Thread: So, where do we go from here?

We have had I don't know how many politically orientated threads the last so many years and invariably they deteriorate into the usual partisan cat fight which reflects the sad state of affairs in this country. (Many others too).

Lincoln made some famous remarks about a divided house and I believe the degree of devisiveness is very close to the situation he found himself in.

So it's the new year and a new administration and if this country is truly The United States men of good faith and will, will need to come to the fore to try and undo the damage.

Let those men appear here first. Gentlemen, I want solutions and the very notion of Partisan is a dirty word in this thread.

We can start small.

My 2 cents to start is everyone should endeavor to spend a certain percentage of the time exploring the policies of the "other side". Read their blogs, listen to their mouthpieces, watch their news shows. Maybe we might come to realize we all want the same things and understand our differences better. Secondly we should all use our ability for critical thinking so we know if we are being conned or lied to and why this is happening and be big enough to admit we just might be a little wrong.

Suggestions?

This isn't limited to the U.S. If you have similar issues in your country discuss those too.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of listening to the "other side" and as you suggest, may help to bring us together. On the other hand, it may solidify our current views as well. I know during this last election I did listen to the side that I normally do not agree with, (news channels that I normally do not watch). I also had many discussions with people that I know who do not see eye to eye with me politically. Some, I am sad to say would rather end a friendship than keep an open mind when debating. I tried to stay relatively "non-combative" for a better word regarding politics and discussions with people I know, but when attacked, I do not hesitate to defend my position. With my experience on listening to the other side of the fence, it did solidify my current opinions and beliefs.

Interesting topic.
In our country we have giant fights over natural resources, the exploration and exportation.
On one side of the oil debate we have the point that it is an important income source for our country.
Opposing that we have the environment, the rules surrounding the environment, and the resistance to the exportation of raw resources.
The big hot one in my area right now is a pipeline expansion leading from the oil fields in Alberta to the harbor in Vancouver.
The stand of Alberta is that the ocean belongs to all of Canada and they have the right to access it. In order to do so they need to cross the province of British Columbia. Unlike other countries in the world out environmental response system does not really exist. We also do not have clear or fair rules on what happens when oil is spilled and who has to pay what. The tankers currently going through very sensitive international waters with international fish stocks. The oil companies producing the oil are only responsible for the oil until it is loaded on ships. The shipping companies are only on the hook for the first ten million in damages. All the rest of the damages, clean up costs and compensation packages for any loss of fish stock to countries that we have treaties with are on the hook of the federal government, or the Canadian tax payer. At the same time if you are constructing a development on or near the water you must pay for the replacement of an habitat and species disrupted by the project two times. Not really that flat of a playing field. My point is that we have big money rolling through without the protection of our oceans, the fish that we have international responsibilities to protect, or the agreement of the people effected by the new development. It is long and complex and this is just the very tip of the discussion. We as a country need to protect the land and seas and find a way to allow the oil to be transported to market. Whether we decide to sell raw product or refined product is yet another discussion. If we insist upon forcing the will of one group onto another there will be conflict like we have never seen in this country. I fear there will be blood.

Okay I'm game! First thing we have to do is agree that a man was elected and that isn't going to change. He has certain promises he made to get elected it looks pretty much like he is dead set on following through with all of them as best he can. He has hired some people that make others nervous but they may very well be good choices to get done what he wants to do. He has changed politics already and is working on the media. He makes some statements/tweets that a lot of people don't think are appropriate. But that's who he is and we are all going to have to deal with it. At least he doesn't use the F bomb even though it wouldn't surprise me if he did someday.

Wanna pick a few things that are going to change or should we stick to one thing at a time LOL. The Affordable Care Act. Lets face it, the company that wrote most of it for the people initiating the package they all votes on announced over a year ago they were pulling out. The loses are to great and it is not sustainable. A couple of other major insurance companies stated the same thing. The time line I remember for United Health Care was mid 2017. As the new president said in his press conference, he could let it implode but who would get hurt most by that ? Not big pharma or the insurance companies. So is he wise to jump on this first thing ? If you take the view they are just trying to kill it because Obama did it I think that would be shallow at best. I heard Donald say there are good things in it and he wants to keep those. I think we all know what those things are but what say you ? Besides pre existing conditions and parents keeping their children on policies what else is good about it. Cheap is good but they have to do something about the co pay. That is not cheap in many cases and that makes it all worthless.
Social Security. Hmmmm isn't that an insurance ? Why do so many people get it that don't really need it ? I mean if your bringing in 6 or 8 k a month in retirement or from stock portfolio why on earth do you need 1900 bucks more in insurance payments from the government?
Ill stop here to see how this goes and I hope this is what your thinking Spendur :<0)

And REZ the fight of resources vs environment is a world problem for sure. My question to that is why aren't new technologies leading the way here. Solar is great but they have no backbone or ways to store it on a large enough scale to supply everyone? So what , get rid of the big profit companies doing that and put it at the homeowner level. We will still need power at night and in bad weather but it would sure be a lot less if every household did a better job of supplying it's own electricity during the times they could. Cuts way down on the infrastructure and would create jobs in a new sector. If I owned a major electric utility I would be making and installing panels just to stay alive in the future.

So what has to happen is the two sides have to compromise (a dirty word I know) but there has to be acknowledgement for the economy and for environmental concerns and a system has to be worked out. Maybe scale back the product, change the route, use different materials, etc.

The problem is the two sides become entrenched and feel only they are right and the other side is all wrong. It's a mindset that has to change.

Compromise of much significance seems to be a thing of the past. Sorry for the pessimism.

Ron I think that is part of the problem. Too many people with their heels dug in too deep to find a common ground. I have a cousin that says compromise simply means that no one gets what they want. It is in part true, but without compromise no one gets anything.

It's indeed easy to "demonize" the man on the other side.

If you think a bit about it, you start to realize they mostly want the means to live a happy and secure life. Then you can start to discuss.

It may seem "basic", but reading political discussions, it still doesn't appear too obvious.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Lincoln made some famous remarks about a divided house and I believe the degree of devisiveness is very close to the situation he found himself in.

Lincoln's house divided speech, before he became president of the USA, was prophetic, but he wasn't the first to make that observation. His source was undoubtedly a higher one;

Matthew 12:25

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Years ago there may have been a middle ground where you could talk about both sides wanting the same things but just had different ideas as to how to get there. I don't think that the right and left in this country want the same things anymore. I don't think they share the same beliefs about the nature of man or the nature of gov't. So as Utopian suggests, compromise is a thing of the past because accepting SOME of the other side is to slowly transition toward that side. Naivete provided a lot of elasticity. I don't see the rift as one of just being a difference of opinion but one that is a civil war that is being fought in a very nontraditional way. To that end, I will sit back and let the nature of this thread form itself and join in if I feel I can contribute. But when the right and left in this country can not agree on what is reality and what is not, there's a lot to overcome.