Divisive vs. Unifying politics

You guys who? Whose illegals? I think by and large illegal immigrants still have to pay for school.

Plus a few posts ago you were telling us that the left is wrong, and here you are spouting leftist ideas? What if they have other ideas that are useful?

At the rate we're going, no, not without compromise.

 

Yesterday. We had a conversation in which you told me blacks were angry for absolutely no reason and leftists were stupid.

I also paraphrased Haley when she said that we should not be mocking our opponents for our own useless self satisfaction, but convincing them our ideas are right. Which you emphatically disagreed with, saying the 'time for talk is over' and it's time to bring out 'the generals' (whatever that means).

You also said you wanted liberals gone, and a sea of conservatives in congress. Since you don't plan on reasoning with them, I don't know where you expect half the country to disappear to.

Of course now you're going on about socialist education, so who knows?

 

You guys, as in people who are worried about illegals being able to get a quality education on the backs of people who built this country. And no, they don't necessarily have to pay for school. They come here illegally, and then just think they can mooch off of all the hard work of people who have worked hard to build and maintain those schools.

You certainly seem like you think compromise is necessary. I think I've already made it clear that unless it's one hell of a compromise on the left's part, then there will be no compromise. I threw you a bone and told you that you can compromise with your neighbors and see if they agree to pay for everything you think is necessary to reach a compromise.

You forget that conservatives would rather pay for our own stuff. Your compromises all sound like stuff conservatives should have to dig deep in order to pay for. Social security, education, health care... sorry, but you pay for your stuff, I'll pay for mine and that's about as good a compromise as you're going to get. If I have to compromise by reaching in for a single solitary penny to pay for any of that stuff, you're gonna have to come up with a darned good reason why I should.

So far, it's crickets all night long.

 

Who are you talking to?

Do you think that because I believe in reaching across the aisle, and finding compromise I must be a liberal?

Didn't you say the state paid for your education, and we should go back to that? Who do you think paid for that?

Huh?

 

Yes, and I gave you some reasons why blacks are angry for absolutely no reason and that leftists are stupid. Did you provide a rebuttal?

Yes, I think the time for talk is over. Did you provide a rebuttal for why blacks have a reason to be angry? If you did, I'd love to see it. I'm so used to my arguments being ignored by the left that it would thoroughly surprise me if you had.

Maybe we can start with that one. Where is your rebuttal or argument that blacks actually do have a reason to be angry? Anything concerning why the left should be taken seriously? Any reasons why compromise is a worthy goal?

anything at all?

 

I rest my case. No reason to compromise with the left at all. Just a bunch of stupid questions and no answers.

as usual

 

Only by defending themselves when they haven't been to gutless to do so.

 

Wher lies the compromise between cutting spending and doubling spending every five years?

 

And still, nothing at all, but we're supposed to actually debate the left, when arguments, rebuttals, anything at all in defense of their position results in a nothingburger.

You guys might not realize it, but a lot of us on the right think that's just not a possibility for you. You're too used to living in an echo chamber that any attempt at a rational debate is an impossibility.

Now I have been accused of bullying, yet still no evidence of such has surfaced. No links to posts I've made that constitute bullying have been made, or anything along those lines.

Yet you want a reasoned debate? Really?

I understand the lefty two-step which is to say "you're a bully!" and then when asked to provide evidence of bullying, your lefty opponent pivots and suddenly we're doing the charleston instead of a square dance, and there's absolutely no hint that the bully charge has been dealt with.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what happened to the "you're a bully!" dance.

and you really want people to debate you guys? Seriously?

 

Ask dems. After losing elections SINCE 2010, and 1000+ seats across the board, dems will go down in history for not being able to win a mid-term election they easily should have won.

IMO, Dems are counting on the usual historical results of the 1st mid-term after their loss, INSTEAD of COMPROMISING! And of course the media is playing a big part in that.

However, previous mid-term changes followed the losing party stepping back and reevaluating their positions and moving toward the center. That NEVER happened with dems SINCE 2010, the intro year of Obamacare. (a reminder, not one (R) voted for Obamacare) Ask dems why they moved further left. Ask Dems why they don't compromise.

The lying liberal media is now in control of the dem party. And the media is at its lowest level of TRUST by the PEOPLE in HISTORY.

Steve

 

Segregation leads to groups of "enemies" inside our borders.

It is the nature of human beings, and the evolution of mankind, that it group together under single purpose and values in order to thrive.

The emphasis is on single purpose and values. It is not dependent on genetics.

If faith demands certain practices that are in conflict with the single purpose and values of the community, such people should not be part of it.

The history of mankind proves this fact very clearly.

 

A bit player at the global table.

 

It sounds like you are saying that segregation happens whether we like it or not. Just that you want those groups of enemies inside the border instead of outside the border.

And no, the nature of human beings is to kill people who are not part of our group/clan. You got that one right. All you got wrong was the idea that having enemies within the border is somehow better than outside the border.

 

This thread about divisive politics is just a distraction from the democrat party's failure to change their political positions and win elections again, after losing elections SINCE 2010.

Steve

 

That is not what I am saying at all.

I don't want enemies inside the border. I want them outside the border.

I don't care if someone born in a different country lives next door to me, as long as they adopt and live by the values and principles of this country.

If they want to maintain values and principles they brought with them, and those are in conflict with the US, then don't come here.

If it's the custom to genitally mutilate little girls, or to marry children off to adults, or attack non-believers, etc., don't come here. That does not meet the culture and principles of the US. People need to assimilate. They don't need to abandon their cultural identity. If they are Italian, or Brazilian, or African, and their are certain customs they celebrate, so be it. But they absolutely must adopt to the laws, values and principles of this country. Period.

We should never accommodate people like that by placing them in some segregated neighborhood. They eventually become enemies inside our own border.

 

So basically you're saying that segregation is good. Keep those weirdos out, which is segregating the weirdos from normal people.

 

Yes. If I recall, your exhaustive, yet comprehensive list of "reasons" were:
- Serena Williams on the weekend.

That is all.

 

I'm genuinely curious now. Which of my positions have you convinced I'm a lefty?

 

I think I've explained exactly what I mean.

 

once you figure out that you're just one of seven and a half billion passengers on a 5 billion year old spaceship it all starts coming together

 

...what does that mean? We're the largest economy in the world. We only become a bit player if we stop playing.

 

WRONG! The U.S. is the largest CONSUMER COUNTRY on the planet. That means other countries depend upon U.S. citizens buying their goods.

It also means we can easily sustain ourselves. Trump would rather have FAIR TRADE though.

Steve

 

Is the left not just doing the same thing now that the right did in 2010? We could have contributed to Obamacare. We could have negotiated, debated, and shaped it into something that worked by having both sides work together. But we refused. We were obstructing. No we have what we have.

 

The objective of the globalists is to diminish the economic power of the United States by exporting it's productivity to other Nations, and extracting "treasure" from it's citizens.

This can be seen in their push to convert the US into a service economy, where we are left to selling and repairing the output from other countries.

Hell, even the Climate Change agenda requires the West, which is essentially the US, to hand over more money than at any time in human history.

We become a bit player if we continue to play that game.

 

Well, yes and no. Firstly, our economy depends on others buying our goods. There simply aren't enough people in the nation for a self contained economy. Our wealth is in being connected to other countries.

We could except that if we decide we stop buying the goods of others, it is highly unlikely they will keep buying ours. And again, our economy runs on global exports.