General Info for all Politically critical statements

I have been involved in there types of political debates now for 4 years and the one thing that I totally abhor is how one side or the other, one person or the other, and one ideology or the other are criticized in such a total harsh manner. The reality is that humanity is fallible (no one and nothing is perfect) and if you look, you will always find something to support your side of the argument.

Life (including politics) is like a marriage. You marry for good or bad and you know you will get both. If there is more good than bad, you have a good marriage. You key on the good and try to ignore the bad, or at least not give it as much attention as the good.

Our Constitution was put together so that all ideas could be put forth and debated and a compromise could be found where the good ideas could be instituted and the bad ideas put aside. That worked well for our county for over 200 years. Nonetheless and since about 30 years ago, the right began to throw the Constitution away and work to institute an Autocracy in which one person or one side made all the decisions and the other side was ignored and put down. This is now the problem and it is no longer about the ideas of the right or the left that are important but about who is "in power".

As such, talking about what the right or the left wants (issues) is now secondary. What should be the topic to discus is how we can back to being a Republic that is based on Democracy. Where compromises can once again be made. How we can once again respect each other even though the ideas are different.

I have always said that the most important things that exist before anything else can occur is to have morals, ethics, principles, and humanity. These are humanity issues that need to be met fully before anything happens. In the entire history of humanity, these issues always were what determined right from wrong............not differences of opinion on issues but the agreement that we all need to be moral, ethical, principled and humane........NO MATTER WHAT the issues are.

As long as we have what is being seen now, we are are heading down and not up. To Make America Great Again does not mean we are the most powerful but that we represent what has always been the ultimate goal to achieve in people...............Morals, Ethics, Principles and Humanity. You have never seen powerful countries like Russia, China, and the mid century Huns be seen as countries were people want to go to live in. It has always been the countries that offer being proud of being a citizen as those that draw people to them.

Go back and learn to be moral, ethical, principled and humane before you open your mouth to criticize, debase and demand changes.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to say here. But I think what you describe is applicable to other times in our history. If we were talking about conservatives, or progressives, or socialists, or libertarians... I think they all have something to contribute. I have found things I agree with in any of the above. But extremist ideologies are a whole different thing. They want to get rid of Democracy. At some points this was left wing extremism. Today it's right wing fascism.

We can't "respect" fascism as an ideology. I mean, their objective (like the objective of the extreme left) is to get rid of democracy and change it into a dictatorship. And this is the problem right now.

I disagree with about 90% of what conservatives propose (which means I agree with 10%), but I can listen to them and discuss with respect. There is nothing to be learned from fascism. And, unfortunately, the voices of conservatives trying to tell us something are drowned by all those fascists screaming.

 

That's sweet and all OP but its impossible to negotiate with MARXISTS. There is no democrat party and the LIBERALS are mostly Republicans now. Modern day democrats do not stand for true liberalism.
The 2 main parties are now
Liberals (republicans) VS Marxists (democrats)
Go look up the definition of "liberalism" if you have an issue with anything I said

 

I totally agree with you. In fact, that is why I put the OP up.

These days the right is all extreme and it is "my way or the highway". You cannot talk, debate of reason with them. They don't try to even acknowledge what they themselves are doing that they aggressively criticize in others. It is gaslighting to the nth degree.

They live in a fantasy world where data, facts, and truth have no value. When that happens, there is nothing to be discussed. One either accepts the fantasy or goes away. In the 4 years I was debating this on another board, there was not one single acknowledgement of a battle won, in spite of overwhelming proof.

You will waste your time if you try to debate the issue with them. I mostly make fun of them. At least I enjoy (rather than hate) the contact. They are easy prey for making jokes about them.

 

Nicely said, but by whose definition of moral shall we live? You may want to clarify that, because many Americans believe that morality is defined in the Christian Bible, and want our laws to reflect what they think is moral. They're convinced that if one does not believe in, and fear the wrath of god, one cannot behave morally.

 

~ Are you saying people should be civil, mature and polite when discussing politics ...?

 

How are you defining 'compromise' in the context of politics, and what would be some examples of what you consider 'good' or reasonable political compromises?

 

Even if you're right, ridiculing people, even fascists, is not civil debate. It just leads to endless rancor. I keep my sarcasm and snarkiness to myself until someone flings ridicule at me. I don't like to start things. I like to finish them, hopefully in a useful manner.

I've never considered the debates on this site to be simply an opportunity to express disdain. I think you can learn something from anyone. I come here to debate, inform, and learn. I've found that it keeps my research skills sharp, as well as my ability to articulate a position and write coherently. I'm in my 70s, so exercising the gray matter is a daily rigor.

 

I'm saying that's what I strive for. I have no such expectations where others are concerned. I'll call out incivility, and I retaliate in kind when pushed, but I do my best not to start crap.

 

I never mentioned religion. Morals is simply doing what you are willing be done to you. That applies to ethics, principles and humanity. All of these are simply "treating others the way you want others to treat you"

 

Political Compromise always requires that you get something while giving something in return that the other side wants, as long as both are for the benefit of others and not for the benefit of yourself. Both sides must agree that whatever is given has a basis on morals, ethics, principles and humanity. Anything not fulfilling those basics, is to be thrown out from the beginning.

 

Once again, I agree with you but like you said "until someone flings something first". Once that happens, all rules go out the window. One of the most basic rules in life is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and oral attacks are the same thing as physical attacks.

It is like "I give the benefit of the doubt to all at first. Nonetheless, when the doubt has turned to fact, you can respond in kind", within the limits of morals, ethics, principles, and humanity".

 

I could give a ton of examples For example, if Republicans and Democrats sat down to negotiate an abortion bill based on science, facts, and women's rights, they WOULD arrive at a compromise. Unfortunately, right now, one of those parties (hint: it's Republicans) can only view this topic in terms of political gain.

During the Obama era, a pretty fair bipartisan agreement was reached by the Gang of Eight on immigration reform. But when it came to vote on the floor, even the Republicans who participated in the agreement voted against.

That was back when Republicans at least went through the motions of bipartisan negotiation. Even that doesn't happen anymore.

 

On this topic (abortion), there can only be a very small amount of compromise. Each person has a right to their own bodies and until a fetus is born, it truly has no rights given that its life depends 100% on the mother. Without the mother, it could not survive. Up until about the 6th month (when a fetus can actually be born and survive), the mother should be able to have full say on what she does to her own body. As such, any compromise available between the parties has to be after 6 months of pregnancy and not before.

 

None of that really clarifies what your view of a good or reasonable compromise actually is... hopefully the OPer can address the questions and be more objective with their terminology.

 

Ah good! A reasonable human with a straghtforward and objective response. You'll go far around here (as long as you don't expect others to be as straightforward and objective...).

Of late, it seems more often a political 'compromise' is attempted by 'one side' demanding something outrageous of the 'other side' and then negotiating it down to something less outrageous with the expectation that not getting everything they wanted should suffice to compensate the other, with nothing else offered in return. And then when the other side refuses, everyone starts yelling about obstruction and unwillingness to 'compromise.' It seems to me there is very little actual compromise of the sort you describe (and I agree with your description) even being attempted, at least not on the issues.

And its a bipartisan problem. Usually its the D's demanding something outrageous, and the R's simply refusing it, but not always. And in both cases, neither side even attempts to counter. A simple 'we'll consider it in exchange for X' might go a long way, but never seems to happen. One could surmise that the lot of them would prefer to negotiate later 'in the dark' where we don't find out who is actually getting what out of the deal.

 

That's how I live, but it's not what I've observed.

 

I agree with the sentiment and most of your assertions, but disagree with a couple of points. I agree that groups and individuals absolutely should not be treated harshly. However some ideologies deserve and demand very harsh responses. Secondly, you totally lost me with blaming the right for destroying the Constitution. This is 180 degrees bass ackwards. It got was kick started by Obama (who as a law professor at Chicago primarily taught about the serious deficiencies in the Constitution) promising to "..... fundamentally change the United States of America...." a week before being elected president in 2008. Then it has been the left and Democrats who vociferously and continuously attack the Constitutions as in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 12th, and 25th amendments, the impeachment clause, the electoral college and the electoral processes, a bit of the 14th amendment, and Article III..

Welcome to PF.

 

Welcome to the forum and a good opening post. I had idealism like you when I first joined the forum, now almost eight years ago. However, I learned quickly that having an honest debate here is almost impossible, because most posters are not interested in it, they rather seek confirmation bias in the form of (to paraphrase) "my side good, your side bad". It's those dynamics that play out between fans of sports teams, however, it often goes beyond harmless banter and escalated to people getting painted as horrible human beings, just because they have a different political opinion. I can't tell you how often I have been told to "get a job", because god forbid, if one doesn't want to eliminate welfare then this means that one must be on welfare yourself. Makes sense, right?

Unfortunately, the reason behind this is the daily barrage of media and social media (dis)information, which benefits from stoking the divide. Websites need clicks. They don't get those clicks by publishing stories about how nice voters of the other party are, they get them by publishing examples of horrible acts committed by someone they deem member of the other "tribe". This seems to work because people tend to go back to feed at the extremist media trough, because getting their bias confirmed feels good. In the meantime the country is going to the gutter, but media personalities get rich and politicians raise money. They win, we lose.

 

I fully understand what goes on with the extreme right. I have seen the same on the other board that I have been a member of for 4 years.

Nonetheless, I do not post with the idea of convincing anyone. We are all responsible for our action and will get the benefits or consequence of our beliefs at some point. You cannot beat Mother Nature. In the end she always wins. What I like to do is post the data, facts, and truths so that those that want to see them and appreciate the knowledge can get them........from me. That is payment enough for putting out the effort to do so.

 

thanks for the welcoming words.

As far as the right and the Constitution, I can give you several clear examples of Trump trying to evade the Constitution and install an Autocracy. As far as Obama wanting the change the Constitution, there was nothing wrong with that. The Constitution does need to be amended as many things in it no longer apply to modern society. For example, they did not have social media 250 not assault rifles 250 years ago. Changing the Constitution can be done legally and properly if the changes are accepted by the majority. That is what Obama was trying to do. At no time did he try to do it by himself as Trump did in his administration.

 

This seems very reasonable. One might even call it magnanimous.

Wait a minute. How are you rationalizing that YOU are not criticizing in "such a total harsh manner" that ignores the reality that neither side is perfect and that both sides have the ability to support their side of the argument as you stated?

Isnt this a perfect example of what you just got done saying that you "abhor"?

Something here is askew. Your rhetoric and subsequent words do not match..

 

What I hate are people that do not attempt to learn. Ignorance is normal but lack of trying to get knowledge is unforgivable. At one point in time, getting knowledge was a difficult thing to do and ignorance was to be forgiven but these days with Google being available to all, staying ignorant is unforgivable.

We are all on this earth to learn and become better people. Our life on earth is a journey that is different for each and every one of us depending on where we were born, who we were born to, what circumstances we lived through, etc. Some paths are more difficult than others but we were all born with a brain that can parse information and eyes or ears that we can seek knowledge and therefore we can overcome those obstacles that we encountered growing up. Each and everyone on this earth can do that.

Not to use what was given to us fre-of-charge is a inexcusable. I hate people that do not use their eyes, ears, and brain to learn the truths that are basic in life.

I do criticize those people. Then again, criticizing them comes only after they were given the benefit of the doubt to begin with and thereafter their inability to use their brain.

There is no reason to forgive those that do not use what was given to them by life.

Am I doing something wrong (according to you)?

 

Yes.

What you said in your first paragraph was 100% contradicted in your 3rd paragraph, then when I asked how you rationalize that in paragraph 3 YOU are not doing precisely what you said that you abhor in paragraph 1, rather than actually answering that question, you instead opted to give a long meandering rant about qualities in other people that you find objectionable.

What you are doing wrong (according to me), is that you have displayed a lack of self-awareness. It is my contention that you are doing precisely what you said that you "abhor".

 

~ The fact that anyone "hates people " is an example of "not using what was given to us free of charge".
Inexcusable ...

~ Get used to it ... once again .