Politics.

AZ Jim

AZ Jim

R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
Location
SURPRISE, ARIZONA
I have come to the realization that to argue politics here, or elsewhere is an exercise in futility. Hereafter, I will not argue position with others and while I may comment on matters political, I do not intend to respond to positions in opposition to my posts.

This is not a novel idea and it is practiced by prudent people everyday. To assume any minds can be changed here is naive, I know no one can change mine. Win or lose, I'll take my opinions to the voting booth.
 

I can understand your frustrations Jim, It does seem a shame that debate points can never be won or lost where the issue hinges on the establishment of a couple of facts. What you're usually faced with as you try to zero in on single point is that your opponent brings up a different issue that prevents the debate from reaching a conclusion. It's a shame that in the history of political debate between liberals and conservatives on SF I can recall not a single admission by one side that the other side did indeed score a valid point. This is really a very sad commentary on our very divided nation. Are we indeed people of good faith seeking the truth or ideological mechanical dolls with strings coming out of the top of our heads. Pull the string and you'll hear a recorded political message. I have stated my lament suggesting fault on both sides and it is true that both sides have resorted to some name calling, but the brunt of my critique is directed at the conservative side which I feel is unwilling to in good faith play by the rules of fair debate.
 
I have very little knowledge of American politics, and so I learn a lot here when a political discussion is in full throes.. Sure they can get heated at times not half as much as they get on other forum that's for sure..but it's interesting none the less for those of us who are outside of the US to learn from all sides of opinions.

I often read something about a political point of view and then go on to research more and then form my own opinion.

However Unlike the UK generally as a whole...the USA is a Huge country where every state it would seem has it's own laws and regulations ...so it must be nigh on impossible it would seem to me for people who live in Alabama to have the same political viewpoints as someone who lives in Utah for example... or am I wrong?
 
America is as polarized today as I've ever seen it. Certainly, during the Viet Nam War time there was bedlam in the streets. Today, political divisiveness is fueled by talk radio, cable television, and the internet. It's difficult to have civilized discussion re political matters when our elected officials won't.
No dialogue on an internet discussion board will change the way most people think about politics. Yet, our American system simply will not work if the citizens sit on their hands. We need to stay engaged to be motivated enough to go to the voting booth at EVERY election... federal, state, or local. Those who do not vote pique my ire more than those who I disagree with politically.
The difficult thing is to keep political discussions from becoming personal attacks. I work in a highly contentious environment. I enjoy the challenges of arguing/stating your case in such a way that you can motivate others to make 180 degree changes in their attitude... and doing so without personal attacks. If I didn't enjoy confrontational situations, I'd have retired long ago!!! :>)
I just remain so proud of this Great Country that I've been blessed to have as our home for my entire 68+ years on God's Green Earth. We have our issues, but so many are blown out of proportion by those whose income is dependant on keeping a listening/viewing audience riled up and motiviated to 'tune in tomorrow'.
 
Yes.. I have never seen our country so polarized as far as politics go. I blame this on the insurgance of religion into politics.. Both topics can be volatile by themselves... bring them together and there is nuclear fusion.. Now add talk radio and cable "news" , whose main function is to stoke the hatred and distrust with inflamatory commentary and we have insurmountable division.. AND right now.. I believe it IS insurmountable.

As Jim said.. It's pointless to debate politics in this environment. To me it's insulting when I try to voice my opinion and to be constantly told I am personally attacking someone... then hit with a "red herring" which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.. and everything to do with trying to insult and degrade.. No one is going to change their positions.. that's for sure.. not when they can flip on their favorite talk show and have their views validated and the walls of their bubble strengthened.
 
hollydolly said:
I have very little knowledge of American politics, and so I learn a lot here when a political discussion is in full throes.. Sure they can get heated at times not half as much as they get on other forum that's for sure..but it's interesting none the less for those of us who are outside of the US to learn from all sides of opinions.

I often read something about a political point of view and then go on to research more and then form my own opinion.

However Unlike the UK generally as a whole...the USA is a Huge country where every state it would seem has it's own laws and regulations ...so it must be nigh on impossible it would seem to me for people who live in Alabama to have the same political viewpoints as someone who lives in Utah for example... or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

You have hit on a very big problem for today's politics in the US. Until the last 50 or so years our country was driven by the states and how they responded through their elected people in our national government. As it has turned in recent years we now have a central government that is trying hard to be the leader and demander for all states. For some this works as it should but for others, that liked the way our government was designed to work, as a coordinator for the many different states, we do have lots of problems. Our Congress is supposed to work together to solve our problems. There were no political parties in our Constitution and likely should not be recognized now either. Each state provides Senators and Representatives to the national government in Washington DC. They are there to represent the people of their districts and look for their wants and needs. They are not there to represent any political party officially.

So what we have happening in the recent 50 or so years is a fully different than designed and worked for near two hundred years prior to what we have happening now. A non representative government of political parties rather than a collection of peoples representatives as they should be.

We need to get the party names off our ballots and make sure folks must know who they are voting for rather than a 'party' to elect. If people know that a person is working for a party then he can vote for the person he knows of and admires and cause that party to maybe become well represented in the government.

Some of these recent years changes are working their way through the courts system. One by one they will clear the courts and will be determined to be constitutional or not. So we may get states rights back for some of our recent changes and not for other ideas.
 
It is naive to suggest that taking party affiliation off the ballot will change anything at all. "Birds of a feather' is the reason. Will the talk radio, TV stop broadcasting? Will those listening not know who wears the black hat or the white one? Will we stop calling ourselves Democrats or Republicans? Liberals and Conservatives? The only two ways man can break the knot of polarity that has developed is like man always has had to do it, debate,respect and resolution or war. We are so divided I cannot see a solution. With the world as it is, I am thankful I am at the low end of my fuel gauge. I feel pain for our young and innocent children, for this is not the world I hoped we would leave them.
 
I'm still learning when it comes to politics, as I've said before I was never very politically minded and hardly a news buff over the years. I like to read these discussions here, and get other members opinions and views on things. If someone disagrees with what I think, I expect that and will not try to change their opinions.

There are a lot of folks that are unsure or on the fence about things, so learning the pros and cons of issues, and seeing what politicians are really up to that's not reported on the mainstream news, is very important, IMO.

When I listen to conservative talk shows and see what they're really all about, I have to say it's pushing me to the left, I can't understand why any middle income senior would vote republican anymore. Gun rights would be one reason to vote in that direction, but with everything else going on with the right, the gun issue is not that important anymore. They won't be knocking on my door and taking my guns if I vote for a democrat.

From what I see, many people vote for republicans for religious reasons, and I'm completely against that. Ted Cruz with his new presidential ad, in my mind is so religious rather than political, that it's laughable. The news media, talk shows and internet are definitely dividing us to be sure. QS is right on with the strengthening their bubble wall by flipping to their favorite news or talk show, they can repeat the same old talking points and each day is a new day to hear them. Right now I hear more right wing news and conversation than left, and it's disturbing to say the least.
 
Good post SB. You missed one of the key pulling points for the GOP. Abortion rights has somehow become a mantra and anyone promoting planned parenthood or abortion for medical reasons, or rape, incest, juvenile pregnancy become the "Devils instrument" and a "baby killer".
 
I know, but to me the anti-abortion and planned parenthood is a religious thing. I think they're okay with abortion if it's a 'legitimate' rape, but many times a woman's body will protect her from getting pregnant from a rape...I learn so much listening to the republican politicians, lol.
 
tnthomas said:
A person cannot change the attitudes of someone else, indeed- it's hard enough for a person to change their own.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I just need to step back from the fire to gain prospective from time to time. I have known for years it is impossible in politics and religion to change minds.
 
Jim, the reason I and others suggested taking party off the ballots is to force people to learn who they want to vote for. If there are no parties on the ballot that is the only way they will be able to vote for one party or the other.

Posting with the party by each name just helps the lazy ones to know which names to mark. Too easy for the lazy ones to learn nothing and just vote blind for a party.
 
SeaBreeze, I agree with you on the abortion situation. That is a personal decision and if you wish to have one then it should be OK. I am a registered Republican but that does not mean I agree with all the Republican party ideas at all. The same should be true for any Democrat too. If there are things a person does not agree with that the Democrat party pushes. No problem with voting your own choices as our laws say we can do.

I am really a swing voter on certain issues. I stay Republican because I like the way our government has been described to be run locally and the US government was to be a sharing of ideas only for national or international reasons. So for national things like military, weather services, taxes, and such we do need federal views and enforcement. How schools run are state or local, not federal. And so on. Not something that I can define or enforce, just my ideas. Medical needs and enforcement is in the courts right now. How that ends up is still to be seen.
 
Well, the main puzzle remains. How any senior can vote for the party that will and has been and have sworn to take away the EARNED benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Same thing applies to the red states regarding welfare. The red states pay least and get the most "welfare" per capita yet they vote for the party who wants to eliminate Welfare. For "thinking people" here is a breakdown to prove that.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
 
Note that when verifiable proof of statement is present, all debate ends. It seems to me that reflection on any opposing view should draw a change of mind, but does it????
 
AZ Jim said:
Well, the main puzzle remains. How any senior can vote for the party that will and has been and have sworn to take away the EARNED benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Same thing applies to the red states regarding welfare. The red states pay least and get the most "welfare" per capita yet they vote for the party who wants to eliminate Welfare. For "thinking people" here is a breakdown to prove that.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
Click to expand...

This is why leaving welfare and healthcare up to the individual states if a very bad idea.. At least for the people unlucky enough to live in the poor states... But a great idea for those in the wealthy states. So to make certain ALL Americans are treated fairly, taxes go into one pot... The Federal Goverment.. and are divied up amoung the states. Those most agains "BIG Government" and all for States rights would be singing quite a different tune if that that ever came to be..
 
I see that argument about the US taking away our earned retirement income, but only hear on this forum. I have not heard of such from any Democrat or Republican politician. So where do these threats come from?

I have heard of an offering of a choice being offered a few years back by some Republican Congress folks. It never even got into any serious debates or votes as I remember. And it was only to those that chose to go that way if it had been allowed.
 
QuickSilver said:
This is why leaving welfare and healthcare up to the individual states if a very bad idea.. At least for the people unlucky enough to live in the poor states... But a great idea for those in the wealthy states. So to make certain ALL Americans are treated fairly, taxes go into one pot... The Federal Goverment.. and are divied up amoung the states. Those most agains "BIG Government" and all for States rights would be singing quite a different tune if that that ever came to be..
Click to expand...

I believe that prior to he 1970's the US government was mostly state run and there was little 'big government' compared to now. Congress was a much more cordial group that often worked together to get ideas done for the good of the country. Not at all as hateful as it is these days.
 
AZ Jim said:
I have come to the realization that to argue politics here, or elsewhere is an exercise in futility. Hereafter, I will not argue position with others and while I may comment on matters political, I do not intend to respond to positions in opposition to my posts.

This is not a novel idea and it is practiced by prudent people everyday. To assume any minds can be changed here is naive, I know no one can change mine. Win or lose, I'll take my opinions to the voting booth.
Click to expand...

I totally agree Jim and plan to follow suite. I'd like to think of myself as prudent.
 
BobF said:
I see that argument about the US taking away our earned retirement income, but only hear on this forum. I have not heard of such from any Democrat or Republican politician. So where do these threats come from?

I have heard of an offering of a choice being offered a few years back by some Republican Congress folks. It never even got into any serious debates or votes as I remember. And it was only to those that chose to go that way if it had been allowed.
Click to expand...

Bush tried to pass off a proposal to turn "a portion" of our benefit tied to stock market which failed thanks to Democrats in congress and lucky for us because it was before the stock market crash. Where would this have put the poor pensioner when no check or a check greatly reduced came to his mailbox? Even if the stock market hadn't crashed it would have put billions of our SS money into wall street hands to speculate with. Paul Ryan's budget had Romney been elected would have done away with traditional medicare and replaced it with vouchers. With the rising medical costs it would have meant patients without enough funds to do what was needed medically. As to the Social Security "plan" of Bush's, he said it would begin as "voluntary" but if thousands left the SS pool it would have probably collapsed it. Bob, these are FACTS any one of which is verifiable. I wish you would look into these statements and trust me you won't get them on Fox news.
 
Fine, as you explained I have heard them prior and never thought much of it as it was discussion and nothing ever happened. That type of talk happens all the time in DC. Both sides constantly talking about doing this or doing that. Just political talk going on and little else. I don't remember any of those ideas ever being voted on in Congress. Or did I miss something?

Something that did happen and it is going to be very costly if we ever hear the truth, is the Obama care medical system. Not too many in it right now but many more expected to have to join in over time. Right now my former employer that once insured me after I retired ended that when Obama care came out. He said it was way too expensive as it arrived and he said he expected it to go up each year so he stopped offering to pay for the coming years. But he does repay me for some of the medical I do buy from a fixed fund I am allowed. Beyond that I am on my own. So far he has backed my health insurance with his offering.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top