a new direction? opinions welcomed

[Rams]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself but, I understand who Liberals expect to pay for all their free crap.
I think I understand how low they will go to get what they want.    But, I constantly get surprised time and time again.    I see the people that they send to be our leaders.   Yeah, I get the picture they send.  It ain't pretty nor does it represent the America most Conservatives believe in.

Rams

[Robert]

John F. Kennedy - The Declaration of Independence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PSUr9rMVtc

Listen carefully

[The emperor has no clothes]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

As someone who considers themself a conservative I must disagree.

Personally, (and I believe that many other conservatives feel the same) I don't have a problem with social programs that provide someone with a hand up.

I do take issue with social programs that provide a constant hand out.

It's the old adage; Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

I'm not opposed to giving a man a fish if he is starving, but if you have the ability to teach him to fish as well and you don't.

You have done him a great injustice.


As for modern day politics, I feel the same as Oss.

I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me.  

I appreciate your sentiments. Further explanation on my side will have wait till sundown. 

[Rams]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

As someone who considers themself a conservative I must disagree.

Personally, (and I believe that many other conservatives feel the same) I don't have a problem with social programs that provide someone with a hand up.

I do take issue with social programs that provide a constant hand out.

It's the old adage; Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

I'm not opposed to giving a man a fish if he is starving, but if you have the ability to teach him to fish as well and you don't.

You have done him a great injustice.


As for modern day politics, I feel the same as Oss.

I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me.  

Based on what I have observed and what has been reported by a very bias'd media, I am about to change my party affiliation.   I will be a registered Democrat for the next election cycle and maybe long after that.  We shall see.   I figure my one vote may help the Dems put up better (more Conservative) candidates in the primaries.   It may not have much effect but, you gotta start somewhere.

Rams

[solo1]

My opinion......not worth much.

The Democratic Party is well on its way to pure socialism. 

The Republican party desperately doesn't want to rock the boat and take away all of the power and financial privileges that Congress has given to themselves. They are essentially wimps and can't be trusted.

Neither party is adhering to the principles on which the founders had envisioned.

Both parties either hate or dislike Trump since he doesn't fit in to the present state that Congress has devolved to.  Trump is neither a Dem or a Repub.  He's not playing the game. 

Congress needs term limits which won't happen.

Last thought. Retired SCOTUS has brought the final answer into play and the powers in DC wished that he hadn't.  He was not subtle!  Abolish the 2nd Amendment. No 'common sense' gun laws, no 'just AR's",   Nope! NO guns is the final answer.

Eliminate the 2nd and the final power will be  in the hands of the federal government.  No checks or
balances.  Madison's reason for the 2nd Amendment would become null and void.

[Pete]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

uh....I’m on sabbatical today. (Well, till sundown in the Jewish tradition) 

[J.Mencalice]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

The G.I. Bill

[Rams]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

The G.I. Bill

Just so I understand, you consider the GI Bill to be a permanent class of lazy handout recipients?

Rams

[J.Mencalice]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

The G.I. Bill

Just so I understand, you consider the GI Bill to be a permanent class of lazy handout recipients?

Rams

No, you don't understand.

[Rams]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

The G.I. Bill

Just so I understand, you consider the GI Bill to be a permanent class of lazy handout recipients?

Rams

No, you don't understand.

Please enlighten me.....   

[f6john]

I think JM has really stepped into with this one.

[Pete]

The problem is, Conservatives and Liberals want two totally different countries.
We both know that.  A socialized America will fail, socialism has repeatedly failed.

Conservatives also desire socialism. They just don't call it that.

Therein lies much of the problem, apparently Liberals don't understand what it means to be Conservative.   

Or maybe conservatives don't understand socialist programs. 

As demonstrated by the progressive liberals (and to some extent by the republican leaders), socialist programs are generally vote buying, big government giveaways to enhance their power, keep them in office and to create a voter who is ignorant of the realities and repercussions of out of control government and (we know better than you) bureaucrats and will vote the party line.

Sure some of the programs have done some limited good but at what cost ($$$$, human(e), graft, criminal) in terms of trampling the rights of the program recipients and the program payers.

Name 1 socialist program that was truly cost effective and did not trample the rights of both parties (recipient and payer) and should be continued? Without change.

To help you - THERE IS NOT ONE.

There are plenty of things that need doing in this country, public and private. Enough so that everyone can have a job and earn money and contribute to society. There is NO need for a permanent class of lazy handout citizens sitting on their a$$.

If you are to lazy to do something, find another country or let mother nature take care of you.

The G.I. Bill

You decide, If the program fits the descriptions above then yes else no.

[Rams]

I think JM has really stepped into with this one.

Actually, I think not.

I went back and re-read the post he was responding to and, agree.

The difference being, one must earn the right to use the GI Bill, not simply exist.  

Rams

[RainMaker]

- No agreement is made up of one side only and some will never agree.
- Comp-per-mise is a 4 letter word used to avoid a true solution.
- Logic escapes a significant percentage of the population.
- At least 52 percent do not want a solution, they want something else.
- Ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever.
 

And that explanation right there is the crux of the problem. The “other side” is stupid, our side is “righteous “  

They were not explanations and the points were separate standalone sentences. There was no side taking or references in the points. And I reject you attempt to add them as that was never the intent.



Your comment was not helpful or correct.
Your conclusion is not correct, but that is ok

Actual numbering or bullet points would have probably helped as I read it the same way as Meathead. *(see above)  And it is/they are your opinion(s) which is definitely your right to make known, as opinions are not right or wrong - they are just opinions.  But the same goes for Meathead.

At no point in either post was "opinions" even mentioned please do not try to add it. Opinions usually indicate "I", "we" or a personal connection, they were not there on purpose. If it had been in there some would take it as an invitation as some did.

Discuss the points, please as suggested in the original post.

The title of the topic has "opinions welcomed".    Unless you consider your 5 points to be facts, then what are they?  Not adding anything, but assuming you were following the topic may have been my flaw.  My apologies. 

Let's discuss the opinions (or points/facts, as you have defined them) from your post -

1) I think this can be proven as incorrect.  There are examples daily of unanimous agreements made by people with different backgrounds and opinions, all coming to one side for the unanimous decision.  See any capital murder case where the verdict is guilty for one example.
2) Comp-per-mise isn't' even a word.  I must assume you meant compromise.  Not all compromise ends in a perfect solution, but many times, a compromise results in a better solution than if only one side makes the call (in my opinion).  Locations for events, tax increases, many punishments, where your kids go to school and many purchasing decisions are examples.  And there are no perfect solutions unless they are of divine nature.
3) Please state your source showing greater than 50% of the population with logic disorder.  I've never heard of such a study, but you must have to state the fact.
4) Please state your source showing 52% of those polled wanting no solutions.  I think most folks want a solution, but not be the same solution others want (opinion).  Waiting to see your study results to see if my opinion is lacking.
5) Per Miriam Webster: "stupid -  lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary.".  If it can be temporary, it cannot be forever.

These are my opinions.  And Rob, the sun will set in London, England in 8 minutes.

 

[The emperor has no clothes]

  Mark, I think that would be fudging. But I like the way you think. 

[Oss]

Suggestions welcome as to how to neutralize dividers


It was the last line of the o.p.

If you don't mind....... Thanks

[Pete]

RainMaker - nice treatise.

Item #1 is related to politics not juries - the original post was about politics and division
Item #2 COMP is a four letter word that is why the dash - play on works about comp-per-mise being a curse rather than  blessing. Political compromise almost always results a poor solution.
Item #3 A study several years ago cited the following "approximately half the voters vote for the wrong politician for the wrong reason".
Item #4 Source last presidential election popular vote
Item #5 A popular saying for the last 50 years that is has been used to indicate several things, one being
terminal stubborn-ness rather that lack of actual intelligence.

Hope this helps!

[Robert]

A few news stories and headlines, thank you Maxine.

St Jude family, attacked after thanking Eric Trump for $16 mil in donations. Now, they’re fighting back.

Sen. Dick Durbin: Trapped Thai Soccer Team Like Detained Illegal Aliens

Woman Harasses Steve Bannon In Bookstore, Owner Calls Police, Former Clinton Adviser Tweets Owner’s Contact Info

[Skinhead]

I think JM has really stepped into with this one.

Actually, I think not.

I went back and re-read the post he was responding to and, agree.

The difference being, one must earn the right to use the GI Bill, not simply exist.  

Rams

I partially disagree with both of you, I don't think he stepped in it, I just think he was plan wrong and grasping at straws.  I don't think the GI Bill is a socialist program at all.  You were correct Rams, in citing what makes the GI Bill NOT a socialist program, that is it must be earned, it is not given freely.

[Pete]

OOPS, Just so some will not think I am playing favorites, the reply for RainMaker was done from memory not research.

Just did not want anyone to think I would do research for RM and not them.

[Robert]

The best answer to OSS

#WalkAway - Brandon Straka, "Why I left the Democratic Party"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UGcghHZsk

We are not dealing with people that want peace, they dont, they want anarchy and that there is no negotiation with. They want socialism and a new world order. This video is the old liberal what the Democrats used to be but no more. Great video from someone who actually walked away.


Founder Of Movement For Disillusioned Democrats Refused Service At New York Electronics Store

https://youtu.be/MwsrPYUazq8

[Bigwolf]

Only in recent years have I learned these negotiating truths.  Maybe some of you can test them for yourselves.  I hope you find them helpful, I sure have.

1). Listen to everything they have to say.  Give them my full attention.  If, while they are still talking, I allow my mind to work on the rebuttal I intend to come back at them with, I miss hearing fully their statement and at the same time show my lack of interest in their thoughts.  If I do not listen carefully to everything they say, I am sending a clear body language message that I don’t care what they think and that I am unwilling to work with them.  If I want respect, I have to give respect and that starts with careful and intentional listening.

2). It is not so much what you say as how you say it that makes the other person angry and uncooperative.
I must first make my own mind at peace with whatever transpires in negotiations.  If I am not at peace in my own mind, how I speak will reflect my irritation with the person or persons I am speaking to and destroy my ability to gain their respect and cooperation.

3). Speak my truth quietly and clearly.  If I raise my voice, I lose their respect.  I must not ever allow myself to be drawn into bad behaviors even when my opponents are disrespecting me.  I can instead state my case that I have been negotiating in good faith but, if their poor behavior towards me continues, I will take a break until they can be more civil.  I must then stand firm and take that break if they continue to be unkind.

4). I must always speak with humility.  If I give the impression that I think I am better or smarter than them, my effectiveness is over and done.  Remember from point 2 above.......if I don’t first prepare my mind with humility, the tone of what I say will surely cause resistance and anger in the very people I am trying to solve the conflict with.  Put the problem in front of all involved in the negotiations so that all are facing the problem, not their opponent.  Promote a shoulder to shoulder perspective.  This may take a big dose of finesse but it is well worth the effort.

Bigwolf

[Robert]

Only in recent years have I learned these negotiating truths.  Maybe some of you can test them for yourselves.  I hope you find them helpful, I sure have.

All great points but I think you have missed the most important point.

The other person has to, want to solve the issue.

It also takes faith, that once those ideas fail someone knows a better way.

There can be no agreement if the other party doesn't see a benefit for them. That takes knowing the the goal they want to achieve is NOT going to happen alone or at all. That is why pretty words sometimes will fail especially when one way is thinking they have the advantage. Until that advantage is seen as untenable a person or group is not going to give ground, carrot and stick.

[Bigwolf]

Only in recent years have I learned these negotiating truths.  Maybe some of you can test them for yourselves.  I hope you find them helpful, I sure have.

All great points but I think you have missed the most important point.

The other person has to, want to solve the issue.

It also takes faith, that once those ideas fail someone knows a better way.

There can be no agreement if the other party doesn't see a benefit for them. That takes knowing the the goal they want to achieve is NOT going to happen alone or at all. That is why pretty words sometimes will fail especially when one way is thinking they have the advantage. Until that advantage is seen as untenable a person or group is not going to give ground, carrot and stick.

Robert,
I do have faith.  I have a very firm faith that a huge majority of people in these United States truly want many of the same things.  I have a firm faith that those things include: more freedom, a kinder government, a government that supports growth and betterment, and Freedom to speak their own mind.  There are probably other “common” goals we could use to slow down the division and begin the healing that is necessary if this nation is to survive much longer as a democratic republic.  The only real difference is in the vision of how to make those things happen.

Everyone sees life through the lens of their mind’s eye.  For each person, that lens is colored by their own personal life experiences and no 2 are the same.  Because of that, the pathways to any goal will be envisioned differently by different people.  This does not make anyone right nor does it make anyone wrong.  Some pathways will be better than others.  Some pathways will fail.  Several pathways will get the job done.  It is up to all that share that goal to find a pathway all can support and build together.

I do not believe that I have missed the most important point.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have a very clear understanding of the situation.  Of coarse, my perception is colored by the lens of my own mind’s eye.

Bigwolf

[Rams]

Only in recent years have I learned these negotiating truths.  Maybe some of you can test them for yourselves.  I hope you find them helpful, I sure have.

All great points but I think you have missed the most important point.

The other person has to, want to solve the issue.

It also takes faith, that once those ideas fail someone knows a better way.

There can be no agreement if the other party doesn't see a benefit for them. That takes knowing the the goal they want to achieve is NOT going to happen alone or at all. That is why pretty words sometimes will fail especially when one way is thinking they have the advantage. Until that advantage is seen as untenable a person or group is not going to give ground, carrot and stick.

Robert,
I do have faith.  I have a very firm faith that a huge majority of people in these United States truly want many of the same things.  I have a firm faith that those things include: more freedom, a kinder government, a government that supports growth and betterment, and Freedom to speak their own mind.  There are probably other “common” goals we could use to slow down the division and begin the healing that is necessary if this nation is to survive much longer as a democratic republic.  The only real difference is in the vision of how to make those things happen.

Everyone sees life through the lens of their mind’s eye.  For each person, that lens is colored by their own personal life experiences and no 2 are the same.  Because of that, the pathways to any goal will be envisioned differently by different people.  This does not make anyone right nor does it make anyone wrong.  Some pathways will be better than others.  Some pathways will fail.  Several pathways will get the job done.  It is up to all that share that goal to find a pathway all can support and build together.

I do not believe that I have missed the most important point.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have a very clear understanding of the situation.  Of coarse, my perception is colored by the lens of my own mind’s eye.

Bigwolf

Jerry,
You are probably correct on much of what you have stated but I caution you to check those glasses for rose colored tint. 

Rams

[Bigwolf]

Ron,
I am aware.  But I keep in mind, it is just like eating an elephant.  It works the same way. 

We did not get where we are in just the last 10 or 20 years.  It has been a progressive decline over several decades. 

Bigwolf

[Pete]

Thanks folks some good discussion.  My hopes are high, but not my expectations.

[Bigwolf]

Thanks folks some good discussion.  My hopes are high, but not my expectations.

+1. 

[Willow]

Bigwolf,

I read through your suggestions.  You lost me early on because the tone of your presentation seemed to indicate that you thought you were either better or smarter than I.  I just couldn't deal with that so I have summarily rejected your perspective and your viewpoints.   

I have found the best way to work through intellectual conflict (argument, disagreement) is to assume the person on the other side is actually too stupid to understand what is real and what will result.  From there I adopt whatever strategy will work my way through the resulting weed patch.

I've found that resorting to name calling is counter productive.   

[Bigwolf]

Willow,
I am so sad that you feel that way.  I thought that I had hidden my extremely superior intellect so well.   

Honestly, I don’t like to use the word “stupid”, I prefer to think “under educated on the subject and lacking the facts and history of the subject”.  Other than that, I have often thought the opposing side didn’t have a clue. Then, I too have set about to get the best possible outcome.

Bigwolf

[Rams]

When an unmovable object encounters an irrestible force, something has gotta give.

This nation has been headed toward socialism for too long.

I am not sure whether I'm part of the unmovable object or the irrestible force but, I'm goons stand my ground until some one proves socialism/liberalism  works.   History is definitely on my side in that tug of war.....

Rams

[Willow]

...  I thought that I had hidden my extremely superior intellect so well.    ...

Bigwolf, you have hidden it better than you could possibly imagine.   

Uneducated as a descriptor leaves hope that one may still gain the knowledge that leads to understanding.  Stupid implies that one simply doesn't have the innate ability.  I stick with the latter.