So we don't understand each other. So what to do? Do we want to take the blue pill and say the other party is dumb or do we want to take the red pill and see the Conservatism and socialism are Jing and Jang, we need to have both to create a society which is in balance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

So what do you think?

A few years ago, a political professor told me that 90% of Americans share the same 90% of beliefs and values. It's the remaining 10% segments that make them want to choke each other.

Create a third party

NIKV69 wrote:

Create a third party

I think that will only add to the dysfunction of the system, let us reform what we have to get rid of the greed and corruption and maybe term limits for congress.

WarRI1 wrote:

I think that will only add to the dysfunction of the system, let us reform what we have to get rid of the greed and corruption and maybe term limits for congress.

How? there is dysfunction not because of your so called greed and corruption of elected officials but because their views are fringe and outside the mainstream. Let a simple majority rule and a party in the middle get a voice. Then maybe we can get stuff done. Instead of saying it's my way or the highway. Every bill that is a compromise never has a chance to pass. Change that and maybe we can get somewhere. Instead of this fallacy that people must be getting paid off if they don't believe what I do.

I agree with NIKV. It's time for a moderate and common sense 3rd party. The Republicans are going harder and harder to the populist right while the Democrats are starting to trend that way to the left. I feel the majority of Americans still lie mostly in the middle. Let the Trumpanzees and Berniecrats have their own party. It would be something like a containment field.

It's an egg and chicken kind of issue. Your current political parties don't want to change anything to the system, and that system prevents third parties from having a chance.

Here in France fringe candidates get public financing, free TV air time, etc., so they get to participate, along with more normal candidates, instead of trying to vie for the lead of a "main" political party. Then nothing prevents people from actually electing them, although so far it hasn't happened. With the US system our current president Emmanuel Macron would have needed to get support from the Democrats or the GOP (in reality the Democrats because the GOP are far too illiberal, even economically these days), when instead he could just launch his own party from scratch and be president one year later, with a large majority in the National Assembly. First thing that got voted on was term limits and a reduction in the number of National Assembly members.

Chump has corrupted the entire system


Once he’s in prison we can start again

Aesma wrote:

It's an egg and chicken kind of issue. Your current political parties don't want to change anything to the system, and that system prevents third parties from having a chance.

Here in France fringe candidates get public financing, free TV air time, etc., so they get to participate, along with more normal candidates, instead of trying to vie for the lead of a "main" political party. Then nothing prevents people from actually electing them, although so far it hasn't happened. With the US system our current president Emmanuel Macron would have needed to get support from the Democrats or the GOP (in reality the Democrats because the GOP are far too illiberal, even economically these days), when instead he could just launch his own party from scratch and be president one year later, with a large majority in the National Assembly. First thing that got voted on was term limits and a reduction in the number of National Assembly members.

And the two round presidential election in France gives candidates from smaller parties a fairer chance compared to the US system where a 3rd party candidate doesn't have a realistic chance of being elected president.

There are plenty of issues in the US, starting with the fact it's not one election but 50. And each one has its own rules ! So getting on these 50 ballots is already a huge challenge, let alone if you need to organize primaries before that.

I see the discussion dives into the American political system. If we can put that aside and dive into the deeper social issue of fractions of societies getting more and more estranged from each other because each and everyone is getting more and more into their own bubble.

The nice thing I have learned from this TED talk is that on most values conservatives and liberals or socialist don't disagree that much on fairness and do no harm, but differ quite a bit on other moral issues like authority and purity.



And this phenomenon seems to be cross culture a worldwide phenomenon.

This puts it into perspective for me, I like change and movement, so indeed I am a socialist and belief more in collective solutions, but with taking responsibilities for oneself. Conservatives and liberals need each other like Jing and Yang.

The website of this TED talker is www.yourmorals.org, always interesting to do a little soul-searching.

It has always been my opinion that there is one single thread that is at the heart of conservatism vs liberalism (in the modern definitions). That is the role of the individual vs the role of government. Either of which are on both sides of the spectrum. In reality a well functioning society falls somewhere in-between.

For instance, for me personally, my view on gay marriage (in the United States) is that the government has no business in dictating one way or the other about any marriage. The government should only be in the business of recognizing contracts (which I believe a marriage to be at the basic level). [For the purposes of this discussion lets not get off topic and discuss the for or against gay marriage but instead discuss the political theories of Conservatism vs Liberalism in what guides these beliefs]

It will end badly.

trpmb6 : I'll continue talking about our president because he's causing something quite interesting regarding this. Liberalism in France isn't some lefty ideology because it's understood first as economic liberalism, which is seen as a right-wing position. French people are mostly against liberalism. Right-wing politicians used to always tout it, but never implement it, for that reason : they feared a national strike, huge protests etc. It is typically associated with Margaret Thatcher and Reagan, both viewed as devils incarnate, basically.

Now Macron thanks to a change in times,and running a campaign and winning on being a liberal, is liberalizing our economy. Rest assured we're keeping our main protections, but the change is significant. Well now the right-wingers are attacking him on this, rejecting liberalism all of a sudden. It's quite amusing to see. Basically educated people have voted for Macron and will most probably vote for him again, so the right-wing needs to seduce more average/less educated/poorer people, who don't see the benefits of liberalism, and want state protection in every aspect of their lives.

Need to be careful in our terminology when referring to liberalism. At least in the modern US use of the world, liberalism generally implies more state regulatory control. The classical terminology of liberalism more aligns itself with the modern libertarian (in some respects not all) and perhaps fiscal conservatives - specifically in regards to economic freedom (This is why politics in the US is so exhausting - we agree on many things but battle lines are drawn on seemingly hypocritical lines).

Amazing how the conversation has elevated without a Very Troublesome Known troll that shall remain nameless...

Sorry if that's a garbage post, but its worth noting.

Back on topic, I think it should be quite obvious that the best functioning society should have a healthy balance of liberalism and conservatism. I think it's important for liberals, or to avoid confusion, lets say progressives, to continue to push forward and its important for conservatives to keep that forward motion in check to limit unintended consequences. Liberals are the engine, Conservative are the governor that make sure we don't get in too much trouble.

Or for Anet; Liberals are the 757 with the RB211s just dying to get direct to 40,000', Conservatives are the ATC enforcing the 250 kt Class B speed limit and stepping us up to 40,000' approximately 10 minutes after departure assuming the traffic and weather are clear.

But at the end of the day, progress must be made. That is why I find myself leaning liberal, but with respect to real conservatives the provide balance.

2122M wrote:

Amazing how the conversation has elevated without a Very Troublesome Known troll that shall remain nameless...

Sorry if that's a garbage post, but its worth noting.

Back on topic, I think it should be quite obvious that the best functioning society should have a healthy balance of liberalism and conservatism. I think it's important for liberals, or to avoid confusion, lets say progressives, to continue to push forward and its important for conservatives to keep that forward motion in check to limit unintended consequences. Liberals are the engine, Conservative are the governor that make sure we don't get in too much trouble.

Or for Anet; Liberals are the 757 with the RB211s just dying to get direct to 40,000', Conservatives are the ATC enforcing the 250 kt Class B speed limit and stepping us up to 40,000' approximately 10 minutes after departure assuming the traffic and weather are clear.

But at the end of the day, progress must be made. That is why I find myself leaning liberal, but with respect to real conservatives the provide balance.

Quite honestly this whole affair has made me more conservative.

I think anyone associating the word "conservative" in its traditional sense with Republican elected officials at the federal level right now, though, are deluding themselves.

-Turning a blind eye to national security threats is NOT conservative

-Trade wars are NOT conservative

-Attacking institutions of law and order is NOT conservative

-Not enforcing the balance of powers is NOT conservative (ooooooo, a Trump double negative)

-Attacking facts in favor of "feelings" driven by conspiracy theories and calling it "free speech" is NOT conservative

-Attacking longstanding institutions of Western democracy is NOT conservative

-Betraying the public faith by lying for expediency and deflection day in and day out is NOT conservative

It's no surprise that the term "leftist" is being thrown about by these so-called "conservatives" at anyone who disagrees with Trump. People who criticize any of the above are NOT leftist.

The radicals and decidedly anti-conservative people are the ones who are going out of their way to defend and explain away anything that Trump and Republicans do, allege "fake news," bias, etc.

jetero wrote:

2122M wrote:

Amazing how the conversation has elevated without a Very Troublesome Known troll that shall remain nameless...

Sorry if that's a garbage post, but its worth noting.

Back on topic, I think it should be quite obvious that the best functioning society should have a healthy balance of liberalism and conservatism. I think it's important for liberals, or to avoid confusion, lets say progressives, to continue to push forward and its important for conservatives to keep that forward motion in check to limit unintended consequences. Liberals are the engine, Conservative are the governor that make sure we don't get in too much trouble.

Or for Anet; Liberals are the 757 with the RB211s just dying to get direct to 40,000', Conservatives are the ATC enforcing the 250 kt Class B speed limit and stepping us up to 40,000' approximately 10 minutes after departure assuming the traffic and weather are clear.

But at the end of the day, progress must be made. That is why I find myself leaning liberal, but with respect to real conservatives the provide balance.

Quite honestly this whole affair has made me more conservative.

I think anyone associating the word "conservative" in its traditional sense with Republican elected officials at the federal level right now, though, are deluding themselves.

-Turning a blind eye to national security threats is NOT conservative

-Trade wars are NOT conservative

-Attacking institutions of law and order is NOT conservative

-Not enforcing the balance of powers is NOT conservative (ooooooo, a Trump double negative)

-Attacking facts in favor of "feelings" driven by conspiracy theories and calling it "free speech" is NOT conservative

-Attacking longstanding institutions of Western democracy is NOT conservative

It's no surprise that the term "leftist" is being thrown about by these so-called "conservatives" at anyone who disagrees with Trump. People who criticize any of the above are NOT leftist.

The radicals and decidedly anti-conservative people are the ones who are going out of their way to defend and explain away anything that Trump and Republicans do, allege "fake news," bias, etc.

Agree 100%. I think there is an important place for conservatives in America. I think the vast majority of elected GOP officials need to go. They are not conservative, they are wanna-be-populist, quasi-fascist, corporate stooges. With all due respect, of course.

2122M wrote:

jetero wrote:

2122M wrote:

Amazing how the conversation has elevated without a Very Troublesome Known troll that shall remain nameless...

Sorry if that's a garbage post, but its worth noting.

Back on topic, I think it should be quite obvious that the best functioning society should have a healthy balance of liberalism and conservatism. I think it's important for liberals, or to avoid confusion, lets say progressives, to continue to push forward and its important for conservatives to keep that forward motion in check to limit unintended consequences. Liberals are the engine, Conservative are the governor that make sure we don't get in too much trouble.

Or for Anet; Liberals are the 757 with the RB211s just dying to get direct to 40,000', Conservatives are the ATC enforcing the 250 kt Class B speed limit and stepping us up to 40,000' approximately 10 minutes after departure assuming the traffic and weather are clear.

But at the end of the day, progress must be made. That is why I find myself leaning liberal, but with respect to real conservatives the provide balance.

Quite honestly this whole affair has made me more conservative.

I think anyone associating the word "conservative" in its traditional sense with Republican elected officials at the federal level right now, though, are deluding themselves.

-Turning a blind eye to national security threats is NOT conservative

-Trade wars are NOT conservative

-Attacking institutions of law and order is NOT conservative

-Not enforcing the balance of powers is NOT conservative (ooooooo, a Trump double negative)

-Attacking facts in favor of "feelings" driven by conspiracy theories and calling it "free speech" is NOT conservative

-Attacking longstanding institutions of Western democracy is NOT conservative

It's no surprise that the term "leftist" is being thrown about by these so-called "conservatives" at anyone who disagrees with Trump. People who criticize any of the above are NOT leftist.

The radicals and decidedly anti-conservative people are the ones who are going out of their way to defend and explain away anything that Trump and Republicans do, allege "fake news," bias, etc.

Agree 100%. I think there is an important place for conservatives in America. I think the vast majority of elected GOP officials need to go. They are not conservative, they are wanna-be-populist, quasi-fascist, corporate stooges. With all due respect, of course.

From an outside view it would seem that the democrats are already pretty conservative, in the sense Jetero mentioned, that there actually isn't room for another conservative party to the right of them, without that including all the right fringes that are not conservative, again in the sense mentioned above, but reactionary/fascist/xenophopic and such. Wanting to bring old testament law back, more than 2000 years old, is about as reactionary as you can get.
That is also why we don't see that many revolutionary/fascist, the left side variety of it, statements coming out of the democratic party, at least that I am aware of: their left edge is still so pretty much center that there is a big, frecking buffer between that and extremist positions. But also cover just enough left of the center to prevent the formation of any larger party left of them that doesn't go up and till there.

Best regards
Thomas

Lets try to not interject our own US politics into this discussion, as OP has already directed once.

trpmb6 wrote:

Lets try to not interject our own US politics into this discussion, as OP has already directed once.

Thank you.

Forgive my fellow Americans, we tend to think we're the only people in the world sometimes and everything revolves around our worldview.

That's ok, no worries.

So I think we all understand what defines our ideologies and where they differ.

So what is to be done to bring us back together on common footing? (Something that is probably sturdier than one of those ropes tied between two trees that always results in a good laugh on youtube)

Well if you notice immediately after his post I said "lets stay on topic"

Which you've now derailed. I was purposefully ignoring him because it's absurd. I stopped reading as soon as I saw "3 nations" and moved on. As should everyone else.

Edit: Ok lol, i guess his 3 nations comment was literally at the end of his post. I must have just caught a glimpse of a couple things when I saw his post and said yeah not reading all that nonsense.

Lets go back on topic please. Would rather not see this thread locked like so many others.

Here is my though. Conservatives tend to project what is best for them onto the rest of the population. Liberals tend to look at what is best for everyone.

This is why the liberal/conservative divide becomes urban/rural in nature. Conservatives live in areas where most folks do the same thing, go to the same churches, and don't have to interact with a larger cross section of the population. Liberals tend to have to operate in multiple cultural/social settings and want what is best for all so there is less strife and pain.


Just like in personal situations, there is a moving target of where that line of personal importance vs societal importance overruns, and at the end of the day most folks do most of the same things.

There is always a Ying and a Yang to the argument, and we share more than we do not.

casinterest wrote:

Here is my though. Conservatives tend to project what is best for them onto the rest of the population. Liberals tend to look at what is best for everyone.

This is why the liberal/conservative divide becomes urban/rural in nature. Conservatives live in areas where most folks do the same thing, go to the same churches, and don't have to interact with a larger cross section of the population. Liberals tend to have to operate in multiple cultural/social settings and want what is best for all so there is less strife and pain.

That is very anecdotal. I'm a conservative living in a city. I've never lived in a rural area. There are many like me. Most of the conservatives I associate with are college educated with engineering degrees. A couple have religious backgrounds but most don't. And even the ones with religious backgrounds still recognize things like evolution etc.

What we want is for everyone to hold themselves accountable and take personal responsibility. I don't believe I've personally projected what I find is best for myself on others, but such a thing is probably hard to measure as I think just about everyone influences everyone around them every single day without even knowing they are doing it.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Here is my though. Conservatives tend to project what is best for them onto the rest of the population. Liberals tend to look at what is best for everyone.

This is why the liberal/conservative divide becomes urban/rural in nature. Conservatives live in areas where most folks do the same thing, go to the same churches, and don't have to interact with a larger cross section of the population. Liberals tend to have to operate in multiple cultural/social settings and want what is best for all so there is less strife and pain.

That is very anecdotal. I'm a conservative living in a city. I've never lived in a rural area. There are many like me. Most of the conservatives I associate with are college educated with engineering degrees. A couple have religious backgrounds but most don't. And even the ones with religious backgrounds still recognize things like evolution etc.

What we want is for everyone to hold themselves accountable and take personal responsibility. I don't believe I've personally projected what I find is best for myself on others, but such a thing is probably hard to measure as I think just about everyone influences everyone around them every single day without even knowing they are doing it.

That is very anecdotal.

Dutchy wrote:

So we don't understand each other. So what to do? Do we want to take the blue pill and say the other party is dumb or do we want to take the red pill and see the Conservatism and socialism are Jing and Jang, we need to have both to create a society which is in balance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

So what do you think?

No, no "Balance"... Why ?? The Progressive Left has already moved the fulcrum so far to the left that any talk of "balance" is a non-starter.
We're going to end Judicial Activism, and social "progress" will then come through Legislation. And if that Legislation is Constitutional, then it will stand.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The Progressive Left has already moved the fulcrum so far to the left that any talk of "balance" is a non-starter.

The "Progressive Left" of what you speak hasn't had political power in a generation.

How "so far to the left"? By making people bake wedding cakes?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

And if that Legislation is Constitutional, then it will stand.

Cut it with the "Constitutional" crap and just say, "if that legislation is socially conservative, I want it to stand."

There are logically sound legal arguments on both sides for both a conservative and liberal view of what is constitutional.

One of them is very literal (and ideologically self-servingly so in my opinion). The other one believes in interpreting the document not through what I would say is an imagined 18th-century lens and applying it to today.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Here is my though. Conservatives tend to project what is best for them onto the rest of the population. Liberals tend to look at what is best for everyone.

This is why the liberal/conservative divide becomes urban/rural in nature. Conservatives live in areas where most folks do the same thing, go to the same churches, and don't have to interact with a larger cross section of the population. Liberals tend to have to operate in multiple cultural/social settings and want what is best for all so there is less strife and pain.

That is very anecdotal. I'm a conservative living in a city. I've never lived in a rural area. There are many like me. Most of the conservatives I associate with are college educated with engineering degrees. A couple have religious backgrounds but most don't. And even the ones with religious backgrounds still recognize things like evolution etc.

What we want is for everyone to hold themselves accountable and take personal responsibility. I don't believe I've personally projected what I find is best for myself on others, but such a thing is probably hard to measure as I think just about everyone influences everyone around them every single day without even knowing they are doing it.

I know conservatives around me in the city. Remember, it is not a all or nothing divide. Some Cities have very rural ares. However a lot of it has to do with what is your definition of accountable and personal responsibility. Is your definition the same as others? Sometimes it is , and sometimes it isn't. I think in Cities, there is much more influence from multiple cultures and what needs to be done.

I don't like the idea of busing kids all over town to get great diversity, because I think it takes away too much time for the kids to play. However, having been to some of the neighborhoods in impoverished areas, I understand the practice. It gets kids out of an environment where my idea of personal responsibility and parental responsibility just are not met due to issues beyond the kids control. So as adults we have to take that responsibility to show those kids what is possible, even if it costs a bit.

trpmb6 wrote:

Well post #26 isn't a great step towards the middle of our ideologies

Par for the course.

Whenever someone disagrees with a viewpoint they need to be silenced.

Calling people terrible things is OK going one way but the other way is....out of line.

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The Progressive Left has already moved the fulcrum so far to the left that any talk of "balance" is a non-starter.

The "Progressive Left" of what you speak hasn't had political power in a generation.

How "so far to the left"? By making people bake wedding cakes?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

And if that Legislation is Constitutional, then it will stand.

Cut it with the "Constitutional" crap and just say, "if that legislation is socially conservative, I want it to stand."

There are logically sound legal arguments on both sides for both a conservative and liberal view of what is constitutional.

One of them is very literal. The other one believes in interpreting the document not through an imagined 18th century lens and applying it to today.

Obama was pretty firmly progressive left. Especially in his second term.

Many traditional conservatives don't like being told they're bad people for just believing in a more traditional worldview without government intervention.

trpmb6 wrote:

What we want is for everyone to hold themselves accountable and take personal responsibility.

To your mind, what is it about conservatism that achieves that goal more than liberalism?

Berevoff wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Well post #26 isn't a great step towards the middle of our ideologies

Par for the course.

Whenever someone disagrees with a viewpoint they need to be silenced.

Calling people terrible things is OK going one way but the other way is....out of line.

Another newbie to come out of the woodwork. Content of message? Not shocking.

A "viewpoint" conducive to meaningful dialogue does not include talk of Civil War and murder of one's fellow citizens. That is radical. Calling someone out on some sort of radical view is decidedly not.

In any case, I've never pressed the "report post" button in my time on here, nor will I ever. I know that not to be the case for others.

I certainly agree. Keep in mind with cities your population density is drastically different and thus you necessarily interact with far more people and thus cultures and what not. This also encompasses other matters as well such as local job markets and what not.

This is why I'm in favor of keeping the most amount of power as local as possible. Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.

2122M wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

What we want is for everyone to hold themselves accountable and take personal responsibility.

To your mind, what is it about conservatism that achieves that goal more than liberalism?

Well, I think it's more of a means to an end. Rather than government intervening and effecting change I prefer it to come from the individuals. I'm not sure I have a very strong way to articulate what I feel in this sense though.

trpmb6 wrote:

I certainly agree. Keep in mind with cities your population density is drastically different and thus you necessarily interact with far more people and thus cultures and what not. This also encompasses other matters as well such as local job markets and what not.

This is why I'm in favor of keeping the most amount of power as local as possible. Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.

2122M wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

What we want is for everyone to hold themselves accountable and take personal responsibility.

To your mind, what is it about conservatism that achieves that goal more than liberalism?

Well, I think it's more of a means to an end. Rather than government intervening and effecting change I prefer it to come from the individuals. I'm not sure I have a very strong way to articulate what I feel in this sense though.

But we need government and rules. We have to have organization, because left on their own, individuals don't always make great choices for everyone. Some powers need to stay local,. but when you have a lot of "conservative" government usually what happens is people move to areas with better social structures for their families, which is why urban areas wind up more liberal.

jetero wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Well post #26 isn't a great step towards the middle of our ideologies

Par for the course.

Whenever someone disagrees with a viewpoint they need to be silenced.

Calling people terrible things is OK going one way but the other way is....out of line.

Another newbie to come out of the woodwork. Content of message? Not shocking.

A "viewpoint" conducive to meaningful dialogue does not include talk of Civil War and murder of one's fellow citizens. That is radical. Calling someone out on some sort of radical view is decidedly not.

In any case, I've never pressed the "report post" button in my time on here, nor will I ever. I know that not to be the case for others.

I just saw many posts being hostile and angry so I posted what I saw.

Most conservatives just don't feel the government needs to be involved at all. Gay marriage, wedding cakes, whatever. The government needs to stay out.

No need to call them bigots or be so angry all the time.

trpmb6 wrote:

Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.

Ah national defense, interstate highways, and old age safety net by school board. Sounds like a capital idea.

Berevoff wrote:

jetero wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

Par for the course.

Whenever someone disagrees with a viewpoint they need to be silenced.

Calling people terrible things is OK going one way but the other way is....out of line.

Another newbie to come out of the woodwork. Content of message? Not shocking.

A "viewpoint" conducive to meaningful dialogue does not include talk of Civil War and murder of one's fellow citizens. That is radical. Calling someone out on some sort of radical view is decidedly not.

In any case, I've never pressed the "report post" button in my time on here, nor will I ever. I know that not to be the case for others.

I just saw many posts being hostile and angry so I posted what I saw.

Most conservatives just don't feel the government needs to be involved at all. Gay marriage, wedding cakes, whatever. The government needs to stay out.

No need to call them bigots or be so angry all the time.

No need to read "bigots" or "anger" into every post, either. A quick search of the post indicates no one brought up the word "bigot" before you.

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I certainly agree. Keep in mind with cities your population density is drastically different and thus you necessarily interact with far more people and thus cultures and what not. This also encompasses other matters as well such as local job markets and what not.

This is why I'm in favor of keeping the most amount of power as local as possible. Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.

2122M wrote:

To your mind, what is it about conservatism that achieves that goal more than liberalism?

Well, I think it's more of a means to an end. Rather than government intervening and effecting change I prefer it to come from the individuals. I'm not sure I have a very strong way to articulate what I feel in this sense though.

But we need government and rules. We have to have organization, because left on their own, individuals don't always make great choices for everyone. Some powers need to stay local,. but when you have a lot of "conservative" government usually what happens is people move to areas with better social structures for their families, which is why urban areas wind up more liberal.

And so what? If the liberal areas are better than the conservative areas that's just fine. Why would you care? Let them wallow in whatever they want to do. Forcing people to condone behavior they disagree with is against what many conservatives and libertarians believe in. Just take your business to a more friendly area and let the market decide.

This idea that a government has to ensure the safety and total comfort of citizens is crazy. This is a major difference in the mindsets.

jetero wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

jetero wrote:

Another newbie to come out of the woodwork. Content of message? Not shocking.

A "viewpoint" conducive to meaningful dialogue does not include talk of Civil War and murder of one's fellow citizens. That is radical. Calling someone out on some sort of radical view is decidedly not.

In any case, I've never pressed the "report post" button in my time on here, nor will I ever. I know that not to be the case for others.

I just saw many posts being hostile and angry so I posted what I saw.

Most conservatives just don't feel the government needs to be involved at all. Gay marriage, wedding cakes, whatever. The government needs to stay out.

No need to call them bigots or be so angry all the time.

No need to read "bigots" or "anger" into every post, either. A quick search of the post indicates no one brought up the word "bigot" before you.

Anyone can look into the language and tone of an unnamed persons posts and deduce what was meant. Its the same in every thread. Seething anger. Complete disdain and dismissal of any idea that is not theirs. That can come across that way, and it does.

I'm not the only one noticing this.

Berevoff wrote:

jetero wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

I just saw many posts being hostile and angry so I posted what I saw.

Most conservatives just don't feel the government needs to be involved at all. Gay marriage, wedding cakes, whatever. The government needs to stay out.

No need to call them bigots or be so angry all the time.

No need to read "bigots" or "anger" into every post, either. A quick search of the post indicates no one brought up the word "bigot" before you.

Anyone can look into the language and tone of an unnamed persons posts and deduce what was meant. Its the same in every thread. Seething anger. Complete disdain and dismissal of any idea that is not theirs. That can come across that way, and it does.

I'm not the only one noticing this.

OK buddy. Whatever floats your boat.

Berevoff wrote:

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I certainly agree. Keep in mind with cities your population density is drastically different and thus you necessarily interact with far more people and thus cultures and what not. This also encompasses other matters as well such as local job markets and what not.

This is why I'm in favor of keeping the most amount of power as local as possible. Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.




Well, I think it's more of a means to an end. Rather than government intervening and effecting change I prefer it to come from the individuals. I'm not sure I have a very strong way to articulate what I feel in this sense though.

But we need government and rules. We have to have organization, because left on their own, individuals don't always make great choices for everyone. Some powers need to stay local,. but when you have a lot of "conservative" government usually what happens is people move to areas with better social structures for their families, which is why urban areas wind up more liberal.

And so what? If the liberal areas are better than the conservative areas that's just fine. Why would you care? Let them wallow in whatever they want to do. Forcing people to condone behavior they disagree with is against what many conservatives and libertarians believe in. Just take your business to a more friendly area and let the market decide.

This idea that a government has to ensure the safety and total comfort of citizens is crazy. This is a major difference in the mindsets.

You are talking about social conservatism now in behaviors. Social conservatism is different than fiscal conservatism. Social conservatism is not about condoning. Social conservatism is about restricting other's choices in the US at least. Gay Marriage, Euthanasia, abortion, and a host of other platforms. At the end of the day its is the farthest thing from conservatism, because it put your personal preferences directly into conflict with others way of life.

Government has a responsibility for the safety and comfort of the citizens it oversees. Otherwise why have a government ?

trpmb6 wrote:

jetero wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.

Ah national defense, interstate highways, and old age safety net by school board. Sounds like a capital idea.

Interestingly the first two of those are well within the scope of the constitution

Interstate highways, eh? Well that's a charitable "originalist" view.

The idea that Congress would pass innumerable future laws was also contemplated by the Constitution, so you can include the old age safety net as well by that standard.

jetero wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Your local school board should be the most powerful government that is above you.

Ah national defense, interstate highways, and old age safety net by school board. Sounds like a capital idea.

Interestingly the first two of those are well within the scope of the constitution

Sorry Dutchy, it's really hard to not respond to the question of liberalism vs conservatism without thinking about ones own government!

casinterest wrote:

Berevoff wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Government has a responsibility for the safety and comfort of the citizens it oversees. Otherwise why have a government ?

Where does is say comfort anywhere in the Constitution? The government only give the right to pursue happiness. Nobody is entitled to happiness or comfort.

Modern Trumpian conservatives want to deny those rights. Traditional conservatives (most actual people) want the government out of the marriage game entirely. The government shouldn't dictate who can marry who, who can shop where they want, what kind of gun they want or what gender someone wants to be.

Legislating all these things is creating more turmoil than is necessary.

A key thing for many Americans to remember is that "conservative" is not the same as "Republican" and in particular not the same as what is currently projected by the US president.

This is a more international and "party neutral" discussion from what I am reading. And in particular the discussion is discussing what unites more than what (or how to) divides people worldwide. The differences are there obviously but the idea is to exist together and share the common more than attack the not-in-common.

Tugg

Tugg

@Cas, another thought with respect to social interaction. Prior to the advent of internet forums and news social interaction happened in person at places like pubs, coffee shops, churches and others right. We tend to be more respectful and discuss things more reasonably in person. I dont know about you but I really try to avoid discussing anything with a shred of politics (outside my personal group of friends) in public. I actually think this is unfortunate. But I don't want someone coming up to me telling shame shame shame or kicking me out of their restaurant because we may simply disagree on a few issues.

trpmb6 wrote:

@Cas, another thought with respect to social interaction. Prior to the advent of internet forums and news social interaction happened in person at places like pubs, coffee shops, churches and others right. We tend to be more respectful and discuss things more reasonably in person. I dont know about you but I really try to avoid discussing anything with a shred of politics (outside my personal group of friends) in public. I actually think this is unfortunate. But I don't want someone coming up to me telling shame shame shame or kicking me out of their restaurant because we may simply disagree on a few issues.

People used to meet up in parks and shoot each other to death too. Don't see that often in our "terrible" political climate.

This modern political "turmoil" is just professional victim hood run amok. Everyone has a soapbox to shout their drivel from.