Say Something Conciliatory to the “Other Side”

[Shaul]

There is no “other side”. We are all one body politic. I don’t subscribe to the notion that minor disagreements divide us more than common bonds unite us.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no “other side”. We are all one body politic.

That's the side I hate.

 

[Stevicus]

There is no “other side”. We are all one body politic. I don’t subscribe to the notion that minor disagreements divide us more than common bonds unite us.

There is a lot of truth to this.

As Americans, I think most of us seem to want the same basic goals for America. Most political factions seem to share the same basic political ideology and claim to support the Constitution. Despite the howls and attempts at labeling the other side as extremists (whether "fascists" or "communists" or other variations of "deplorables"), they all seem to support the basic principles of "truth, justice, and the American Way."

So, the only real dispute is how best to achieve the goals of making America better and greater.

One example brought up in this thread several times is about healthcare. Both sides seem to agree in theory that everyone in society should have healthcare, but how best to achieve that goal - whether it should be managed by the government or by private corporations/charities or a mixture of the public and private sectors.

 

[columbus]

That's the side I hate.

But let's face it.

You and I have a lot in common. Nevertheless, I'd rather fight you tooth and nail than cuddling.
Oh wait, yet another thing we have in common.

I think.
I'm not always sure what people on the internet really mean.

En garde!
Tom

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We retired and expatriated to Mexico in mid-2009. We live a mile up in the Sierra Nevadas on a mountain lake in a community that has a large American and Canadian expat community. This is my pueblo and what life looks like here:

View attachment 36925

Wow, that looks incredible. Congratulations. Are there jobs there, or did you retire?

 

[shmogie]

????
It seems you are not aware of the massive divide that is taking place right now in the DNC. The Establishment wing vs. the Progressive wing. The establishment Democrats (aka moderates or centrists) want to maintain the status quo, while the progressive Democrats are trying upend the party and give the power back to the people FDR style.

Oh they fight each other, sometimes viciously, yet when it comes time to vote, they are in lockstep.

I am very aware of what is going on. It isn't new. Long before you were probably born the same thing happened with Eugene McCarthy challenging Johnson.

 

[shmogie]

I wish I could believe this, but I can't.

I've been seeing the Republicans drop their standards for decades. Standards for bipartisanship, standards for democracy, standards for putting American values first, standards for doing the right thing(however imperfect our imperfect system results in).

But I don't see that much anymore. From Richard Lugar to Mitt Romney, standing up for those things gets you branded RINO.

In another thread, a Trump supporter referred to the Democratic party as my party. It isn't by any means. It's just all I have left since the Republicans took a dive into becoming the party of divisiveness, corporate greed, attack ads, partisan power,

and now they don't even care about serious possibilities of treason as long as it's Trump. Trump has dropped the standards for the Republican party to new lows.
Tom

Of course, as a lifelong Republican I disagree with every point you made.

The Republicans appear to have thrown in with the democrats on running up the deficits though, totally contrary to basic Republican principles.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I will admit that the AI they use to fake New Zealanders is better than average, sometimes it even approaches the level of "convincing".

That's as conciliatory as I'm prepared to get, considering their nonsense .

 

[crossfire]

Of course, as a lifelong Republican I disagree with every point you made.

The Republicans appear to have thrown in with the democrats on running up the deficits though, totally contrary to basic Republican principles.

When you run the deficits up you have more treasury bonds to sell.

 

[Shad]

Whichever side of the political spectrum you are on, what are some things you will admit or concede to the other side?

What are some things we can ALL agree on? Could we all agree, for example, that polarization has gotten out of hand, and we need better ways of having political debates?

I would like to challenge all of us to really dig deep, and identify places where we agree, or are willing to acknowledge the other side has a good point even if we don’t fully agree.

I wish we could have more productive political debates. By that I mean, a debate where it is possible for one person to actually persuade another. Those are too rare these days. But they are the most enjoyable discussions.

Depends on what you think a side is actually offering. Pick a person or policy and I will respond.

For example Sanders and Biden have different views of Healthcare but are both under the umbrella of the left. Which policy represents the left? Likewise take Romney and State healthcare. Is that policy representative of the right especially considering he was against the same policy applied at a Federal level.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Depends on what you think a side is actually offering. Pick a person or policy and I will respond.

For example Sanders and Biden have different views of Healthcare but are both under the umbrella of the left. Which policy represents the left? Likewise take Romney and State healthcare. Is that policy representative of the right especially considering he was against the same policy applied at a Federal level.

Yes, I realize there are nuances to each supposed side. It’s exactly those nuances I would like to focus on. You kind of have to tell me where you deviate from whatever party or figure you commonly identify with (personally, I’ve often seen you defending the President).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course, as a lifelong Republican I disagree with every point you made.

The Republicans appear to have thrown in with the democrats on running up the deficits though, totally contrary to basic Republican principles.

Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It's about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too – but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them.

To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming.​

— Michael Bloomberg, speech to UK Conservative Party, September 30, 2007

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are there jobs there, or did you retire?

I retired. This is a good economy for spending, but not for earning.

If you're interested personally, I'd be glad to help.

 

[Revoltingest]

Over the decades, I've seen both liberals & conservatives favor gay
marriage. Not all of'm, but enuf to see common ground with libertarians.
One can always find some merit in the other side....if one is open to it.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I realize there are nuances to each supposed side. It’s exactly those nuances I would like to focus on. You kind of have to tell me where you deviate from whatever party or figure you commonly identify with (personally, I’ve often seen you defending the President).

Regarding Trump. I am more often attacking bad arguments against Trump, outrage industry rhetoric or perceived views from the left media repeated here.That is different from defending the man and any action he has taken. I find most of the criticism of Trump to be pure opportunism by politicians and a detached public.

I am a fiscal small government conservative thus have no genuine representation these days. Socially I favor small government thus government is only involved in major issues. For example government should only be involved in marriage for tax purposes and crime (age of consent, abuse, etc) not the type of marriage nor people involved.

 

[Shad]

Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It's about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too – but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them.

To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming.​

— Michael Bloomberg, speech to UK Conservative Party, September 30, 2007

This is the problem with how people treat fiscal conservatism these days "raising (taxes) them overall only when necessary to balance the budget" If the budget can not meet campaign promises taxes are increased to ensure political gain. A lot of Western nations have national debt that has nothing to do with America's wars but due to their social programs that have become universal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regarding Trump. I am more often attacking bad arguments against Trump, outrage industry rhetoric or perceived views from the left media repeated here.That is different from defending the man and any action he has taken. I find most of the criticism of Trump to be pure opportunistic by politicians and a detached public.

To criticize bad arguments is often confused with defense of the person subjected.
I chalk it up to tribalism, ie, we're supposed to either attack or defend the person.
But I agree that it's important to attack bad arguments.

I've even been dissed on RF as a creationist by one such confused poster.
That was a weird experience.

 

[Shad]

To criticize bad arguments is often confused with defense of the person subjected.

Yup. I would add that some of my comments such as geopolitics are far more detached emotionally than domestic policy while I am often addressing emotion driven point.

I chalk it up to tribalism, ie, we're supposed to either attack or defend the person.

American politics is extremist in my view. I think it is cultural. It is either A or B, all or nothing.

But I agree that it's important to attack bad arguments.

The major problem for me is I am opposed to the manner in which almost every political party and government operates these days. This make the normal role of government a bad argument in my view.

 

[Heyo]

To criticize bad arguments is often confused with defense of the person subjected.
I chalk it up to tribalism, ie, we're supposed to either attack or defend the person.
But I agree that it's important to attack bad arguments.

I've even been dissed on RF as a creationist by one such confused poster.
That was a weird experience.

If you never get mistaken, it might be because you don't have an own opinion. Only those who always toe the line and never have an original thought can't get confused for someone they aren't. (And can survive in the Trump party.)

 

[Revoltingest]

American politics is extremist in my view. I think it is cultural. It is either A or B, all or nothing.

The most extreme polarization I've seen is from a Canuckistanian here.
His worldview is very black & white. Gray does not exist.