Thread: Republican National Convention

Originally Posted by gugi

That's certainly fine, however set theory and measures is not a matter of opinion, it is a math issue.

I mean it's not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with your categorization, it's just not particularly useful because as you've defined it it puts virtually all americans in one of your categories and virtually none in the other.
It is analogous to saying 'the fundamental distinction between people is among those who want to breathe air and those who don't'. Yes, it is a distinction and there may be somebody who wants to breathe water or dirt instead of air.

Which category does my categorization put virtually all Americans and why?

ChrisL
l

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Which category does my categorization put virtually all Americans and why?

ChrisL
l

See the last paragraph of my post 178 how I made the conclusion from the examples you offered. Unless I didn't understand what you are saying in them.

Still, the second paragraph of that second post is a question on how you would apply your binary choice to two cases. Even if I didn't understand your examples if you answer the question I may be able to figure out how you want your criteria applied.

Originally Posted by jmercer

I would think and have seen/heard to some extent both viewpoints in some of the groupings you mention. Generally speaking maybe but not total. Yes some but not all.

Great example of how we see things so differently. You are both correct from your viewpoint.

So having said this what do you think it would take to change policies that would allow people to feel more included and get into the tent? That's truly where to power lies.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

No. It is fundamental.

More government = good.

Less government = good.

On a fundamental level a person believes one or the other.

Chrisl

Whether your right or wrong is there any chance that our society can really improve for all it's members if our choices continue to be polar opposites? Shouldn't we all be looking for something in the middle of these 2? Isn't that the goal here? If not why are we doing this? A fundamental change that will help all of us has to happen. It just doesn't reside at either of these positions.

Originally Posted by gugi

Where would you put a 'Trump supporter' who wants less government involvement on regulating their business, but more government involvement in protecting it from foreign competition through say tariffs?

It depends on where the 'Trump supporter' stands on more than just two issues. I would hope the 'Trump supporter' would be able to personally quantify their general leanings.

Your rendering of the examples you gave is biased towards 'less government=good' purity. Meaning that if among 1000 issues a person wants less government involvement on 999 and more on a single issue you are labeling them in the 'more government=good' camp.

You misunderstood me; perhaps I was not clear enough. Exactly the opposite; if someone wants less government involvement on 999 of 1000 issues and more on a single issue, generally speaking, they would be in the LESS government = good camp.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that you are for more government on some things and for less government on other things. I agree with you that that would realistically apply to most all of us save for those at the extremes on either end.

However, you also seem to be saying that because you're "for" and "against", depending on the particular issues that you can't personally quantify your leanings one way or another. You're split equally. You believe generally neither in more government involvement nor in less government involvement. That's interesting to me if you believe that.

Chrisl

Originally Posted by ChrisL

However, you also seem to be saying that because you're "for" and "against", depending on the particular issues that you can't personally quantify your leanings one way or another. You're split equally. You believe generally neither in more government involvement nor in less government involvement. That's interesting to me if you believe that.

Chrisl

It's really not that inconceivable. Lots of answers but it's the questions that are wrong. Think more in terms of "why?" and less about "what?".

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Originally Posted by gugi

Where would you put a 'Trump supporter' who wants less government involvement on regulating their business, but more government involvement in protecting it from foreign competition through say tariffs?

It depends on where the 'Trump supporter' stands on more than just two issues. I would hope the 'Trump supporter' would be able to personally quantify their general leanings.

Not sure I understand, you seem to be saying that you can not put him in either of your camps based on his two preferences, and you need to know his preferences on more issues. What would be your objective criterion if he is "less government=good" on 50.1% of the issues you are able to get an answer from him and "more government=good" on 49.9%. Is it a simple numerical comparison or some of the issues are more important than others and you need to do a weighted average?

Originally Posted by ChrisL

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that you are for more government on some things and for less government on other things. I agree with you that that would realistically apply to most all of us save for those at the extremes on either end.

However, you also seem to be saying that because you're "for" and "against", depending on the particular issues that you can't personally quantify your leanings one way or another. You're split equally. You believe generally neither in more government involvement nor in less government involvement. That's interesting to me if you believe that.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying and I am going beyond that and saying that I am willing to put money that it's not just me but the vast majority of people that are split, it's just that they have different combination in the split than me.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

So having said this what do you think it would take to change policies that would allow people to feel more included and get into the tent?

I'm not sure I can solve that one. I don't think it is possible to be all inclusive in this day and time. We have so many differences which seem to generate prejudices which get in the way. There are some folks that do not want to be included. I think I'm saying that right. Har!

Am I on the right track?

Originally Posted by Brenngun

So having said this what do you think it would take to change policies that would allow people to feel more included and get into the tent? That's truly where to power lies.





Whether your right or wrong is there any chance that our society can really improve for all it's members if our choices continue to be polar opposites? Shouldn't we all be looking for something in the middle of these 2? Isn't that the goal here? If not why are we doing this? A fundamental change that will help all of us has to happen. It just doesn't reside at either of these positions.

You will never satisfy all the people all the time. The best you can hope for is that everyone involved can create a compromise solution that is amenable to the majority of the society in order to create some sense of harmony. A strictly adversarial approach with the only goal being winning every time won't get you there. Ask anyone who has been in a successful long term marriage or an unsuccessful one for that matter.

The larger and more diversified a society becomes the more difficult it gets. When did compromise become such a bad thing?

Bob

Originally Posted by ChrisL

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that you are for more government on some things and for less government on other things. I agree with you that that would realistically apply to most all of us save for those at the extremes on either end.

However, you also seem to be saying that because you're "for" and "against", depending on the particular issues that you can't personally quantify your leanings one way or another. You're split equally. You believe generally neither in more government involvement nor in less government involvement. That's interesting to me if you believe that.

Chrisl

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

It's really not that inconceivable. Lots of answers but it's the questions that are wrong. Think more in terms of "why?" and less about "what?".

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying and I am going beyond that and saying that I am willing to put money that it's not just me but the vast majority of people that are split, it's just that they have different combination in the split than me.

Originally Posted by jmercer

I'm not sure I can solve that one. I don't think it is possible to be all inclusive in this day and time. We have so many differences which seem to generate prejudices which get in the way. There are some folks that do not want to be included. I think I'm saying that right. Har!

Am I on the right track?

Originally Posted by BobH

You will never satisfy all the people all the time. The best you can hope for is that everyone involved can create a compromise solution that is amenable to the majority of the society in order to create some sense of harmony. A strictly adversarial approach with the only goal being winning every time won't get you there. Ask anyone who has been in a successful long term marriage or an unsuccessful one for that matter.

The larger and more diversified a society becomes the more difficult it gets. When did compromise become such a bad thing?

Bob

Hey! Did anyone notice something? We may be building a consensus. Look closely at all these posts. What's the common theme. Go past the actual verbiage and look between the lines for the soft underbelly known as feelings & wishes. We all understand there is no winning at the extremes. We all agree that most people are willing to move away from the extremes to make things better for all. We all understand that it's not going to easy. These are all the positives things. Now the question becomes can we all abandon the current electoral/party process in favor of one that allows a true freedom of choice? Are we even willing to do that? It's scary but I don't see any other way out of this.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Now the question becomes can we all abandon the current electoral/party process in favor of one that allows a true freedom of choice?

Maybe if you can get consensus on what is true freedom of choice.