David Duke backs Ilahn Omar

[_Markk]

While I am not saying everything Trump does is not good, I still notice you give no examples of what Trump has done that is good even though you have been asked multiple times. I have to assume you don't have any detailed good examples from your silence.

Well go back and re-read.

[_Markk]

How are your decisions determined by the above rather than yours to make?

By the above what? Please be more specific, I want to make sure I understand your question.

A question for you...what do you believe it will take to get our leadership closer together? I have seen it get it worser and worser since Clinton, there is so much hate between the two parties.

Maybe I was too young to notice but even during the Nixon years there was still respect for the Institution...I see that long gone these days.

[_canpakes]

Because the media is a partisan Democrat institution perhaps?

ajax, assuming that this is correct, how did this happen?

[_Res Ipsa]

We can agree that her response was classy. I don't think we'll find agreement in framing a comment about Israel that leans into the concept of wealthy Jewish cabals controlling the strings of power as ok in a world where we expect people who grew up culturally cool with black face as a Halloween costume being expected to evolve their views. We can talk about Israel's wrong-doings and treatment of Palestinians with more clear, and frankly more consistent language, if we let that into the conversation. It's not short changing free speech to expect as much which we see as obvious in one context. Let's agree there should be consistency rather than merely value judgements.

Thanks, Honor. I think we agree on the consistency part.

[_honorentheos]

How are your decisions determined by the above rather than yours to make?

By the above what? Please be more specific...

I meant the items you pointed out in the post directly above mine. Those being -

Do you watch the news? Do you read this forum...I honestly don't know if it is possible. There are people here so full of hate for those that might disagree with them I don't even know how to communicate with them sometimes.

To refresh ourselves, the original question came from my post regarding partisanship leading to an "ends justify the means" mentality that should be abhorrent to us and would be in other contexts outside politics. You responded that you didn't think any other alternative was possible given the current political atmosphere. I asked why you, as an individual, couldn't choose to place principle over partisanship. And here we are.

So, how is it that the context prevents individuals such as you or me from choosing to place principles first rather than engage in partisan politics? I don't think it should, and what it takes to stop it is to be conscious of it and decide to not play that game. That's what I'm asserting. It might look like a case of the tragedy of the commons, but the only way out of it is to assert civilization over chaos.

A question for you...what do you believe it will take to get our leadership closer together?

The system needs a couple of major reforms, in my opinion. First, there should be time limits on campaigning. Having the drama of never-ending campaigning is a net negative for US politics.

Second, money in politics is corrosive to democracy. We each get one vote as a person, and nothing about who we are or what social class we come from changes that. We each can speak up through any number of communications means to express ourselves to our representatives, but each person has "speech". But when we treat money as speech and corporations as people with speech, we inherently establish that our democracy is no longer a true democracy. People with more money now have more speech. And organizations, who are not beholden to people but to profits, can drown out immense numbers of individuals with the access to "speech" they claim in the form of money.

Much of our political divisiveness comes from income inequality and the sense the government is no longer working for the people. There is ever increasing dissonance caused by politicians speaking to individual voters out of one side of their mouths to win votes while their presence on the national stage and ability to BE in a national election is filtered through the expectation they will do things that are favorable to the organizations that funded them. Trump voters and Bernie voters both represent people with different ideological views but similar economic concerns about the declining voice and financial stability of the average Jane and Joe American. Were the nation to align around economic interests-only, it'd be a powerful voting block. But that would be a serious challenge to form and potentially have disastrous consequences if the wrong caliber of leader took office under this banner (cough, cough) as the potential for exploding the national debt and gross mismanagement untampered by Congress would be a horror show of a situation. Good thing that's only a hypothetical...

[_Chap]

We each get one vote as a person, and nothing about who we are or what social class we come from changes that. We each can speak up through any number of communications means to express ourselves to our representatives, but each person has "speech". But when we treat money as speech and corporations as people with speech, we inherently establish that our democracy is no longer a true democracy. People with more money now have more speech. And organizations, who are not beholden to people but to profits, can drown out immense numbers of individuals with the access to "speech" they claim in the form of money.

Sums it up very neatly.

And does anybody suggest that the writers of the US Constitution, living in the world of the Americans over two and centuries ago, even imagined that such a situation might become a possibility?

[_Themis]

Okay thanks...LOL ...who are those couple of people?

I suspect we would agree on a couple, so lets just leave it at that.

I don't avoid discussion, I am simply over beating things to death in redundant circles, I did that at the old Fair forums for way too long...in my opinion you don't try to understand what I am saying or what I believe (or others with a different opinion) and why I (they) believe it, you just want others to believe like you. Right or wrong that is what I see in your posts.

LOL That's one of the classic excuses people, who avoid discussion, give to avoid discussions. Myself and other have asked you a number of question to try and understand what you believe and why, but you keep doing things like this to avoid discussion. I believe I have tried to answer your questions.

[_Themis]

While I am not saying everything Trump does is not good, I still notice you give no examples of what Trump has done that is good even though you have been asked multiple times. I have to assume you don't have any detailed good examples from your silence.

Well go back and re-read.

I did and not one example even though I have asked more then once. I have noticed this behavior from you on other threads as well. Again I don't think everything Trump does is bad, but do you have an example of something Trump has personally done for the betterment of the US, as President, and give some details of it and why you think it is good?

[_honorentheos]

Well go back and re-read.

I did and not one example even though I have asked more then once. I have noticed this behavior from you on other threads as well. Again I don't think everything Trump does is bad, but do you have an example of something Trump has personally done for the betterment of the US, as President, and give some details of it and why you think it is good?

Markk, it's a bit of a double standard to expect me to constantly clarify what I mean with a question - especially given I think it's abundantly clear but am obliging you - only to have you tell Themis he needs to figure out where you think Trump is doing things that are good for the country based on what you've said elsewhere in the thread. I'm pretty sure my response to you on that very same question was more specific than anything you've said to date. Regardless, you would be a hypocrite if you can't summarize for Themis in a response.

[_Themis]

Markk, it's a bit of a double standard to expect me to constantly clarify what I mean with a question - especially given I think it's abundantly clear but am obliging you - only to have you tell Themis he needs to figure out where you think Trump is doing things that are good for the country based on what you've said elsewhere in the thread. I'm pretty sure my response to you on that very same question was more specific than anything you've said to date. Regardless, you would be a hypocrite if you can't summarize for Themis in a response.

What's worse is he lied about it being somewhere else in this thread. It's more the usual from Markk of wanting details from others but going so far as to disappear from threads to avoid details for his own positions.