Has a political forum debate ever changed your position on an issue?

It's alright, I've been with a woman too.

My roommate leans toward conspiracy theories himself, but not in an ultra crazy way. He doesn't believe in lizard people. I just asked to be sure.

 

So the innocence of those children is of no moment on account of the guilt of their parents. Have I got that right?

No, I'm asking what time has to do with it. Wood can become petrified over time, but not merely because of time; so are opinions different in that respect?

 

Thoroughly disgusted with both Hillary and Trump, my 72 yr old mother announced she would be voting for "the pot head" as she had no idea what Allepo was either, and Johnson seemed at least respectful of the other candidates.

 

Over the years the Republican Party has drifted farther right and the Democratic Party farther left. When I grew up in the 1950's, there wasn't a huge difference between them. Both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The conservative Republican Party back then stated they believed in the same things the Democratic Party did, only a bit less.

Also back in the 1950's 80% or more of Americans identified with one or the other major party. The more people who affiliated with your party, the broader the political spectrum. According to Pew Research only 18% of the public said they were independents. Today, not only do you have the polarization of left and right, Democratic and Republican parties, you also have a major shrinking of those who identify with the two major parties and hence participate in the presidential nomination process.

Gallup today puts Democrats at 29%, Republicans at 28% as of December 2016. Instead of representing 80% of the total American populace, our two major parties represent only 57% with the rest being independents. So when the selection process takes place, it is done or decided by those very active far right and far left participants. There is no middle anymore in either party. Hence you have a Trump vs. Clinton match up. The center, center right and center left aren't represented anymore in our two major parties. Those who are in the middle have left the two major parties leaving only the more hard core.

The Democrats shed their conservative base, the south. The Republicans shed their liberal base, the Northeast. What was once solid Republican, the northeast and west coast back in the 50's is now solid Democrat. The south once solid Democrat, is now solid Republican. There is no middle represented. What made matters worse was the last two sea change elections. In 2006 when the Democrats took over congress, they defeated most moderate Republicans and replaced them with far left liberals. In 2010, the so called moderate blue dog Democrats went down to defeat to the far right conservative Republicans. No middle left and those who could negotiate with the other side, compromise with them, get things done, no longer walk the halls of congress.

So one extreme nominates their candidate, the other extreme nominates theirs and they expect the rest of America to choose between them. The fact that 8 million Americans refused to do so this election cycle, I think is a positive thing. Perhaps slowly America is waking up, but then again, who knows?

 

I wasn't discussing folks like you. I mean the ones that are intolerant and insulting to anyone who questions the morality of abortion in lieu of contraception or abortion for convenience. I do not advocate taking their rights away at all I just question the morality of the practice and the constant mantra that they are not killing or at least even precluding a future human being.

Understood.

 

I can't think of anything offhand, for example I've always liked Putin because of his strength of character, and I've never seen a post by anybody to change my mind.
Hey Anna you say in your profile that you don't like Putin, so by all means point out his faults to us, and we might agree with you..

 

My policy in this forum is to not post personal information, for 2 reasons.

First, since its an anonymous forum, posts should be able to stand on their own, references should be available to all, and posts should not be based on my personal credentials. That makes for a much stronger argument.

Second, anonymity has a positive side. Look in the abortion threads, the abortionists are zealots and at times irrational, I would not want them to know who I am and where I live. Even better, consider the gay issue, the real world standard procedure for the gay mob regarding any person who publicly opposed the gay agenda was to attack them, their family, business, vendors, customers, with the objective of so ruining and terrorizing their victim that people would hesitate to oppose the gay mob.

 

When I see what I believe, in action, its reaffirming.

 

Your questions too hard so I'm not going to answer it.

 

It wasn't only the Allepo moment that turned me off to him. I could just see he wasn't going to go anywhere. You need some charisma to be a president, especially to win the presidency, and he has less than Clinton has.

 

IMO, it's because each side picks their own candidate. And middle of the road never wins the primaries..
And 3rd party never gets hardly an intrerview. The system is rigged to not have middle of the road.

- - - Updated - - -

Not in my case. Mine have become less hardened.

 

Thanks for that reply. In my short adult lifetime the parties have always been sort of polarized. I keep thinking how has the country survived without a middle of the road moderate party? Because It's like you said, the parties didn't use to be polar opposites.

 

Yes, generally because the comments contained new information not previously known.

Yes. Again because of new information. I thought for certain the Ferguson cop in the original case--the one with the stolen box of cigars--was in the wrong right up to the point it came out that the deceased's fingerprints were inside the cop car.

Perhaps, but with 12 billions posts, I tend to be more Socratic (or sarcastic) than set in stone.

How is PF different than google really? It all comes down to how you use them.

I am a stick in the muddy grass

 

Actually on several issues. My mind was changed on whether reparative therapy ought to be sanctioned as therapy by a left of center poster on another forum. I moved to the left on that one I was convinced on the issue of original intent on the second amendment by a pro gun guy on this forum by which I mean that the phrase 'well regulated' may have meant something other than our modern meaning.
I have been gradually persuaded on legalizing pot by proponents ( not budging on harder drugs, just not!)

I have moved on some separation of church/ state issues. I have decided several matters of 'principle' are not worth the war, and to save my passion for 'big ticket' items. I have been persuaded against a previously ambivalent position on abortion. I am now solidly pro-choice.

Posters who come across as reasonable and moderate, tend to make me think more reasonably and moderately.
there are more. can't recall them.

 

Here's a start...
Half my family is Ukrainian. Putin is hurting Ukraine and its people.

 

I see your points. I guess I find anonymity foreign because I've grown up on having all of me out there, VK, Facebook, etc.

 

I first became interested in politics watching the Republican and Democratic conventions on TV back in 1956, the "I like IKE," era. The turbulent 60's and Vietnam begun the change towards polarization of the two parties. Looking at Nixon's policies and his agenda from 1968-74 minus Watergate, Nixon was considered a conservative back then. But Nixon established the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, imposed wage and price controls, was for affirmative action, funds for education and he opened the door to or with Red China and Recognized them diplomatically. There was also detente with the USSR under Nixon, the ABM treaty, nuclear arms control and more. Nixon the staunch conservative of his time did all the above.

Nixon today would be considered a flaming Liberal if not a socialist instead of a conservative. I think the real polarization really took hold with the emergence of the religious right and the battle over abortion. Since then the two parties have drifted way apart. Also the Democratic Party back in the late 60's became the dove party and the GOP the war hawk party which for the most part, those names still cling to them.

Another time mark could be 1994, when the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. From 1933 until 1995, a span of 62 years, the Democrats controlled the House in 58 years of the 62. Only from 1949-51 and again 1953-55 did the GOP have a majority in the House since the great depression began. The Democrats also had control of the senate for 52 of those 62 years.

An insight if I may, Eisenhower had LBJ over to the White House three times a week to discuss with LBJ, then the senate majority leader how IKE could get his agenda through congress. Bipartisanship. JFK and LBJ work very closely with Everit Dirksen then the Republican minority leader in the senate while they were president. Meetings and lunches all the time. Then of course Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal who worked great together for the nation. Even Bill Clinton once Gingrich became Speaker worked with each other. But when Hastert replaced Gingrich, then party politics took over. Polarization became more or less complete.

 

Where? How?

 

I've also changed my mind when new information comes up. It amazes me how many people won't. It's like they fear they'll lose face if they accept new facts which change their stance on an issue.

Muddy grass is very deceiving. Be careful.

 

Same here. Actually Dr. Sanjay Gupta from CNN did a lot to convince me that at least medical marijuana should me legal.

Same.
Debating extremist is like banging your head against the wall. It annoys the neighbors.

 

It largely depends on the issue and the information though, doesn't it? I mean there are seldom perfect, morally unequivocal side to be on. I don't mind being on the side with the weakest argument. I believe what I believe in terms of big picture stuff.

There are worse things to find yourself standing upon.

 

Hummm... I'm not sure how debating extremist would annoy the neighbors unless I yelled at the computer screen. Maybe I need a better analogy.

Edit... Excuse me Mr. Deckel but you butted in between my last post and its update. Now it's splint in two on two different pages and so makes no sense. Thanks a lot dude!

 

You mean he wasn't? The history books in school make him out to be liberal.

I grew up listening to my father yell at the republicans on the TV for trying to impeach Clinton. My father is a republican but he didn't agree with that nonsense. I was only a kid so I only remember the yelling. I got into reading about politics during the Bush years, especially after 9/11.
I was ten when that happened and I wanted to understand why it happened. I wanted to know why someone hated my country so much that they'd do such an evil thing. I wasn't satisfied with the answer the Catholic Nuns in school gave me.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously??

 

The history books teach Nixon was a flaming Liberal? That's news to me, but if so, a revision in our history that needed to be made. As far as I am concerned, he was. Well, liberal, but not a flaming one. Older folks than you still refer to Nixon as a staunch conservative. Very interesting, thanks for that information.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was purely political as far as I am concerned. The people didn't want it. In fact Bill Clinton went into the impeachment process at with a 57% approval rating and at the end had climbed up to 63%. The Democrats in congress at that time would have gone along with a censor of Bill, but not impeachment. There was no way to get 2/3rds of the senate to vote to convict. The Republicans overshot big time.

 

No, not flaming. But I read somewhere that he was thought to be the last true liberal president.

My father, a republican, agrees. He didn't approve and he says he considered changing parties because of it