DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Is It Possible...

Is it possible to have an unbiased political discussion?

I ask because I read all the the thread titles and I know who will argue what in each thread and I know why each poster made each thread.

I don't see compromising in our discussions. I don't see people playing fair. Hell, I lost a friend a I really admired because I called him out over a political comment. I see a lot of hate, name calling, and bias.

I haven't posted on this forum lately due to all the hate and how people trash others for their beliefs.

So, I am wondering...........would it be possible to have an honest discussion where there is a give and take?

By that, I mean can you list one thing you would like to see the opposing party improve on and one thing your party can improve on?

Likewise, can you list one thing your party does well and one thing the other party does well?

We can list them one by one.

The idea is to find some common ground so we can unite and work together instead of hating one another.

It probably won't work, but I do want to say that no one can ever say they were not given the opportunity to be fair and unbiased.

“There is more to joy than looking only for affirmation; refusing to be challenged is the only bigotry.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy

In a world where everyone is talking, shouldn't someone be listening?

No. We are people, we have opinions, we believe our opinions to be correct. "Unbiased" is merely a statement of fact without opinion.. hell we can't even agree on the facts in here.. now with that said....


It's not even about compromising, we are not a political body that has to get to "the most acceptable answer" so we can vote on it.... but we don't even listen to each other, we don't even seek to understand the other person's POV.. most of our threads turn into a tennis match of talking points and insults. And, as you said, you know before you even open it, who is going to be on which side..

But out of respect for your effort to bring some civility, I'll start..


Opposing Party (Democrats) I would like them to explain how they plan to make so much stuff... "free"
My Party (Republicans) I would like them to show some fiscal responsibility, which the Repubs have always touted as one of their strengths..


Democrats are far more compassionate to the plight of the under privileged and the marginalized
Republicans are good for business

Now I will say that taking any positive to an extreme, can turn it into a negative.. and that's what I think we are seeing right now

Nope. You cannot sway the swayed. Especially when they believe and support 1000’s upon 1000’s of known and well documented lies.

Thanks DC. I appreciate it.

I'll play, too. And I will just keep it at one item in each category, just in the one-in-a-million chance that others play.

I'm a Democrat.

Improve upon:

Dems: Stop expecting hard-working middle class citizens to foot the bill for those who are not working.

Republicans: Improve ethical standards.

What they do well:

Dems: Champion the rights of minority groups.

Republicans: Promotes free-market capitalism, which I believe is good for the economy in the long run.


Hmmmm..........this is probably not going to work because I can see how some of these statements will infuriate people.

GOP gerrymander elections better then the dems.

The dems usually don’t lower themselves to the levels of those who attack them.

The GOP are best at labeling people and things that aren’t real like the Biden rule and Pocahontas.

The dems are easily distracted by the really small dude behind the curtain.

Hey Refs...........I know I am not your favorite poster, but will you please lock this thread? It's not going to work. Thanks.

REFS: I don't think this thread should be locked. If people want to talk they should be allowed to do so. Just because it isn't going in a direction the op expected or wanted shouldn't dictate how one posts or that a poster has the ability to request it to be shut down due to their inability to control discussions in a post they created! That is a dangerous precedent to set!

Vers gets a little bit genghis khan when it comes to his threads.

Vers is right! Lock it down.


In a world where everyone is talking, shouldn't someone be listening?

Trumpian Fascism. Next we'll be burning books, denying facts, and screaming fake news...

This is one of the best posts ever made in the Palus Politicus section.

I think we all want the same thing and that is to see America prosper and its citizens be successful and safe. Each party have differing opinions on how to make that happen so they need to learn how to compromise in order to work together. That would happen if everyone in the room were adults, or you could kill someone by challenging them to a duel. After that your argument is done! That's the way they used to do it anyway.

Republicans - Most I've met support free market capitalism, are for limited government, support the 2nd amendment, don't want the government to tell them how to live their lives. They're of the opinion of just don't bother me. Typically they have strong values of religion, may support pro-life or not.

Democrats - Most I've met also support free market capitalism but may believe in additional government programs in place to help those that are struggling, to lift them up so they're successful. Usually democrats are socially liberal.

Libertarians - Believe in the free market capitalist system and share many of the ideas of both republicans and democrats. Typically they strongly believe in the constitution. There are varying shades though. You could be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. You could be on an extreme side and not believe in any government at all, which would be anarchy, or believe in isolationism.

Hopefully people don't take my reply the wrong way. Its just my two cents.

Well Swish, the intent of the thread was to debate in a civil manner w/out all the pointing of fingers at the "other side."

I will say that it is duly noted which "side" is not following along and is instead hurling insults at anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way they do.

#CallingItTheWayIsEEiT.

I thought DC's answer was just fine. It was accurate and I could have written it.

You are not going to get a point-counterpoint analytical discussion in this forum.

Politics by its very nature is one of opinions. I don't think that bias it the best word choice.

Some comments about tasty's comment.

I will just add that free market capitalism is a euphemism for unregulated business. At some point that is a bad thing. The individual does not stand a chance against a mega corporation. Frankly regulation can be beneficial, in the environmental area. We have seen what laisse-faire can do. Boom and bust economics. It is written into the constitution that government has the right to regulate commerce.

I don't think that the characterization of the republican position that they "don't want the government to tell them how to live their lives" is accurate. That gets them in trouble with abortion, and a variety of other social/racial issues. Republicans have no issue with regulating the activity of people when it does not fit within their vision of social structure.

And comments about the parties.

Republicans are more likely to spend money on the military.

Democrats generally favor a progressive tax system with higher rates for the wealthy/capital gain taxes, Republicans favor lower taxes and a flatter array of brackets with no taxing of capital gains.

Neither party can claim one shred of fiscal responsibility, and the republican concept that they are the more fiscally responsible is not born out by fact.

Democrats are less likely to support government spending to support commerce, republicans favor this.

I thought DC's answer was very good. He was honest and tried to stick to the premise of the thread and didn't resort to the typical one-sided insults that dominates this forum.

Well then let's actually call it the way it is.

One side promotes and votes for a man that does nothing but divide people and call everyone he disagrees with names. He lies consistently. Now this isn't an opinion or an trash talking. These are facts. They constantly make excuses for his poor and child like behavior.

So we have nothing but venom coming from one side of the aisle and nothing but rationalization from his followers. This is the man who supposedly represents our nation. As a result our entire nation look like fools.

And your take from all of that? "How dare people be uncivil. Let's be civil and work together."

If you can't figure out where this all originates from and why the situation is as bad as it is, don't blame anyone but yourself.

So you can place blame anywhere you want to, but anyone with their eyes open understands what's really going on here.

Oh, I understand what is going on here. And thanks for following the guidelines of the thread? Another person on the left who resorts to insults instead of trying to work things out. Revealing.

The leftists don't even realize how they do exactly the thing they preach against.

And the other side does nothing but divide people and call everyone they disagree with names like racist, homophobe, xenophobe etc. They tell lies and post fake news reports from biased Media. These are facts. They constantly spew hate for anyone who disagrees with them.

So we have nothing but venom coming from one side of the aisle and lies like Collusion year after year. Just look down the list of threads over the years and you will have your evidence of what I say. Hate for hates sake, accusations without proof. Due Process be damned, whether it is our President, Supreme Court Judges, Christians, Conservatives, they are all racists in the minds of these extremists.

Their cohorts in our government have been fired from their posts at the FBI and Justice Department and are now under consideration for criminal indictment.

As a result our entire nation looks like fools.
Once proud organizations have been gutted because they were lead by hate filled extremists.

And your take from all of that? "How dare people be uncivil. Let's be civil and work together."

So does your "side." I started this thread in an attempt to not resort to such tactics. I knew it was over once Perfect responded.

Whatever...........let's all insult one another. It's productive.

No, you were right in trying to start a thread in an attempt to bring people together and the first thing you needed to do was get an understanding of what both sides see.

Now you know. Good luck with your work.

In a world where everyone is talking, shouldn't someone be listening?

You have made this statement multiple times. I actually agree w/the statement, but I wonder what it means to you. Will you please elaborate why you keep repeating it and explain it's context to our discussion?

I think it speaks for itself.

What it means to me is of no consequence, it is what it means to the reader that is important.

Well, I am willing to listen. That's why I asked.

Excellent! Because In a world where everyone is talking, someone should be listening.

Much has been said, now go back, reread it, and listen what the people are saying.

Another post where you ignore the Trump factor and where all this nastiness actually originates from.

Once again, things don't go in the exact direction you wish so you whine about it. Per usual.

You're not following the rules of the thread.

There are no such things as "rules to a thread". And actually I am following the subject matter. Just not in the direction the OP wants me to.

When you have a president that calls people names, lies on a consistent basis and generally works more to divide the nation that to unite the nation, the division starts at the top.

That has everything to do with the further divide in civil discourse.

It certainly didn't start with Trump. But he has certainly helped work to further the divide.

Before Trump things were far more often about the issues. The differences and disagreements between policies and beliefs between the parties.

But now, Trump has decided to say everyone who is a liberal "Hates America". He tells four Democratic congresswomen to, "Go back from where you came from!" And three of those women are born in America.

No, if you wish to discuss the inability to speak in a civil fashion about politics, you have to look at the rhetoric coming from the man who is supposed to represent all Americas and the way he talks about those who disagree with him.

It's a very pertinent part of this conversation. It's not my fault the person who thinks he owns the way people reply doesn't want to hear that.

"There are no such things as "rules to a thread". And actually I am following the subject matter. Just not in the direction the OP wants me to."

Well then what the heck is the statement above. So then yes, you just broke the rules of the thread again. Rules are rules, not how you interpret them to suit your own needs.

It proves to me that you can't have a civil conversation about what's trying to be discussed. This started as an innocent thread and you're among the ones that corrupted it. This is a shame really. The thread is now worthless.

Jc

Rules to the thread? Really? Since when have we ever had rules to the thread around here?

Well it is customary to follow along with the basic subject line. So when the very first question the OP poses is....



.... Actually pointing out why and what makes that so difficult is very much a part of the topic at hand.

It's not popular in some circles but when you have a president who poisons the "unbiased discussion" from the very beginning, that is a part of the problem.

The only rules I know are the language rules and there are some attempts to keep people civil and not nasty, but that seems to be loosely followed by Refs because there are countless posts throughout this forum that have more insults & drama in them than the 2015/2016 Republican debates.

Oh, and Pure Football has to be specifically about football or it gets moved to the Tailgate etc. Other than that....who sets "rules" on a thread? I mean, I know there were attempts to put "rules" on the 1971 music thread in 'Everything Else' because the op didn't feel included in the direction it was going or the level of detail that some posted and look what happened....it died a very swift death due to attempts to control the chatter.

The challenge that we have is that the current President is divisive. That gets things rolling in a downward spiral. It is not possible to have civil discourse when you have the President trolling on social media and stirring the pot.

It provides some amusing entertainment, but it is not the way that we should run a country.

The thread wasn't intended to be about Trump. The intent was to have a civil discussion where we could perhaps come together. Folks like PDX, Perfect, Pit, etc chose to take it another direction. That's their right because no one can control the flow of the board. Common decency would suggest that people try an follow the spirit of the thread, but then again, common decency is not a trait that some possess.

You will notice I didn't even comment on your original post. I only spoke out because I think posters requesting to lock a thread simply because they want to control the narrative is a bad precedent to set in forums/message boards.

I'm not sure why you get so bent out of shape when conversations flow organically or if others chime in with perhaps a different perspective or even, god forbid, more knowledge on a subject than you may have. I mean, you are very quick to point it out in football threads when you berate people for being "clueless" or that you "sure as hell know more than they do", yet when it comes to others having more in depth knowledge than you on certain subjects you throw a tantrum and either ignore posters or try to control the narrative by requesting it to be locked down. It's kinda odd, dude.

I will again suggest that you put your ego in check and that Socratic Seminars are a good thing for you to research. Especially as an ex-teacher.

Cheers & have a good rest of your evening!

I'm not bent out of shape at all. I'm just pointing out how folks like you are more interested in dissing other people than having a civil conversation.

That's fine. It's your right and it is not against the rules to derail threads. I just think you lack common decency and are intent on proving something that can't be proven. LOL

In a world where everyone is talking, I heard that!

Btw-------Despite PDX's claims, the main reason I wanted the thread locked was because after I replied to DC, I realized some of my comments would just incite others. And I was trying to be fair. I didn't want the thread to become yet another thread where one side insulted the other. There are too many of those. Then, I read Perfect's reply that occurred right after mine and I knew the thread was doomed.

I failed. I admit that. I was hoping we could have a civil conversation where we try and vent a bit, but also try and find some common ground. Obviously, I didn't come up w/a good enough subject matter to accomplish that goal. My bad.

It's a big-time challenge to try and have a civil discussion on this forum, but I still think that people can solve more problems by working together instead of pointing fingers and trashing one another. I'll try again. This one just didn't work.

Btw-----------if the refs would have locked this thread, it would not have been a new precedent. It's happened many times before. But, at this point...........I say let it go, because I think the comments by certain posters are revealing.