Opinion What are some areas that the left and the right can find common ground?

[Jack V Savage]

dude you're accusing me of doing the exact thing you are doing.

What? I was explaining points politely, and you transitioned to making up crazy personal attacks. I didn't do that.

and no, i did not see you once saying anything critical of the left.

Amazingly, this is not my first thread in the WR. I wouldn't say that any sane person says something critical of the left in every single thread.

i've agreed to certain things that you have said in our conversation but now i am "unwilling to grant" you the idea that you are right about everything?

Here's the post:

"Well, why would I criticize them for doing something that they didn't do? I think that would be a partisan move. Even to try to bothsides it. I think the point is to tell the truth no matter who it hurts; not to pretend that both parties are always the same, regardless of whether they are or not.

Hmm. I'm at a loss to see how even if your accusation is correct it is an example of partisanship. In the sense the term is used here, I think of it meaning an alternative to having philosophical views or principles (i.e., going along with a party regardless of whether their actions conform to your ideals--for example, when people claim to be libertarians but then support Trump or DeSantis, I think that is partisanship). I'm consistently liberal, regardless of what parties are doing. And, yeah, I don't think it's merely a matter of opinion to say that Pelosi has promoted policies that have gone against oligarchy and benefitted the poor and middle class. That's just an objectively true statement. One might have different opinions about it (for example, a lot of rightists believe that post-market redistribution by the gov't is fundamentally illegitimate and immoral and would thus dislike a lot of what she's done), but that it has happened is simply a fact. Contrast with Trump, whose only major policy accomplishment was another tax cut for rich individuals and corporations. He also tried and failed to get a tax cut for income over $250K, paid for by cuts to Medicaid and to subsidies for middle-class insurance buyers."

IMO, you neither had a counter argument that you felt good about posting nor were willing to grant the points made, which is why you're resorting to personal attacks. You were in a bit of a bind.

there is nothing dishonest about what i have said. and i've engaged with you for a bit - i listened to what you have said - i've taken into account your recommendations - and now i am ready to go focus on something else so spare me the bullshit accusation that i don't have actual response to the points you have made. here's some advice (personal attack) - you seem to have an inflated sense of self so don't forget to check your ego every once in awhile. it's a good reminder for everyone me including.

Well, here's some advice for you: If someone makes points you can't intelligently respond to, instead of lashing out childishly, consider the possibility that they are correct, and if the points upset you, think about the source of your anger (why you would be resistant to truth).

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

What? I was explaining points politely, and you transitioned to making up crazy personal attacks. I didn't do that.



Amazingly, this is not my first thread in the WR. I wouldn't say that any sane person says something critical of the left in every single thread.



Here's the post:

"Well, why would I criticize them for doing something that they didn't do? I think that would be a partisan move. Even to try to bothsides it. I think the point is to tell the truth no matter who it hurts; not to pretend that both parties are always the same, regardless of whether they are or not.

Hmm. I'm at a loss to see how even if your accusation is correct it is an example of partisanship. In the sense the term is used here, I think of it meaning an alternative to having philosophical views or principles (i.e., going along with a party regardless of whether their actions conform to your ideals--for example, when people claim to be libertarians but then support Trump or DeSantis, I think that is partisanship). I'm consistently liberal, regardless of what parties are doing. And, yeah, I don't think it's merely a matter of opinion to say that Pelosi has promoted policies that have gone against oligarchy and benefitted the poor and middle class. That's just an objectively true statement. One might have different opinions about it (for example, a lot of rightists believe that post-market redistribution by the gov't is fundamentally illegitimate and immoral and would thus dislike a lot of what she's done), but that it has happened is simply a fact. Contrast with Trump, whose only major policy accomplishment was another tax cut for rich individuals and corporations. He also tried and failed to get a tax cut for income over $250K, paid for by cuts to Medicaid and to subsidies for middle-class insurance buyers."

IMO, you neither had a counter argument that you felt good about posting nor were willing to grant the points made, which is why you resorting to personal attacks. You were in a bit of a bind.



Well, here's some advice for you: If someone makes points you can't intelligently respond to, instead of lashing out childishly, consider the possibility that they are correct, and if the points upset you, think about the source of your anger (why you would be resistant to truth).

"crazy personal attacks" "no argument" "don't feel good about posting" "resistant to truth" "can't intelligently respond to" "lashing out childishly" "anger".

i am not angry and i don't care about whatever personal attacks against me you want to throw out. if you want to hold on to the incorrect opinion that i am out of arguments by all means go ahead. regardless of what evidence or argument i produce you will always have your own twist to everything as you've demonstrated. i picked up on that aspect of your posting style but still continued to engage for some time.

in order to get back on track we would need to rewind but i don't believe that you are conversing in good faith (nor do you believe that about me.)

so what other areas can the left and the right both find common ground?
hmm - i'm thinking, i think it was mentioned earlier by someone, stopping the practice of insider trading - do you agree?

 

[IamStryker]

Your belief is that society mostly supports hormone therapy and double masectomies on minors? What percentage of minors are doing this, and what on Earth does it have to do with political parties?

"Gender affirming" Hormone therapy and "gender affirming" double masectomies. This is mostly supported which is why it happens and the political party that supports it the most is Democrats.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"crazy personal attacks" "no argument" "don't feel good about posting" "resistant to truth" "can't intelligently respond to" "lashing out childishly" "anger".

i am not angry and i don't care about whatever personal attacks against me you want to throw out.

You're the person who abandoned substance to focus entirely on personal attacks. It happens. Not really unusual for a place like this.

so what other areas can the left and the right both find common ground?
hmm - i'm thinking, i think it was mentioned earlier by someone, stopping the practice of insider trading - do you agree?

I answered the question earlier in the thread. And, sure, insider trading is bad.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Gender affirming" Hormone therapy and "gender affirming" double masectomies. This is mostly supported which is why it happens and the political party that supports it the most is Democrats.

Doubt very much that a majority supports that for minors. I'd guess that you'd have more Democratic voters than Republican voters supporting leaving that decision in the hands of parents but still not a majority, and you'd have much smaller numbers favoring the actual choice (and certainly well under 1% of the population making the choice). There's no argument for it being a national political issue other than that lying about it is better for Republicans than running on policy.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

You're the person who abandoned substance to focus entirely on personal attacks. It happens. Not really unusual for a place like this.



I answered the question earlier in the thread. And, sure, insider trading is bad.

calling an obvious partisan a partisan is not an attack. and funny how quickly you resort to personal attacks as well.

hey - well that's good that we can find something to agree on. let's focus on that.

we both agree that insider trading by members of congress should be stopped.

you've very politically savvy - how would one go about making this necessary change? i'm assuming some legislation needs to pass in congress, no?

 

[Jack V Savage]

calling an obvious partisan a partisan is not an attack. and funny how quickly you resort to personal attacks as well.

Calling an obvious poopyhead a poopyhead is not an attack. And, no, I always prefer to discuss issues. I'm just pointing out how you abandoned it because you did not have a good argument to make. I think you feel threatened because your personal sense of identity is tied up in your partisanship.

hey - well that's good that we can find something to agree on. let's focus on that.

we both agree that insider trading by members of congress should be stopped.

you've very politically savvy - how would one go about making this necessary change? i'm assuming some legislation needs to pass in congress, no?

I was speaking more generally (insider trading was the question). Congressional trading is a little different, though, sure, ban that too. Not a real issue, but no good reason to allow it either. https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

 

[mbinder]

Left and right should both be able to recognize that the media is their common enemy.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Calling an obvious poopyhead a poopyhead is not an attack. And, no, I always prefer to discuss issues. I'm just pointing out how you abandoned it because you did not have a good argument to make. I think you feel threatened because your personal sense of identity is tied up in your partisanship.



I was speaking more generally (insider trading was the question). Congressional trading is a little different, though, sure, ban that too. Not a real issue, but no good reason to allow it either. https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

Look at u being all cute with your patronizing attitude. Repeating the same tired line of attack against me. Yawn. Poopyhead ha. Takes one to know one. And you’re definitely an extreme partisan.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Left and right should both be able to recognize that the media is their common enemy.

amen. Question is what can be done to fix media to not be like that?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Look at u being all cute with your patronizing attitude. Repeating the same tired line of attack against me. Yawn. Poopyhead ha. Takes one to know one. And you’re definitely an extreme partisan.

It's funny how you started this thread pretending to be interested in serious discussion, and just because someone raised points you couldn't address reasonably, your gimmick completely evaporated, and you've turned into another partisan poo-flinger.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

It's funny how you started this thread pretending to be interested in serious discussion, and just because someone raised points you couldn't address reasonably, your gimmick completely evaporated, and you've turned into another partisan poo-flinger.

I can admit that i went astray in this thread away from my original post because of my attempt to have a good faith conversation with you not really knowing who you are. I dont have the patience of daryl davis dealing with extremists such as you. The thread was going well with people contributing but the moment u showed up u killed the spirit of the thread with your partisanship not just in your conversation with me but with others in the thread as well. But yeah it’s everyone else who is at fault. I then attempted to get the conversation back on topic only for u to once again do ur partisan shit. So either stay on topic or go somewhere else. And i will try to do better in the future with people like u.

 

[IamStryker]

Doubt very much that a majority supports that for minors. I'd guess that you'd have more Democratic voters than Republican voters supporting leaving that decision in the hands of parents but still not a majority, and you'd have much smaller numbers favoring the actual choice (and certainly well under 1% of the population making the choice). There's no argument for it being a national political issue other than that lying about it is better for Republicans than running on policy.

I didn't say the majority of people. That might be close but people are scared to publically say anything against it for fear of losing their jobs which shows as I said that our society currently supports it.

How many are doing it is not relevant to the point. It is happening which you denied and those who support it are virtually all left wing.

The right is not lying about it. As we can plainly see people like you are lying about it. Children have no business consenting to these irreversible drugs/surgeries based on garbage gender ideology.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can admit that i went astray in this thread away from my original post because of my attempt to have a good faith conversation with you not really knowing who you are.

Huh? In what sense did I not respond in good faith?

I dont have the patience of daryl davis dealing with extremists such as you.

It's funny how you think it's important for black people to listen to right-wing populists, while you are steadfastly against rightists listening to anyone else. And now you're just making a fool of yourself screeching that I must be a "partisan" when you literally don't even know the term means (so it's just an empty insult for someone who doesn't blindly agree with you).

 

[BIKES!]

That cyclists suck and have no place on the roads?

 

[BForrester]

I didn't say the majority of people. That might be close but people are scared to publically say anything against it for fear of losing their jobs which shows as I said that our society currently supports it.

How many are doing it is not relevant to the point. It is happening which you denied and those who support it are virtually all left wing.

The right is not lying about it. As we can plainly see people like you are lying about it. Children have no business consenting to these irreversible drugs/surgeries based on garbage gender ideology.

There are a lot of things that happen that are not supported by society. Violent crime happens, for example, but as a society we don't "support" it.

Here's a counter-example to what you are trying to argue. White Nationalism is happening and those who support it are virtually all right wing. So, using your logic, it would be fair to paint the entire political right with that brush even though a very small minority of the right are white nationalists. Or...using your logic again...it might be the majority but people are scared to publicly say anything for fear of losing their jobs.

TL;DR: you're an idiot and, judging by your AV, you're probably an angry incel to boot.

 

[IamStryker]

There are a lot of things that happen that are not supported by society. Violent crime happens, for example, but as a society we don't "support" it.

I'm used to seeing bad analogies but this one is up there. Maybe if you think real hard you can see the difference between surgeries/drugs for minors that is publically supported by the left and violent crime.

Here's a counter-example to what you are trying to argue. White Nationalism is happening and those who support it are virtually all right wing.

This one is better than the brain dead violent crime one but still has big issues. Firstly white nationalism is not publically supported on the right. I don't support it either. It's essentially the notion that America belongs to white people and should only be controlled by white people. You dont see right wing politicians publically saying that white nationalism is good and correct but we DO see this from the left in regards to gender affirming drugs and surgeries for minors.

Next you can show me how white nationalism is hurting children today in the same fashion as permanent surgeries/drugs.

So, using your logic, it would be fair to paint the entire political right with that brush even though a very small minority of the right are white nationalists. Or...using your logic again...it might be the majority but people are scared to publicly say anything for fear of losing their jobs.

Feel free to call out anyone on the right that blatantly supports white nationalism. What planet do you live on where people have ever lost their job for saying something against white nationalism? Very funny thanks for the laugh.

TL;DR: you're an idiot and, judging by your AV, you're probably an angry incel to boot.

Your arguments were really bad so not surprising you also draw conclusions from AV's. I haven't been married for 15 years or anything.

 

[Cajun]

I think there are many things they COULD. But seems like they don't. A lot of Democrats and Republicans are more Centrist than people think. Things like economy, jobs, gay rights, minority rights, immigration. Slippery slopes with laws prevent some from dealing with abortion (though there are religious considerations from the anti group) and gun control but there can be common ground. A lot of who you hear from are the people on the extremes and they seem to shout the loudest. So it gives the impression that there is no one that thinks any other way. The media is making it much worse though

 

[mon]

The election fraud happened, only the extent should be open for debate

 

[NoSmilez]

These parties were almost the same thing outside of abortion and suicide. Something happened around 2014 and both parties have go against another no matter what.