward slide in our ability to compete economically with other nations.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  mocowgirl @10.2.4    2 months ago

As a retired teacher, I am horrified. I am wondering what caused the drop after the '80's. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.2.6  mocowgirl  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.5    2 months ago
I am wondering what caused the drop after the '80's. 

Income inequality, parental education level and parental attitude toward education?

Prior to the 80s, there seemed to be enough unskilled/semi-skilled industrial jobs so the uneducated and the undereducated could make a decent living.

In NW Arkansas, the locals seemed content to either pluck chickens for Tyson's or load trucks for Wal-Mart.  They did not understand how learning to punctuate a sentence or to solve for "n" would aid them in their chosen career path.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  mocowgirl @10.2.6    2 months ago

That sounds about right.. I will have to investigate more into this. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.3    2 months ago

I will take that as a hopeful and hope you are right. But I do remember way back in the day when we still classified kids as morons, idiots, and imbeciles (no joke, those were the clinical names for the level of IQ) that 60-80 had you as a moron. Above the was learning impaired. Maybe there has been a change in the IQ test. Now I am going to have to look that up. See what you did jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Krishna
10.2.9  Krishna  replied to  mocowgirl @10.2.6    2 months ago

Prior to the 80s, there seemed to be enough unskilled/semi-skilled industrial jobs so the uneducated and the undereducated could make a decent living.

One major factor contributing to the losses of less skilled jobs has been what is sometimes referred to as "technological unemployment"--the relatively rapid growth of technology.

I've heard people say that a robot now is taking a person's job. 

But as bad as that it, its probably closer to the truth that one robot is actually taking several peoples' jobs.

However, there are several more advanced human skills that robots can't replace (at least at present). Which means more and more  the only jobs that are "safe" (that can't be replaced by robots) are the more skilled ones. Less skilled workers who fail to gain education are in trouble....

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.2.10  mocowgirl  replied to  Krishna @10.2.9    2 months ago
the only jobs that are "safe" (that can't be replaced by robots) are the more skilled ones.

Not necessarily.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2017/11/08/ai-should-worry-skilled-knowledge-workers-too/

For example, dynamic machine algorithms are better equipped to search massive data sets for profitable patterns. Man Group Plc is a multi-billion investment firm, which aggressively experiments with artificial intelligence technology in its fund management business. Since 2014, Man Group’s AI-managed fund has generated consistent profits and now autonomously manages $5.1 billion in assets. Similarly, Entilic, a recent medical start-up, reported that its AI algorithm “outperformed four radiologists in detecting and classifying lung modules as benign or malignant.”

Our public psychology is conditioned to imagine low-skilled workers as the frontline victims of the automation downside. But to maintain this idea is to be misguided about the group of workers who are at the highest risk of marginalization—at least for now. Policymakers must update their perception of who the affected groups are and think beyond the conventional narrative, which holds that automation disproportionally impacts low-skilled workers.

This narrative is misleading and may cause us to develop incorrectly specified solutions. The figure below illustrates a simple word-count of low-skilled job descriptions and reveals—unsurprisingly—that these jobs tend to be service-centric, retail-oriented and dependent on personal interactions.

A growing number of companies have successfully substituted workers with artificial intelligence technology. The important nuance to take note of here is that highly skilled workers were the primary victims of this trend—not low-skilled ones. For example, between 2011 and 2017, Goldman Sachs replaced 600 desk traders in its workforce with 200 coding engineers. And Goldman is not alone. Instead, their shift toward algorithmic-based trading is being replicated at an accelerated pace in the investment banking space—an industry that has historically paid extraordinary wage premiums for trading skills.

Conceptually, it is easier to replace these high-skill workers rather than service workers whose jobs depend on personal interactions. According to Technology Review, Goldman Sachs incubated and fully scaled a small startup experiment in less than a year. The successful trial reduced the unit’s wage cost to zero. In human terms, the machine demonstration permanently displaced workers. Goldman now boasts “the entire consumer lending platform is fully machine operated.”

Cutting labor costs is an instant booster shot to earnings per share valuations. Blackrock Investments recently announced an automation investment, which will replace 13 percent of its portfolio management workforce. If CEOs continue to follow Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankenfein’s lead in a bid to remain competitive, then a new reality will emerge for high-skilled workers: compressed labor markets that mostly value elite technologists who can design complex tasks for uncomplaining machines to perform.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.2.11  mocowgirl  replied to  Krishna @10.2.9    2 months ago
the only jobs that are "safe" (that can't be replaced by robots) are the more skilled ones.

And even those jobs will be impacted in various ways that may mean that far fewer workers are necessary...or it could mean that more people are able to receive better medical treatment without much of an expansion of current workforce.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/artificial-intelligence-is-changing-your-career-in-medicine-4586781

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed many sectors of the economy and has a particularly significant effect on the delivery of healthcare. What is artificial intelligence anyway, and how will it impact your career in medicine? Google Dictionary defines artificial intelligence as "The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages." 

How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Healthcare

Artificial intelligence will have a significant impact on the way that medical professionals train and how they conduct their jobs. It will also provide many career options for information technology (IT) professionals who create and modify artificial intelligence products for the medical industry.

The impact on careers for medical professionals will be very significant. There are AI programs and tools - both in use and in development - for diagnostics, imaging, determining treatment, and surgery. 

However, experts don’t expect artificial intelligence to replace humans. Instead, AI will help medical professionals to carry out their roles in less time and more effectively.
 
 
 
CB
10.2.12  CB   replied to  mocowgirl @10.2.11    2 months ago

May I add:

Japanese white-collar workers are already being replaced by artificial intelligence

By Dave Gershgorn January 2, 2017
ap_08121105368-e1483127743880.jpg?qualit

Most of the attention around automation focuses on how factory robots and self-driving cars may fundamentally change our workforce, potentially eliminating millions of jobs. But AI that can handle knowledge-based, white-collar work are also becoming increasingly competent.

One Japanese insurance company, Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance, is reportedly replacing 34 human insurance claim workers with “IBM Watson Explorer,” starting by January 2017.

The AI will scan hospital records and other documents to determine insurance payouts, according to a company press release, factoring injuries, patient medical histories, and procedures administered. Automation of these research and data gathering tasks will help the remaining human workers process the final payout faster, the release says.

Fukoku Mutual will spend $1.7 million (200 million yen) to install the AI system, and $128,000 per year for maintenance, according to Japan’s The Mainichi. The company saves roughly $1.1 million per year on employee salaries by using the IBM software, meaning it hopes to see a return on the investment in less than two years.

Watson AI is expected to improve productivity by 30%, Fukoku Mutual says. The company was encouraged by its use of similar IBM technology to analyze customer’s voices during complaints. The software typically takes the customer’s words, converts them to text, and analyzes whether those words are positive or negative. Similar sentiment analysis software is also being used by a range of US companies for customer service; incidentally, a large benefit of the software is understanding when customers get frustrated with automated systems.

The Mainichi reports that three other Japanese insurance companies are testing or implementing AI systems to automate work such as finding ideal plans for customers. An Israeli insurance startup, Lemonade, has raised $60 million on the idea of “replacing brokers and paperwork with bots and machine learning,” says CEO Daniel Schreiber.

Artificial intelligence systems like IBM’s are poised to upend knowledge-based professions, like insurance and financial services, according to the Harvard Business Review, due to the fact that many jobs can be “composed of work that can be codified into standard steps and of decisions based on cleanly formatted data.” But whether that means augmenting workers’ ability to be productive, or replacing them entirely remains to be seen.

“Almost all jobs have major elements that—for the foreseeable future—won’t be possible for computers to handle,” HBR writes. “And yet, we have to admit that there are some knowledge-work jobs that will simply succumb to the rise of the robots.”

https://qz.com/875491/japanese-white-collar-workers-are-already-being-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence/

|

Lawyers could be the next profession to be replaced by computers

Published Fri, Feb 17 2017 • 1:55 PM EST Updated Tue, Nov 27 2018 • 10:33 AM EST
The legal profession — tradition-bound and labor-heavy — is on the cusp of a transformation in which artificial-intelligence platforms dramatically affect how legal work gets done.

Those platforms will mine documents for evidence that will be useful in litigation, to review and create contracts, raise red flags within companies to identify potential fraud and other misconduct or do legal research and perform due diligence before corporate acquisitions.

Those are all tasks that — for the moment at least — are largely the responsibility of flesh-and-blood attorneys.

Increasing automation of the legal industry promises to increase efficiency and save clients money, but could also cut jobs in the sector as the technology becomes responsible for tasks currently performed by humans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/lawyers-could-be-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence.html

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.5    2 months ago
As a retired teacher, I am horrified. I am wondering what caused the drop after the '80's. 

Oh, surely you remember.

In the 1980's the Carnegie Report was published, and the entire educational engine of our country became measured by and obsessed with one statistic...."dropout rate".  

So schools started reducing standards, creating special programs, overusing Section 504, and basically doing anything else they possibly could to make sure everybody got a smiley face, a sticker and a toy diploma on their way out the door.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @10.2.12    2 months ago

As recent as the early 1980s most big companies had a thing called "the typing pool".  

Those are all gone now.  Those jobs are lost to the annals of history along with lamplighters, hostlers, footmen, and squires.

A huge number of the jobs we have today will be lost to history as well.  Our grandchildren will likely have jobs that don't exist today and we won't understand no matter how patiently they explain.

 
 
 
Krishna
10.2.15  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.5    2 months ago

As a retired teacher, I am horrified. I am wondering what caused the drop after the '80's.

1. The increasingly widespread practice of so-called "Social Promotion".

2. The increasingly widespread practice of promoting kids based on factors other than actual merit (particularly the practice of basing promotions on "identity"...for example using race, religion, ethnicity, national family origins etc as a criteria-- or in many cases the sole criteria)

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10    2 months ago
In my humble opinion most of their followers care more about winning then actual policy in this country. Give me a jersey, did we score? Did we win? People want to belong to something and they want their team to win no matter how awful their candidate is.

I agree.  People vote by letters (D) & (R) and/or labels - conservative, Christian, progressive, liberal - regardless of their candidate's history of promoting/enacting legislation directly opposite of the platform they are espousing in hope of being elected.

After 16 years of failure the electorate was served up two of the worst choices in our history. While it's debatable which candidate would be worse for America the choice the electorate made was then met with a soft coup. Our own government tried to reverse the electorate's decision with a hoax.

It almost appeared like the 2016 was scripted to be a repeat of 1992 with a Bush, a Clinton and Trump standing in for Perot.  Trump kept threatening to quit the primary and run 3rd party, but was foiled by the electorate who kept voting for him instead of the GOP approved candidate.  

Trump's power lies in a very unhappy electorate that are in financial distress for many reasons (some self-inflicted).  These folks probably hoped that Trump would actually help them instead of ridicule them for being losers - or as Clinton labeled them "a basket of deplorables".   Among so many divisive tactics used by Clinton, this could have been the fatal one that cost her the votes she arrogantly assumed were hers by partisan politics or maybe some divine right.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

This set the stage for the unusual campaign dynamic. Instead of the usual tussle to obtain the votes of people who had a broadly favorable impression of both candidates, Trump and Clinton were in a slug-fest where the pivotal voters disliked both of them and — in many cases — ended up voting for neither.
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  mocowgirl @10.3    2 months ago
Trump's power lies in a very unhappy electorate that are in financial distress for many reasons (some self-inflicted).  These folks probably hoped that Trump would actually help them instead of ridicule them for being losers - or as Clinton labeled them "a basket of deplorables".   Among so many divisive tactics used by Clinton, this could have been the fatal one that cost her the votes she arrogantly assumed were hers by partisan politics or maybe some divine right.

Well, that was spot on. 

 
 
 
Krishna
10.4  Krishna  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10    2 months ago
We all want to get rid of Trump

Who are referring to when you say "we"/

It seems to me that everyone does not want to get rid of Trump-- something like 40% of the population really like him. A minority-- but that's still a substantial number. (And apparently well over 80% of Republicans do not want to get rid of him).

 
 
 
Krishna
10.5  Krishna  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10    2 months ago
The democrat party are pushing out the moderates for a cackle of delusional virtue signaling socialists. Democrats are once again going to re-elect the idiot.

That's quite an assumption on your part. At this point its too early tell which sort of Dem will get the nomination-- one on the far left, or one of the moderates.

The most normal candidate on the goony parade right now is Howard Schultz. Democrats should dismiss the clowns and embrace someone that actually knows what an economy is and how it operates.

If Schultz get's the nomination that might be a step towards defeating Trump. But if he doesn't get the nomination and then decides to run as an independent that would pretty much assure a victory for Trump. *(IMO there's no way he'll get the nomination). 

 
 
 
Krishna
10.6  Krishna  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @10    2 months ago

The democrat party are pushing out the moderates for a cackle of delusional virtue signaling socialists.

Some Democrats.

But none all.

For example, here's what one prominent Democrat said (addressing the issue quite directly!):

Pelosi also told '60 Minutes' correspondent Lesley Stahl that she rejects socialism and "it is not the view of the Democratic party."

"I do reject socialism as an economic system. If people have that view, that's their view. That is not the view of the Democratic Party," Pelosi told Lesley Stahl.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11  Colour Me Free    2 months ago
I don't fit in anywhere. I am neither a square or round peg. I'm not even a triangle. I am a squiggly line that can't fit in anywhere and knows that there is no hole cut out for me, and I am good with that, most of the time.

Aww Perrie, it is best to remain 'undefined'.. even if one is a squiggly line .. there are plenty of people out there that can and will 'label' you to fit their agenda.  

Partisans 'think' they are in charge and get to call the shots - yet they are nothing without the Independent or the dreaded 'bothsiders' vote .. it takes the you's, me's and them's of the US to decide the outcome of an election (with Trump and H. as the candidates for president  .. I voted 'None of the Above')

Those that choose to read to the end, without jumping to a conclusion half way through, do understand where you are coming from and what point it is that you are making (if not, all anyone needs to do is ask for clarification) .. it is partisanship that creates the noise, thus making it difficult to even pretend to understand another's opposing point of view...

I am fiscally conservative .. it is how I bought a house as a single mom and kept us a float on 12 bucks an hour .. for this I will not apologize, but I see social issues and realize that they cannot be placed in a square peg hole .. there has to be give and take … we can have conversation for hours or agree to disagree .. either way, I am honored to be stuck in the middle with you ... even though you are a squiggly line that does not fit anywhere : )

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Colour Me Free @11    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.1.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    2 months ago

Good luck with yourself John .. your ignorance is showing, yet it appears to be a badge of honour for you!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Colour Me Free @11.1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @11.1.3    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.1.5  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.2    2 months ago

Take care of you John .. all things anti Trump has clouded your view

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
11.1.6  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Colour Me Free @11.1.1    2 months ago

At the end of the day we are all humans that have more in common than not. Political arguments and petty disagreements on an internet forum are certainly not that important.

I'm here primarily to socialize and it's disappointing to see people caught up in this misguided passion for difference.

 
 
 
Sunshine
11.1.7  Sunshine  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @11.1.6    2 months ago

I appreciate your humor and others who use it to keep it all in perspective.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
11.1.8  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Sunshine @11.1.7    2 months ago

There is nothing funnier than politics in our country. It's the gift that keeps on giving and we ought to have fun with it.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.1.9  Colour Me Free  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @11.1.6    2 months ago

Hi BF … 

I agree, 'we' have far more in common that most realize .. it is just not always easy to communicate one thoughts in person, let alone on a website .. so differences / difference of opinion become a divide, filled with accusation, insinuation ……. [fill in the blank] ..

I am here to hopefully find a conversation, exchange ideas … sometimes it is harder to find than others...

Perrie's idea for this group is for individuals to communicate and share their thoughts about various news articles without the pigeonholing - honest debate, no 'fear' of being 'attacked' for the opinion they have … well that is how I see her vision ….

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.4    2 months ago

Comment removed by author [ph]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.2    2 months ago

Comment removed by author [ph]

 
 
 
Krishna
11.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @11.1.6    2 months ago

I'm here primarily to socialize and it's disappointing to see people caught up in this misguided passion for difference.

My experience over many years of participation in Internet discussion forums is that the vast majority of people that spend a lot of time on them are not too bright-- and/or have emotional problems. (Of course there are exceptions, but they are a minority). 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @11.1.6    2 months ago
At the end of the day we are all humans that have more in common than not.

I agree with that. Most of us just want to get to work in one piece, take care of our families, put some money back for our golden years and just live our lives in peace.

You are funny there's not doubt about that.

But looks aren't everything!!!! (I just had to throw that in there)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Colour Me Free @11    2 months ago

Hi Colour! 

You are right that the partisans are the ones making the noise. They drown out the indies and the moderates. The irony is that we make up most of the electorate. They only want us during the elections, when they need those "swing state" votes. And no, the partisans don't even try to understand out POV's. Take any topic and all you will get is extreme rhetoric. 

I am a what I call a compassionate fiscal conservative, and socially I lean liberal, but not on all issues. Even an issue like abortion leaves me in neither camp (although I am sure it does for some). 

This should be an interesting trip! 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.2.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2    2 months ago
They drown out the indies and the moderates.

Scary isn't it .. I am looking for a moderate candidate [Biden] - if that cannot be found, I am then looking for an intelligent critical thinking individual .. that is the coffee guy (Schultz (?) or Buttigieg .. I like Buttigieg, but his age is going to be made a factor - and he will prob not be gay enough nor is he a minority .. will have to wait and see..

I think the whole of the federal government no longer considers "We the People" as anything but a vote 'when needed' .. 'we' are certainly not listened to once those elected reach DC .. as you stated, 'any topic becomes extreme rhetoric' (not a direst quote)..

Perhaps I have become to cynical and need to take out the rose coloured glasses to wear while I think about the federal government of the United States..

Yes, interesting is a good word .. but it is going to be a 'fun' ride.. : )

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Colour Me Free @11.2.1    2 months ago

I'm about where you're at. Right now, there is no one who I am interested in, but there are those still throwing in their hats. I am hoping for someone more thoughtful, more moderate and able to work with the other side. Is that asking too much?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.2.3  Colour Me Free  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.2    2 months ago
Is that asking too much?

It is the "Unicorn of rational thought"...…. so to speak … or should that be the 'Unicorn of critical thought'?

Right now, there is no one who I am interested in

I am interested in Biden for the calm that I believe he would bring to the office of President, something I think 'we' need at this time - there needs to be a time of calm to heal a lil..  Chaos and forced agendas seem to have reigned for a while now.

I like Mayor Pete for his openness .. intelligence and his experience, perhaps not in politics, but his experiences in life .. he has been a participant of life .. he prob does not stand a chance - but he comes forward with his thoughts and his approach, suggestions for a solution on all topics asked of him .. he does not wave his arms in the air and say ..'but Trump' while dancing around the question...  I cannot help but like him!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.2.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Colour Me Free @11.2.3    2 months ago

I like both of them, too. At least they sound normal compared to many out there. Of course, that could just be me. We will have to wait and see what shakes out of that dem tree. That's all that we got right now. How sad.

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Colour Me Free @11.2.1    2 months ago
I am then looking for an intelligent critical thinking individual .. that is the coffee guy (Schultz (?) or Buttigieg .. I like Buttigieg, but his age is going to be made a factor - and he will prob not be gay enough nor is he a minority .

IMO there's no way Schultz could even get close to getting them nomination. because there's a large segment of the Democratic party that , basically, hates people who are too successful .

I've heard Buttigieg speak a little-- he sounds like one of the more intelligent (and most sensible) of the lot although I don't know that much about him at this point.Being gay is probably a plus for getting the Dem. nomination-- but I wonder if the country as a whole would elect a gay candidate?

Being young might be a negative for him as well (?).

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.2.6  Colour Me Free  replied to  Krishna @11.2.5    2 months ago
IMO there's no way Schultz could even get close to getting them nomination. because there's a large segment of the Democratic party that , basically, hates people who are too successful .

Did you hear, Bernie is now a millionaire … : )

.Being gay is probably a plus for getting the Dem. nomination-- but I wonder if the country as a whole would elect a gay candidate? Being young might be a negative for him as well (?).

I think people can see past 'the gay' aspect once one hears Mayor Pete speak .. how can gay be a factor when there is an intelligent man speaking in terms that most everyone can understand .. he is answering / responding to questions that many of us had given up asking because NO one ever pretended to try and answer?  (Obama was a great orator .. but when he said 'let me be clear' I cringed!)

Yes, I agree.. and I am concerned about age .. yet when I sit down and think about where I was at 37 .. I was better equip to lead at that age than I am at 53 ..  I have been calling for a Biden / Buttigieg 2020 ticket .. giving Buttigieg the experience .. and a bit of age under his belt 

Biden could use his help (?)

This is the video that introduced me to Mayor Pete!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.2.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @11.2.5    2 months ago
but I wonder if the country as a whole would elect a gay candidate?

They might be questioning why the candidates sexual preference needs to become publically know or be a campaign issue

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.2.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Colour Me Free @11.2.6    2 months ago

Looks too young and wet behind the ears.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
11.2.9  Colour Me Free  replied to  Greg Jones @11.2.8    2 months ago

Morning Greg .. 

Pete Buttigieg is young and prob even wet behind the ears.. but...……………?  What does age actually have to do with being president?  The constitution of the United States says he meets the age requirement.... I think there are 2 requirements .. age and place of birth ...

… I do not agree with him on all things .. the electoral college being a huge disagreement I have..  I am not going to go out on the campaign trail in support of Pete Buttigieg - what I am trying to get across to others, is my opinion that the United States needs someone that is calm, has a policy, capable of critical thinking and is willing to address problems that others only speak about in the abstract during elections .. without having an agenda to force down the American peoples throats..

I am not a Trump supporter (but not a hater of), nor was I an Obama supporter (once again not a hater of) - voted for GWB the first time around .. I think of the best president this nation has had (in my lifetime) was GHWB … a calm individual with the capability of critical thought, had policy and was able to see what was best for the nation, even if it made him unpopular!

I babbled .. my bad....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
11.2.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @11.2.7    2 months ago
They might be questioning why the candidates sexual preference needs to become publically know or be a campaign issue

Because some people will make it an issue.

Anti-LGBT bigotry is still fairly common.  And as Buttigieg is married to a man, it is hardly practical for him to keep his orientation from being publicly known.

 
 
 
CB
11.2.12  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @11.2.7    2 months ago

Well, opposition research might stir up something surprising about "pee-wee's." So better to establish "the Gay" transparency up front!

On the other hand, republicans are "OKAY!" with not knowing just how President Trump made his loot wealth, so maybe Evangelicals —Nawwww! Uh-Uh!

Come clean, Pete. Tell us all about your "pee-pee" moments, even the ones that did not count or matter. Because should the time come later on down the road, opposition research in the Trump era will "pan" your past life for effect!

We need to remember that Donald Trump is not shy about SHOUTING into a perfectly fine - and working microphone!

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.13  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.2    2 months ago
I am hoping for someone more thoughtful, more moderate and able to work with the other side. Is that asking too much?

So far it seems that may Buttigieg meet those criteria . . . ???

 
 
 
Krishna
11.2.14  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2    2 months ago
You are right that the partisans are the ones making the noise.

There's an old saying:

Its the squeaky whell that gets the grease!

 
 
 
Sunshine
12  Sunshine    2 months ago

I believe almost anyone who reads and participates on the site is open to all points of view or they would spend their time on strictly partisan sites.  I have some free time, but not enough to be participating on several sites.

It does become difficult though when the blatant insults towards members is allowed, as the examples on this seed.  Who wants to leave a comment knowing that an insult or provocation will be tolerated?  So, for myself I have decided to read more and comment less.  

We all have our own experiences in our lives that effects and forms our opinions.  As others, I have had to face many extremely difficult obstacles in my life.  Most people do not fit into one partisan view.  I lean heavy Republican/conservative but not an advocate of capitol punishment or for the banning of abortions.  What trap many fall into is the labeling and stereotyping of others based just on a few comments on a website.

To me every issue is different and should be open to all discussion.  I do hate it when one tries to shut that down with personal innuendos and direct personal insults. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
12.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Sunshine @12    2 months ago
To me every issue is different and should be open to all discussion.

Amen … good post Sunshine

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @12    2 months ago

Sunshine,

I am sorry for the way this has gone. I would rather deal with the comments head-on than delete them. It tends to destroy the flow of the thread. But I promise that this will be the only article like this. Anyone who can not control themselves with personal insults will be kicked out of the group ( btw, this is a group discussion). 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
12.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.2    2 months ago

This thread was going fine yesterday, until a certain someone took it in a completely different direction. That irritated me enough earn some tickets...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.2.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @12.2.1    2 months ago

Hi Greg,

First of all, you didn't participate in the article in any meaningful way. The only comments you made, were to a member that were violations. Second, because I want my articles to be user-friendly, I give non point tickets as a reminder not to do that again. I don't need member's help with moderation, so I would suggest that you keep your comments on topic and not about members.  

 
 
 
Ender
12.3  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @12    2 months ago

That is one reason I am here. (besides knowing people) I don't want to be in an echo chamber.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @12.3    2 months ago

You know that is the hardest thing about running this place. Some folks want an echo chamber and others do not. And obviously, there is no way to make everyone happy given those conditions. I go into metafied and I read how both sides are complaining about the same thing... that the site has become one or the other.. conservative or liberal. How can that be? So I am assuming I am doing something right and that this place is not an echo chamber. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
12.3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.3.1    2 months ago
So I am assuming I am doing something right and that this place is not an echo chamber. 

You are, and it's not.

There will always be those who insist that the other guy follow rules that they don't want to follow themselves.  Those folks will complain of censorship while simultaneously flagging every comment and article with which they disagree, then scream "bias" when those comments don't get ticketed.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.3.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @12.3.2    2 months ago

You have got that right Sandy. 

 
 
 
MUVA
12.3.4  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @12.3.2    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.3.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  MUVA @12.3.4    2 months ago

Oh!

I would never have imagined...    jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.3.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.3.1    2 months ago
So I am assuming I am doing something right and that this place is not an echo chamber. 

If you're not making everybody happy you are definitely doing something right.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13  JohnRussell    2 months ago

I have asked Perrie to remove every one of my comments on this article. And I hope she does so immediately. 

And now I bid you all adieu. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
13.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 months ago

Can we get you an avatar too? The avatar protest is a little silly.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @13.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
13.1.2  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.1    2 months ago

It's never a good idea to run to the article about puppies or a scientific discovery and say.

but Trump.....

Thank you for the kind insult, I can now wear my John insulted me on Perrie's article too badge with dozens of others.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @13.1.2    2 months ago

Can the both of you stop? Btw, that was an order and not a request. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @13.2    2 months ago

I have decided to do a small clean up of my article. I don't want this to be the way this group opens. 

 
 
 
BeastOfTheEast
13.3  BeastOfTheEast  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
13.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
14  Freedom Warrior    2 months ago

BTW - I've never had any trouble figuring you out.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @14    2 months ago

That says so little...what do you mean? You knew I was an indie?

 
 
 
Tacos!
15  Tacos!    2 months ago

I think the good news is that as political partisanship and tribalism become more extreme and entrenched, the body of independents in the country actually appears to be growing. They're the new silent majority - or on their way at least.

Unfortunately, the two-party system ultimately forces them to make a partisan choice. Actual independent candidates don't typically fare well because they don't get the organizational support and I think they also fail to garner credibility in the press.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @15    2 months ago
I think the good news is that as political partisanship and tribalism become more extreme and entrenched, the body of independents in the country actually appears to be growing. They're the new silent majority - or on their way at least.

That does seem to be the trend, Tacos. At least according to the Pew. The parties are losing members and the indies are growing in number. I think that this is a good thing. Throughout history, group think has never been a good thing. 

Unfortunately, the two-party system ultimately forces them to make a partisan choice. Actual independent candidates don't typically fare well because they don't get the organizational support and I think they also fail to garner credibility in the press.

It's the two party system has made it impossible for a third party to arise, and that is the problem. When I was younger, I used to to be more involved in getting a true third party going, and you would be shocked to see the roadblocks that both parties have put up to protect their interests. 

 
 
 
Krishna
15.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @15.1    2 months ago
It's the two party system has made it impossible for a third party to arise, and that is the problem. When I was younger, I used to to be more involved in getting a true third party going, and you would be shocked to see the roadblocks that both parties have put up to protect their interests. 

Having a multiple party system like they do in many (most?) of the other democracies wouldn't change a thing. Look at all the current democracies that have a multy party system.

What happens is various parties have to form a coalition to govern-- a coalition that tries to represent the views of all the parties in the coalition.

But that really in actual practice what we have here-- each party is in a sense a "coalition" of the factions within it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
16  JohnRussell    2 months ago

I asked Perrie to remove all my comments from her article because they made her unhappy, but she has so far declined to do so. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
16.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @16    2 months ago

Hip hop hippity hop and ya don't stop!

How do you feel about independents?  I feel good about them. They are embracing individualism and actual policy.

Independent minds are amazing!

 
 
 
Krishna
16.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @16.1    2 months ago
Hip hop hippity hop and ya don't stop!

Ah....memories!

 
 
 
Krishna
16.2  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @16    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @16.2    2 months ago
After all, what's the purpose of an Internet Forum if not to entertain the participants with guffaw-producing hi-jinks and other miscellaneous folderoll?

That's a good question.

Sadly.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
16.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.2.1    2 months ago

I've said it a thousand times... one more won't hurt.

people do not change their ideology because "someone online said" this has been proven over and over and over.  regardless of the subject being discussed. 

people only change their minds on their own terms and in their own time. nothing can be said/typed to hurry that process along. even trying is a waste of time.

there was a time when the left thought they could use social media to control the narrative, but as you now know by her loss and newsvine closing its doors... that theory is simply ludicrous.

you know there is nothing can change your mind about trump. so what makes you think you can change anyone else's mind about trump? everyone is just a dug in as you are.

this is just a pass time and not much more than that.

we can express opinions and debate them all day long. but, no one changes their ideology. 

so if you are looking to move the political needle? garner votes?   not happening.

hint: don't take anything in text seriously, just have some fun.

no one's ideology will be changed by what you, me, or anyone on this or any other site says, thinks, or links.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @16.2.2    2 months ago
there was a time when the left thought they could use social media to control the narrative

Sweeping generalization?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
16.2.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.2.3    2 months ago
Sweeping generalization?

simple fact.

 take it with a grain of salt for all I care.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
16.2.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.2.1    2 months ago
That's a good question. Sadly.

actually, as I said above,

people only change their minds on their own terms and in their own time.

talking about stuff is cool.

but trying to hurry or force a change in another's ideology? only slows the process of change down. (they only dig in further)  so technically, even this argument is counterproductive in a weird way.

  • you will read what I said and then you will dig in further, 
  • any reply you might have for me, I will only dig in further as well.
  • the circle continues.  fun yes. productive? no. change? non-existent.

it is human nature. we are willing to change our own minds, but we will be damned if we let another do it for us or demand we hurry up about it.... lol

 

many people will change their ideology eventually but that change does not come from another person's words. 

  •  ideological change only comes after yrs of life experience and yrs of personal reflexion.  (on our own terms and in our own time)

I never expect to change your mind but I always hope you and everyone else, have a great day.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
16.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @16.2.5    2 months ago

unlike political and moral ideologies..

on a subject like lunch? or dinner? surfing or snowboarding? staying home or going out?  

I can be talked into almost anything at a moments notice  :)

remember the old saying? 

challenge an idea? people will listen. challenge a belief?  they might actually kill you.

still true to this day and will be until the end of time.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
16.2.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @16.2.5    2 months ago
 
 
 
Krishna
16.2.8  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.2.3    2 months ago
there was a time when the left thought they could use social media to control the narrative
Sweeping generalization?

Yes.

But generalizations (as well as all sorts of illogical comments) are not a violation of the COC. 

Nor are they evidence of collusion.

 
 
 
Krishna
16.2.9  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @16.2.6    2 months ago
I can be talked into almost anything at a moments notice 

Another voter for AOC! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
16.2.10  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @16.2.7    2 months ago
I agree completely.

Excellent seed which unfortunately didn't get the attention it deserves.

Perhaps people didn't want to face the truth...????

 
 
 
pat wilson
16.2.11  pat wilson  replied to  Krishna @16.2.10    2 months ago

308 comments is not enough attention ?

 
 
 
Krishna
16.2.12  Krishna  replied to  pat wilson @16.2.11    2 months ago

308 comments is not enough attention ?

Well, you may have a point!

I don't know if it would work, but you might try asking Perrie to delete the rule requiring you to read every one's comment.

(Or better yet, ask her to create a rule where you can put someone on "ignore"-- like we had on Newsvine).

P.S: This article has 321 comments-- not 308. But perhaps we could have a rule limiting the amount of discussion on each article-- actually a limit of 20 or even 30 might be adequate????

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17  Bob Nelson    2 months ago

Refusing to take sides is not a virtue. There is no "moderate" position between good and evil.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
17.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Bob Nelson @17    2 months ago
Refusing to take sides is not a virtue.

Why must one choose 'one' side, when one needs input from multiple sources in order to make an informed decision?   Who decided that critical thinking was no longer a part of decision making and one must follow the leader?    and what does 'virtue' have to do with it, or good and evil for that matter?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Colour Me Free @17.1    2 months ago
Why must one choose 'one' side...

Who said that?

Who decided that critical thinking was no longer a part of decision making and one must follow the leader?

Who said that?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
17.1.2  Colour Me Free  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.1    2 months ago

What does 'refusing to take sides is not a virtue' mean to you?  I seem to interpret it differently than you do.. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Colour Me Free @17.1.2    2 months ago

There are people who militantly refuse to take a stand. Who always say "both sides do it". At best, that's intellectual laziness. More likely, it's intellectual dishonesty.

Most phenomena are gradual, rather than binary. They are not "yes/no"; they are "from 1 to 10". If one person does something 1% of the time while another person does it 99% of the time, then "both sides do it" is both true and a total cop-out.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
17.1.4  Colour Me Free  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.3    2 months ago

I presume that in this example you are part of the 1% .. can this formula be applied to all subject matters, or is it regarding a specific subject?   

I admit to being a fence sitter .. and I am one that sees 'both side doing it' .. I am not narrowing that statement down to specific people … I make that statement based on politics in DC, and the parties in power .. there are no virgins with Halos in federal government, neither party can claim the high ground.  Until conversation and compromise takes place in the hierarchy that is government, which 'neither side' is willing to do ... nothing will change .. individuals will be continuing to make claims that 'my side only does it 1% of the time'....

There is kind of a vicious cycle of circles in the current political climate .. a great deal of 'I was against it before I was for it .. I have evolved' going on

As I said, you and I see things differently..

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Colour Me Free @17.1.4    2 months ago
I presume that in this example you are part of the 1%

Depends on the topic, of course.

.. can this formula be applied to all subject matters, or is it regarding a specific subject?

Almost all human activity is "sliding scale". We do it... more or less.

It's a great way to lie to oneself.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
17.1.6  Colour Me Free  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.5    2 months ago

Did not see this earlier ...

Almost all human activity is "sliding scale". We do it... more or less.
It's a great way to lie to oneself.

Yeah well, if one is inclined to lie to themselves .. that is an issue that goes beyond a 'sliding scale' of human activity.. it was never my idea to put 'our' children on a collision course with a scale of 1 to 10 .. 1 to 9 being a participation trophy and 10 being the winner.. yet getting the same trophy it just says 'the winner' on it... 

is it any wonder why mental illness / anxiety and depression are on a rise among young people (significantly in college age individuals) they have been taught to expect life to be fair... not taught to survive when the rules change.

I know I swerved off the topic ..... but I am not sure how the sliding scale of human activity applies to whether or not 1% is 'doing it' as opposed to the 99% 'doing it' scenario .. both saying the other side does it more, thus refusing to see that both sides are doing it .. but in order to make it FAIR one must accept/admit to what degree / percentage of the whole 'they do it' more .. alas, bothsides are lieing to themselves?

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1.7  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.1.3    2 months ago
There are people who militantly refuse to take a stand. Who always say "both sides do it".

I've noticed that that seems to have become increasingly common since social media has become so popular.Its actually a form of "derail".

An attempt to get the conversation off track....t

In fact not so long ago someone came up with a name for that that's starting to catch on: "whattaboutism".

If , for example, someone makes a criticism of a public figure (politician, pop star, etc), rather than discussing that, someone will say:

But what about _____  (what about someone else who has done the same thing). 

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1.8  Krishna  replied to  Colour Me Free @17.1.4    2 months ago
I admit to being a fence sitter .. and I am one that sees 'both side doing it'

Do you ever actually vote in elections?

Or are you so "open minded" that you steadfastly refuse to judge any candidate being any better than any other one?

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
17.2  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @17    2 months ago
Refusing to take sides is not a virtue. There is no "moderate" position between good and evil.

A perfect example of how we arrive at extremely crazy on the left and extremely crazy on the right. (It's life or death, good vs evil) LOL

Well done Bob.......

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @17.2    2 months ago

Thanks, Hand of the Queen...

Although... I'm not surprised that you see no difference between good and evil.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
17.2.2  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.2.1    2 months ago

 I mean advocating for violence instead of peaceful protest is good isn't it?  (like the avatar) LOL

 
 
 
Krishna
17.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.2.1    2 months ago

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"

--Barry "Macho Man" Goldwater.

(And y'all know how that turned out):

320

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @17.2.3    2 months ago

original

I worked for McGovern. Your point?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
17.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.2.4    2 months ago

The way the current crop of Democrats are headed is likely to result in similar results in 2020.

 
 
 
Krishna
17.2.6  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.2.4    2 months ago
I worked for McGovern. Your point?

My point was that often most Americans will not vote for a candidate espousing extremist views. Goldwaters' whole "schtick" was that America had left true Conservative behind, and that electing him would revie it. That he would bring back what he believed to be true "pure" Conservative values. 

The way Johnson handled this was to try to paint Goldwater not as a regular Conservative but as an extremist. And at least at that time Americans did not the idea of having an extremist in office. That Goldwater woukld present real dangers... particularly that by "standing up to the Communists" he might cause a nuclear war.

The election was in 1964-- that was the year the movie Dr Strangelove came out.

IIRC the general perception was that Americans had a choice between a relative "moderate" (LBJ) and an real extremist (Goldwater). They were afraid of the extremist....so Goldwater only carried a few Southern States (in fact he lost most Southern electoral votes) & his home state of AZ.

 
 
 
Krishna
17.2.7  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @17.2.6    2 months ago

My point was that often most Americans will not vote for a candidate espousing extremist views

I imagine some people would say that that's changed, that Americans did recently elect an extremist-- Trump.

However, it should be noted that the majority of Americans were not convinced Trump would make a better president than Hillary-- more voted for her than for Trump. (In that sense Hillary won the election-- she wasn't seated due to the Electoral College system-- but she fif win the vote).

Also, the perception of what a candidate stands for is what causes the result. IIRC during the campaign Trump was not perceived as an extremist by most people. (Due in part to his constant lying-- for example he said he would work towards preserving Social Security and Medicare. He would help the Middle class. And many other positions which were not extreme. Of course once elected he backtracked , but many voters initially fell for his lies.

Trump was not perceived by many voters as extremist.  The main thing many people perceived him as was an alternative to the "establishment". (And while Bernie and Trump are in many ways on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, I knew several people who were not trying to decide between two liberals or two conservative candidates, but rather were trying to decide between-- Trump and Bernie Sanders! Their first choices were Trump and/or Sanders!)

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @17    2 months ago
There is no "moderate" position between good and evil.

And yet we live in a world where there is nothing but something between good and evil. Life is nuanced. That was the whole point of the article. 

Example: Abortion. Good or evil? Can you define that issue in simple terms? I can't. 

When you show me god and the devil, then I will answer your question. I doubt that you can. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3    2 months ago
Can you define that issue in simple terms?

I'm willing to take a crack at it... LOL

  • aborting a fetus because of physical danger to the mother? good
  • aborting a fetus for selfish reasons other than the above?  evil

my friends have often accused me of lacking any "grey area"

and that's what makes me predictable

as I have no grey area to get lost in, people don't have to guess where I stand :)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3    2 months ago
When you show me god and the devil, then I will answer your question. I doubt that you can.

originalI can't show you God, but I can show you evil:

Is it right or wrong to condemn this kind of behavior?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.1    2 months ago
my friends have often accused me of lacking any "grey area"

LOL.. well kind of. 

I have a much more complicated version of that. 

I rely on science and biology. 

People have sex. Both men and women. To put this all on the woman is wrong. Both so given that both men and women have sex, and we know life isn't perfect, accidents are going to happen. 

Here is where I stand:

  • Make sure you are responsible with sex
  • Do not make abortion birth control. It is unhealthy to do that and irresponsible.
  • Allow abortions up to when the nervous system is developed. That is when the fetus truly feels pain. That is about 16 weeks.
  • Allow abortions for rape/incest again up to 16 weeks
  • Mother's health unlimited (and rarely in the third trimester as people claim)
  • Allow Plan B

So you can see how nuanced my position is. It is not a yes and it's not no. But I don't think that any of those are for selfish reasons. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.3.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.1    2 months ago
selfish reasons

See, that's where we're going to get stuck.

What if the mother can't afford another child, or even prenatal care?  Is abortion selfish?  Or is abortion going to allow her to feed herself and her other children?  Is supporting one's family selfish?

What if the pregnancy is the result of rape?  Is is selfish to not want to go through the physical dangers and discomforts of pregnancy, not to mention the financial expense, when one didn't consent to sex in the first place?  To me, it's not selfish to wish to avoid consequences for somebody else's crime.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.2    2 months ago
Is it right or wrong to condemn this kind of behavior?
It is right to condemn this kind of behavior.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.1    2 months ago
as I have no grey area to get lost in,

why?

I believe that grey area is just a place where people can distance themselves from personal responsibility for their actions.

there is no middle ground between doing the right thing (good) and the wrong thing (evil)

middle ground can only be found in how to do the right thing. or the wrong thing if one is truly evil.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
17.3.7  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.2    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.8  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.3.4    2 months ago
What if the mother can't afford another child, or even prenatal care? Is abortion selfish?

absolutely.

in that world? I would have been aborted. my mother could not afford any of the above. but, she was not selfish or evil so she struggled thru. many nights she did not eat so we could. we lived in basements because she could not afford to pay rent. I used to stop behind the grocery store and check the dumpster for food every day after school in the 1st - 4th grades

she took personal responsibility for her actions and that is how we were raised as well.

the result? I grew up, bought her a house and financially support her retirement in full as well.

that said I also believe our society should do better with support and adoptions.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3    2 months ago
And yet we live in a world where there is nothing but something between good and evil.

Is there no difference between terrorists who behead prisoners and those who combat them?

Much of what people do is not morally neutral. Evil wins when good people hide their eyes.

Abortion. Good or evil? Can you define that issue in simple terms?

Abortion is not a simple topic... primarily because people persist in saying things that are irrelevant or untrue... to the point that reasoned conversation has become impossible.

(I suspect that many people subvert abortion discussions, because they're embarrassed by how little they understand their own position.)

Complexity does not justify fence-sitting. If my conclusion is "I'm not sure", then I have different possibilities. I may learn more; enough to acquire a valid opinion. I may stay unsure, if the effort of learning isn't worthwhile.

If I don't know enough to have a valid opinion, then I should not express any opinion at all. That is not at all the same as fence-sitting. "I don't know" is not the same as "both sides do it".

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @17.3.7    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.3.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.8    2 months ago
she took personal responsibility for her actions and that is how we were raised as well.

I guess we see that differently.  IMO, abortion in such a situation is also taking responsibility and not selfish.  Having and raising children one can't afford is not.

I also believe our society should do better with support and adoptions.

Agreed.

I grew up, bought her a house and financially support her retirement in full as well.

Well done.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.12  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.8    2 months ago

I can understand your point of view. it's personal. What about the man who got your mother pregnant? Was he around? if not, why do men not share responsibility? Why must women be victims of their biology?

The thing about my POV, is that if there is no mind, there is no person. An aborted fetus doesn't know the difference. So while you wouldn't be here (apparently you are happy to be here, despite the tough childhood), you also wouldn't have known the difference. I take a "do no harm" attitude about this. 

But being that you know of your possible non-existence, I can respect your POV. 

Fair enough?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.12    2 months ago

im not sure it is as personal to me as ya might think.

personal as in,

I know the argument of no money is a complete bullshit excuse to abort a child?  of course.

yes, im happy to be here and would not notice if I never was here. that's true enough.

but my mother? would she not know she killed her kids? would she be as happy now if my sister or I was not here?  and her grandkids? her great grandkids?  I would say my mother's decision was very wise indeed. the long game rules.

what about all the accomplishments aborted kids could have given to society as a whole? 

they say if your going thru hell, just keep walking. rewards await on the other side.

my mother was not selfish, she paid dearly to keep us alive and then was rewarded in the end.

bottom line.

the human resource being thrown in the trash and scrapped is amazing...  


honestly and most sincerely,  I find the human race actually kind of pathetic. but I'm on a mission,  and luckily in about 30yrs  I rotate outta here and am not coming back.

  

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.14  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.9    2 months ago

First of all "Fence sitting" is an insulting term. You don't take a position for the sake of taking one. Sometimes we feel forced to take a position only to regret it later. So if I am not willing to take a position, it is from a thoughtful POV and not because of indifference, which is what you are implying. 

Is there no difference between terrorists who behead prisoners and those who combat them?

By the very definition of the word, terrorist are terrorist. I see no difference if their tactics are terrorism. War is different. It is declared and used to have rules of engagement.

Much of what people do isnotmorally neutral. Evil wins when good people hide their eyes.

I disagree. If I see a hungry child steal some food, should I report her? She is stealing. 

But I do agree that when there is true evil people should not hide their eyes. 

Abortion is froth with ambiguity and ethical dilemmas and it is because it is so multi-dimensional. 

btw.. for the record, my discussion with you will end if you don't stop using the term fence-sitting. Just FYI

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.15  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.13    2 months ago
but my mother? would she not know she killed her kids? would she be as happy now if I was not here?  

See, that is a very loaded question. Since I don't view a fetus as a child, I don't view it as killing. Killing is when there is a child present. When I was pregnant with my twin daughters, I went through hell and high water to keep them in me, since they wanted to come at 23 weeks and they probably wouldn't have made it. At 23 weeks, they are babies. I would never even consider aborting one to save the other (an option I was given), as I felt it was wrong. 

You were lucky that things turned out the way they did with you and your mom. When I taught, I saw a whole different story where children were had unwanted and abused. Life is an individual trip and we tend to see it from that perspective.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.15    2 months ago
Since I don't view a fetus as a child

I agree. a fetus is not a child, but both are part of "the human life cycle".

"the human life cycle" starts at conception. ask any biologist.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=human+life+cycle+starts&FORM=AWRE

 regardless of what words one calls the zygote, artificially ending that human life cycle is taking life.   as  "the human life cycle" always ends in the death of a human.  regardless how far it has developed.


C'est la vie  and  C’est la mort

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.17  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.16    2 months ago

While I agree it is part of the life cycle, it is often done by one's own body. That is also part of the life cycle. A potential human does not make a human. Cancer has a life cycle but none of us want to complete it ( and no I am not calling fetuses cancers). But a mass of cells and a human are two different things at least to me.

But you see, here we are talking. We don't agree with each other, but I think there is a level of respect going on. Am I wrong?

btw, I like your C'est La Vie  And  C’est La Mort

Makes me think of this video:

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.14    2 months ago
First of all "Fence sitting" is an insulting term.

Not in my vocabulary, but I will avoid it.

You don't take a position for the sake of taking one.

OK, but in that case, the appropriate words are "I don't know". Not "both sides do it" or somesuch.

which is what you are implying.

STOP THAT!! You do not know what I am thinking. You have no right to imagine stuff and then blame me for it.

If I say something, then I'll assume responsibility for it. If you imagine it, then you take responsibility.

By the very definition of the word, terrorist are terrorist.

My bad. My sentence could be misconstrued. I meant "Is there no difference between terrorists who behead prisoners and the soldiers who combat them?"

Much of what people do is not morally neutral
I disagree.

Your "hungry child thief" is an excellent example. She is a thief, and that is wrong. She is hungry, an attenuating circumstance for the consequences. There is no reason not to have an opinion on the case.

Abortion is indeed ambiguous... because some people do everything they can to muddy the waters. The facts are straightforward, if people are capable of staying on the subject. That behavior is either intellectual incompetence or intellectual dishonesty.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.19  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.17    2 months ago
Cancer has a life cycle but none of us want to complete it

 comparing humans to cancer...  uh, I can't even relate to that. 

I reckon this must be the source of our competing views.

let's investigate this line a tad bit further,

  • do humans have the same value as cancer?

I think humans have more value than cancer, plants, and every animal on earth combined. . perhaps this is where I went wrong?

my new theory in life.

save the whales, they are important, but humans? abort.. abort.. LOL

im callin impasse....

good fun, seriously :)

 

 

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.20  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.19    2 months ago

Majic 8 said:

Cancer has a life cycle but none of us want to complete it
 comparing humans to cancer...  uh, I can't even relate to that. 

But Perrie said:

no I am not calling fetuses cancers

Because I saw that coming. My point is that just because something has a life cycle doesn't mean that there is something wrong with disturbing it. 

I am not sure if humans have more value. Without all plants and every animal, we could not exist. So how does one measure value?

save the whales, they are important, but people? fuk em... LOL

Was that a joke? I hope so. I was feeling rather hopeful about this discussion.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.3.21  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.20    2 months ago
I was feeling rather hopeful about this discussion.

me too and I learned a lot. no doubt.

I had never before understood that the abortion debate boils down to what value one places on human life.  aka the human life cycle  it is so obvious now.   in the past id always had the religion vs science perspective. yadda yadda. yoda. that never yielded any results.

so now I have to process this new perspective... before I have a conversation like that again.   seems simple enough.  again, I blame it on the paint chips I ate as a kid.. I'm a little slow.

but I do try :)

 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
17.3.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.21    2 months ago
what value one places on human life.

Those who are pro-choice allow for the life of the mother as well, and those of her other dependent children.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.23  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.21    2 months ago
I had never before understood that the abortion debate boils down to what value one places on human life.  aka the human life cycle  it is so obvious now. 

Exactly. I place a lot of value to the quality of human life. But for me, it is not the "life cycle" but the human at the end of the process. 

But for some, it is a religious thing. I don't mess around in most religious discussions since they are usually so much more emotional, and emotions are hard to understand. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.24  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @17.3.22    2 months ago

Exactly. 

I know that life is a crapshoot, but I would like to try and bring a child into this world with the best possible outcome that I can give them. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.25  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.18    2 months ago
OK, but in that case, the appropriate words are "I don't know". Not "both sides do it" or somesuch.

Sometimes both sides do, do it and other times it's "I don't know". There is no absolutes when it comes to answers like this.

which is what you are implying.

STOP THAT!! You do not know what I am thinking. You haveno righttoimaginestuff and then blame me for it.

If I say something, then I'll assume responsibility for it. If youimagineit, thenyoutake responsibility.

OK maybe implying is the wrong word, (albeit it does exist in the English language for a reason), but you are taking one word and turning it into much more than I intended. 

My bad. My sentence could be misconstrued. I meant "Is there no difference between terrorists who behead prisoners and the soldiers who combat them?"

Of course, there is. Although they both are killing one is the killing of the innocent and the other is the killing of killers. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.25    2 months ago
You don't take a position for the sake of taking one.
OK, but in that case, the appropriate words are "I don't know". Not "both sides do it" or somesuch.
Sometimes both sides do, do it...

C'mon Perrie... that's not coherent. If you "don't take a position", then you can't say "both sides do it", which would be taking a position. Saying "I don't know enough to have a valid opinion" is perfectly respectable.

This is important. Saying "both sides do it" is taking a position. The speaker either means "both sides do it to roughly the same extent"...or the speaker knows full well that it is not to the same extent, and is being intellectually dishonest.

you are taking one word and turning it into much more than I intended.

Since you do not refer to any particular instance, I cannot defend myself... but I beg you to ask questions rather than presume that I am evil. I'm not.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
17.3.27  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.18    2 months ago
OK, but in that case, the appropriate words are "I don't know". Not "both sides do it" or somesuch.

Okay again.

When speaking in terms of left vs right tendencies in the total perspective, what has one side done that the other hasn't?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.28  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.26    2 months ago

Bob,

I didn't say that saying both sides do it, isn't taking a position. What I said was sometimes both sides do it is the right answer, sometimes I don't know is OK too. There is no need to lecture me on the difference. 

but Ibegyou toask questionsrather than presume that I am evil. I'm not.

Whoa! You get upset when I use the word "implying" and then turn around and accuse me of presuming you are evil. Where did I say that? I can answer that question. I didn't.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.28    2 months ago
Where did I say that?

Every time you "know what I'm thinking", you "know" that it's something underhanded. Never anything nice. I've become paranoid.

 
 
 
Krishna
17.3.30  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3    2 months ago
Example: Abortion. Good or evil? Can you define that issue in simple terms? I can't. 

Trump didn't have that problem-- he took a stand (after a bit of twisting and turning and trying to avoid answering the question):

Trump: Women should be punished for having an abortion

 
 
 
Greg Jones
17.3.31  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3    2 months ago

I have no problems with early abortions. As early as possible.

I have a big problem with an abortion if the fetus can live outside the womb, or can feel pain. 

Any abortion after that point is irresponsible and in my opinion, criminal.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.10    2 months ago

I agree that this was off-topic... but I wonder why you've allowed the preceding post to stand:

comment removed for context [ph]

Well... no. I don't really wonder.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.3.33  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.32    2 months ago

Actually, no one flagged it. I will be removing it now. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
17.3.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.3.33    2 months ago
Actually, no one flagged it.

That's interesting. I infer a couple of things. Please tell me if they're wrong.

1 Someone flagged my Reply... but not the post to which I Replied.

2 You deleted my Reply... without looking at whatever provoked it.

 
 
 
Krishna
17.3.35  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.3.1    2 months ago
  • aborting a fetus because of physical danger to the mother? good
  • aborting a fetus for selfish reasons other than the above?  evil

my friends have often accused me of lacking any "grey area"

and that's what makes me predictable

Well, if that's what you believe, there could still be a gray area in some cases. (There have been cases where doctors disagreed whether or not there was a danger to the mother...)

 
 
 
dave-2693993
17.3.36  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @17.3.2    2 months ago

Stupid question.

Yet, unfortunately, I can understand the need for such questions at times.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @17    2 months ago
There is no "moderate" position between good and evil.

like a muddy spring, are those who give way to the wicked. (useless)

defining the difference between good and evil requires one to know the difference between manners and morals.

a seemingly nice person with good manners can be a monster, and a cranky old man yelling "get off my yard" could be the most moral person ya ever met. would never cheat, steal, or harm the innocent or the helpless, yet, he does have bad manners.

 
 
 
Krishna
17.4.1  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.4    2 months ago

a seemingly nice person with good manners can be a monster, and a cranky old man yelling "get off my yard" could be the most moral person ya ever met. would never cheat, steal, or harm the innocent or the helpless, yet, he does have bad manners.

Oh course you are entitled to your opinion. However, IMO the man yelling "get off my yard" in many circumstances would not be exhibiting bad manners.

(In fact in many cases that might be a gray area).

 
 
 
TᵢG
17.5  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @17    2 months ago
Refusing to take sides is not a virtue. There is no "moderate" position between good and evil.

Who says one side is 'good' and the other 'evil'?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
17.5.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @17.5    2 months ago
Who says one side is 'good' and the other 'evil'?

I am so glad you said that. The idea that political positions have absolutes is one of our biggest problems. More often than not, a position is taken in good faith, just like those who take the opposite position. Most ideas are shades of gray and many have unforeseen outcomes. So to say that people are actively choosing a position of good or evil is a false dichotomy. 

 
 
 
Krishna
17.5.2  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @17.5    2 months ago
Who says one side is 'good' and the other 'evil'?

People who are not moderates....???

 
 
 
Krishna
17.5.3  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.5.1    2 months ago
So to say that people are actively choosing a position of good or evil is a false dichotomy. 

Its an over-generalization. ("people are"...).

Some are, some aren't.

I have known people who have chosen a position of "good". 

(For some folks its a natural, unthinking reaction. For others it might require some thinking on the issues before deciding which to chose).

 
 
 
Ender
19  Ender    2 months ago

(comment to auto join)  Pretty sneaky sis. (wonder if anyone will get the reference)

IMO if people turn on you for your point of view, they were either never listening or not a very good friend to begin with.

I have very good friends and some acquaintances that have very different views from myself. We usually know where the other stands on certain issues. One guy likes to argue politics when drinking, I just laugh it off.

Through it all we are still friends and get along and can have fun with activities and life in general.

The difference is a forum like this is very impersonal. I think a lot of times people either forget or don't care that there is another actual human on the other end. Maybe someone that they could sit down with and have a good meal or a drink or maybe even a toke or two.

I admit I have been and can be snarky, snippy, depending on my mood, but I do realize that everyone can say what they think or feel. One thing I like about a place like here is that there are different views. It would be boring if everyone thought the same.

All in all, I do thank you Perrie. For allowing this and putting up with all of us. I know you probably wonder why at times, but myself, I do appreciate it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @19    2 months ago

Ender,

A most excellent post! I would like to highlight this:

The difference is a forum like this is very impersonal. I think a lot of times people either forget or don't care that there is another actual human on the other end. Maybe someone that they could sit down with and have a good meal or a drink or maybe even a toke or two.

So true!

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
19.1.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @19.1    2 months ago

I have a nickname for Indies.

 
 
 
Ender
19.1.2  Ender  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @19.1.1    2 months ago

The Smashing Pumpkins?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @19.1.1    2 months ago

Do I want to know?

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
19.1.4  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @19.1.3    2 months ago

Probably not, mark it down, badfish held his tongue for a change.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
19.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @19.1.4    2 months ago
badfish held his tongue for a change.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
19.1.6  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Raven Wing @19.1.5    2 months ago

I think evolution finally caught up with me.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.1.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @19.1.6    2 months ago

Well, I guess you did! A round of applause. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
20  TᵢG    2 months ago

Political parties are what enable career politicians and various forms of corruption (including the consolidation of power by party leadership).    Unfortunately there is no getting rid of parties since they naturally form in any political environment (the first two parties: Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists organically emerged).   Parties form based on ideological similarities but then organize to wield power (and this is where things go sour).

Simply voting D or R is easy.   If one holds that a particular party is 'net better' one can simply vote straight ticket to give that party as much power as possible.   No need to research the candidates because whoever is elected is more likely than not a rubber-stamp vote in support of the leadership of the preferred party.   Worse still, if one is aligned with a particular party then voting for candidates who best support one's positions on issues is counter-productive because that could lead to voting for a candidate with the wrong letter next to the name and thus reducing the power of the preferred party.

Truly independent voters ignore parties and focus on the issues and the candidates.   The independent vote goes to the candidate who best fits the desires of the independent voter.   This is often a complicated decision since there are various factors including, indeed, some consideration for the balance of party power.   It also takes time, more time than the average voter is willing to spend.

The majority of voters in the USA seem to be partisan - vote almost exclusively by party.   This is evidenced statistically and by how people behave in forums such as NT.   People seem to presume a party affiliation based on the position an individual takes on the issue under discussion.   Take abortion for example:  one who defends a woman's right to make such decisions is presumed to be a D;  one who speaks for the unborn is presumed to be an R.    If in a particular discussion an independent trends towards one side of the issue (for that discussion) those who disagree will deem the independent to be the enemy (one of ‘them’).   This tends to stick over time with the result of the independent being deemed one of ‘them’ by all partisans:

  • Position:  Pro standardizing medical system and providing national economies of scale
    Results:   Rs deem the independent as a D (one of ‘them’)
  • Position:  Pro smaller, limited government and fiscal responsibility
    Results:   Ds deem the independent as an R (one of ‘them’)

Net result is that both major partisans (D and R) deem the independent to be aligned with the 'other side'.  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Worse, some partisans purposely demean independent thinkers by labeling them as 'playing it safe', 'indecisive', 'wishy-washy', 'moderate', etc.    Most likely this is to justify (in a manner) their own partisanship by pretending that deriving a position based on individual issues and candidates -dealing with the nuances- is somehow weaker / inferior than voting based on the letter next to the name.

That said, there is nothing wrong with favoring one party over the other.   Even though the parties are nearly indistinguishable in terms of the value (or lack thereof) they actually deliver for the American people, there remain philosophical differences that engender party loyalty.    What is missing, IMO, is genuine objective research and decision making on the part of the electorate.   We, the electorate, appear to vote based on ignorance, single-issue and/or party.   Voting based on emotional 'feel', expedience, tradition, ease, etc. yields power to the parties and we can all see the political system that results.   

 
 
 
CB
20.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @20    2 months ago
That said, there is nothing wrong with favoring one party over the other.   Even though the parties are nearly indistinguishable in terms of the value (or lack thereof) they actually deliver for the American people, there remain philosophical difference that engender party loyalty. What is missing, IMO, is genuine objective research and decision making on the part of the electorate.   We, the electorate, appear to vote based on ignorance, single-issue and/or party.   Voting based on emotional 'feel', expedience, tradition, ease, etc. yields power to the parties and we can all see the political system that results.   

Okay Tig, i will take a deeper dive if only because nobody else has carried the conversation forward. Voters vote what is important to them. The whole concept of one-'man'-one vote is designed to give the individual a chance to gather as a collective  locally and nationally, that will push the country in its direction.

Like everything else in like that is successful as an enterprise, the two-party system for voting in this country, has become lavish and bejeweled with inter-generationally, because both opposing sides actively conduct themselves as institutions having a certain way of looking at the world. Therein lies the "yin-yang" effect. As Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals revolve around an axis with consistent successes in drawing in to themselves  the policies which galvanize the hearts and minds of this country, there have always been independents using their ability to move (for whatever reasons) from yin to yang and vice-versa. Majorly, this 'movement' is constructive and liberating—which is what a free society wants in it political parties.

For independents, problems in being active arise, as I see it, when one political party in a two-party system makes grand moves to topple its other. Then, what should, and what becomes, of the independent voter mindset? Is s/he thrown into policy discordance? Is s/he compelled to inject the consuming political  party with its vote? Or, as the two political "heavy-weights" are grinding it out on the mat should independents take a pass? Should independents look at the foundational views of both parties and make a rock solid choice?

As to the 'thinking man and woman voter' s/he is overwhelmed by Washington D.C.  think-tanks, lobbyists, and a multiplicity of other institutions which have risen up for purposes of misleading and steering voters into and away from understanding the politics of the day.

Just some thoughts put out.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @20.1    2 months ago

Hi CB,

I don't mean to jump into yours and Tig's discussion but I would like to make two comments if you don't mind. (OK, how can you say no, when I've done it, LOL!)

Voters vote what is important to them. The whole concept of one-'man'-one vote is designed to givethe individual a chance to gather as acollective locally and nationally, that will push the country in its direction.

Independents vote issues (what is important to them), partisans vote ideology. And really it is not one man, one vote. The electoral college makes sure of that. We have representational voting in the US, not popular vote. 

For independents, problems in being active arise, as I see it, when one political party in a two-party system makes grand moves to topple its other. Then, what should, and what becomes, of the independent voter mindset? Is s/he thrown into policy discordance?

That is the exact problem. Since we don't even have a third party, we are forced to chose, and more often than not, our choice is a huge compromise of the things we hold important or the candidate themselves. For instance, I think Trump is awful. I also think that Sanders and Warren are, too. In that given case, who do I vote for? I really am hoping that things improve soon.

 
 
 
CB
20.1.2  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.1    2 months ago

Of course I do not mind you sharing, Perrie!

Of course, it goes without saying that the electoral college can override the vote of the people. My point is this, where voters are concerned, we're trying desperately to make some type of impact on this society—positive, negative, or indifferent.  What else can we do?

What else can we do? I repeat the question, because we have a current president that is damaging the good name and reputation of this country. I would like to ask independent voters, where do you stand on having "a good name"? What is that worth to you internally and as you travel the world?

How many times do you (all) tell your children to seek a 'higher calling' wherever it can be discovered? President Donald Trump is manipulating the 'soul' of this country. Which one of us is obligated to stop him with the only means we have at our disposal - our vote?

Some of the democratic candidates messages and policies I still do not practically understand. For those persons, I am a watcher. A "wait and see-er." However, Bernie Sanders just stepped up his game - he has tested the message 'fire' from FOX NEWS in a town hall! What happens if he ignites a kindle in some conservative soul? How about if the other candidates cease the day and go across the 'front' too?

Maybe, this kind of politics odd and daring as it is, is interesting to independents? It sure caught me off-guard, I'll admit. After reflection, today, I love it! it is very good 'they' are trying to communicate across lines again!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
20.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.1    2 months ago
And really it is not one man, one vote. The electoral college makes sure of that.

Nowadays, if you live in a big city you get just three fifths of a vote on average. If you live in a secluded rural mountain town in Montana you get the equivalent of nearly three whole votes for every Presidential election cycle. And what are the odds that if you're a minority you are living in the city versus living in rural Montana? It's pretty much a certainty. If you're a minority, you were likely born in and grew up in an urban area, and once again you've been relegated to three fifths status, this time by the archaic and prejudiced electoral college. Now the original three fifths compromise was at first suggested due to Southern States not wanting to count slaves as a whole person when used as a measure for how much the States should pay in taxes. Then later the South wanted slaves to count as a full person for calculating how many legislative representatives each State would receive even though the slaves were not allowed to vote. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had only 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. At some point we're going to have to realize that all the compromises and electoral college shenanigans have only ever been created to protect a white male patriarchy and are no longer acceptable in todays diverse America.

"For instance, I think Trump is awful. I also think that Sanders and Warren are, too. In that given case, who do I vote for?"

While some ideas Warren and Sanders have expressed are pie in the sky, at least they aren't the kind of mobster slime like Trump so I think for most Americans, that wouldn't be that tough of a choice and I think they'd choose Warren if just given those three choices. I don't think it's going to come to that however. I think Democrats will eventually settle on someone who can bring the party together, attract independents and not alienate too many centrists or far left tree huggers. The "Goldilocks" candidate as it were. I'm not sure who they are yet, but the opportunity is there just like it was for a young Barack Obama back in 2007 as he started his campaign and was a relative unknown.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
20.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @20.1.3    2 months ago
Now the original three fifths compromise was at first suggested due to Southern States not wanting to count slaves as a whole person when used as a measure for how much the States should pay in taxes. Then later the South wanted slaves to count as a full person for calculating how many legislative representatives each State would receive even though the slaves were not allowed to vote.

In other words, the South (once again) wanted to have its cake and eat it, too.

I find myself going back and forth on the issue of the electoral college. Some like Colour makes a really good argument for keeping it (see below) and you make a really good argument for eliminating it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
20.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @20.1    2 months ago
For independents, problems in being active arise, as I see it, when one political party in a two-party system makes grand moves to topple its other. Then, what should, and what becomes, of the independent voter mindset?

Independents vote based on the circumstances as opposed to simply voting based on party.   But as I noted in my comment, one of the considerations at times will be the balance of power.   For an independent, all factors can be considered, weighed and an appropriate vote determined.    So if balance of power becomes a dominant factor there is certainly nothing stopping an independent from voting to shore up the weaker party.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.1.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.1    2 months ago
In that given case, who do I vote for? I really am hoping that things improve soon.

Totally agree.

 
 
 
CB
20.1.7  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @20.1.3    2 months ago

Believe it or not, Pete Buttigieg is a Rhode scholar and sounds really good in interviews at this stage. Also, "newcomer" Andrew Yang is a swell interview too! Both so new and old so different. Then, there are the women—haven't taken my chance to hear them interview yet.

 
 
 
Krishna
20.1.8  Krishna  replied to  CB @20.1    2 months ago
i will take a deeper dive if only because nobody else has carried the conversation forward

Thanks for the compliment! :-)

 
 
 
Krishna
20.1.9  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.1.1    2 months ago

 I think Trump is awful. I also think that Sanders and Warren are, too. In that given case, who do I vote for?

Pete Buttagieg.

 
 
 
Krishna
20.1.10  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @20.1.8    2 months ago
i will take a deeper dive if only because nobody else has carried the conversation forward
Thanks for the compliment!

(That was sarcasm)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @20    2 months ago
The majority of voters in the USA seem to be partisan - vote almost exclusively by party.   This is evidenced statistically and by how people behave in forums such as NT. 

I would have to disagree with you. From a recent Pew article:

Among the public overall, 38% describe themselves as independents, while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2018. These shares have changed only modestly in recent years, but the proportion of independents is higher than it was from 2000-2008, when no more than about a third of the public identified as independents.

An overwhelming majority of independents (81%) continue to “lean” toward either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Among the public overall, 17% are Democratic-leaning independents, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party. Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both byPew Research Centerandothers.

https://www.people-press.org/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

So there are less hardcore party people and mostly those who lean but are not committed. I think that this is important and why a group like this, has so much potential. It is in the discussion of ideas that people may come to a different conclusion then they would have if left to their own devices. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
20.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.2    2 months ago

I'm a registered Democrat but could be convinced to vote for a Republican if I think that's the better candidate.

 
 
 
CB
20.2.2  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @20.2.1    2 months ago

"Stay democrat, my friend." ~ Most Interesting Man In The World, Dos Equis Debonair Spokesman. /s

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
20.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @20.2.2    2 months ago

If a decent republican primaries trump and the democrats don't put out the best candidate, you never know who I might vote for

 
 
 
CB
20.2.4  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @20.2.3    2 months ago

You're do fine, my dear. For the record, I am not opposed to republicanism, per se. I simply must detest and protest when 'the whole head is sick' and the body is absent from rushing aid and correction to the top! When I see a place to approve of republican policies, I will wholeheartedly speak up and say so, too! Democrats have 'captured' my heart because I am close to the spirit of the party's diversity.

Even so, I am being compelled forward by the 'next generation' idea (put forward by the democrats) that today's status quo can be rocked by two married men>>sleeping in a White House bedchamber. How is that for diversity and change?

Also, and I have mentioned this before, the first term of George Walker Bush I voted for him, because as a veteran I was pissed that Bill Clinton acted improperly in his role of Commander-in-Chief over the services by 'having' that woman on the seat of power. It was a swerve I didn't see coming. Of course, Bush allowed Cheney to swerve us into what we now know to be a rank lie: War with Iraq. As you rightly can imagine I did not vote for Bush the second term. At this moment, I do not remember if I voted at all that season! Memories. . .

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
20.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @20.2.4    2 months ago

You're a good man, Cal

 
 
 
r.t..b...
20.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.2    2 months ago
I think that this is important and why a group like this, has so much potential.

As the fringe elements of both major parties drive the debate, have the infrastructure in place to maintain their hold, and put forward candidates to satisfy their respective agenda, I'm afraid the status quo may last another cycle. Each side pivots further left or right in a self-serving effort to diminish the opposition while the actual majority is once again left voiceless. Hopefully the ugly, bitter, juvenile dysfunction will eventually reach a point where a viable alternative will gain some traction. It will take an articulate, common sense candidate with an eye toward building bridges to span the vast divide amongst us rather than accept the continual feeding of the beast. We've become too comfortable in cannibalizing one another, unwilling to acknowledge we are all dining at the same table.

 
 
 
TᵢG
20.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.2    2 months ago
... while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans

31% + 26% is 57%.   I checked with Pew before writing my post.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
20.2.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @20.2.7    2 months ago
31% + 26% is 57%.   I checked with Pew before writing my post.

Tig I think you missed my point. If there was an "Independent Party" it would be the largest party at 43%. But even just as they are, they are the single largest voting block. That is why candidates spend so much time on swing states. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
20.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.2.8    2 months ago

You disagreed with my posit that the majority of voters seem to be partisan.    Per Pew, the partisans (non independents) are still the majority.

43% vs. 57%

My point never was that independents have a small voice but rather that there are still a ton of partisan thinkers in the electorate.

 
 
 
Krishna
20.2.10  Krishna  replied to  CB @20.2.2    2 months ago
Stay democrat, my friend." ~ Most Interesting Man In The World, Dos Equis Debonair Spokesman. /s

I rarely vote, but when I do....

(Stay partisan my friend!)

 
 
 
Krishna
20.2.11  Krishna  replied to  Trout Giggles @20.2.3    2 months ago
If a decent republican primaries trump

I had thought no Republican would challenge trump, but last night I heard that Weld is going to run against him in the primary.  IMO he has close to zero chance of winning. (However it will give him a platform fgor telling the truth about Trump...)

On Monday, Bill Weld, the Republican former governor of Massachusetts, confirmed that he is challenging Donald Trump in the 2020 G.O.P. primary, thereby insuring that Trump will be the first Oval Office occupant since 1992 to face a primary challenge. 

 
 
 
Krishna
20.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @20.2.8    2 months ago
That is why candidates spend so much time on swing states. 

Actually that is not the reason.

Swing states are called swing states (or "battleground states")because the vote there can swing the election. Why? because in the election a "swing state" could swing the either way-- so it can impact the election.

In non-swing states, its a certaintly (or almost a certainty) that they can't swing the presidential election. States like California. MA, Hawaii, etc actually have no power to swing the election (the general election for president). Why? because its almost a certainty the Dems will carry the state. So ironically, in a sense Californians are wasting their vote in a presidential (general) election!

(Although their votes have impact in elections for statewide office and presidential primaries).

Similarly, states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, etc are not swing states because its almost a 100% certainty they will go Republican.

But a swing state (one that could easily go either way) might have more Independents-- but not necessarily.. Rather, its possible to be a swing state if there's  an even number of Republicans and Democrats.(or close to even) . In the past states like Ohio and Florida were amongst the most hotly contested states-- there are a few others.

 
 
 
CB
20.2.13  CB   replied to  Krishna @20.2.10    2 months ago

I am not partisan per se. What I am is decided! I speak truth to all the good guys and the 'knuckeheads' besides. What I have never been able to stomach in life is manipulative, gross, abusive liars, or those who make excuses for the same. I have watched the hearing and I can tell you this, some democrats (who happen to be liberals) are asking for plain-language answers and some Republicans (who happen to be conservatives) are covering up for the man at the top—who is literally telling us all to do as he says and not as he does.  Rules are for "saps."

There is no confusion here, Trump is a truly dangerous man and should not be running this nation and by extension leading the world.

What some Republicans did to former President Obama who lifted this nation out of its deep 2008 recession and delivered a prospering nation to Donald Trump. was totally wrong. I can prove it, because some conservatives (republicans) were like biting insects for all eight years of the Obama Administration and have quieted their 'stings' since Trump entered office.

So being decided and not double-minded about who is doing what I consider appropriate for the human experience in this country, letting diversity thrive amf  sparkle like a symbolic diamond, is nothing to make me ashamed.

 
 
 
Krishna
20.3  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @20    2 months ago
Political parties are what enable career politicians and various forms of corruption (including the consolidation of power by party leadership).    Unfortunately there is no getting rid of parties since they naturally form in any political environment (the first two parties: Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists organically emerged).   Parties form based on ideological similarities but then organize to wield power (and this is where things go sour).

Someone once said:

Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely

And its even worse when people not only talk about it, but actually take acton based on thaeir views....

 
 
 
CB
21  CB     2 months ago

As we approach the next election cycle I am sure I will become harder and harder to understand. It always happens.


I do not agree with everything anybody says on or off the internet. That's just life. However, what is the 'saturation point' for a sitting president in the lying to the people department? What is the 'magic' number which gets everybody onboard to a guy or gal being gross? What the heaven are we signaling to children in our homes when we parade a gratuitous liar around a our 'champion' whom we can't decide if he is good or not for the country?

Donald Trump has used intimidation to push every other republican who is not a gross liar off the 'docket' for 2020. Largely, Trump has 'taken control' over the Republican 2020 ticket. 

So what is to decide?

  1. When has it ever been a matter of wisdom to reelect a gross liar to any job?
  2. When Trump lies again after you help elect him, and the issue goes poorly all-round, what can you say: I knew you were going to do that?
  3. When thinking of President Donald Trump does the word, "wholesome" come to mind?

When did it become a positive and not a negative to let a leader in the United States run on a 'ticket' of lies, lies, and more lies?

Damn it, American Independents stand for something wholesome, if you can get it in 2020, and you bet that won't be President Donald Trump!

As Maya Angelo put it, "When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time.”

Unless you like what you see in them, that is!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @21    2 months ago

You ask a good question CB and I am at a loss. Trump sucks. But the dems better come up with someone other than Sanders or Warren, because I don't believe they can win the independent vote, due to how the indie vote breaks out with the information given in this post #20.2  

 
 
 
CB
21.1.1  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.1    2 months ago

I just got to ask. If push came to shove, would you vote for Donald J. Trump knowing what you do now about this man? He has turned government on it head in three years time! He lies profusely. He befriends, "enemies of the state," he 'lawyers up' to fight Trump battles and is open about nothing regarding himself. I could go on with my critiques.

Please take your time with this one. . . .

Because when I say someone "sucks" I have truly deep and abiding feelings about it. It is a tough question and maybe you should not answer it. I don't know, Perrie. I don't know.

BTW, when I vote I see all party candidates on my ballot. That said I do not choose the republican candidates, because they support this lying president (I've seen the congressional hearings of 2017-present). They are on the ballot I receive. Years ago, I told a friend I was changing my ballot to democrat only - just never got around to doing so. So, I left it as it is. I make the call for democrats. Each. And every. Time.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.1    2 months ago

Go third party if the Dems can't come up with a viable candidate. I won't blame you. Of course, trmp will get re-elected, but really I won't be mad

I really won't. :)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
21.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @21.1.1    2 months ago
I just got to ask. If push came to shove, would you vote for Donald J. Trump knowing what you do now about this man?
Although the question was not directed at me, I will gladly vote again for him than any democrat, who are taking this country completely in the wrong direction.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
21.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.2    2 months ago
I won't blame you. Of course, trmp will get re-elected, but really I won't be mad I really won't. jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

Don't say that in public. Someone might throw a net over you. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @21.1.4    2 months ago

I probably need that net

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.1.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.2    2 months ago

LOL.. Guess what trout, I live in NY. Even if I voted for Howdie Doodie it wouldn't make a difference. It just pisses me off, since I would like to vote for someone that means something to me. 

 
 
 
CB
21.1.7  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.2    2 months ago

Trout G', my question to Perrie may have been a bit forward and I admit I felt I had nowhere else to go with it. It would not bother me in the least if she did not deal with it on its face.

I would like to offer a different standard.  A different test. Moreover, I am not sure Senator John McCain meant it to be such. 'The McCain Test.'

The major policy vote Senator McCain took before going home to die, was on the 'ACA.' In doing so, he made the clear distinction of being the 'discoverable' vote by being the last member of his party to do so. Under the stare and pleading eyes of Senator Mitch McConnell, staunch republican and staunch Trump supporter, John McCain decidedly denied President Trump the 'thing' he wanted most: to embarrass, humiliate, and shame a former president—even though he had nothing in reserve to counterbalance the pain and misery that would befall the people. Senator John McCain became a hero to many and for the record book of republicanism. Though many republicans today can't see down the annals of time to when- republicans will again cheer such fair treatment of 'good order and discipline' in a crisis event/moment.

The question for us (me included) goes like this: 'The McCain Test.'

Q. If the 2020 election is the last time I get to vote in a U.S. election, would I wish Donald J. Trump upon the people of the United States as my last political act?

That is the question! Remember President Trump promises to doggedly pursuit and 'slaughter' the ACA after his 2020 election victory.

 
 
 
CB
21.1.8  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @21.1.4    2 months ago

HA!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.1.6    2 months ago
I live in NY. Even if I voted for Howdie Doodie it wouldn't make a difference

See? There ya go!

But I understand

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @21.1.7    2 months ago

I can't vote for trmp, never ever. And since I live in a deep red state, I can't go third party. So whoever the democrats hold up in 2020 I will just have to hold my nose and vote for the dem....like I did in 2016

 
 
 
CB
21.1.11  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @21.1.3    2 months ago

Well, since for you the question is settled. Lies, lies, and lies on top of that simply don't matter to you. Let's hope Trump in a second term does not lie about administration plans to use/not use nuclear weapons! After all, lying at his level is compulsory.

 
 
 
Krishna
21.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.1    2 months ago
But the dems better come up with someone other than Sanders or Warren,

Yep-- they have only come up with two candidates so far-- Sanders and Warren. 

You might be right-- if we had a multi-party system we might be able to get other people to run because there'd be many parties- for example just a few names off the top of my head as it were:  Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris, or Amy Klobuchar. Or even people like Julian Castro, or Jay Inslee, or Andrew Yang might run

Or perhaps someone like Beto O'Rouke, Cory Booker, or  Kirsten Gillibrand, ..even maybe people like John Hickenlooper, Pete Buttagieg, John Delaney...or Tulsi Gabbard. Then we'd have a real choice.!

But unfortunately, due to our undemocratic two party system, the only alternatives we have to Trump are Bernie Sanders-- and Elizabeth Warren!

    .

 
 
 
Krishna
21.1.13  Krishna  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.1.10    2 months ago

But you do have some power to influence the outcome-- you can vote in the Democratic primary.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
21.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @21.1.13    2 months ago

And I will be voting

 
 
 
Jack_TX
21.2  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @21    2 months ago
Donald Trump has used intimidation to push every other republican who is not a gross liar off the 'docket' for 2020. Largely, Trump has 'taken control' over the Republican 2020 ticket. 

That's normally how it works with the presidency.  It's not unique to Trump.

So what is to decide?
  1. When has it ever been a matter of wisdom to reelect a gross liar to any job?

When the alternative is worse.  

  1. When Trump lies again after you help elect him, and the issue goes poorly all-round, what can you say: I knew you were going to do that?
  2. When thinking of President Donald Trump does the word, "wholesome" come to mind?

It's not like the word "wholesome" applied to Hillary Clinton, either.

When did it become a positive and not a negative to let a leader in the United States run on a 'ticket' of lies, lies, and more lies?

When the alternatives are so bad that lying is the least of our concerns.

Damn it, American Independents stand for something wholesome, if you can get it in 2020, and you bet that won't be President Donald Trump!

Well....damn it....American Democrats need to give them a viable alternative.  No...Bernie Sanders is not viable.  Neither is Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker or Kamala Harris.

Let's be very clear....absolutely none of the current Democrats running for president could get within 20 points of Michelle Obama if she decided to run.  The majority are fringe nutjobs in a contest to see who can scream at the sky most loudly.

If Democrats do not nominate a centrist candidate to appeal to the center of the voting block, we'll be talking about "President Trump" until 2024.

 
 
 
CB
21.2.1  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @21.2    2 months ago

I do not know you well enough to question your sincerity on this. That is, you speak about someone who in no way, shape, or fashion is attempting to enter the race. So, why waste hope? I will have to hear out the democrats in the race, or watch as the field cuts back, to decide their pluses and minuses.

Where do you stand on the "centrist" not in the democratic camp yet, Joe Biden?

And do be clear: Will you vote for this guy, President Donald Trump, "Mr. Do as I say and not as I do" in 2020? Or, would you "absent" the vote if he is your so-called "outstanding only" choice?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
21.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @21.2.1    2 months ago
I do not know you well enough to question your sincerity on this.

No problems if you do question it.  You seem quite level headed.

That is, you speak about someone who in no way, shape, or fashion is attempting to enter the race. So, why waste hope? I will have to hear out the democrats in the race, or watch as the field cuts back, to decide their pluses and minuses.

I assume you mean my reference to Mrs. Obama.  My intent was not that of hoping she will run.  My intent was demonstrating the problems in the current field of candidates.  I honestly believe Michelle Obama would be a much better president than any of the other names I've mentioned.   Yes....I believe a woman who has never held an elected office would be a FAR better president than most of the Democratic field.

And that's the problem many hard line liberals don't want to acknowledge.  It's not going to be enough to nominate "anybody but Trump".   A Sanders nomination is a Trump second term and Republican House of Representatives.  

Where do you stand on the "centrist" not in the democratic camp yet, Joe Biden?

Promising.  I would be very interested in his platform.  I would be concerned about his age, but that would not be a deal-breaker for me.

I also put Mayor Pete and Beto in the "promising" category.

And do be clear: Will you vote for this guy, President Donald Trump, "Mr. Do as I say and not as I do" in 2020? Or, would you "absent" the vote if he is your so-called "outstanding only" choice?

I didn't vote for Trump the first time.  I dislike Trump personally, and I've felt that way since the 1980s.  Whether or not I vote for him in 2020 depends entirely on the alternative.

But one thing Trump has in his favor is something we would use as an insult in Texas.  Trump is "all hat and no cattle".  When you stop listening to what he says and start simply watching what he actually accomplishes....you realize he isn't accomplishing very much and most of that isn't terrible. 

So given the choice between ignoring Trump on Twitter for four more years or having my taxes tripled to pay for government healthcare....I'm going with Trump.  If the Democratic candidate has plans that are rational and moderate, I'll probably vote that way.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @21.2.1    2 months ago

I like Biden. I like Pete Buttigieg. I'm just worried if people in the heartland will accept a god fearing, serviceman, who happens to be gay. I don't know much about Beto 

 
 
 
It Is ME
21.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2.3    2 months ago
I like Pete Buttigieg. I'm just worried if people in the heartland will accept a god fearing, serviceman, who happens to be gay. 

Buttigieg is nothing more than a "Teller of Stories".

I've listened to him. He's the King of anecdotes !

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
21.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2.3    2 months ago

I think the gay thing isn't really going to be a huge issue. I mean, he did get elected mayor of a town in the Heartland.

The cons will go after him for his platform

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @21.2.4    2 months ago
Buttigieg is nothing more than a "Teller of Stories".

LOL and Trump isn't? 

I have heard him talk at depth. It is early days. I will wait to hear what he has to say. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @21.2.5    2 months ago
The cons will go after him for his platform

They will do that with every Dem. So unless he is really out there, (he isn't) I think it will be more of the usual stuff, unless we have more homophobes in the US than we think.

 
 
 
It Is ME
21.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2.6    2 months ago

Buttigieg thinks the "Left" needs to be philosophical first, make policy later !

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/the-contradictions-of-mayor-pete-buttigieg

"Part of where the left and the center left have gone wrong is that we’ve been so policy-led that we haven’t been as philosophical. We like to think of ourselves as the intellectual ones. But the truth is that the right has done a better job in my lifetime of connecting up its philosophy and its values to its politics. Right now I think we need to articulate the values, lay out our philosophical commitment and then develop policies off of that. I’m working very hard not to put the cart before the horse… "

He's a Teller of "Stories" !

 
 
 
r.t..b...
21.2.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2.7    2 months ago
unless we have more homophobes in the US than we think.

I think it will be shocking the backlash from the right...of course, his sexual orientation will not be 'openly' condemned, but the whispered 'you know he's gay, don't you' undercurrent will be apparent for all to see with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.2.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @21.2.8    2 months ago

No, actually quite the opposite. You are missing what he is trying to say. Actually what he said just made me get he understands what he's up against.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
21.2.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  r.t..b... @21.2.9    2 months ago
I think it will be shocking the backlash from the right...of course, his sexual orientation will not be 'openly' condemned, but the whispered 'you know he's gay, don't you' undercurrent will be apparent for all to see with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I am concerned about that.

 
 
 
CB
21.2.12  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @21.2.2    2 months ago

Out of all that you stated, you will probably think it odd that I single out this part by means of posing another question:

In 2016, did you vote for Hillary Clinton?

This specific question is one of the quickest ways to get to know your political frame of mind, seeing you have laid out a framework for it above.

 
 
 
CB
21.2.13  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2.3    2 months ago

Frankly, I don't mine admitting that change and diversity is breaking out across different hemispheres of our political landscape. It is a "buttiful" thing to experience. Same-sex marriage legalized in 2015 (SURPRISE!), more and more men are depicted as seriously kissing in television story-lines (SURPRISE!), and last Saturday, Buttigieg (I done learnt to spell it quick!) announced his presidency and kissed his husband in real time on the campaign trail in front of us, an audience of millions saw it (SURPRISE!).

This "happened" for real y'all!

uploads%252Fcard%252Fimage%252F970686%25

Y'ALL READY FOR A REPEAT OF THIS?!  At every campaign stop? At every shared television experience?

I Am!

But, thinking about diversity and seeing it such in my 'day' is both a delight and leaves me speechless. To be clear. I'm okay with it.

 
 
 
CB
21.2.14  CB   replied to  CB @21.2.13    2 months ago

I am good with Biden in any kind of setting.

 
 
 
It Is ME
21.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @21.2.10    2 months ago
You are missing what he is trying to say.

And what is it he always seems to be "Trying" to say ?

 
 
 
Krishna
21.2.16  Krishna  replied to  r.t..b... @21.2.9    2 months ago
I think it will be shocking the backlash from the right...of course, his sexual orientation will not be 'openly' condemned, but the whispered 'you know he's gay, don't you' undercurrent will be apparent for all to see with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Of course they'll be backlash from the Right. But so what?

(Do you honestly think most right-wingers would vote for him if he was straight?)

 
 
 
It Is ME
22  It Is ME    2 months ago

"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right... Here I am!"

Love that song, and Yep, I feel that way too !

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
22.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @22    2 months ago

It's a classic

 
 
 
It Is ME
22.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @22.1    2 months ago
It's a classic

And Still relevant. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Steve Ott
23  Steve Ott    2 months ago

hard to understand absolutism.

I can understand the desire for absolutism, afterall, I was an absolutist the first 40 years of my life, but I have come to believe it is an incorrect understanding of the world and humans. Most people need some kind of absolute because it anchors their life, they aren't comfortable surfing the world of thought. Their is no grey in their world, but there isn't much color either.

My beliefs are still evolving and trying to get others to debate things with me is difficult sometimes because they themselves are unsure of themselves and how to defend a position, or deconstruct another position.

It is sometimes difficult for me to put my position on paper as in my mind they are a single sentence paragraph that runs for two pages. Something I think Faulkner would appreciate. But I try and hope to make some kind of sense.

 
 
 
CB
23.1  CB   replied to  Steve Ott @23    2 months ago
My beliefs are still evolving. . . .

That could be an interesting opening. . . . Though, I feel sure that I will be misunderstood by somebody for using the word, "opening." (All I really want to do is hear you out.) Smile.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
23.1.1  Steve Ott  replied to  CB @23.1    2 months ago

I wasn't really looking to write a full treatise at the time. But my evolution goes along these lines:

Evangelical Christian right-wing Republican - Constitutional libertarian - min-state/anarchist libertarian.  And yes, the evangelical christian thing has been left behind for good. And yes, I know there are a lot of flavors of libertarianism, but for the most part, there is more agreement than among republicans and democrats. Currently I do not see a place for the Westphalian system of nation-states as we know it can exist in a libertarian future. There is still much for me to flesh out. But I'm working on it.

I still defend my statements with evangelical fervor, but with one crucial difference, prove me wrong and I will change.

 
 
 
CB
23.1.2  CB   replied to  Steve Ott @23.1.1    2 months ago

I am seriously curious. How can diversity in people be warranted in a nation this size under mini-state/anarchist libertarianism?  What could cause the unity to appear?

 
 
 
Steve Ott
23.1.3  Steve Ott  replied to  CB @23.1.2    2 months ago

Best I can tell, this nation doesn't care about diversity except in the sense of getting them votes on the left and on the right, no diversity whatsoever. All must muricans.

Essentially, I have no hope of there being a libertarian min-state in my lifetime. The best I can hope for is to keep the idea alive in my daughter and grandchildren and any others I might convince or influence. It is a long haul venture. There is no short term gain at all except in defending the liberties of all people.

 
 
 
CB
23.1.4  CB   replied to  Steve Ott @23.1.3    2 months ago

I disagree with your first paragraph. I barely know of your online points of view and I really dislike having to be so familiar. But, diversity has a home in the Democratic Party. Even more so than libertarianism presently resides in the Republican Party.

I do have an issue with the "ideal state" — but people are needy, even when they don't wish to be so, or are a bother to each other. Thus, somebody invariably gets tagged to point out one direction that hopefully is good for everybody. Such will always be the case made for a 'head,' a superior, a lead, until people everywhere evolve a true one world philosophy. That is, until a day arrives when you can feel comfortable knowing you can trust me-even though you have never met me personally-enough to allow yourself to fall asleep in my presence.

When humanity can do that with its fellow kind, a libertarian min-state may pop into existence. In my opinion.

I, may be you, can feel democrats working hard to achieve a version of just this kind of warmth and personal trust with other strangers.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
JBB
Jack_TX
zuksam
Jim of the Great Northwoods
PJ
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
GregTx


98 visitors