What Divides America - Perspective and Opinions

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Xtrozero

So it's only justice when the verdict suits?

That would be convenient for those found guilty.

If it were not for the fact that its not how your laws work.

Nor how your court systems function.

They require facts and evidence to resolve legal disputes and ensure justice is served.

I'd invite you to read your post, then think how it might look from a neutral perspective.

You make the argument against you well.

originally posted by: Xtrozero


Now back to Mahogani's post calling Trump a rapist. Is he a rapist, was he ever convicted as a rapist? If doesn't matter, the left has created the narrative and doesn't care about anything within that narrative.

ABC and George Stephanopoulos will find out soon.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Trump is apt to be on his list.

He is not on the list and Clinton was on it 25+ times. Trump was also the only person to come forward in Epstein's first criminal trial. So not on the list and was the only witness against him years before...What say you?

From some of the Clintons to RFK or Prince Andrew.

If we take Clinton, he did forcefully rape a woman, but they would never bring their golden boy to trial. Hillary called her a slut etc. Old Bill screwed anything that moved all over the Governor's mansion and Whitehouse, so what do you think he was doing on Epstein Island?

Trump's track record and the way he treats women speak volumes.

Volumes... Can you provide 3 sentences then of his track record? That so-called track record was invented by the left, as they do in inventing crap out of thin air and then calling it reality or a truism. 1617 project anyone...

Here is a funny one. Two of my liberal friends told me that if Trump can call himself orange then Harris can say she is Black. I was like... you two know that the whole orange thing was invented by the left as a putdown and the OMB was a play on the left inventing that, right?

They looked at me like I was the crazy one, and still believe Trump refers to himself as orange... geez you can't make this crap up if you tried.

Yes sir!

Give us one reason to believe them. fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Justoneman

So attack the source and not the stories?

If you dont wish to see it Justoneman that's completely up to you.

But Trump is "one of them" and part of the system as any of the rest.

Hence the reason that the swamp never got drained.

Off to play a few rounds of pitch and putt with the kids now.

Have fun ATS.

a reply to: Xtrozero



Thank you Xtrozero!

Thank you!

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Back in the day. . . . . .

We used to be divided as to HOW things got done, but we all agreed on the end goals.

Now?

We are divided as to WHAT needs to be done.

We are divided to what our goals are.


We are divided by some believing in equal opportunity and others wanting equal outcomes.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Back in the day. . . . . .

We used to be divided as to HOW things got done, but we all agreed on the end goals.

Now?

We are divided as to WHAT needs to be done.

We are divided to what our goals are.


We are divided by some believing in equal opportunity and others wanting equal outcomes.

those wanting equal outcomes for people who didn't make the cut are idiots, so there is that.

a reply to: network dude

When you have half the country wanting a meritocracy and the other wanting equity or socialism, then you'll have a divide.

There are many things that divide Americans; there are 300,000 pluse people living in this country all with their own perspectives and life experiences. To believe we wouldn't be "divided" many times over when it comes to the issues of the day would be nave.

What might be different now is the utter indulgence in our own selfishness and ego. No doubt fuled by technical advances; our own small opinions are given platforms that far exceed their importance. If the 80s were defined by greed and averous; our current decades can be defined by narcissism.

Politicians such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are simply products of our times. We created those personalities we pretend to despise so much. We demand that our leaders be as uncompromising as possible while they pretend to champion our small personal opinions; because we are loth to compromise with anyone.

Politics have become a sport just as surely as Football and Baseball. Solutions to social problems no longer mater; winning the next election is all anyone is interested in. Because it is a validation of our own selfish personal opinions... "that guy winning must mean I am right!".

There are many things that divide Americans; there are 300,000 pluse people living in this country; we have always been divided and as always will be. It won't be until we exchange our selfishness and narcissism for civility and respect that we will progress as a country.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sounds like a false choice to me; the kind of mentality tribalisum uses to devide people.

Is it not impossible to have both meritocracy and equity at the same time?

Can we really believe that the current system of meritocracy gets it right 100% of the time every time? For every once of effort anyone in the system puts in they receive an equal benefit?

Can we really believe that nepotism, bigotry, lazy leadership, monopolies and ect do not exist? And that they don't distort our meritocracy? The wrong people never get rewarded? And the right people always get what they deserve?

No, that would be a fairly. Life doesn't work that way; some times life simply is not fair. The wrong people are often rewarded for work they have not done; and the right people can easily be over looked for the work they have done. Our meritocracy could always use a bit more equity.

Now that truth does not excuse a communist mindset. That equity is something that must be forced on everyone such that everyone has an equal share at every given time. Stealing from those who did work for what they have to give to everyone else is just as problematic as believe everyone has an equal opportunity to advance themselves.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Equity is equal outcome, which is directly opposite of a merit-based system.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If we preform the exact same amount of labor; meritocracy would suggest we should both have an equal outcome... therefor making sure there are equal outcomes is not mutually exclusive to meritocracy. In fact under many circumstances meritocracy demands equal outcomes.

In our merit based society the problem lies in the fact that merit doesn't always dictate outcome. There are many other factors besides merit that contribute to one's outcome.

No Equity and a merit-based system are not opposites. They are completely different mechanisms and they can work together in a system.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Equal outcome only happens if equal work by identical employees occurs.

a reply to: Dandandat3

And if you fail on your merit you just pick yourself up and try again, not stick your hand out for a participation trophy.

a reply to: network dude

LoL

He better start running faster put it that way.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Volumes... Can you provide 3 sentences then of his track record?

There are plenty of sentences.

I take it they are not real or its just locker room talk all the same.

www.nytimes.com...
www.vox.com...
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: Dandandat3

If you look at federal election maps from 1980-88 you will see America was not divided over 3 election cycles and it would have been 4 if Ross Perot never ran in 92 taking 19% of the total vote mostly from Bush.

a reply to: SomeStupidName

Failing to be be properly compensated for your merit is not something you just brush off and try again over. Demanding proper composition for your merit is not akin to asking for a participation trophy.

In many situations in our supposed merit based society two people who put in the exact same effect are not always compensated the same ... as meritocracy would dictate. Our merit based society is flawed and msny other things besides merit influences compensation.

a reply to: Dandandat3

There is no non-flawed system of government.

Name me one flaw free system of government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dandandat3

There is no non-flawed system of government.

Name me one flaw free system of government.

Who said anything about changing the system of government?

Not everything is black.and white. A person can hold the opinion that meritocracy is a good system and still acknowledge its flaws; and seek to try to fix them.

Yes nothing is perfect; but that doesn't mean you don't strive for something better.

Meritocracy and equity can be made to work together. Just need to drop the extremist tribalisum.

Hiring some minority just to fill a quota would be distractive to a system because it will ultimately mean you are not hiring the best people. A bad example of equity.

Removing barriers that prevent some minority from competing and then finding that once those barriers are removed you just found the most qualified person would be an example of equity that fits just fine with a merit based system.