Rightwingers: America is Multi-Racial. Get used to it.

Believe whatever your little heart desires.

 

This isn't about beliefs it's about facts.

The fact is even a reckless driver has a very low chance of getting in a car accident.

 

I agree it is a waste of time to argue with someone when you're wrong.

Thanks for the smiley really like it

 

No kidding. I should know better than to waste my time with him. Oh well....live and learn.

 

As a liberal, I've seen precisely the behaviors you so eloquently describe used by progressively more extreme conservatives against liberals quite effectively, since 2010. It began with the Tea Party, whose members rejected any and all compromise with liberals outright. It progressed through them, with their consistent obstructionism in Congress against Obama and everything he tried to do for the nation, to the intentional failure of the Senate to follow the Constitution they swore to uphold by refusing to even interview a Supreme Court nominee they themselves had recommended. As a liberal, I feel the conservative right and alt-right have treated me much like a woman they've decided to gang rape. In their eyes, as a liberal, I have no rights. They've gotten to the point that they've set aside their own feelings for America as a "free" society, and adopted policies that assure the imposition of their narrow views onto everyone else regardless of the harm that causes to America as a nation or as a society. I'm finding less and less of what made America "great" remaining in this weird, distorted version of conservative Republican Trumpism. From my perspective, it's UGLY.

 

For two reasons:
- Liberals have nothing to offer in exchange for what they want
- Even if they did, they seek acquiescence, not compromise.

In 2020, Congress was elected to do a job - stop The Obama from implementing His agenda.
Why would Congressmen and Senators so elected not do this?

Nothing in the Constitution demands that Congress give any Presidential nominee the time of day, much less a interview.

Oh, the melodrama.

See above.

This is an excellent explanation of why the Dems lost Congress in 2010, and the WH in 2018.

 

I will reject extremist attitudes from either side. I will reject the choice to ignore half the facts to get the conclusion you want; the erection of roadblocks to everything in order to prevent anything in particular. That means that I don't like such things regardless of which party is responsible. However, if it takes a bulldozer because cooperation is never an option, then it will be bulldozers.

Compromise and agreement are in the middle of the field, not at the ends. And, they can't be built on delusion- you can't compromise and accept something that is ultimately destructive to all. Extremists tend to go that way, and at this point, the extremists on the left have taken it as a challenge and are setting new records in absurdity. Can't endorse that, nor respect anyone who does.

America offers opportunity, and it is available to all. That is not the same as entitlement, which means that your opportunity depends of taking from someone else who has used their opportunity to succeed while you laid back. Taking from others is not opportunity- it's theft. Can't endorse that either.

 

You do not understand the nature of compromise.
In your terms.... You want me to pay higher taxes so the state can provide to others the means to exercise their rights.
What do yo offer me in return?

Even if true, this does not negate the fact liberals do not seek compromise, only acquiescence.
This is proven by the fact that the left always speaks of compromise in terms of the right giving the left what it wants, in exchange for nothing.
Disagree? How many times has the left demanded comprise from the NRA and offered it nothing for same?

You failed to address the question.
Why did America elect the GOP to power in 2010, if not to oppose The Obama's agenda?
Why would the congressmen so elected do anything else?

Glad you agree. Your point, thusly invalidated.

Hillary lost.
Part of the reason she lost is that Democrats have reached the point where they've set aside their own feelings for America as a "free" society, and adopted policies that assure the imposition of their narrow views onto everyone else regardless of the harm that causes to America as a nation or as a society.

 

I agree with much of your post, especially your comments about compromise. I regard myself as a liberal, but one who is personally open to compromise with conservatives on many issues. As you said, compromise is a middle position, so extremists can't go there. But our nation has had liberals & conservatives since its founding, yet for over 200 years, they've managed to find ways to compromise and keep the health of the nation as their higher priority. Since 2010, in my view, that has changed. That change troubles me greatly. I am personally a bit more left than most liberals, but I care about the country more than my personal liberal views, so I strongly support compromise solutions. I miss them. I wish both parties would reconvene compromise as a policy. It would be good for the nation & its people.

I sense that I disagree with a portion of your post as well. But I would be willing to work with you to find real solutions to our differences, if that could help our country. Why can't those in power now do the same?

 

OK...
What gun control laws would you like to see, and what do you offer in return?

 

For me personally, guns aren't a big issue. But I am concerned about the senseless murders of dozens of innocent people by those using automatic weapons. I'd like to see automatic weapons sales curtailed nationally--including automatic pistols. I'd like to see stronger background checks required for any gun purchases, whether from gun stores or private sales. I have no idea what you would want in return.

 

??
Can you describe the current laws for automatic weapons?

OK.. you want universal background checks.
What do you offer in exchange?

 

Insurance doesn’t work like that. You can’t just buy it and drop whenever you want.

 

No, I cannot describe the current laws for automatic weapons. As I said, guns aren't a major issue for me personally.
What would you want in exchange? I have no idea on this.

 

I guess this means you cannot describe how you'd like them curtailed.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint, and thus an infringement in my rights,
As you seek to place a limitation on my rights, I seek an expansion of my rights in return.
As a background check ensures I am legally able to own a gun, I want the ability to carry concealed in every state and territory, w/o a state permit.

 

There is a factual aspect to this- that unless our compromises and agreements still serve the best interests of the nation, everybody loses. You have to be a fool to make everybody lose to prevent the opposing side from any kind of win, and we are seeing quite abit of that in todays politics.

We are each responsible for ourselves and our own lives; an in your life- you are the most important thing that you must care for. But as part of something larger, you must realize that your ability to thrive is in part dependent on the survival of the larger entity. Kind of like being on a ship that is in danger of sinking, and refusing to help prevent it because you don't like the captain or the bucket they want you to bail water with. Self destructive in the long run; win the argument of the moment and lose the whole thing because of the short-sighted thinking involved.

You don't have to look far or be highly educated to see the degree to which both our people and our leadership fail to plan ahead. If you drove down the highway looking only 50 feet ahead, crisis requiring emergency response would happen constantly, they would dominate your existence. This is why the nature of our government in generally to patch programs that were not carefully thought out and planned for long term success in the first place- so we band-aid everything to keep it from falling apart, when wise planning would have it running smoothly while we went about doing other important things.

This tendency to focus on the moment instead of the future is very popular- and very foolish. But, it is what most people will do. The future is always coming soon.

 

I agree with you concerning that separation. It create barriers to people moving to new/better employment and dumps people who get sick or injured and thus lose their employment. Even under the ACA people had to switch insurance when changing employment, as employer policies are specific to the employer.

Also, it means that businesses have to have whole departments centered around health care benefits in order to compete for employees - and possibly to conform to law as well. That's a load that has nothing to do with the purpose of the business.

 

ALL measures of total cost of health care have to factor in taxes. Remember that even in the US, taxes go to healthcare - to help defray the cost of ER service for the indigent, to help people get covered.

If taxes aren't considered, then the analysis is just plain garbage.

 

I agree with everything you posted here.

 

Fair enough

 

Not before aca. Ever wonder why the scotus ruled it a tax?

I'm against theft through taxes.

Agreed.

 

I think you are missing what I meant about measuring what we spend on healthcare.

Those who study that have to include tax dollars that go toward health care. That includes tax dollars spent on supporting hospitals for indigents who use ER care, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, price supports to help low income citizens buy healthcare coverage, etc. It all counts here and it all counts in other countries.

 

We? We shouldn't spend anything on it.

I'm against theft through taxation.

 

The analysis being performed here is to determine how much we spend per capita on healthcare.

You can't figure that out unless you add up everything that WE spend on health care.

Some of your tax dollars do go to healthcare, so those who analyse these things count those dollars.