I Thnk people, anywhere on the Polical Spectrum...

Trumper chose to spit in the faces of everyone who hates trump with a passion. Now live with the consequences. They will be around for a very very long time. In fact, the nation will not survive. America is dead.

 

America has survived far more than the Cult of Trump. We'll be fine. Worse for having him in office, but still fine.

 

here we go again, another never trumper blaming the woes of the world on a single moment in time. what the cretinous buffoons of the far left will never understand is that being pro-american does not mean being anti-everything else, that wanting to enrich the american people is not the same as wanting to impoverish the rest of the globe. this nation's private sector has traditionally been the most charitable in the world. where there was hunger we did our best to feed the needy, where there was strife we did our best to ameliorate the burdens of the oppressed. of course, this isn't good enough for these knee-jerk globalist reactionaries. they won't be satisfied until the entire nation is filled with victims. victim-hood is what they most adore and trump is certainly no victim. obama, by nature of his skin color, was a victim. hillary, by nature of her sex, was a victim. warren, by nature of her sex and her phony-baloney amerind backstory, is a victim. this is what they worship. this is what they require of their leadership, their godhood.

 

People do like to argue, no doubt. The problem is that most don't have the ability to know why they are wrong. It's not about a middle ground. That's just nonsense. The goal is to use logic and evidence like Mike Tyson coming out in the first round. Just that arguments aren't like a beatdown. You have to know when you are beat, and most simply don't know when they are knocked out.

There is no middle ground with truth. It's either true, or it's not true.

 

That's because it's all just mental masturbation.
If you are really interested in politics, you become a public servant and actually work to make things happen while the peanut gallery grubs impotently in the dirt.
Don't whine, pick up a broom and help.

 

The political spectrum is a lot like the autistic spectrum. It covers a vast range of different kinds of people, none of whom generally aren’t fundamentally bad but they all often struggle with normal social interactions and understanding how people different to them think.

Because human beings are essentially tribal so we have an instinct to establish “them vs us” relationships. The complex balances, uncertainties and compromises of the middle ground aren’t natural to us and so require active effort to maintain. Any extreme is actually an easier path to follow even though the destination generally isn’t as good.

 

I'm interested in politics the same way I'm interested in public torture. I despise it, and certainly don't want to become the torturer.

Your idea seems to be that those who are interested in politics are the same as those in favor of public torture. If you want to complain, then take that job.

Sorry, but no.

 

I have less hope for one. We have not passed one bit of major legislation in 8 years, the congress rather argue and let the executive rule. Who cares what a bunch of bored posters believe. 90% of the opinions posted here belong to the furthest extents of each side of the political spectrum.

 

My point is made.

I see. So what you say implies that you think that countries like the UK, Norway or Australia, which have far less gun shooting assassinations than us, have much less of this that you call "moral decay"

 

Yep, people like to argue -- and stereotype. They also like to "win" arguments. Once they have stereotyped a poster into the left/right category, they cannot ever agree with her/him on anything, because that would mean defeat.

It's fascinating that a poster could agree with 90% of a post, but knowing that the author of that post is on the "other" side, they can never be caught to focus on the agreement, but they rather pick on the 10% they disagree with. While I try not to, I have certainly fallen into that trap in the past. After all, we are all humans and driven by emotion, probably more than we'd like to admit.

 

In my experience, 'arguments' in PF don't line up with the 'arguments' I may have IRL. I remind myself, constantly, that not all conservatives feel the way the Trumpers here do.

 

Elections are a non-monarchical replacement for revolution and civil war.

When the divide is deep elections still settle it for civilized people.

When the people become uncivilized and crime rules the land nothing else matters anyway as there is no solution but chaos and suffering and generalized poverty for that.

 

If it follows that cooperation is desirable over division, then I am reminded of the passage in the novel "The Lathe of Heaven" wherein all division and discord among all the peoples of the earth (nations, factions within nations) was eliminated ......................... by uniting everyone against a common foe( an alien invasion).

I think it would be more accurate and more in keeping with the founding principles of this country to say that the political system here was set up to be an adversarial process, much like our legal system, to encourage a full an searching debate to insure that the principles being advanced actually serve our country. Simply creating division for the wrong reasons is not useful.

 

Yet, our system appears to work best when there is a compromise between individualism and collectivism. Either extreme usually results in a poor economic outcome. Why is it that the middle ground works best, yet people are drawn to the extremes?

 

That notion requires some clarification and analyzation. For starters, when do you think our economy was 'best' and why?

 

Probably because the middle ground isn't very entertaining. A lot of people - myself included - hate politics and consider it humanity at its worst. Nevertheless it is entertaining. Hope that helps.

 

We know that communism doesn't work. We also know that we would still live in the trees, being afraid of predators every single moment of our lives if we were total individualists. So, I don't really know what needs clarification in claiming that a combination of individualism and collectivism works best (i.e. a social free market society).

 

Can you substantiate the emboldenned statement a bit? Are you lumping collectivism and cooperativism together?