Couples' therapy.

[hollodero]

Conservatives and liberals... you behave like an old couple. You love your common home, all the surroundings, everything that got built up. You just can't particularly stand each other any more. You can avoid each other, but you run across each other all the time, and in the meantime the anger just mounts up and the eruptions just get stronger.
But divorce isn't an option either - no one would ever be the one to move out anyway. So you're stuck together, for better or worse, and you need to get along better. Hence, couples' therapy. You don't need more love, that ship has sailed anyway, but you still need to find some common mutual respect and a better way to communicate. It's fruitless to base each and every conversation around one goal and one goal only - to use hyperbole, oversimplification or sheer ignorance to show and prove how stupid, ridiculous and illogical the other person is. That achieves nothing and makes no sense. But that's the way you talk to each other. More or less exclusively.

I sure wouldn't care about America's marital problems if it weren't for the outcome that affects us all. Trump is a symptom that can no longer be ignored. In the relationship, it was the woman that showed her displeasure with drastic measures like going with that guy, hence purposefully highlighting the unrest. (And yes, the conservatives are the woman here. They project, they are maudlin and they fall for the bad boy.) 
Relationship power move, for sure. But whatever the point was, it's really time to stop acting up now. Whatever Trump was meant to show the significant other, it clearly doesn't work. Trump isn't good for anyone. And he's not fit to prove any point, in fact he just makes one partner look particularly bad in that quarrel right now. Not that the other one is without fault. I know the guy and in all honesty, I'm often annoyed too. I'm not without sympathy, but at this point, the future and reputation of your home is at stake, which has to take precedence. 

From the ridiculous to the obscene, the things happening right now have everything to damage both. From Omarosa to separating children, from calling investigators thugs and the media a bigger enemy of the people than Putin to ruining the environment and everything in between, it's a huge and awful mess. And it's all happening just because of some relationship struggles and because one person can't admit she was wrong on something. While the other person creates a surrounding of shame and ridicule which makes said step to any form of admission impossible. 
Stop all that. Start thinking about the family and your legacy already. Both of you.
Therapy session closed.

[*michaelsean*]

I think he just called me a girl.

[hollodero]

(08-21-2018, 01:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think he just called me a girl.

Don't get your hopes up. I still don't see you that way.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-21-2018, 02:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Don't get your hopes up. I still don't see you that way.

You know our planes at  Ramstein can reach you right?  

[*michaelsean*]

Man they won’t even come to the table to discuss it

[*Nately120*]

If I'm a libertarian does that make me the moody teenage daughter who just wants to sit in her room and play her 8-track tapes so loud that she can't hear mom and dad's pointless fighting anymore? Please say yes.

[hollodero]

(08-21-2018, 08:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If I'm a libertarian does that make me the moody teenage daughter who just wants to sit in her room and play her 8-track tapes so loud that she can't hear mom and dad's pointless fighting anymore?  Please say yes.

Yes.

[hollodero]

(08-21-2018, 07:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Man they won’t even come to the table to discuss it

Yeah. I guess they just consider me a nonsense-talking, know-it-all foreigner who talks too much. I wonder why. The latter is true, but that's of course just overcompensating my insecurity :) - Well, the other things are true as well. Maybe that's why.

I do love America though and just tried to help.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 08:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah. I guess they just consider me a nonsense-talking, know-it-all foreigner who talks too much. I wonder why. The latter is true, but that's of course just overcompensating my insecurity :) - Well, the other things are true as well. Maybe that's why.

I do love America though and just tried to help.

Well I'm going to go ahead.  I'm no innocent, but I do try to be as civil as possible.  I believe that's very important because people don't want to be convinced to change their mind by an ass.  I also try not to gloat.  Gloating or saying it's about time or whatever discourages people from saying, "I was wrong".  Admit you were wrong every once in a while.  Because you know you have been.  If someone admits they were wrong, in the future don't reflect back on that and say, 'You thought you were right then."  If there is an issue that "your side" thinks one way, and you think the other don't be afraid to say it.  If we start not taking sides automatically then maybe those sides will dissolve some.  This is all sort of board oriented because this is pretty much the only place I talk or think politics.  In the real world i nod a lot.

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 09:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well I'm going to go ahead.  I'm no innocent, but I do try to be as civil as possible.  I believe that's very important because people don't want to be convinced to change their mind by an ass.  I also try not to gloat.  Gloating or saying it's about time or whatever discourages people from saying, "I was wrong".  Admit you were wrong every once in a while.  Because you know you have been.  If someone admits they were wrong, in the future don't reflect back on that and say, 'You thought you were right then."  If there is an issue that "your side" thinks one way, and you think the other don't be afraid to say it.  If we start not taking sides automatically then maybe those sides will dissolve some.  This is all sort of board oriented because this is pretty much the only place I talk or think politics.  In the real world i nod a lot.

 
Uuuh, all serious and stuff, isn't this thread a bit too nonsensical for that? But sure. Not surprisingly, I largely agree with you. As one of the "minor" things I learned about Americans (not just "one side"), many never take a step back, reconsider, admit any initial error in judgment or behaviour. No apologies, right.
(Of course, you're not ALL alike... sure. But half the country doesn't participate in the democratic process, which is the most shocking thing to begin with, and I guess it's often annoyance with that witless drumming of half-baked talking points.)

The fact that it's always only the two sides bickering... yeah it is like an old marriage, I can't really change that perception. That's how I hear those folks talking too. You're inferior, no you're inferior, no you're the worst, no you are way worse, you're stupid, you're crazy... here's proof what an abdomination of a human you are, look what you swine did to the TOOTHPASTE... etc.
A triangle or rectangle would change things fundamentally, but libertarians... in all honesty, please. It's easy to be one when it's never of any consequence.

...where I disagree slightly with your stance is that you shouldn't say things like "it's about time". Politeness can't trump honesty. Because for example, it is about time, and I want to remain honest, to put that presidency to rest and I won't meet anyone halfway on that one. Debating a censore that doesn't come anyway and wouldn't change anything isn't enough. The GOP silence of enablers (eg. "I'm not focused on his tweets, I'm focused on *policy issue*") isn't enough. (Kudos to Richard Burr or McCain and some who have a spine.)

For most voters, Trump had one function and one function alone: To make liberal heads explode. That's it. That's the whole magic. You can't run a country on that premise. And it's, in all honesty again, a stupid way to look at things. A whole country is held hostage because many people have a problem with maybe 5% (or more, I don't know) of the populace that are indeed "leftists" as described, e.g. crying racism and sexism for made-up, factually and intellectually dishonest reasons, being naive and preposterous, derogatory, hyperbolic and smug. Initially, each side has its faults and as I said, I'm not without sympathy for being annoyed with some leftists. But with Trump, things went way too far.

Btw. I'm wrong all the time and admit it freely. It's not always a good strategy. Nodding a lot isn't either. I do think you agree in large parts with me about Trump, you need to tell folks that respect you more than they could ever respect a liberal's opinion.
Oh, and you're mostly innocent and always civil. And a good sport who's always in for the fun. For my taste you could be a bit clearer about Trump at times, but you don't call others deranged and are fine overall.

[Belsnickel]

The issue with the current political climate is that the elected officials have moved away from the idea of governance and are more concerned with just winning. I probable sound like a broken record with this, but this trend has been going on for decades as both sides try to dehumanize their opponents and focus on winning because it means more power and money.

If you look at the data, you will see that the officials from both parties ignore the will of the general public and instead focus their efforts on the will of their donors, which are the wealthy and the corporations. All the while, they push out propaganda to keep the public as divided as possible on a few key issues, not allowing their attention to drift to the things that most of the public actually agrees on but the politicians don't want to do. They don't want to do it because their donors don't like it.

The majority of the American public consists of low information voters (and non-voters) who rely on these propaganda machines to feed them the next thing. We see them in this forum on a regular basis. They fall into the distractions being fed to them and don't want to look any deeper. Until we can get the money out of our politics, it will never change.

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 11:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue with the current political climate is that the elected officials have moved away from the idea of governance and are more concerned with just winning. I probable sound like a broken record with this, but this trend has been going on for decades as both sides try to dehumanize their opponents and focus on winning because it means more power and money.

If you look at the data, you will see that the officials from both parties ignore the will of the general public and instead focus their efforts on the will of their donors, which are the wealthy and the corporations. All the while, they push out propaganda to keep the public as divided as possible on a few key issues, not allowing their attention to drift to the things that most of the public actually agrees on but the politicians don't want to do. They don't want to do it because their donors don't like it.

The majority of the American public consists of low information voters (and non-voters) who rely on these propaganda machines to feed them the next thing. We see them in this forum on a regular basis. They fall into the distractions being fed to them and don't want to look any deeper. Until we can get the money out of our politics, it will never change.

Agreed on all counts.

Russian influence did expedite the development, I want to mention that. With campaigns they run everywhere, but which are most fruitful in a climate where everything anti-other side is used without much consideration. But of course, they did not make this happen, it was money and a culture of low information. And it's what the US deserves, as I think I one said already too (broken record), but it's true. One can't be for unrestricted capitalism and against all regulations or restrictions for business and big finance and then wake up and wonder how money took over politics. Well, of course it did.

[*michaelsean*]

hollodero Wrote:Uuuh, all serious and stuff, isn't this thread a bit too nonsensical for that?

I did threaten to bomb you.

When I say "about time' I mean saying that to someone else who has changed their position. Just say good to have you on board.

I'm not always clear on Trump because I'm not always clear myself. I don't like him as a person, but I'm not going to continually lose my mind either. I stopped doing that a while ago. I'll defend what is defensible and condemn what is not. But am I still far more shallow than I want to be? Yes because I hate the thought of the crazy anti_Trumpers, the ones that have Resist signs in their yards, getting a win.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 11:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: Agreed on all counts.

Russian influence did expedite the development, I want to mention that. With campaigns they run everywhere, but which are most fruitful in a climate where everything anti-other side is used without much consideration. But of course, they did not make this happen, it was money and a culture of low information. And it's what the US deserves, as I think I one said already too (broken record), but it's true. One can't be for unrestricted capitalism and against all regulations or restrictions for business and big finance and then wake up and wonder how money took over politics. Well, of course it did.

I used to be very libertarian minded. A lot of things changed for me ideologically in the past few years, but the biggest shift was from understanding what the deregulated market has done to our democracy. Socioeconomic inequality isn't just something that affects the pockets of the lower and middle classes, it is something that reduces the power of the people in our system because of the influence of money in our elections. Our government was founded on the idea that all people are created equal and that each person has an equal voice in our government, electing representatives to govern in their best interests. Right now the voices of the poor are drowned out and we aren't looking out for our people.

Years ago the difference between the Democrats and Republicans was in their philosophy of how to best serve the people. Now their difference lies in which industries donate the most to them.

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 11:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I did threaten to bomb you.

Fair enough. Alert me when it's starting, I plan to go to an open area and hold a big X over my head. Don't want my neighbors or any others harmed just because I wouldn't love you as a girl and said so. It's my fault, not theirs, and I take responsibility.

(08-22-2018, 11:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: When I say "about time' I mean saying that to someone else who has changed their position.  Just say good to have you on board.

I still tell folk what I think, and when I think they are dead wrong, then it's what I say. I couldn't behave otherwise and still consider myself respectful. What I think and how I look at things in the first place, my attitude, is the thing that I can change.
E.g. to believe that in theory, someone could make a good point I never considered is a good thought to start a debate. A willingness only a few americans seem to bring to the table in the first place. Because: Quarrel, never admitting the other one was right in anything, all that jazz.
I'm sure helped by the fact that in general I believe others are smarter than me.

(08-22-2018, 11:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not always clear on Trump because I'm not always clear myself.  I don't like him as a person, but I'm not going to continually lose my mind either.

To me, that amounts to getting used to the grim. Sure, when he said, just as an example, the media is the enemy of the people the first time, many were shocked. When he called Mueller names the first time, many were struck. When he made distinct anti-Mexican statements the first time, it seemed cringeworthy. Etc. etc. etc.

He does all that a second, third, fourth time? Well, what good is it to lose one's mind over it. One gets used to this stuff.
I think you shouldn't though. It's time to lose one's mind about those things. That's not just about not liking him, it's about more than that.

(08-22-2018, 11:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But am I still far more shallow than I want to be?  Yes because I hate the thought of the crazy anti_Trumpers, the ones that have Resist signs in their yards, getting a win.

I thought so. That was a honest statement. Now the next step would be to acknowledge that it's not about them. Not at all. They aren't important, the country is. Being extra stubborn because of some irrelevant folk isn't a wise move, and you know that too. I'd suggest to give that rational thought a little more weight over feelings of annoyance.
But you know that already too. But how will you explain it to some grandchildren later? "Well, you know, sure Trump had scary tendencies, but there was this one guy with his stupid resist sign, so..."

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Years ago the difference between the Democrats and Republicans was in their philosophy of how to best serve the people. Now their difference lies in which industries donate the most to them.

I guess that is 99% fair. There's two things - First, you can't play the game differently than your opponent if it means losing. Second, there's one party that is pro-citizens united and one that's against it. Being against it, to me, counts as a slight moral advantage.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 12:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess that is 99% fair. There's two things - First, you can't play the game differently than your opponent if it means losing. Second, there's one party that is pro-citizens united and one that's against it. Being against it, to me, counts as a slight moral advantage.

They talk about it, but they don't run on it or make any sincere efforts to change things. Some do, but not the overall party.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 12:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess that is 99% fair. There's two things - First, you can't play the game differently than your opponent if it means losing. Second, there's one party that is pro-citizens united and one that's against it. Being against it, to me, counts as a slight moral advantage.

Not for me.  At least as far as people, companies whatever being able to run ads etc.  Any person or entity should be able to voice their opinion on any topic however they choose.  If one way is through paid advertisements, then so be it. Campaign laws should be for candidates.  

[*michaelsean*]

hollodero Wrote:Fair enough. Alert me when it's starting, I plan to go to an open area and hold a big X over my head. Don't want my neighbors or any others harmed just because I wouldn't love you as a girl and said so. It's my fault, not theirs, and I take responsibility.

Well when you frame it like that it makes me seem a little weird.

And yes I get used to it. It's a little over two more years. Whatever Democrat gets elected will make nice with our allies. They may trust us a little less, but it won't mean much. Maybe the Dems will even take over congress and they can reverse the tax cuts which apparently have led to the particular trillion dollars that will finally break the camel's back.

[hollodero]

(08-22-2018, 12:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not for me.  At least as far as people, companies whatever being able to run ads etc.  Any person or entity should be able to voice their opinion on any topic however they choose.  If one way is through paid advertisements, then so be it. Campaign laws should be for candidates.  

I agree with freedom of speech, of course. Being able to voice an opinion doesn't contradict campaign finance laws or forbidding media stations to run privately funded political ads though. Or forbidding donating to parties. Still anyone can voice his opinion, just not on any outlet of his choice.
In my opinion, both measures would make sense. That isn't partisan, I find that Tom Steyer ads deeply irritating as well.