Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Off topic but your words are not valid only in the USA but many other countries as well.
Currently there are now several 'great leaders' who have promised to make their country great avain. Doesn't look so good, specially for their own people.
:hmmm: Every Leader promises thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
People don't get elected by saying they are not going to improve things
I'm not trying to change your mind. That would be like going to the ocean with a shovel and....Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Yes that's certainly an answer, forget the past stick your head in the sand and every thing is just great. I fear that if status quo is maintained for another 4 or 8 years the candidate to follow will make a guy like Trump look like a puppy.
So exactly the same as youQuote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
As said, it is not my business to try to make anyone change their minds. Conversation should be just conversation without hot feelings. Respecting and sometimes even learning from different views. But also accepting there will be no day when everyone thinks alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
My comment is not on politicians in US but politicians everywhere.
Every leader might promise to improve things. Make things great again. What makes the difference is that there is no consensus on what great means or if there ever were such times.
Specially when they do not tell exactly how they are trying to keep their promises and what it means in everyday life for everyone. That is why people should think deeply with critic on everything candidates say.
I've lived long enough to learn that if the promise sounds too good to be true, it likely is just a nice talk. Think twice what you wish because sometimes it might come true, but not the way you expected.
Currently there are several politicians in power who have literally promised to make their country great again. And so hard they are really trying to do it, be it Ottoman Empire or CCCP.
Restoring good old days, sounds great is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
There it is :)
I agree, with that right there
This is exactly the crux of the matter. Some things can still be simplified and the source of political friction in the U.S. is one of those things. It really does boil down to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor
There are people who believe a "great" society is one in which the government plays a significant and wide reaching role in the lives of individuals. A "great" society is one in which the government not only provides an ever increasing array of assistance, programs, subsidies, etc but also regulates, shapes and monitors individual behavior in an ever increasing manner.
Then there are people who believe that a "great" society is one in which government plays a limited role in the lives of individuals and that scaling back what such people believe is already a pervasive over extended and unwelcome assault on personal freedom will make for an even greater society.
A person ascribes to one of the above viewpoints or the other. Not both. On a fundamental level, it's one or the other.
A person can change their viewpoint from one view to the other. However from what I've seen no amount of talk from someone else will change a person's viewpoint. The individual's own experiences foster change in this regard.
Very well put, Sailor.
ChrisL
So, who are these people? There are people who love communism and there are people who love socialism. There are people who like all kinds of things. If you are trying to describe those on the right and those on the left you are wrong on both parts. In fact there are many folks on the right who talk the talk about limited government until it comes to forcing their beliefs on others. Of course they know what's good for others. Most left leaners don't want to do anything with individual behaviors, just the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
Viewpoints can be changed if the individual has an open mind and before settling on a viewpoint bases his decision on fact not fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmercer
Thank you for your question directly related to my original post. Sorry I was under the impression that most people would have a reference to the meaning of the GOP "Big Tent" initiative. It's about inclusiveness by action not just words. A consistent demonstration of both policy and resulting laws that support and enhance the equality of minority rights and freedoms.
After the GOP defeat in the 1996 Presidential election they felt one of the biggest reasons for this failure was the perception of having a very narrow membership makeup (small tent). Is was decided to work on attracting more members from a diverse cross section of ethnic, visible minority, religious & sexual orientation segments of the population (big tent). It was felt this diversity would help the GOP win future elections. You can find some interesting reading about this in the following link (sorry Glen another useless link however I have faith that some will use it). As you can see the diversity push actually started earlier and received early support from then Governor, later President Reagan however it was not until 1996 when the subject was a hot button topic front and center with the Party.
So if anyone wants to get back on topic this would be a good place to start. Otherwise I guess this is no longer the original intention of my first post. I'm good with either you understand.
Log Cabin Republicans | Our History
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. ;)
No. It is fundamental.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
More government = good.
Less government = good.
On a fundamental level a person believes one or the other.
Chrisl
This is strict anarchism and statism and very very few people are die hard anarchists or statists.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
I don't believe either of these. I believe that
more government thing A = bad
less government thing A = good
more government thing B = good
less government thing B = bad
I am willing to bet very good money that the vast majority of people are just like me and the disagreements are over what are the A and B things that some people want the government to do more of, and other people want it to do less of.
I like the word semantics to generalize this. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Since it's DNC week I would like to say that in my view there is one unsurpassed illustration of semantics:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmercer
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"
Folks love less Government until an issue arises affecting them personally. Then they quickly become "More Government" champions. No different than folks who have a vested interest and then wish the Government would go away.
It's just not as simple or fundamental.
Not true. At least for the former. I believe "strict anarchism" would apply if my statement would have been: "NO government = good" which I did not say.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
I may need to clarify. I am not talking about extremes. Anarchism on one end or Totalitarianism on the other end. I am also not talking about "right" or "left", Democrat or Republican.
One can get caught up in the minutiae all too easily and lose focus on the fundamentals. Let's make the U.S. as it is today the scale.
Generally, if a person believes that to be a better place, the U.S. needs greater government intervention, their scale would tip toward "more government than we have right now = good."
Generally, if a person believes that to be a better place, the U.S. needs less government intervention, their scale would tip toward "less government than we have right now = good."
Minutiae can cloud the fundamentals:
"I think the government is far far too involved in people's lives. But I also believe that tougher immigration laws should be enacted. Therefore, I'm not a "less government = good" kind of person."
or
"Too much government intervention? There's not enough. Our behavior as a society is nowhere near where it needs to be in regard to how we treat the environment. Big corporations thumb their noses at any laws we may have; we absolutely need more regulation in those areas just to name a few. I do think drug use should be decriminalized though. Therefore, I'm not a "more government = good" kind of a person."
Minutiae aside, in regard to the above examples: Yes you are. And, yes you are.
If the word "fundamental" is a road block here, then I think anyone, if they were honest, including being honest with themselves, would say that one or the other statements below apply to them:
"Generally, I believe more government than we have now would be good."
"Generally, I believe less government than we have now would be good."
ChrisL
Yes, if your position depends on the present state it can not be fundamental. When you presented a fundamental binary choice between the two absolutes of either 'less government=good' or 'more government=good' you made it either one extreme or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
But even your current choice isn't flexible enough.
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? Or a 'Clinton supporter' who wants more government involvement guaranteeing her minimum wage and benefits but less government involvement in telling her who she can marry and raise children with?
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.
The only person who would qualify as a 'less government=good' camp would be the one who wants it on every single issue imaginable - less taxes, less military, less social services, less law enforcement, etc. than what we have now. I don't know if such a person exist among the 300 million american citizens, the probability is so low.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
ChrisL
That's certainly fine, however set theory and measures is not a matter of opinion, it is a math issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmercer
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
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?".Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLIt 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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenngun
Am I on the right track? ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenngun
The larger and more diversified a society becomes the more difficult it gets. When did compromise become such a bad thing?
Bob
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDshaver
Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmercer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
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.
Maybe if you can get consensus on what is true freedom of choice. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenngun
How you gonna make folks on the extremes admit/realize they are on the extremes? They don't see it that way.
I don't think you can get the 1%'ers and 5%'ers on either end of any issue to buy in. There is always some one who will resist.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
So just a question, we have debated over many political threads over the last 9+ years and you actually know more about me then most on hereQuote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Am I a Conservative Right winger ??? In your opinion :hmmm:
How do YOU define that term.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
From what I see you are conservative and that is as far as I would say.
I would add passionate to that. ;)
Gentlemen and others Please unsubscribe.
Why should we do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin103
This thread is not going anywhere, you got SRP staff and members barking at each other because of their political views. Not exactly what SRP is all about, Gentlemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrchick
Now that the dust up has settled a bit I would like to try for a few more posts.
As Mrchick has pointed out we are predictable to some degree. {flashes back on Gold Dollars} :w
It would be interesting to see if we can get beyond our selves for once. :tu
"predictable" We went to the movie today & before going my son asked, " Are we going to have enough time to go & get your daily donuts & coffee?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jmercer
Now, I just can't figure out if he was genuinely concerned or being a smart a$$. :shrug:
Oh,,, BTW we saw "Hillary's America" Loved It !! :rofl2:
That should get things rolling again. :D