Where is the Common Ground?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

If fake news would stop lying about everything political under the sun the problems would go away. For example, the whole Ferguson debacle was caused by fake news. No fake news, no Ferguson.

In addition to what jimbob said about the outright white supremacism of Ferguson's city government, and the DoJ's findings, it's worth noting again that the police responded to black people mourning a death by driving up in mine-resistant vehicles, wrecking memorials, and terrorizing the mourners by threatening them with shotguns and police dogs. They were also found to have outright attacked individual black people just walking home from work, and to have engaged in repeated, mass constitutional violations, such as imposing a rule that said that protestors were not allowed to stand in place for more than a few seconds. And it was these movies and photos, much more than anything else, that got Ferguson international attention.

They also openly attacked journalists at Huffington Post, the Washington Post, and RT America, even when these journalists were sitting in a local McDonalds writing and uploading stories - which, of course, earned them even more outrage and coverage. And yet, when any actual riots broke out, it was the protestors who protected property, while police were absent. The idea that all of this, recorded on video, and settled in courts, is "fake news" is patently absurd.

This is another "no common ground" issues. Police shouldn't attack entire communities that they're supposed to protect, the end.

ETA: and as I had said at the time, had police not spent years showing that they were enemies of the local black community, and then turned openly violent towards them, Ferguson would likely not have become a flashpoint.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

If fake news would stop lying about everything political under the sun the problems would go away. For example, the whole Ferguson debacle was caused by fake news. No fake news, no Ferguson.

And where do you find a piece that aggressively explores the misinformation that fed into early reports? In the Washington Post.

‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie

Quote:

It was then that Johnson said Brown stopped, turned around with his hands up and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” And, like that, “hands up, don’t shoot” became the mantra of a movement. But it was wrong, built on a lie.

Still:

Quote:

Yet this does not diminish the importance of the real issues unearthed in Ferguson by Brown’s death. ... the false Ferguson narrative stuck because of concern over a distressing pattern of other police killings of unarmed African American men and boys around the time of Brown’s death.

This Post piece brought 5,000 comments. Not exactly an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

Would Fox or Breitbart works so hard to correct flawed initial coverage? I don't think so, but if you have examples I'd be happy to see them.

Meanwhile CNN is so "fake" that Trump is looking up 3-day-old CNN clips to feed his Twitter obsession

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Which is why the federal government should be reduced in size. The less important it is in our daily lives, the less consuming these political differences are.

"You liberals are upset about our anarchocapitalist agenda? The thing to do about that is make society even more anarchocapitalistic!"

[kellyb]

I think those in the thread (PhantonWolf and others) who pointed out that the common ground can't be found because it simply doesn't exist are mostly right.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ok so how do we marginalize trump supporters? Who currently poll at 40%.

By mending the system so that the 60% wins elections.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I think those in the thread (PhantonWolf and others) who pointed out that the common ground can't be found because it simply doesn't exist are mostly right.

It'd actually rather sad to see. Here is NZ there is a lot of common ground between the main two Parties, they both agree that Public Health Care is important to the country, having a strong public education system, making sure that people have a place to live, that they have security when out of work. In fact there are few big things that the parties don't agree on, there is even pretty much a consensus on Abortion and Gay Marriage, with our "Right Wing" Party having introduced the later.

Where the disagreement happens is over the details. How should schools be funded? Should people on the dole be dope tested? What age limit should be on 100% subsidized Doctor Visits? Should people be moved out of high value State Homes so they can be sold off to pay for building several lowers cost ones? Should we focus more on rehabilitation and education of prisoners in Jails?

We don't have the fundamental disagreements of what is right for the people of the country, just on how we're going to achieve that. In the US the split is so big that the sides can't even agree on what the fundamental requirements to create a good society are, let alone getting into how to do them.

It's like, here, we're arguing about the colour of the hire car we want to have while on our holiday, while you lot are still arguing about who, if anyone, even gets to go on the holiday, and even if the holiday is a good idea at all.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

It'd actually rather sad to see. Here is NZ there is a lot of common ground between the main two Parties, they both agree that Public Health Care is important to the country, having a strong public education system, making sure that people have a place to live, that they have security when out of work.

Quote:

It's like, here, we're arguing about the colour of the hire car we want to have while on our holiday, while you lot are still arguing about who, if anyone, even gets to go on the holiday, and even if the holiday is a good idea at all.

I think a whole lot of my fellow Americans are still basically fighting the Cold War in the back of their minds. They really subconsciously seem to think even talking about who gets to go on holiday is pandering to "communism," and even seriously considering it themselves is a form of treason. We Americans have been deeply propagandized to the point of (no hyperbole, sadly) brainwashed for a really, really long time.

This is a real quote from a former CIA director:

Quote:

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.

And from just this May, Richard Stengel, who went right from being the managing editor of Time Magazine, directly to work for US State Department, here talking to the Council on Foreign Relations:

https://twitter.com/williamcraddick/...26256214179840

Quote:

Basically, every country creates their own narrative story and, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the ‘chief propagandist’ job...I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population, and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.

This extreme misinformation is not limited to foreign policy in the US, and it's not just one or the other of the two establishment parties that does it.

And the news really isn't even hardly the news, when you're talking about the overall narratives from the major outlets.
Just look at the headlines of the front page of BlueNews:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/?noredirect=on

Or RedNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/

And within facebook and reddit and google's increasingly weird algorithms, the effect keeps getting amplified.

No wonder people seem to be increasingly drifting off into either soothing online performative narcissism of selfies and food pictures, or, alternately, obsessively clinging to demonstrably false "official narratives" about history, where our civilization is currently at, and where we seem to be going.

Red says global warming is a Chinese hoax, and Blue says you're evil if you don't ban straws. The billionaire class is building bunkers in New Zealand to prepare for the apocalypse. No one person or entity is actually in charge of anything. Anyone who takes a step back to voice an unapproved perspective based on true and real but obscure facts risks being viciously verbally attacked as a lunatic.

Weird times.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Why do you think Medicare and S.S. are referred to as the "third rail" in politics? If those checks stopped coming you would have a revolt.

Nonsense that is what the deficits are for a smoke screen to finally get rid of such rampant socialism. It is socialist and therefore evil and must be stopped.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I don't agree with this opinion. The government should be there to protect our environment, people, food, drugs and more. The government should be there to protect minorities from the persecution of the majority. Government should be there to provide for the general welfare of the public. Government should be there to help the poor, the disabled and those who can't help themselves. Reduction in the size of government only serves to give power to the wealthy and away from the people.

Nonsense it is your job to make sure your medicine isn't made with poison not some government bureaucrat. If they want to use antifreeze and poison people that is their right as manufacturers and should be legal once again.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

You would think that they aren't opposed to clean water, food..etc. However, they are applauding the Trump regimes dismantling of EPA and FDA standards.

They are no opposed to those things in theory, just like they are not for poison in medicine, it is just they want to leave it up to god to get there and not do anything to actually insure it happens.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by uke2se

By mending the system so that the 60% wins elections.

Which of course requires far more than 60% to do.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Which of course requires far more than 60% to do.

Not if the system is fixed.

eta:
Or maybe I'm missing your train of thought.

You'd have to just get rid of the electoral college and de-gerrymander the districts to fix the system, I think. Although you have to get more than 60% in order to begin fixing the system. I guess that's what you meant. Sorry!

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

They are no opposed to those things in theory, just like they are not for poison in medicine, it is just they want to leave it up to god to get there and not do anything to actually insure it happens.

And many people who vote for them simply say, like back in 2016, "Oh they're just saying that, they won't actually do any of those things they repeatedly said that they'll definitely do."

"Oh, my spouse isn't legally here, but that was just a paperwork problem, they'll take one look and just let him stay, also what about Benghazi?" 2 months later "Oh no, they're deporting my spouse!"

"Oh, the GOP isn't going to take away health care from people that need it, they'll make sure everyone is covered." 6 months later: "They're trying to take away my health care, I need it to live!"

"Oh, I put in work, I deserve this government help, I'm sure they'll just kick off those lazy 'urban' people, not me." 1 year later: "They're taking away my food benefits, what am I going to do?!

"Oh, they're just bringing back jobs, this is great, those regulations don't help anyone." 2 years later "My tap water is on fire!"

Lot of those "take him seriously, not literally" folks didn't seem to realize that taking a vindictive, bigoted idiot seriously means you should assume he'll go way beyond what he first said.

[kellyb]

How do you fix the system when the system requires fixing to be fixed?
Do everything you can to get everyone possible on board with getting everyone else on board to push it to the needed 60+%? LOL

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

"You liberals are upset about our anarchocapitalist agenda? The thing to do about that is make society even more anarchocapitalistic!"

Who said anything about anarchocapitalism? Really, kellyb, you should be better than such silly straw men. That would be like calling you a communist if you wanted to expand food stamps. The only question is whether you knew it was ridiculous when you said it, or whether you're really that clueless.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who said anything about anarchocapitalism? Really, kellyb, you should be better than such silly straw men. That would be like calling you a communist if you wanted to expand food stamps. The only question is whether you knew it was ridiculous when you said it, or whether you're really that clueless.

I'd need you to answer my previous question about where you fall on the libertarian scale of one to ten before I know how to respond to this.

If a one is being perfectly okay with being a member of the ruling elite in Brave New World, and a 10 is Charles and David Koch, where do you fall on the libertarian scale?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I'd need you to answer my previous question about where you fall on the libertarian scale of one to ten before I know how to respond to this.

If a one is being perfectly okay with being a member of the ruling elite in Brave New World, and a 10 is Charles and David Koch, where do you fall on the libertarian scale?

The Kochs aren't anarchocapitalists. Nothing I've ever said even suggests that I'm an anarchocapitalist. You don't need to know exactly how libertarian I am in order to know that this was a bull **** claim on your part, and now you're trying to blame me for the fact that you tried to smear me. That's a dick move, kellyb.

But since I suspect you won't stop making bull **** accusations until I answer your silly question, if you're a 4, I'm probably more like a 7. I deserve an apology, but I don't expect to get one.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The Kochs aren't anarchocapitalists. Nothing I've ever said even suggests that I'm an anarchocapitalist. You don't need to know exactly how libertarian I am in order to know that this was a bull **** claim on your part, and now you're trying to blame me for the fact that you tried to smear me. That's a dick move, kellyb.

But since I suspect you won't stop making bull **** accusations until I answer your silly question, if you're a 4, I'm probably more like a 7. I deserve an apology, but I don't expect to get one.

I actually thought you were a 10, and I am sorry.

I consider the Koch's anarchocapitalists. I think they'd prefer for the military and police to be officially privatized, but they don't really mind the trappings of "government" as window dressing, as long as everything important is decided by .01%ers.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I actually thought you were a 10, and I am sorry.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Quote:

I consider the Koch's anarchocapitalists. I think they'd prefer for the military and police to be officially privatized, but they don't really mind the trappings of "government" as window dressing, as long as everything important is decided by .01%ers.

How much first-hand exposure have you had to the Kochs? Have much have you listened to what they say directly, as opposed to how other people describe them?

[JoeMorgue]

I get this thread has already been well... moved on from the original question but is it necessary to categorize people to this degree to establish if there is/should be a "common ground" to meet on?

So what you can find a common ground with somebody who is 60% Post Modern Anarchreformedcapatlist with Sprinkles... but not 70% lord no not 70%

[kellyb]

Now, how did I know Joe's post was going to mostly be chastising other people in the thread for not posting the way he wants us to?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How much first-hand exposure have you had to the Kochs? Have much have you listened to what they say directly, as opposed to how other people describe them?

I've read a few interviews with one of them (the one who talks to the press more.) Obviously not a whole lot since I forget which one that is. LOL

I'm mostly judging their beliefs by the "propaganda" they fund.

[BrooklynBaby]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

And where do you find a piece that aggressively explores the misinformation that fed into early reports? In the Washington Post.

‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie


Still:
This Post piece brought 5,000 comments. Not exactly an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

Would Fox or Breitbart works so hard to correct flawed initial coverage? I don't think so, but if you have examples I'd be happy to see them.

Meanwhile CNN is so "fake" that Trump is looking up 3-day-old CNN clips to feed his Twitter obsession

An article correcting the record 7 months after Mike Brown attacked Darren Wilson and tried to kill him was a bit late to unring the fabricated "Hands up, don't shoot" bell.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

An article correcting the record 7 months after Mike Brown attacked Darren Wilson and tried to kill him was a bit late to unring the fabricated "Hands up, don't shoot" bell.

The news reported what the witnesses said. That's what they do.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

The news reported what the witnesses said. That's what they do.

Indeed, and its notable how the same people who have no problem with the garbage that spews from Trump get on their high horse about something like this.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

The news reported what the witnesses said. That's what they do.

The evidence that it was a lie is just the ballistics evidence, right?
The cops investigated themselves and cleared themselves of any wrongdoing?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

The evidence that it was a lie is just the ballistics evidence, right?

No. This isn't the thread for it, but there's more than just the ballistics.

Quote:

The cops investigated themselves and cleared themselves of any wrongdoing?

IIRC, The DOJ investigated too, and while they found problems with the department, they didn't find anything wrong with that specific instance.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Indeed, and its notable how the same people who have no problem with the garbage that spews from Trump get on their high horse about something like this.

The Trumpist propaganda works well on some people with a simple misdirection: The news media "fabricated" the story, so see, not only can they not be trusted, they are scumbags, they are the Enemy of the People. That last one is actually true, but only for certain self-selected people.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

But see this is just it, you are so sure that you are right about where you stand on Abortion and Civil Rights issues, and yet so are those that are on the other side. What you see as the right of a woman to have control over her own body, they see as murdering another human. There is no common ground because you are diametrically opposed to each other's positions, and you both exclaim that you are the ones whom are right.

Case in point....



It's not about being wrong or right, the fact is that both sides claim to be the ones that are right, it's that as you yourself admit, there are lots of people that don't agree with you, and thus there is no common ground.

Yes, I am sure that government should respect bodily autonomy and separate-but-equal and discrimination was wrong and the Civil Rights Act was necessary. There is no debate on this (or at least, there shouldn't be).

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I'm rooting for Havana to get an MLB team.

Me too!

Common ground.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Yes, I am sure that government should respect bodily autonomy and separate-but-equal and discrimination was wrong and the Civil Rights Act was necessary. There is no debate on this (or at least, there shouldn't be).

There is debate though, because all of these things are subjective, not objective. You are arguing that respect for bodily autonomy in the preeminent right. Others would argue that the right to live is greater, and that the Government should protect the right of life to the unborn. Neither argument is objectively correct and neither is objectively incorrect.

This is the thing about politics, there are no objective answers, just different ways to try and solve the same problems. To believe that only your way of answering it the one and only true way to answer the problem is to fall into the trap of ideology and creates a closed mind.

Now yes, there are, IMO, better ways to answer these questions and solve the problems we have, but I also have to admit that they are only better IMO. Other people might have different answers that they believe to have superior results based on what they believe. I can't say that they are objectively wrong, but rather the I disagree with their solutions.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

There is debate though, because all of these things are subjective, not objective. You are arguing that respect for bodily autonomy in the preeminent right. Others would argue that the right to live is greater, and that the Government should protect the right of life to the unborn. Neither argument is objectively correct and neither is objectively incorrect.

This is the thing about politics, there are no objective answers, just different ways to try and solve the same problems. To believe that only your way of answering it the one and only true way to answer the problem is to fall into the trap of ideology and creates a closed mind.

Now yes, there are, IMO, better ways to answer these questions and solve the problems we have, but I also have to admit that they are only better IMO. Other people might have different answers that they believe to have superior results based on what they believe. I can't say that they are objectively wrong, but rather the I disagree with their solutions.

I am all for common ground, but if the disagreement is to big, there is no common ground. And, yes, no human is objectively wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a point of view.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

I am all for common ground, but if the disagreement is to big, there is no common ground. And, yes, no human is objectively wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a point of view.

Plenty of humans are objectively wrong. Some people believe the Earth is flat. They are objectively wrong. That's not a matter of opinion.

There is an objective reality. Some people need to realize this.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

I am all for common ground, but if the disagreement is to big, there is no common ground. And, yes, no human is objectively wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a point of view.

Common ground is usually pretty easily to be found but in times of internal crisis it tends to disappear.

I remember from my ancient American Studies seminar (I was a strange Finn) where I had to write an essay about 1850's political rhetorics how the Southern position finally evolved into "yeah, you can give us everything we want down from Mason-Dixon to Antarctica, but if you in the innermost heart think that our heavenly Peculiar Institution is the slightest bit evil, we will never settle with you". I mean Lincoln came into office as a known opponent of slavery who still had not the slightest intention of abolishing it in the South and with no means whatsoever of accomplishing it even had he wanted to. But his mere election was too much. I think the modern day Trump core is pretty much as radicalized.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Common ground is usually pretty easily to be found but in times of internal crisis it tends to disappear.

I remember from my ancient American Studies seminar (I was a strange Finn) where I had to write an essay about 1850's political rhetorics how the Southern position finally evolved into "yeah, you can give us everything we want down from Mason-Dixon to Antarctica, but if you in the innermost heart think that our heavenly Peculiar Institution is the slightest bit evil, we will never settle with you". I mean Lincoln came into office as a known opponent of slavery who still had not the slightest intention of abolishing it in the South and with no means whatsoever of accomplishing it even had he wanted to. But his mere election was too much. I think the modern day Trump core is pretty much as radicalized.

Yeah, they "the modern day Trump core" in effect don't view some humans as humans and thus there is no common ground.

We are all parts of reality and we are all humans. The moment you functionally have a world view, where some humans are not humans, you don't share common ground with me and we have nothing to agree on.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

There is debate though, because all of these things are subjective, not objective. You are arguing that respect for bodily autonomy in the preeminent right. Others would argue that the right to live is greater, and that the Government should protect the right of life to the unborn. Neither argument is objectively correct and neither is objectively incorrect.

I am waiting for forced kidney donations on that rational.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I am waiting for forced kidney donations on that rational.

From a purely socialistic pov, making everyone with two good kidneys be willing to donate one is needed would make sense. Similarly from a purely capitalistic pov allowing anyone to sell their kidneys would also make sense.

Neither is objectively right or wrong, though my own beliefs and pov would say that both are wrong.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Plenty of humans are objectively wrong. Some people believe the Earth is flat. They are objectively wrong. That's not a matter of opinion.

There is an objective reality. Some people need to realize this.

Things are objective in science, but politics isn't science. There are no absolute truths in political policies.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Things are objective in science, but politics isn't science. There are no absolute truths in political policies.

But there really are empirical facts, and there basically is no rational argument whatsoever to be had which side so much more relies on those empirical facts and which side on the cynical and totally shameless distortion of them.

[Darat]

Tommy Jeppesen- Take your discussion of philosophy to the appropriate section of the forum and do not derail this thread into a discussion of your personal philosophy.

Posted By:Darat