We have to find some middle ground if we want to move forward

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I want to be left the eff alone, and every time someone says, "We need the government to do this or that for us!" I get really pissed because I've been doing it myself for years by that point, and I neither need nor want the government to do it for me, but that's what those people are going to force me to accept.

The ideal middle ground would be for them to have what they want while leaving me the eff alone. The problem is that government programs that do that seriously skew the remaining system to the point that it makes it much, much harder for me to continue to live my life as I was and always had been for one reason or another. Either I am taxed to pay for their program and only then can continue to do as I see fit with what's left over or everything outside the system gets that much harder and more expensive to afford or both thanks to the new government interventions into that system.

A good starting point would be to NOT assault people with different political views than you. Or if they wear a red hat.

Let me know when Liberals can accomplish this simple task, and we'll talk.

a reply to: ketsuko

The ideal middle ground would be for them to have what they want while leaving me the eff alone. The problem is that government programs that do that seriously skew the remaining system to the point that it makes it much, much harder for me to continue to live my life as I was and always had been for one reason or another. Either I am taxed to pay for their program and only then can continue to do as I see fit with what's left over or everything outside the system gets that much harder and more expensive to afford or both thanks to the new government interventions into that system.

Well the whole point of the OP was to start with ending our failed wars. Post 9/11 we've spent 6~ trillion.

So yea, I share your point of view here, I don't want my government blowing my taxes.

The only government assistance I've ever taken was a college loan (small one) and it's paid back.

I have my own health insurance through an employer.

So you're kinda preaching to the choir.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Oh, I don't like foreign intervention with the military either. If we're going to war, we need to really go to war. You go in, lay waste and spend time remaking the country like we did in Japan. It's clear we no longer have the stomach for that as evidenced by the hearts and minds shenanigans in Iraq. Heck, we can't even muster the gumption to insist that immigrants assimilate their ways to our culture here. Instead we allow them to colonize us and call it multiculturalism.

You can have a strong military without lobbing bombs around randomly. And I like having a strong military.

a reply to: ketsuko

You can have a strong military without lobbing bombs around randomly. And I like having a strong military.

I'd go so far as to argue you can have a stronger military when you take an isolationist stand point.

It's clear we no longer have the stomach for that as evidenced by the hearts and minds shenanigans in Iraq. Heck, we can't even muster the gumption to insist that immigrants assimilate their ways to our culture here. Instead we allow them to colonize us and call it multiculturalism.

Iraq was just a mistake from the beginning, I think we need to go back to a rule of fighting when attacked, and letting our other avenues deal with threats.

The Shock and Awe campaign was historic on many levels, our boots on the ground went in at a commanding pace.

Problem is, we underestimated the guerrilla resistance, which how did we do that? Seriously, how did it not occur to us that attacking a country who didn't hit us in the Middle East would piss off some Arabs?

I think the problem in this case was actually too much gumption. We can just be going around the world hitting fire ant piles just to see what happens.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Spin. The answer is spin.

Most voters agree presidents and our government have made mistakes taking us back ✔

Most voters agree certain things need to be done and soon ✔

Most voters agree we could be better ✔

Every one of those questions is spinnable. Made mistakes? Sure! But what mistakes? Certain things need to be done? Of course! But what things? Better? Surely everyone wants us to be better! But what does that mean?

I'm going to take one hotbutton issue and use it for example only to show what I mean... please, no one try to turn this into a partisan debate on this example issue... the OP has done a great job of presenting a civil thread!

Abortion.

Have politicians made mistakes dealing with abortion? Of course they have! But while one person may think that it was a mistake to allow any abortions, someone else might think it was a mistake to ever restrict them at all. What needs to be done? One person may say get rid of all abortion clinics, while someone else might say amend the constitution to make every abortion legal and acceptable for any reason and at any time. Can we do better? Of course, but better might mean making abortion illegal in every case for one person, while another thinks better is making sure no one can even speak out against an abortion.

All the while, most people may (and I think they do) want as few abortions as possible without making them ridiculously hard to get. They'll answer the same way.

My point is, those answers may be universal, but they do not indicate a middle ground. They are too vague.

At the same time, we have a media which plays both sides against the middle. Look at voter ID laws for another example. Let's say someone proposes something like we have in Alabama: ID is required, but at the same time anyone can get a state ID at no cost if they can't afford one. CNN will likely scream that any voter ID requirement is an affront to our democracy because it disenfranchises the poor (ignoring the part about IDs being free). Fox will proclaim this a wonderful move to preserve democracy because it will prevent illegal aliens from voting.

Both are right, and both are wrong. It actually depends on the law itself and the details in it. Is the ability to get a free ID heavily restricted? How easy is it for an illegal alien to get an ID? Those details matter, but they are usually buried so deep in the legaleeze as to be unnoticeable by most people. So most people will get their opinion from whichever network they watch, and both networks are heavily skewed.

In the end, most politicians don't care about the country, the people who elected them, or anything else except getting re-elected. That's a cruel fact of life. Their best chance to get re-elected is to stay in good with their party so they can blanket their district with ads and get endorsements from popular members of their party come election time. So they follow the party line, get their payback at campaign time, get re-elected, and repeat the process. Tick off the constituency? No problem... the media will cover for me.

Now add in the fact that both parties have been moving to their extremes over the last few years. I can remember a time when AOC could talk about cow farts and she would have been laughed at. But today, some people are looking at other laws which have been passed that have been, in their opinion, ridiculous... and they panic. If that law made it, could this law make it? In short, we have lost all confidence in our politicians to make reasonable decisions. We expect them to tow the party line, so we look at which party will hurt us least and go with that. That reinforces the tendency of politicians to tow the party line, and the whole thing spirals in on itself.

Our politicians and media know this. They also know that reasonable people who talk will figure out they are being played. So these politicians and pundits cover their tracks by making words bad things... say the wrong word? You must be a racist, or a homophobe, or a xenophobe, or a sexist, or a whatever-phobe. Do that enough, ingraine it into the very fabric of society, and people will stop talking, at least about anything that can remotely be considered controversial. If they don't talk, they can't figure out they are being used.

No, there is no middle ground any more. Even those of us who want to see a middle ground are coming to accept that such a utopia can never exist again in the USA. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream is dead; political correctness killed it. All we can do now is try to follow whichever political side seems to serve us the best without regard for others, because those others are doing the same thing. We wind the rubber band tight, so tight it cannot help but eventually snap.

Great thread OP. S&F for you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My optimist side of me wants to argue your points.

My cynical side agrees.

Too bad I'm 90/10 cynical to optimist haha.

Thanks for your post thought, it was well thought out and had many valid points.

I really just want to see people decide for just a little while "We demand this, and we won't waiver till we get it". As I said, I think there needs to be balance in the country, and I don't want a bunch of like minded thinkers, I'm not vein enough to want everyone to think like me, because sometimes I'm wrong.

But there are certain things that should just be evident truths... On those items, it should hypothetically be easy for intelligent people to say, something has to give.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I really just want to see people decide for just a little while "We demand this, and we won't waiver till we get it".

That happened with President Trump. He was elected as a "F*** YOU!" to the established politicians. Now, his supporters are being openly assaulted, often with legal impunity. That needs to change.

Of course, some of that is perception bias... I am self-aware enough to know I am being manipulated to some degree. The question is, do I really know how much?

But there are certain things that should just be evident truths... On those items, it should hypothetically be easy for intelligent people to say, something has to give.

There certainly should be. I would say one of those things would be violence over any political belief on either side. Another would be attempts at peaceful negotiations with other countries. One would think that would be a good thing, but one might then be quite shocked at how untrue that turned out to be.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Be careful. I thought I was aware of the manipulation and had a good handle on it. Yet I found myself a bit bewildered, when a young lady I was talking to about the recent construction that is taking place in our area, said, " I am afraid that I have to disagree with you."

Always in the past I looked at that statement as an opportunity to find out where we differed on the issue. I normally enjoy those conversations more than the conversations were everyone agrees. But today for some reason my immediate response was a sudden and thankfully, very brief flash of anger.


As I said, I was bewildered. I even asked myself out loud, "Where did that come from?" I was even a little embarrassed by my initial response, and very grateful that it went completely unnoticed by the others, the conversation continued and ended well, though we didn't agree on everything. It was a warning that the manipulation is insidious, it has the ability to creep up on you, even when you are looking right at it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Very, very well said. Thank you.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
....
If we can all agree something is horribly broken, maybe we won't be as spiteful on issues just to oppose the other side for a "win".
...

Can you admit socialism/communism are totally broken, and their policies should not be implemented in the U.S.?...