In fairness, I'm a bit of a political hybrid- so while I agree with those on the left on some things (immigration issues for the most part, the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term), I also agree with those on the right on others (the right for sane citizens to bear arms and the right to choose whether to take vaccines or not, for instance). I'm also against foreign wars, which is something that Trump seemed to be into before his term but now, well... to their credit, some on the right such as Tucker Carlson, who I definitely respect on various themes, aren't happy with this new trend.
That's great, truly. I think it's crucial that we have two strong healthy parties. It’s worked for ages for good reason. I sometimes throw out a startling stat for laughs or to jab someone but this one’s legit and shows why we need two sides in a tug-a-war, but with both sides loving the Constitution that understand it was a radical change in how humans had been governed, and it resulted in a truly unprecedented success despite its growing pains. Both party's need to love our country again and respect and defend the most game-changing document in human history.
I agree that the U.S. constitution is generally pretty good. Based on what I've read over the years, I think it could use some improvements in some areas (electoral college comes to mind), but generally speaking, pretty good. The problem in my view is that some of its good things have been subverted to suit various political agendas that aren't good for the population as a whole.
Here's the stat. About 10% of people on the planet have an IQ of 80 or less. That's a level where even basic, repetitive tasks need constant retraining. For perspective, the Army used to say no to anyone under 85 IQ (about 15% of the population). They were actually too tough to train for even the most mundane jobs. Since the 1920s, the military's been the driving force that makes IQ studied more than any other social science, to put people into very important roles fast during wars. Our voluntary system means we're always scrambling to fill jobs especially during wartime, and they need nearly every private sector job for the military and except anyone that can pass the mental and physical standard.
Why's this a big deal? It messes with the hardcore conservative line like, if you're able-bodied, I don't owe you a dime of my taxes. I get it, and generally agree, but it's not black-and-white.
I agree to some extent, but let's remember that there are generally -2- ways that the U.S. and I believe most other governments finance themselves. One is, ofcourse, through taxes. The other is through expansion of the country's debt. The third, that isn't used so often, is tariffs, but from what I've read, the primary funder of the U.S. government is still increasing its debt load, even now with all the tariffs. This is a problem- it's like increasing your credit card limit to the point that just paying the interest payments becomes too much. A short term solution to this, ofcourse, is to just increase the debt even more, just to finance the interest payments, but you can only go down this path so far before you start getting runaway inflation. I think the main solution here is to take money creation away from banks and put it firmly in the hands of government- the government naturally wouldn't have to pay interest payments on money it owes itself. I'm not saying that runaway inflation can't happen if the government creates its own money exclusively, just that it's easier to avoid inflation if you don't have to pay interest on debts.
On the flip side, liberals who think the feds should fix every problem are off-base, in my book. The Constitution didn't sign up Uncle Sam for that job and for very good reason. When help's needed, keeping it local, close to the person, gets better results is only one of the good reasons, more fraud, and more waste are some others.
That sounds reasonable, though I'd need examples to be sure I agree in all cases you might think of.
This used to be the kind of stuff Republicans and Democrats would debate. Now, we're stuck debating what the definition of a woman is or if it's ok for grown men to strip in girls' locker rooms. That's stuff that'd get you locked up, and rightfully roughed up, not long ago.
I actually debated the subject of trans people quite a bit in another forum for a while before I tired of it. I think the easiest solution to trans issues in general is to create at least some co-ed places. If there's enough money, there could still be exclusively male and female locker rooms/washrooms etc., but if not, just make the locker rooms/washrooms co-ed. This clearly requires some redesigning, such as going what I'd call the female washroom way- that is, all stalls are private. As to the definition of a woman, I think the UK courts did a good job of that recently- biological sex is in almost all cases pretty easy to determine. Gender is where it gets complicated. I'm fine with people identifying as whatever gender they like, so long as they don't try to do the same with biological sex.
Or we're arguing if an illegal immigrant with a rap sheet deserves a taxpayer-funded full-on hearing and appeals before deportation, or actually, if they should be deported at all. Imagine needing a court date to kick out someone who broke into your house.
I definitely find immigration to be another thorny issue. My father was born and raised in Mexico, though he never had any problems with immigration as far as I know, because he married my Canadian mother before immigrating to Canada. 4 children and around 25 years later, they divorced, but by that time he'd become a Canadian citizen. Ironically, soon after he obtained his citizenship, he decided to return to Mexico, which is where he still lives today. About 3 1/2 years ago, I decided to join him. Ironically, some time after my parents got divorced, my mother decided to immigrate to Mexico as well, just a different state in Mexico, and so did my siblings, so now we're all living in Mexico.
As to unauthorized immigration, that's where things get quite complicated. I think it's only natural for people who have few resources to want to find a place where they can earn a living. I also understand that many Americans aren't exactly rich either. What I think is happening is something akin to the hunger games books and films. Anyway, I'll leave this subject with the trailer of a film that definitely pulled on my heart strings:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jCZgUiPixE
Here's my bet. Your solid, level-headed reply to me won't get any thumbs up from other Democrats here. Mentioning Tucker without a death wish is a bridge too far. Sad truth is, if you're still voting Democrat and propping up their current direction, you're not fixing things. You're feeding the problem, a problem that really does need fixing.
What say you?
I seem to be able to navigate between the left and the right. Sometimes with difficulty, but I seem to manage. As I said, I think it helps that on some positions, I side with the right and on others, I side with the left. And I've also made a thread in this very sub forum advocating for civility. So here's to hoping I can still have civilized conversations here with some people at least. It's definitely the reason I come here
