(05-02-2025, 06:26 AM)Michigan Swampbuck Wrote: I remember Citizens United, barely, so I looked it up and did a quick brief earlier when it was mentioned.

It seems good without looking at it very closely because I believe in limits on campaign donations and other ways of influencing politicians. But I won't commit to that topic as I haven't looked it over and formed an opinion.

I assume you mean it seems good to reverse it, then? In that case we agree.

(05-02-2025, 06:35 AM)TokenLiberal Wrote: I assume you mean it seems good to reverse it, then? In that case we agree.

I don't know, I  haven't formed an opinion yet. I would have to dive in on that one, and I don't have an interest in doing so, at least, not right now. I will say I believe in term limits, limiting political contributions, and eliminating lobbyists. No gifts or special treatment for politicians either.

Sure. We agree, and I think almost everyone believes in those things. Almost everyone has an intuitive understanding that money shouldn't influence politicians in a democracy. And in fact, even politicians don't like that they have to raise so much money, and what they have to do to raise it. What's frustrating about this issue is that pretty much no one likes the state of US campaign finance law except the lobbyists, and yet it's not getting fixed. Strangely, very few Americans seem to know what it would actually take to fix campaign finance law. I think it's worth it, if you value the concept of a government working for the people instead of big money interests, to dive into this.

FCD "refuses to engage" with me on it (likely because he doesn't understand the issue), and you are at least honest about not understanding it but then say you have no interest in trying. This is puzzling to me. Why is this issue not more important to you guys? I think the fact that so few Americans understand it is part of the reason why it's not getting fixed. You need to send a strong message to your government that something needs to be done, by voting for the people who are trying to address the actual problem. If you don't know what the problem is or how to fix it, how will you know the difference between someone who is trying to fix it and someone who is just virtue signaling?

Nah, it wouldn't go like that, TL.

More like this...

FCD: I like responsibility and accountability
TL: I don't like Trump
FCD: Okay, now what?
TL: Let's talk about Citizens United

(later)

FCD: How about all those Tres de Agua illegal aliens and criminals getting deported to that El Salvador prison where they belong; aint it great?
TL: I really hate Trump
FCD:  We already talked about that.
TL: Okay, now what?
FCD:  Dunno, but I know one thing we're not gonna' talk about, and that's the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
TL: C'mon, pleeeeze!  Pretty pleeze with sugar on top???
FCD: Nope

FCD: Hey, you know what?  It's a really nice day, and I think I'm gonna' go fishin'.  Wanna' come along?

I don't think you understood my point. What I'm trying to illustrate with that hypothetical discussion is that asking each other questions and explaining why we hold the opinions that we do is the only way we can have a fruitful discussion. I make this point because you seem to think asking questions or wanting to go into detail about specific issues is pedantic or boring. The hypothetical is supposed to show that in the first case, when both parties are happy to just give their opinion and call it a day, that's a much more boring and pointless "discussion" than the second. The first is just two people talking past each other.

What your point is, I'm not sure. You seem to be saying I'm obsessed with the CU ruling and that I have some irrational hatred of Trump. Neither is accurate. You do realize the reason I keep mentioning CU is that you keep expressing strong feelings about corruption and the current state of money in politics (example)? It's not my fault that the CU ruling is an important piece of the puzzle wrt money in American politics. And I actually agree with you there, yet for some reason you don't want to talk about it.

Reply to: TokenLiberal

Quote:FCD "refuses to engage" with me on it (likely because he doesn't understand the issue), and you are at least honest about not understanding it but then say you have no interest in trying. This is puzzling to me. Why is this issue not more important to you guys?

I have an interest in such things, just not lately. I have a thing called my personal life, and I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Plus, the lacerations I just gave my leg with a chainsaw two days ago can get to burning after sitting too long. The twenty-five stitches are beginning to itch too. Fortunately, it wasn't more than a flesh wound, but it doesn't put me in the mood to do deep research at the moment.

Also, I vote on every issue and in every election as well, so if this issue comes to a public vote, I'll be voicing my opinion then. Otherwise, I don't attend rallies or protests, so my vote is all anyone will be getting from me.

Now, beyond that, it also seems fruitless to pursue the problems that will likely take a revolution of some kind to correct. Not only that, Trump is dealing with the corrupt system, and this issue may come up without writing letters to my representatives, which are ineffective for the most part anyway.

ETA: Even though the current discussion is way off the thread topic, it does illustrate an aspect of the division I wanted to discuss. When no one can even have a reasonable debate on the topic at hand, it diverts from the topic, feeds division, and spams the thread into oblivion. Maybe not on purpose, but the effect is the same as the division remains and may even intensify.

What is Trump doing to deal with the corrupt system? He is exactly the type who is just virtue signaling. When you don't understand the issue, you can't identify him as such.

(05-02-2025, 11:42 AM)TokenLiberal Wrote: What is Trump doing to deal with the corrupt system? He is exactly the type who is just virtue signaling. When you don't understand the issue, you can't identify him as such.

That is a question you should be answering, and once answered, it should be tied in with the thread topic. That would be a great way to return on topic and end derailing this thread.

Personally, I'd ask, "What is Trump doing to deal with division and polarization?" to remain on topic. I'd answer that he is feeding division and polarization, an answer you'd probably agree with. See how easy it can be to find some common ground?

(05-02-2025, 11:31 AM)Michigan Swampbuck Wrote: ETA: Even though the current discussion is way off the thread topic, it does illustrate an aspect of the division I wanted to discuss. When no one can even have a reasonable debate on the topic at hand, it diverts from the topic, feeds division, and spams the thread into oblivion. Maybe not on purpose, but the effect is the same as the division remains and may even intensify.

100%.
I have a family member that seems to be on the autism spectrum; his whole personality revolves around  turning every singal conversation into a tit-for-tat argument. He really enjoys watching people implode when he pushes their buttons as he gaslights them with endless cirlce-jerk argunents.
I've found silence to be the best way to dealwith such stunted personality types; just nod, smile and keep on daydreaming of more pleasant things.

Quote:Difference Between Arguing and Discussing
The primary difference between arguing and discussing lies in the intent and approach of the participants. A discussion is characterized by a respectful exchange of information and ideas aimed at understanding and reaching a mutual agreement. It encourages positive results and good listening, fostering mutual respect and coordination during the conversation.

In contrast, an argument often involves a disagreement where participants aim to prove their point by refuting the other side's position, sometimes in an angry tone or with the intention to undermine the confidence of the other person.
Arguments can be seen as power struggles where the goal is to be acknowledged as right or smart, rather than to understand or resolve issues.

Discussions are rational and reasonable, focusing on what is right and encouraging win-win situations, whereas arguments are built out of anger and can lead to unsuccessful results and unhealthy relations.
A key aspect of a discussion is that it is conducted in good faith, where participants believe their opponent is interested in the truth, while an argument is often driven by the desire to win.

In summary, a discussion is about understanding and resolving issues through the exchange of ideas, while an argument is about proving one's point and often results in conflict.

 
In my mind, when the conversation is rife with insults, snarky remarks and personal attacks on ones' intellegence it no longer qualifies as a discussion' or debate; it becomes a real thread killer.

(05-02-2025, 12:15 PM)Michigan Swampbuck Wrote: That is a question you should be answering,

It was you who claimed Trump is doing something about corruption. Why should I then be the one to answer how?

As you might expect, I would say he isn't, for two main reasons.

1) Trump is doing nothing at all to change campaign finance law in the US. Fact: The first step to stricter campaign finance law is a constitutional amendment or pressure on SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. Trump has never mentioned either of these measures and therefore is either unwilling to tackle this issue, or (if we're being generous) is willing but doesn't understand how to tackle it.

2) Trump is himself a very corrupt president, and he shows it frequently. Some examples:

- He gave Musk a position in his government after Musk donated $300m to his campaign. Not hard to imagine the quid pro quo there.
- He started a crypto memecoin which, by the way it's structured, is clearly a pump & dump scheme, and then offered the top holders access to the president.
- He runs the government like a mob boss; everyone (businesses, government employees, even other countries) understands that when you're on his good side, good things will happen to you. Guess how you get on his good side (hint: money).

Quote:and once answered, it should be tied in with the thread topic. That would be a great way to return on topic and end derailing this thread.

Since you're the thread starter and therefore (in my view) should be considered its moderator, I'll oblige. Fortunately I think the money in politics issue is a great example of why we are divided. As we've seen so far, ideologically we actually all agree. As far as I know, everyone here thinks big money interests have no place in politics. If it were up to us, we'd have significantly stricter campaign finance law. And you will find that even politicians will agree with us on this. Yet we're divided. Where is this division coming from? Why is it that, when I mention Citizens United, FCD has some kind of emotional reaction and refuses to talk about it? Why does one side think Trump is dealing with the issue while the other side thinks he's an example of it?

I would be happy to dig into that. As far as I can see, there's two aspects to this:

A) We don't agree on what the problem is and how we can fix it. I keep mentioning Citizens United because I think it's one of the main reasons corruption is rampant in the US. You and FCD are clearly working with a different understanding of this problem, and what can be done to fix it. After all, you think Trump is dealing with it, and one thing he is certainly not doing is attempting to reverse the CU ruling.

Note that this is a good example of what I was saying before about what a healthy discussion looks like. Until it's clear what you guys think the problem is and what can be done to fix it, how can this discussion progress? Do you see that if both of you don't want to elaborate on your position, we're at a standstill? It's not that I'm being pedantic or argumentative, it's that all of us need to understand where each other are coming from in order to make progress. Is that something we can agree on? I think it's important that we do.

B) We don't agree about Trump's motives. You and FCD think he's trying to end corruption, whereas I think he's in it for himself. This is a hard point to argue either way, basically it means we have to psycho-analyze Trump and figure out what he's trying to do. I think there is almost no chance we would reach agreement about this, but we can at least explain why we hold the opinions that we do. I would be happy to explain my reasoning and would love to hear yours. We could make a separate thread for it, if it's something you're interested in exploring.

Quote:Personally, I'd ask, "What is Trump doing to deal with division and polarization?" to remain on topic. I'd answer that he is feeding division and polarization, an answer you'd probably agree with. See how easy it can be to find some common ground?

Very easy indeed. And I think the reversal of Citizens United is another thing we could easily all agree about. All we need to do is fix (A) and get on the same page about what the problem is, and what needs to be done to fix it.