If the left and right could see through my eyes.

Why does one tribe hate the NY Yankees and another tribe love the NY Yankees? And the tribe who hates the NY Yankees will love other baseball teams who in their essence are identical to the NY Yankees?

Impeachment is a political process and therefore will be rooted in all the ills of politics. If you wish to improve the impeachment process you must remove the politics...

 

Bloody hell. Poor you! What a terribly inappropriate woman

FTR, that's the sort of joke I'd make (about the good bits in the books) with a gay brother .. if I had one.

 

Fair enough
But the start of this discussion seemed to be trying to emphasize how uncivil liberal politicians are.... to which I mentioned Obama as civil, and you jumped in to say he was not civil... and I asked if any president was civil in your opinion... and you confirmed none of them are.... which leads me back to asking about what is the basis to claim that liberals are particularly less civil.... when, , as you and I explored the topic... you basically agree that politicians are all the same with regard to in civility

 

I’ll thank you not to patronize me, Dear.
If you go far enough back into most people’s family trees you’ll find someone who was not a citizen or doesn’t have the paperwork to back it up. With today’s political discourse, birthright citizenship is the safest way to protect against abuses that could see a person robbed of their citizenship. I’ll take the system that can be abused to help people versus the one that could be abused to harm. Thanks.

 

You'll need to check with individual Govts if you want institution dates. Not sure why you're asking me that question .. I'm not The Law.

Meantime, when you say 'help', who exactly are you helping? Because birthright citizenship sure doesn't help the nation. It does the opposite, in fact. Maybe you're more interested in helping foreign nationals?

 

The ideological part might not be universally agreed upon (I don't go as far as saying that it "can" or "can"), but the facts are facts. We rarely discuss ideology here. We discuss facts. I believe the problem you have is that you try too hard to assume that everything is subjective. That "reeks" a bit at nihilism. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

That's incorrect. What is or is not illegal is clearly spelled out in the law. There is no disagreement whatsoever about that. There may be disagreement on whether somebody actually incurred in a crime. To elucidate that a forensic analysis is performed. Which is most definitely performed following scientific standards.

So what? The same can be said about any scientific theory. Scientists can definitely form "emotional connections" to certain theories. That's' precisely why we have Science. So scientists can be biased, but their scientific "output" isn't. Hawking was so "emotionally connected" to his black hole hypothesis that he feared he was biased. So he bet with Kip Thorne that it would be proven that Black Holes didn't exist. He considered it his "insurance policy"

People favor a political party because it has an agenda that they feel is beneficial. Mostly to them, but often to their country.

So somebody might choose to vote Democrat because it promotes Social Justice and they believe that social justice is "good" for the country. That's ideology. And may be objective or subjective. But, even if it is subjective, what we do in this forum is to analyze objectively (at least most of us try to) if a particular piece of legislation will benefit the country or not. And that discussion is objective. Nobody discusses (or very rarely) some "ethereal" ideology. Discussions here are about real tangible things.

 

You wouldn't have to go very far back in history to find out that paperwork simply didn't exist. People were assumed to be French or English or Mexican because of their behavior. If you speak French, eat french bread and wear a beret, you were deemed french. Maybe a good actor could fool some foreigners, but dialect was a far better way to tell if you're from here or somewhere that ain't here.

As for helping or harming, that's your choice I guess. Where you plan on finding this system?

 

Let's just say that if we were both sitting in a cannibal's pot and you were giving me this speech while the water got hotter and hotter, I'd probably punch you.

 

You’ll have to forgive me for not catching your point here. What system are you suggesting I need to seek out?

 

I’m sorry, did you see a question mark in the post you quoted? I’m certain I didn’t type one.

To answer your question I am interested in helping people whether they be from my nation or not, and considering the declining birth rate in the United States we would be wise to find ways to reliably increase our percent of working age adults. It’s easier to be a contributing member of society when you can pay income taxes.

 

Tribalism seems innate to us all to various degrees. The best argument as to why it exists is that for millions of years it has been an evolutionary advantage, which sadly has become a bit of a hindrance in modern times.

 

You said "I’ll take the system that can be abused to help people versus the one that could be abused to harm."

Countries exist because of an "us" and "them" mindset, and that's why a lot of wars have been fought. It's either you or me, and I'd prefer it to be me. This idea that we're all human underneath is fine if you're deciding between a people doctor or an animal doctor, but there's quite a bit of pollyanna in this thread. If we don't have shared values, we can't live next to each other.

 

Don't abuse the kindness extended to you or else it may be withheld.

 

I agree that facts are facts. Sadly they are often perceived in a different light depending upon one’s political affiliation. As for nihilism, you are reading too much into my argument.

Claiming that there is no disagreement on the law does not prove there is no disagreement. Even SCOTUS often cannot agree upon points of law.

As for your last argument in the post, I largely agree.

 

It might be a hindrance, or might not, but it is surely true that it is evolutionary. Since we both agree on that, then you can perhaps understand why my tribe (fox) thinks the other tribe (cnn) is at war with us, and the time for holding hands and giving the world a coke while singing kumbaya is over.

and maybe that's why all those idiots on cnn are talking about how maybe I should just give them my assault rifles. I think NOT!

 

Fox and CNN see the world in very different ways and perceive one another as a threat to what each are trying to accomplish or hold onto. Each side wants to maintain some status quo that the other is trying to change. When we perceive our deeply held beliefs are under assault the response is predictable.

 

That's what normalizing deviance does to certain parts of the population, it's like perpetuating a lie until it's perceived as the truth. Gays have only recently been considered by some as normal and it kicked the door wide open to everything else, that's a genie out of the bottle that cannot be put back and is out of control. I'm sorry but someone's gender confusion does not trump a woman's right to privacy and safety. If that's your preference, fine but you do not have the right to force me to support your delusion, forcing me to memorize a cornucopia of BS PC pronouns so that I don't hurt your feelings.There are presently no shortage of situations where using the "wrong" pronoun can have some pretty effed up consequences including the loss of a job. I don't care I refuse to go down that rabbit hole.

There are 9 states that allow abortions up to birth and have left the instance of post birth infanticide in a grey area with vague language about what is alright and what is not. With what is known about the questionable practices of the abortion industry and the lack of any real oversight there's no question that it is happening. LEO's should be held in esteem that is proportionate to the men and women who serve in our military. These are people who place themselves in harm's way every time they put on the uniform. Very few occupations carry this level of risk. There is a miniscule percentage of LEO's who should not be in LE and the rest deserve all the respect due them. Conversely criminal behavior voluntarily places an individual at risk but they deserve whatever happens to them and no one should be losing any sleep over that.

There are very few statesmen left in American politics and not one of the has a D after their name. I do not subscribe to either party but circumstances force me to stand with the Republican party and I no longer consider them the lesser of two evils. There is only one party that is overtly and consummately evil and that is the Democrat party, but it isn't even the Democrat party anymore, it hasn't lived up to those ideals for fifty years. That party was co-opted by the radical left and America will not be whole until that evil has been eradicated.

 

More specifically, both fox and cnn cater to different audiences, and both sides feel that the other presents a true threat to the country.

While we both see the same things, we interpret them quite differently. For example, this Ukraine thing seems like a big nothingburger that the left has grasped onto because the russian thing went nowhere. The prediction in every righty camp I've ever come across is that once ukraine goes the way of russia, then there will be a different attack.

If the left really wants to start breaking out the cokes and smiles again, they need to come up with something a bit more substantial than saying it's not okay to investigate politicians running for office.

 

You’ll have to clarify that statement given what you were replying to.

 

Partisans are every bit the problem.
Our political leaders understand this and that is why they make partisans continuously point fingers.
A divided people is a conquered people.
If the people are divided, much easier to run an agenda from behind the curtain. One that benefits the elites that we actually elect.
How many are in constant reelection mode vs actually doing what is best for America?

 

If you waste your 'help' on other nations, your own will suffer. Is that your intention?

Meantime, America has millions of able bodied adults not working to capacity. That's your problem, not lack of citizens.

PS: I'm a fan of merit-based immigration, so you'll see no resistance from me on that. If you have a tertiary or trade qualification my country needs, can support yourself and your family for at least 5 years without recourse to assistance or access to citizen freebies (healthcare and education) for that period, AND you have demonstrated your commitment to this nation and culture by learning the language fluently before arriving, you're very welcome.

 

So you don't mind restrictions to owning arms.
As most every single person does.
The question always is, where is one's line to the restriction.

 

Yes, the left should could do that.
But they might feel they owe something to the right. For all the BS during the black skin man prez. You remember the party of NO, during that time.
So, that just plays to what the OP is saying.
Each side just wants to fight.