A Civil Discourse for the 2012 Presidential Election

reply to post by beezzer

The tricky part about beinga centrist is that when you walk in the middle of the street, instead of the left or the right; you usually get run over.

BOY have you got that right!

BOTH SIDES hate you

reply to post by crimvelvet


I'd have said stick to your principles.
But if someone doesn't have any, then lying is a possibe second.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I'll play.
Everyone has to give up abortion and we'll say okay to "limited" Obama-style healthcare.
Do a flat-tax of 7% for everyone an we'll end the wars.
Eliminate the silly gun laws and we'll invest more into green energy solutions.

See? Compromise.

Well, those are some interesting suggestions. Let's examine them from a few angles.

"Everyone has to give up abortion and we'll say okay to "limited" Obama-style healthcare."

That seems to presuppose that everyone who is opposed to the legal option of abortions is also opposed to "Obama-style" healthcare (to use your loaded phrase). Is everyone who supports the idea of no government restriction to access of abortion options is in support of "Obama Style Health care"? It also presupposes that "limited 'Obama-style' healthcare" is the only thing that anyone on the left wants

"Do a flat-tax of 7% for everyone an we'll end the war".

I see. So, those who support a 'flat tax' are the ones who control whether or not we engage in wars? And you say 'the war'. Which war? Is everyone who supports the flat tax somehow pro-war? This line of thinking is difficult to follow.

"Eliminate the silly gun laws and we'll invest more into green energy solutions".

Again, this appears to be an interesting dichotomy. Are all people who support gun laws the same who oppose 'green technology'? Are all who support 'green technology' anti-gun fanatics? Again, I don't think the actual facts really reflect that incredibly simplistic either or picture you draw.

But I appreciate your perspective because I think it illustrates exactly WHY it is s difficult to discuss those enormous similarities you referred to earlier. The facade of two party politics implies there is stark contrast between the parties, and benefits from the notion that the nation is deeply, deeply divided in public opinion.

And while the media certainly do their darndest to continue the perpetuation of that dichotomy, what with their need for us to either be "MSNBC" or "FOX", I don't really think they represent all of America. Certainly not any significant portion of any of the Americans I have ever been around in my life. And I've lived in several states around the country. I do know a few rabid partisan here and there. They exist. But I don't think most Americans can get as easily divided in to the two camps your post illustrates.

I'm also curious as to why you see to think that I am in any particular 'camp', as nothing I've said here sounds very supportive of either party. One can dislike Republicans without being a Democrat. Most people I know dislike the Republicans. These same people tend to dislike the Democrats more or less equally. I also know several very active members of local Republican chapters in the South. I'm curious if all the people you know fit so easily in to just one of two camps? But I suspect that too, is part of the concerted effort to divide us, that our conversations get steered, by habit or intent in these directions that lead us to conflict based on false precepts, instead of understanding of our enormous common ground.

So, instead of discussing what you think you or I should 'sacrifice' to come to a place of common understanding, how about we discuss .all of them wonderful things we have in common.

Here are a few of the things I like (or would like). Let me know if you agree.

Access to clean drinking water. Access to food grown in my region at a price that is both affordable and fair to the farmer. Watching my kids play. Not having to worry that an unforeseen accident or unfortunate event out of my control due to health or occupation put me in a place of life-long financial ruin and eventual servitude to certain lending institutions.My feet in the grass. Not having to pay a portion of my tax dollars to a bloated military industrial complex. Clouds.

Can we agree on some of those things? Can we find a way to work together as common Americans to build a world that benefits both ourselves, our kids, and our neighbors and communities?

I suspect that would be far more helpful healthful, and constructive than insisting we all be placed into one of two camps that, to me, sound like caricatures of actual human perspective.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to work in the garden. Thank you. Be well.

reply to post by Avenginggecko

"We have to pass the bill to see what is in it"

Nancy Pelosi
Have a discourse with that...I dare you ...

That is the people you are defending...
The time for civil discourse is past, it is now time for civil war.
I think we all know who is better armed

reply to post by beezzer

I'd have said stick to your principles.

Most politicians do not have principles. The further you rise in politics, the better chance your "principles" will get you sidelined.

The only thing a smart person can do is look at the voting record of the incumbent and vote the sucker out if he is a Corporate Shill.

I just wish the voters would figure out it is the voters against the Bankers and corporate cartels.

He is an excellent example of how politics really works:

Dwayne Orville Andreas (born 4 March 1918) is one of the most prominent political campaign donors[1] in the United States, having contributed millions of dollars to Democratic and Republican candidates alike. For twenty-five years, he was in the leadership of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the largest processor of farm commodities in the United States, where he made his fortune....

While not well known to the public, Andreas commands much respect among Washington politicians for his largesse. As part of the investigations surrounding illegal campaign fundraising linked to the Watergate scandal, Andreas was charged with (but acquitted of) illegally contributing $100,000 to Hubert Humphrey's 1968 presidential campaign. In 1972 Andreas unlawfully contributed $25,000 to President Nixon's re-election campaign via Watergate burglar Bernard Barker. Other recipients of Andreas's "tithing" — as he puts it — have included George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Jack Kemp...

He is on the Board of Trustees of The Forum for International Policy....

According to Mother Jones magazine:

During the 1992 election, Andreas gave more than $1.4 million in soft money and $345,000 to individual candidates, using multiple donors in his company and family members (including wife Inez) to circumvent contribution limits.

Not all of Andreas's charity goes directly to politicians: in the 1990s he contributed $2.5 million to Florida public broadcasting network WXEL....
WIKI

From Source Watch: www.sourcewatch.org...

..."While Andreas has been building A.D.M. into the self-proclaimed 'Supermarket to the World,' -- a phrase known to millions of Americans who watch A.D.M.-sponsored news and public affairs on both PBS and the commercial networks -- he has shown an extraordinary knack for cultivating powerful politicans. Among his past close friends and golfing partners: Republican presidential nominee Thomas Dewey and House Speaker Thomas (Tip) O'Neill, a Democrat. He was particularly close to Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, who was godfather to Andreas's son, Michael. Andreas has often been photographed with world leaders, including Mikhail Gorbachev. A statue of Ronald Reagan occupies a place of honor at A.D.M.'s headquarters....

has continued donating generously to many Democratic and Republican candidates -- 'tithing', he calls it. Over the years he has given money to Senator Bob Dole, President William Jefferson Clinton, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President James Earl Carter, Jr., Michael Dukakis, Jack F. Kemp, and Jesse Jackson, among others. Between 1981 and 1994, Senator Dole and his political foundations collected $178,000 in contributions from Andreas, members of Andreas' family and A.D.M. executives, according to Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington....

"Meanwhile, Dole has become known to some as Senator Ethanol because of his longtime, staunch support of federal tax subsidies for corn-based ethanol, a gasoline additive. A.D.M., which produces sixty percent of all U.S. ethanol, has been a major beneficiary. Congressional fans of ethanol, many of them, like Dole, representatives of corn states, say it has helped ease US dependence on foreign oil. Others are not convinced. Recently New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley told The Boston Globe, 'This billion-dollar tax break is nothing more than a gift to a single, politically connected industry.' Andreas' critics link federal subsidies -- including sugar price supports and the ethanol tax break -- to the influence that they say his political dollars have bought him among elected officials. The sugar subsidy has the effect of raising the price of a corn syrup sweetner, another important A.D.M. product. In his stock reply to such charges, Andreas says, 'We do not talk to any government official about our business.'

"Currently, however, the company has bigger problems than its reputation for political giving. Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that the company has conspired to fix commodity prices. A.D.M. has denied any wrongdoing."

So much for the left and the right in politics!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I'll play.
Everyone has to give up abortion and we'll say okay to "limited" Obama-style healthcare.
Do a flat-tax of 7% for everyone an we'll end the wars.
Eliminate the silly gun laws and we'll invest more into green energy solutions.

See? Compromise.

I regularly get called a Fascist or a Communist, depending on to whom I am speaking, but I'll play...

I think your negotiation strategy is flawed. It is still binary-thinking, i.e. "Everyone has to give up abortion".

How about:

If a fetus is viable (can live outside the womb w/o artificial aids) then abortion can be restricted. Before that point, it is a woman's free choice.

Cut spending on ALL of the following by some equal percentage (10, 20, whatever number you like, but the same across the board):

Petrolium industry
Agri-business
Defense
Welfare
Medicare
Medicaid
(more could be specified, this is just an example)

Modify the tax structure such that companies that ship jobs overseas are penalized, and stop raising the Minimum Wage.

Stop wasting money on mass-drug testing except in documentable cases where safety is involved (pilots, for example), and when an employee does not perform the duties of their job, they may be fired.

Allow Creationism to be taught in Science classes... subject to the exact same scrutiny any other scientific theory is subjected to... documentation, replication, supportive evidence, etc. Words in one old book do not evidence make.

Allow Prayer in schools. Of all religions.

And so on.

This is what compromise really is, which distinction has been lost in recent years.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Here are a few of the things I like (or would like). Let me know if you agree.

Access to clean drinking water. Access to food grown in my region at a price that is both affordable and fair to the farmer. Watching my kids play. Not having to worry that an unforeseen accident or unfortunate event out of my control due to health or occupation put me in a place of life-long financial ruin and eventual servitude to certain lending institutions.My feet in the grass. Not having to pay a portion of my tax dollars to a bloated military industrial complex. Clouds.

Can we agree on some of those things? Can we find a way to work together as common Americans to build a world that benefits both ourselves, our kids, and our neighbors and communities?

I suspect that would be far more helpful healthful, and constructive than insisting we all be placed into one of two camps that, to me, sound like caricatures of actual human perspective.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to work in the garden. Thank you. Be well.

edit on 23-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

It sounds nice. And I'm not picking on you. Just using you as a foil to try to get a point across.

You said, "Access to clean drinking water. Access to food grown in my region at a price that is both affordable and fair to the farmer.."
What "they" will do is turn that around and call you greedy because you are setting a price for your needs, not the needs of others.
You said, " Not having to worry that an unforeseen accident or unfortunate event out of my control due to health or occupation put me in a place of life-long financial ruin and eventual servitude to certain lending institutions."
What "they" wll say is, you are a leech on the system trying to use other peoples money for your own sefish needs.
You said, "Not having to pay a portion of my tax dollars to a bloated military industrial complex."
"They" will say you are a dove, someone who wants to give into the terrorists.

I'm not trying t be a troll/a$$-hat/or anything else. But nice doesn't work in the political arena. Words get twisted like pretzels. And the nicer you are in any given debate, the more blood will spill in the water for the sharks.
I've just always tried to be honest. That way I never have to remember what I've said. I stick to my principles andd try to learn as much as I can about my "opponents".

Enjoy your garden. Sounds nice.
Beez

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


See? I was willing to allow Obama-care. Just make abortion illegal and you wouldn't compromise with me.
I was wiling to stop funding for all wars, and all you had to do was enact the flat tax.
I was willing to go "green" and all I asked was for the 2nd ammendment to be allowed

I compromised. YOU set up a new negotiation. New terms.

Not very civil.

Originally posted by beezzer
Not very civil.

Please specify exactly what was un-civil.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I tried to compromise, you reset the terms.
T'is why it won't work on ATS and it won't work in the real world. Everyone brings their own egos to the table. Their own biases, their own agendas. Being civil, to some, just means giving in on your principles.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

I tried to compromise, you reset the terms.
T'is why it won't work on ATS and it won't work in the real world. Everyone brings their own egos to the table. Their own biases, their own agendas. Being civil, to some, just means giving in on your principles.

OK, now I have to ask... have you ever been involved in real negotiation? As you mentioned earlier, I am not with this question trying to be an ass or anything, but I have been involved in more than one or two, and this is how they go... negotiation is not a matter of one 'side' stating terms then the 'other side' either accepting them or rejecting them en-masse.

For example, yes, you said outlaw abortions altogether. And yes, I will not accept that... it is too anti-freedom for my agenda, not to mention the other, greater social problems that occur when abortion is outlawed.

But I will negotiate with you on it... you want them outlawed entirely, I prefer the individuals to have the choice instead of the government (which I was under the impression the Tea Party was not in favor of gov't intrusion into individuals' lives?). So we can compromise... if the fetus is viable, you have your desire of having abortions in that case outlawed. I get my desire by having the individuals involved make the choice until that point.

Neither of us gets everything we want; we both get some of what we want.

That is compromise. It worked well in this country for a couple of centuries. Total adherence to a 'stand' is what has become the norm, and it is not working so well.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


But then you're asking me to compromise on my principles, my beliefs. I can't do that. If I did, then my "principles" would be as sturdy as tissue in water.
Real values aren't just talking points or poker chips you wager in a game. Nor should they be. But politicians trade values like baseball cards.
That's the only way they can pretend "civility". By ignoring any real values they may have.

I think that Ron Paul is an insider with an agenda to expose the truth, not unlike Julian Assange. I find it disappointing that most of the Mainstream Media outlets aren't even considering him a viable candidate, but I'm not surprised. It's too bad that Donald Trump opted out of the race. I would have enjoyed the daily entertainment and drama he would have provided.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

OK, now I have to ask... have you ever been involved in real negotiation? As you mentioned earlier, I am not with this question trying to be an ass or anything, but I have been involved in more than one or two, and this is how they go... negotiation is not a matter of one 'side' stating terms then the 'other side' either accepting them or rejecting them en-masse.....

From my point of view "negotiations" especially from the voter point of view should start a heck of a lot further back.

What are the biggies we agree on???

Reining in the corporate cartels??? - Enforcing the monopoly laws???

Revamping the Banking System???

Getting rid of leveraged buyouts????

Getting our troops out of foreign countries???

Getting the USA OUT of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA???

I think there are a lot of very serious issues the Left and the Right DO agree on, So WHY are voters letting the MSM (owned by JP Morgan) dictate the political debate???

Why are we letting them sideline these very important issues??? So we can quibble about when some woman decides to have an abortion or dictating what someone can put into their body (Drugs)

Are not BOTH of those issues personal? And more important do either of those PERSONAL decisions have an impact on you especially compared to the bankers and WTO?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

But then you're asking me to compromise on my principles, my beliefs. I can't do that. If I did, then my "principles" would be as sturdy as tissue in water.
Real values aren't just talking points or poker chips you wager in a game. Nor should they be. But politicians trade values like baseball cards.
That's the only way they can pretend "civility". By ignoring any real values they may have.

Which gets us nowhere. Because for you to get every single thing you want, then I have to compromise on my principles and beliefs. And yours are no more important than mine.

To have a complex, diverse society, which we do, some degree of relaxation of principles is necessary. I don't like it, and you clearly do not, but it is necessary for the survival of any complex culture.

I do agree that politicians trace principles like they mean nothing, mostly for the dollars they get in return. But that does not negate the value in true negotiation and compromise.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

But then you're asking me to compromise on my principles, my beliefs. I can't do that.

And you are asking the same. I have strong principles of freedom. By 'outlawing all abortions' you are asking me to compromise on my principles of freedom. I am willing to compromise on that issue, but it is clear that you are not.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Here are a few of the things I like (or would like). Let me know if you agree.

Access to clean drinking water. Access to food grown in my region at a price that is both affordable and fair to the farmer. Watching my kids play. Not having to worry that an unforeseen accident or unfortunate event out of my control due to health or occupation put me in a place of life-long financial ruin and eventual servitude to certain lending institutions.My feet in the grass. Not having to pay a portion of my tax dollars to a bloated military industrial complex. Clouds.

Can we agree on some of those things? Can we find a way to work together as common Americans to build a world that benefits both ourselves, our kids, and our neighbors and communities?

I suspect that would be far more helpful healthful, and constructive than insisting we all be placed into one of two camps that, to me, sound like caricatures of actual human perspective.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to work in the garden. Thank you. Be well.

edit on 23-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

It sounds nice. And I'm not picking on you. Just using you as a foil to try to get a point across.

Right. You aren't actually interested in an open-minded dialogue. your own admission. Merely using other people's comments as an opportunity to get 'your point across'.

I also notice your reply here completely avoids the bulk of my response and my critique of your previous reply to me. That's too bad, because that is where the bulk of our potential debate lies.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Which gets us nowhere. Because for you to get every single thing you want, then I have to compromise on my principles and beliefs. And yours are no more important than mine.

Welcome to the world my friend. And welcome to Washington D.C. politics. It's a sick and dirty arena. A place where civility is a name given to the folks that came in second place. It's not give and take.

It's a war. There are winners and losers. The winners get the policies and ask for civility from the folks that didn't win.

reply to post by crimvelvet


I agree that drug testing, abortion and gay marriage (not mentioned so far) are less vital than many of the items you have mentioned.

I was just using them here as quick, easy examples, as I don't feel like writing a book today.

My argument with beezer is more along the lines of what a "negotiation" is, and what "compromise" is. It is possible I do not yet fully understand his/her position on it, but from the comments so far, he/she appears to believe that "negotiation" is one side stating their position, then the other 'side' either accepts it whole or rejects it whole, and compromise is therefore not possible.

I submit that this is a skewed definition of these terms, and the adoption of these definitions is contributing a great deal to the problems we are facing today.

For example on the abortion issue being used here, beezer has shown no willingness to compromise. Which leaves us where we are right now - one side says one thing, the other side says something else and if both sides are stuck on full protection or defense of "their" principles, then no compromise is possible. And a complex, diverse society such as ours, without the ability of people to compromise, is doomed.

Not because of women having abortions or not, but because everybody is stuck in a corner, frantically defending every last aspect of their principles - and insisting that everybody else share them completely.

Originally posted by beezzer
A place where civility is a name given to the folks that came in second place. It's not give and take.

It's a war. There are winners and losers. The winners get the policies and ask for civility from the folks that didn't win.

And that is exactly why the US is in really big trouble. This attitude of "it's a war". "It's not give and take".

That is the exact problem.