Military Parade

[BIGUN 1,090]

I understand. Thank you.

I've been thinking about this for awhile; hence my posts regarding my aversion to fb. The way we communicate with each other has changed. All communication is comprised of: Breadth, Depth and Application.

We seem to communicate the breadth and leave out the depth and application. I thank you for enlightening me and by extension many others of my tribe about Climate Change and Global Warming. The time you took to share, explain, provide resources led to a single day that I can remember with such clarity.

The point of this is this: We can't be so heels dug in and un-receptive to communicate that we tune out the other sides completely. We've lost a lot of good contributors on here (from both sides) and I find that a shame.

Keith

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,450]

>The point of this is this: We can't be so heels dug in and un-receptive to
>communicate that we tune out the other sides completely. We've lost a lot of good
>contributors on here (from both sides) and I find that a shame.

That's a good point.

I heard a good friend of mine (and a staunch Trump supporter) say that he no longer participates in any social media (Facebook, Twitter) because "people say such ignorant things." He didn't get into it but there isn't much question he's talking about all the criticism of Trump. So he's cut off those sources of criticism.

On the one hand that's unfortunate, because it means that he's living even more in his news bubble; he's excluding contrary opinions, and when Trump ends up indicted for something (or whatever bad thing happens next) he's going to be even more outraged/alienated because he's not going to see what leads up to it, or why people support it.

But at the same time, there's so much "digging in" lately that excluding those opinions makes a kind of sense, because there's not much to them. The easy accessibility of all forms of media means that there's equally easy access to those "canned talking points" that are driving my friend nuts. (True on both sides.)

There's no easy solution to all this.

[wmw999 2,163]

I don’t think Bigun particularly likes Trump. Just better than HRC. And he’s generallt not one to double down on “my guy, right or wrong.”

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[piisfish 135]

What surprises me is that you guys don’t have a military parade already for 4th of July.

By the way why do you call it 4th of July ? Shouldn’t it be July 4 ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Bob_Church

******

I find it interesting that, in general, the right wing mocks and vilifies political correctness and advocates for honest, no-holds-barred, genuine discourse, even if it's offensive. And anyone who gets offended is a special snowflake who needs their safe space. When the left wing is in power, that is.

When the right wing is in power, the call is "why can't people discuss things politely without attacking?"

I'm going to have to disagree, Bill.
Go back to when Obama was up for election...

Search Criteria:

FROM Speakers Corner" and,
STRING = "Obama"
Where "BIGUN" is poster.

And, yes: I am offended that this has become personal attackville on both sides.

And I don't think the problem is that the Democrats debate their opponents while shouting slurs. It's that so many Democrats ONLY attack. In list after list I see zero talk of policies or actions just "are you one of the people who are so stupid they voted for Trump?" directed at anyone who says anything they disagree with.

You do remember that the Republicans had as a stated goal, for 8 years, that the only thing they wanted to achieve was to obstruct Obama and his policies.

And now here you are objecting to Democrats being the ones not having policies?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

BIGUN

******

Quote

And you want to take the "high road"? You want to debate a topic?

Yes. Without calling anyone; stupid, liar, or attacking their belief system, or even their ideology. We used to do it.

I will have to apologize, but I have a hard time trying to have a reasonable debate with somebody who supports a guy who:

* Advocates assaulting women.
* On average lies or tells a mistruth multiple times a day.
* Attacks a gold star family.
* Attacks Mexican Immigrants.
* Makes fun of a disabled person.
* Hires foreign agents after being told they are.
* Advocates for the jailing of his political opponent.
* Has public outbursts about the size of his button.
* Calls his opponents names.
* refuses to read his national intelligence briefing, but allows those without
clearance to read it instead.
* Calls his opponents Traitors.
* Actively undermines a free press.
* Supports white supremacists.
* Is a racist.

All those things get glossed over and there is no serious debate about that. But we should have serious debate about a grand military parade.....

I get it. It became personal for you about me. You would be incorrect about my continued support. But, that's OK - our dialogue has been deteriorating for sometime. I do find it interesting that when we were discussing Obama back in 2008; I never stooped to calling you or anyone else on here, stupid, liar or attacking them personally. In fact, I presented the case here online as to why the birther issue was inaccurate. I wish you well.

I didn't call you stupid. I did call Americans in general stupid. That probably wasn't correct, I should have used ignorant.

I made a joke about a stupid guy wanting a stupid parade. That would be Trump.

Then I said that there probably a lot more important things to debate in the current situation than a parade. But glossing over all the other issues and than "taking a stand" on the parade issue seems weird to me.

Quite frankly I am surprise the US doesn't already have a grand military parade. The herofication of armed forces and armed conflict is asinine to me, but an integral part of American culture.

[jakee 1,265]

Bob_Church

And I don't think the problem is that the Democrats debate their opponents while shouting slurs. It's that so many Democrats ONLY attack. In list after list I see zero talk of policies or actions just "are you one of the people who are so stupid they voted for Trump?" directed at anyone who says anything they disagree with.

I'm sorry but if you don't see a huge amount of discussion everywhere of Trump and the Republicans' policies and actions then you are being wilfully blind.

Similarly if you didn't notice 8 years of rabid personal attack against Obama (actually 9 since it's still going on against Clinton) then, well, same again.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JoeWeber 2,336]

I like the bro'fest twist to this but it doesn't change the main thing one iota: there are real differences of opinion here and, for the most part, those differences concern science, honesty, truthfulness and fundamental fairness.

I think SkyDekker and jakee are making great points. I'd like to read a Trump supporters point by point refutation of SkyDekkers list:

* Advocates assaulting women.
* On average lies or tells a mistruth multiple times a day.
* Attacks a gold star family.
* Attacks Mexican Immigrants.
* Makes fun of a disabled person.
* Hires foreign agents after being told they are.
* Advocates for the jailing of his political opponent.
* Has public outbursts about the size of his button.
* Calls his opponents names.
* refuses to read his national intelligence briefing, but allows those without
clearance to read it instead.
* Calls his opponents Traitors.
* Actively undermines a free press.
* Supports white supremacists.
* Is a racist.

I'd also like to read why it's not hypocritical for the right to have bashed Obama for 8 years, and running, with the stated goal of negating his presidency but it's just peachy keen to give Trump a pass now.

[BIGUN 1,090]

wmw999

I don’t think Bigun particularly likes Trump. Just better than HRC. And he’s generallt not one to double down on “my guy, right or wrong.”

Wendy P.

True. I would have voted for Kermit the Frog if he was on the ballot in the knowledge that, 1) it would oppose HRC, and 2) knowing there are checks and balances in the government and "if" (or when) Trump got too big for his britches; the courts, congress and senate would coral any grandiosity (as has been done). I still think HRC will end up facing a grand jury.

I did want Obamacare to work - in the beginning before it took effect - I did state on here that I wish he'd fix the VA system first and then use that as a model for his healthcare plan. Anyway, I digress. I live in comfort knowing that I'm a centrist with right leanings. I don't want to be shoved so hard and too far right that I become unwilling to listen.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

You had more options than Clinton or Trump. You chose Trump.

[BIGUN 1,090]

Quote

Then I said that there probably a lot more important things to debate in the current situation than a parade. But glossing over all the other issues and than "taking a stand" on the parade issue seems weird to me.

Probably because I spent 20 years in the Army and the parade bullshit hit a nerve with me. The article was well-written by a colleague and expressed my exact point.

The Twitter bullshit has aggravated me since before the election. My side of the aisle's defense? Many presidents have used a new medium to communicate to the public. To that I agree; bit not in the words he chooses.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,090]

If you're talking about Stein and Johnson - you're right. I chose Trump over them.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Bob_Church 7]

SkyDekker

*********

I find it interesting that, in general, the right wing mocks and vilifies political correctness and advocates for honest, no-holds-barred, genuine discourse, even if it's offensive. And anyone who gets offended is a special snowflake who needs their safe space. When the left wing is in power, that is.

When the right wing is in power, the call is "why can't people discuss things politely without attacking?"

I'm going to have to disagree, Bill.
Go back to when Obama was up for election...

Search Criteria:

FROM Speakers Corner" and,
STRING = "Obama"
Where "BIGUN" is poster.

And, yes: I am offended that this has become personal attackville on both sides.

And I don't think the problem is that the Democrats debate their opponents while shouting slurs. It's that so many Democrats ONLY attack. In list after list I see zero talk of policies or actions just "are you one of the people who are so stupid they voted for Trump?" directed at anyone who says anything they disagree with.

You do remember that the Republicans had as a stated goal, for 8 years, that the only thing they wanted to achieve was to obstruct Obama and his policies.

And now here you are objecting to Democrats being the ones not having policies?

I'm not sure how you're getting from the one to the other. But what really gets me is the idea that if one is bad then the other must be good, or vice versa.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

I don't have a problem with twitter at all. I don't even have an issue with the rather simple language he uses. I have an issue with the continues falsehoods and straight up lies he is spreading and his base is eating up as facts.

I have a problem with a previous president having to give up his peanut farm because republicans went apeshit, and this Republican party president enriching himself constantly. And people seem to somehow think it is smart.

I have a problem with a president who propose the elimination of funding to NPR and PBS, which would save less money than he has charged the taxpayers for his golf trips. All while he and his fellow Republicans loudly protested Obama playing golf.

I have a problem with all those Republicans who mocked people as snowflakes now getting bent out of shape when straight and tough language is used.

The list goes on for quite some time. But I am more than willing to have a debate about all of that. Primarily I would love to hear some logic and debate why HRC would have been so much worse than Trump?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

BIGUN

If you're talking about Stein and Johnson - you're right. I chose Trump over them.

Couldn't you have written in anybody?

[Bob_Church 7]

This country reached a point where the two candidates on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
How? Why?
Anything else is just smoke and wasted time.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

I'm not sure how you're getting from the one to the other.

That is pretty clear.

Quote

But what really gets me is the idea that if one is bad then the other must be good, or vice versa.

1. If it was good before, why is it bad now?
2. Democrats have proposed and enacted lots of policy in the last 10 years. Other than making themselves richer, I am not sure quite what policy the GOP has proposed and enacted. Oh yes, a wall and a ban on Muslims. Strong platform!

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Bob_Church

This country reached a point where the two candidates on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
How? Why?
Anything else is just smoke and wasted time.

Not only that, continues to maintain it has the best system, with the best democracy with the best government and the best of everything....

[Bob_Church 7]

Bob_Church

This country reached a point where the two candidates on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
How? Why?
Anything else is just smoke and wasted time.

And as mind bogglingly bad as Trump is, and he is, I think he has one big advantage.

He's not smart enough to cheat this country and screw us over, long term, the way the Clintons did. It's like picking Otis or Lex Luthor.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Bob_Church

***This country reached a point where the two candidates on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
How? Why?
Anything else is just smoke and wasted time.

And as mind bogglingly bad as Trump is, and he is, I think he has one big advantage.

He's not smart enough to cheat this country and screw us over, long term, the way the Clintons did. It's like picking Otis or Lex Luthor.

I think the wack of wacky judges getting installed makes that statement laughable.

[Bob_Church 7]

SkyDekker

***This country reached a point where the two candidates on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
How? Why?
Anything else is just smoke and wasted time.

Not only that, continues to maintain it has the best system, with the best democracy with the best government and the best of everything....

My theory is that awhile back, maybe a few decades, we knew that politicians were reptiles in suits. All of them. But as a population we got tired so we decided that one party is The Party of The People and as long as they're in party we don't have to worry and more importantly as long as we put their bumper sticker on our car and vote for them we've done our duty.

[Bob_Church 7]

SkyDekker

***If you're talking about Stein and Johnson - you're right. I chose Trump over them.

Couldn't you have written in anybody?

He said he chose Trump over them. The idea wasn't to just not vote for Clinton but not see her elected. A third party vote, or none at all, would have amounted to another vote for HRC.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

My point being he actively chose Trump. Why not just own it, in stead of pointing to somebody else. I thought Republicans were the people who always talked about taking responsibility for their actions?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

How exactly is one supposed to have a debate about statements like this:

"Canada does not treat us right in terms of the farming and the crossing the borders."

What does that even mean?

[jakee 1,265]

Bob_Church

He's not smart enough to cheat this country and screw us over, long term, the way the Clintons did. It's like picking Otis or Lex Luthor.

So what specifically is the long term cheating and screwing effect the Clintons have had on you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?