0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes
May 19

Hillary is a evil women who is power hungry, she don't care about Americans, she is the reason those Military men got killed, how many others died cause of her

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Approve.
main reply
0 votes,
May 24

If you'd paid attention to the multiple Republican-led investigations into Benghazi, you'd know that they were completely unable to attribute any fault to Clinton. Nevertheless, she took responsibility anyway, because that's the type of person she is.

Out of curiosity, what would you have done differently in regards to Benghazi (assuming you actually knew of the situation, which Clinton didn't)? Double the gaurd? Triple it? Keep in mind that they were attacked by over 100 assailants. Any realistic number of soldiers you assign to protect one person would be insufficient against those odds, especially when taken by surprise. If you'd added 15 more bodygaurds, you would have 15 more dead Americans.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes,
May 31

She did lie about the attack, claiming that it was the result of the video, when she knew it wasn't. We know that on Sept. 12, Clinton called the Egyptian Prime Minister “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” Yet on Sept. 13 Clinton said "...Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet..."

It's one the big reasons she didn't get elected, people knew you couldn't trust what she said. Then add on the whole e-mail scandal, where she went from no classified material, to material that wasn't classified at the time it was sent. And add on to that she deleted e-mails, and we were to trust her that none was related to her job at the government.

Many in the public, given the Clinton's past history, saw it as another one rule for us, another for everyone else.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Approve.
0 votes,
Jun 1

I completely understand why Clinton was considered untrustworthy, and I don't dispute the fact that she lied about Benghazi. I do, however, dispute the people who claim that she murdered or is otherwise directly responsible for the deaths of those involved. I also agree with the FBI's assessment that Clinton's actions in regards to her emails was foolish, but I dispute the people that pretend to know more than the FBI and insist she should go to jail.

And of course, I don't dispute the fact that she just feels untrustworthy. In an election that was all about the anti-establishment making the headlines on both sides, she's about as establishment as you can get.

But what I find somewhat ironic is that Trump (a person whose comments are mostly some degree of "false" on Politifact, and a person who regularly contradicts himself day-to-day) was thought of as "telling it like it is" while Clinton (a person whose comments are mostly some degree of "true" on Politifact, and whose position inconsistencies are mostly over the course of years, not weeks) was considered slimy. I certainly understand, from purely an image perspective, why these reputations developed, but still, ironic nonetheless.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes,
Jun 3

While she was at the State Department, they did not send more security, that was requested but they also reduce security in Libya. d to honor repeated requests for additional security, but instead actually reduced security in Libya. Now we don't know why this happened, or if Hillary had anything to do with it, but as head of the state department the blame is her's. You can delegate authority not responsibility. Now as far as saying she murdered the people, while I feel she was at fault for not sending additional security after all the people on the ground, despite what intelligence the state department may have had, felt the need for additional security and she should have erred on the side of caution, but not murder.

"...but I dispute the people that pretend to know more than the FBI and insist she should go to jail."

But the thing is people have been sent to jail for doing far less then Hillary did, on top of that she gave all her e-mails to people who didn't have security clearance. (her lawyers). Now even IF her lawyers had clearance she still couldn't have shared e-mail with them as they had no need to know. Given that some of the e-mail were properly marked, she should have been charged and if convicted sent to jail.

On one had you have a politician who is very good at giving non-answer answer and on the other you have a businessman who tends to speak his mind. So I'm not surprised that Trump says things that aren't true or not supported by the facts. Now I'm not saying Trump was the best choice for president, but given a choice between Hillary and Trump, it was easy to see that Trump would win. Yes I know the polls were saying the Hillary was a shoe in, but when I looked around I saw Trump had much more ground support that Hillary did. But then again I live in the mid-west where NAFTA really hit hard, where Hillary's stand on coal, etc rang as, "Shut up WE know what best for YOU." And people saw the press as an arm of elect Hillary for president. So the distrust of the press went way up. And people are still point to that today, with the way the press is covering Trump vs the way they covered Obama. But that's a whole another discussion.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Approve.
0 votes,
Jun 3

"But the thing is people have been sent to jail for doing far less"

The problem is you're making a judgment without all the information. My guess is that you didn't read every single one of the emails, you haven't read the law, you aren't intimately familiar with all the precedent, you didn't have an entire team of professional investigators on the case, and, most importantly, you didn't have information available to the public. The FBI had all that. I simply can't trust an everyday person on whether or not she should've been convicted over the personnel at the very top levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And unless you can show me that you know better than them, then that's not going to change. (That's not meant to be an insult to your intelligence; I don't know better than them either).

"when I looked around I saw Trump had much more ground support that Hillary did."

In the end Cilnton did win the popular vote by a significant margin, but I think you're right in the regard that Trump's supporters were far more passionate about Trump than Clinton supporters were about Clinton. I suspect that they had much greater voter turnout for exactly that reason.

""Shut up WE know what best for YOU.""

That's by far the biggest problem with the Democratic party as a whole. Utter condescension towards those who are hurting. That deplorable comment that slipped out was, I think, quite representative of our mindsets as Democrats as a whole. Though the surveys did indicate that, in fact, about half of Trump supporters were homophobic/racist/islamophobic in some way, liberals used that as an excuse to say "well they must just be terrible people and their opinions don't have a place in our vision of a progressive society." Liberals stopped acknowledging conservatives as human beings and blanket-labeling them only as one negative trait. Let's not forget that a good portion of Trump supporters voted for Obama. The Democratic party abandoned them, and, rightfully, they felt betrayed. I think that support for Trump wasn't a logical choice (even though Clinton's policies wouldn't have helped them much, Trump's were predicted to cause immense harm to their communities, which we can see partially from his healthcare plan that is expected to cause massive damage mostly to his own base), but one made out of the anger at that betrayal, and I can completely understand and empathize with that. Most liberals, I think, can't.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes,
Jun 3

"My guess is that you didn't read every single one of the emails, you haven't read the law,..

The emails that broke the law are still classified, thus I couldn't read them, and if I had I'd have broken the law. Yes I've read the law

(18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information) "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information" That section alone covers her lawyers, that means a fine or up to 10 years or both.

(18 U.S. Code § 793)

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, ....(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,.."

Again fine or 10 years or both.

(Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration)

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

And maybe FOIA

"In the end Cilnton did win the popular vote by a significant margin, .."

True, but the popular vote doesn't matter, Hillary and the Democratic party basically ignored the middle of the country, They hit the big population centers and had they taken Texas and Florida, they would have won. In two different states, my and my mom's Trump signs outnumber Hillary signs at least 10 to 1. so he had a lot of support from the middle of the US.

At one time the Democratic party was the party of the common man, if you listen to speeches of JFK, he sounds more like the Republican today and nothing like a Democratic.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Approve.
0 votes,
Jun 4

"Yes I've read the law"

Look, even if all the other aspects I mentioned, like access to more information, entire teams of investigators, expertise on legal precedent don't still stand (which they do), I apologize, but I'm going to be stubborn on this. The law you cite certainly makes sense. But this is one civilian, untrained in law, law enforcement, or investigation, throwing legal language at another civilian, untrained in law, law enforcement, or investigation. No matter how you cut it, in no way are you going to convince me that your decision is better than that of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not only because I don't think you know more than them, but because I know that, unless I myself rise to the highest levels of the FBI I cannot possibly know more than them. You might say "think for yourself," but this isn't a matter of thought or opinion. This is a matter of incredible complexity that should be decided by experts who know more than both you and me combined. And in incredibly complex matters such as these, I am happily prepared to trust the experts.

This isn't based on a partisan point of view, by the way. If, after a thorough investigation, qualified agencies announce that this whole Trump-Russia thing is also not deserving of charges, then I will stand by and defend that decision in the same way and with the same principles by which I am defending the Clinton decision.

"True, but the popular vote doesn't matter,"

I mean, because of our system, yes, but that doesn't feel just a little wrong to you? I say this not as a result of the last election; this has felt f-d up to me since long before. I mean, I understand why our system is the way it is, to ensure that one state can't dominate the others (the founding fathers never thought that any one candidate could win the majority of the votes anyway). But states are abstractions, organizations. The people within them are not. If I, in California, pay the same federal taxes as someone in Arizona or Rhode Island, if I am subject to the same federal laws and the same federal punishments, then why should my say in federal government be lesser than there's, not by a small margin but by several times over? If we operate on the principle that all people are created equal, then some should not be more equal than others based upon the dirt on which they stand.

Although, again, I understand the need to compromise between big states and small ones in order to keep a healthy union. But at the same time, I feel the Senate-House compromise does this incredibly effectively and considering the founding fathers thought that Congress would have to choose between the top five presidential candidates themselves because none would get a majority of the votes (which is laughable in the modern day), this whole electoral college system seems overly bureaucratic and redundant.

Anyway, just a tanget, sorry.

"At one time the Democratic party was the party of the common man, if you listen to speeches of JFK, he sounds more like the Republican today and nothing like a Democratic."

Well, I wouldn't say Republicans as a whole (mainstream Republicans still bandwagon with the rich fairly frequently), but certainly this newer generation (politically, not in terms of age) of Trump/populist Republicans. That's also not exclusive to the Right. As we discussed before, the Left had Sanders, who was undoubtedly a populist as well. Both he and Trump appealed to demographics feeling screwed over in America, the rural non-college-educated whites of middle America for Trump, and the young for Sanders. Bit of a problem for the Democrats though, only one of those two screwed-over demographics actually turns out to vote. So we got stuck with Clinton, probably the only candidate who could lose to Trump, because she represented the establishment that people don't understand and certainly don't like, because they've failed to see improvement in their own lives.

It's a sad state of affairs, especially because, the more politicized we get, the less our politics work. Something goes wrong, we all point fingers at the other side (living within our personal echo chambers), and then urge our representatives not to compromise. Compromise becomes not an essential part of the political process, but collusion with The Enemy. So nothing gets done, more problems emerge, and we get more politicized as a result.

One easy partial solution is just to make voting more accessible. Our voter turnout in this country is awful, partially because voting is so inconvenient for a lot of people that the only people who show up are those passionate few on the extreme sides of the spectrum, and then those are the folks who representatives end up being accountable to. I'm not talking just presidential or congressional elections here, I'm talking more specifically about primaries. They found during the last election that the people who actually showed up to primaries were far more to the Left or the Right than the majority of Americans; they not only weren't a good representation of what America wanted, they weren't even a good representation of what their own party wanted.

Obviously that's not a huge solution though. The only real change can come from, well, doing what we're doing right now. Dialogue with the opposition. Realizing that the people on the other side of the aisle are human beings, Americans, not enemies, who want to improve the US just as you do. They just have some different ideas about how to bring that improvement about. But unfortunately, that's not what I see people doing. As I mentioned before, echo chambers, and though the internet has the potential to connect us (as it's doing right now), it seems to be more and more isolating us in a sea of our own opinions, leaving us gleefully oblivious to any facts or arguments contrary to our own worldviews.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes,
Jun 4

Being stubborn isn’t bad, unless you’re never going to be convinced by evidence. It was well known that she’d never be charged when this mess started. Like many other politicians (and in some cases the press) there is one rule for them and another for us. Let’s face it, Obama would have stopped it had it looked like Hillary was going to be charged, Hillary would have stopped it if she was elected, and if Trump tried to jail her it would look like he was going after a defeated foe.

But let’s look at the facts.

The director of the FBI James Comey said “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

That does fall under 18 U.S. Code § 793 “ …(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed…”,

Notice intent isn’t included in that, only negligence. Also Hillary admitted to giving the emails to her lawyer, thus she gave classified email to someone who didn’t have the need to know. But like I said it was long known that Hillary would NEVER be put on trial for her actions.

The press is making a bigger deal out of Russia then the email scandal. Let’s assume that Russia did try to influence the election. Let’s say Trump’s people were in contact, and let’s say there was an agreement that if Trump was elected the US would drop all sanctions against Russia. And let’s say Trump KNEW about all of this, can you tell me what laws were broken?

First all countries try to influence election, the US did it in the Israeli elections, Obama endorsed French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron. While president Obama tried to influence the Brexit vote. Should Obama or the US be charged with trying to influence foreign elections? Of course not, all countries try to influence elections in other countries in one way or another, sometime with “leaked” information, sometimes with cash, sometimes with an endorsement. As far as contract, yes it does look bad, but he wasn’t president yet, which means private citizens were in contract with someone in Russia, again not illegal. Kind of like when Obama said to Dmitry Medvedev "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space." And "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Is that any different than someone, who may or may not have been acting on the orders of someone who MIGHT have become president talking to the Russians?

Unless there is evidence that the Russians active interfered with the election, changed votes at the machines, etc. There is nothing here. Hillary’s team met with the Russian ambassador so the only problem is that it wasn’t disclose.

Should congress look into it, sure, why not? But I feel the Democrats (like the Republican have also done) will beat a dead horse for a LONG time.

“I mean, because of our system, yes, but that doesn't feel just a little wrong to you?”

No it doesn’t, I have a long post someplace on this but in a nutshell, if you look at a straight vote you’d need to win 147 counties (assuming a 100% win of the counties with the largest population) to become president. With a straight vote a candidate would be foolish to spend ANY time in the mid-west, their needs would be ignored. As it is the mid-west have very little power and unless they vote as a block, something that basically happened in this last election. Really all going to a straight vote would do is break this country up into many different countries.

JFK advocated for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility. That’s sound a lot like a Republican to me.

In my opinion we need to get rid of primaries and go with a multi-step election process for the president. Primaries as we’ve seen with Sanders, Hillary, is run by the head of the parties who can and have ignored their base. (Personally I think they, press included, wanted to part of getting the first woman elected president, so they didn’t listen to their own people.)

So in my world, a candidate would register in each state. Each state would vote for who they want to be president, with the top 10% going onto the main ballot in that state, that would be the primary.

Then the state would vote on who they would want to be president. We’d keep the electoral college, but each state would cast their vote for the winner of their state. Whoever got the most votes would be president, runner up would be vice. The Dems and Repubs , along with third parties, couldn’t pander to the extremes. They would be forced to put forth candidates that would appeal to far more people. Also I would make federal election days a holiday with polls open 24 hours midnight to midnight local time.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Approve.
0 votes,
Jun 4

"Being stubborn isn’t bad, unless you’re never going to be convinced by evidence."

I'm not being stubborn simply for the sake of it. I'm being stubborn because people who know more than you say that you're wrong.

It's the same as an amateur giving a thoroughly convincing argument on why climate change isn't real, an argument that, to me, another amateur, seems airtight. All it would take to counter that person's argument would be one real, qualified climate scientist to say "you're wrong." I wouldn't need to hear their entire argument as to why; their qualifications speak for itself that one person's perspective simply has much more weight than the others.

Comey is the director of the FBI. He knows more than you do. Bottom line. He knows more than I do. Bottom line. We could debate this all day, but he has information we don't and experience we don't and access to resources and other expert opinions that we don't. This may seem black and white to you. But there are probably dozens of significant factors that you're not taking into account, and that you don't, and probably never will (they may be classified) know about.

So I'm sorry, your argument is good. It's certainly convincing. But until you can tell me that you know more than the director of the FBI about investigations of this sort that I cannot buy your argument. You can easily say that this is some sort of different injustice, that different rules apply, but unless you can prove that in this instance, I can't form my mindset around unsubstantiated claims like that. The problem is, in making your argument, you don't know what you don't know, and neither do I. All we can do is recognize that pieces are missing from the puzzle, and trust the experts, the only people who we know can for sure see the complete image.

"And let’s say Trump KNEW about all of this, can you tell me what laws were broken?"

No, but I'm not a lawyer. Like in the Clinton investigation, when the ultimate result of this investigation comes out, I'll trust the people who know what they're talking about rather than relying on my own uneducated opinion.

"Of course not, all countries try to influence elections in other countries in one way or another"

If Russia had simply said "we endorse Trump," sent over some campaign donations, and advised Trump officials, then although it would be a bit disturbing how much Russia, one of our primary enemies on the world stage, likes Trump, you're right. There would be no problem.

But that's not what the allegations are. The allegations are the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the dissemination of a mass disinformation campaign, was privy to Russian hacking of political opponents in an effort to sabotage the election, and obstructed justice when officials tried to look into it. I don't know if there's any meat to these allegations; like with Clinton there's a lot more that we don't know than what we do, and we as civilians without the complete picture shouldn't try to make a judgment either way. But if true, these allegations go way beyond simply one group supporting another. They amount to an attempt to undermine our democracy for personal gain. It's the difference between buying your favorite racecar driver a nice new set of wheels and sabotaging his opponent so that his engine blows up mid-race.

Now I'm not saying that, even if Russia did intervene (which again, neither of us actually know), it would've been the difference between a win and a loss for Clinton. Nobody can really say; you can't measure that quantitatively.

"With a straight vote a candidate would be foolish to spend ANY time in the mid-west, their needs would be ignored."

I'm not arguing against you here. As you might have been ale to tell by my tone this isn't something I'm completely decided on, so I'm just trying to get your argument and your point of view. Considering midwest states have the same number of folks in the Senate as people in California and Texas, which is obviously a massive shift in power in their direction. Why is a similar shift in power also necessary in the presidential elections, considering they're already so vastly overrepresented in that regard? Basically, I'm asking, why do people in the midwest need both?

"As it is the mid-west have very little power"

But that's because the mid-west also has very few people. I don't intend to insult you or diminish you, but really, isn't it right that areas with low populations have very little power? It would be unfair if their interests held more weight than those in more populated areas, especially because, in a developed country, densely populated areas both carry most of the economy and pay the most taxes? I'm not saying people in the mid-west shouldn't be represented, but considering the overrepresentation in the Senate, isn't their say in government already significantly beyond your proportion of the population?

Again, not trying to argue against you here. I pose these questions not to oppose you but only as a scaffolding through which I can hear your arguments and your point of view.

"JFK advocated for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility. That’s sound a lot like a Republican to me."

Certainly a good point. No opposition from me here. Just do keep in mind that Democrats aren't opposed to low deficits (they simply aren't a priority in difficult times), free trade (NAFTA was Clinton and the TPP was Obama; Democrats recognize that the economic concept of the free market does work, just that it doesn't always work perfectly, like in 2008 and 1929), tax cuts (but mostly on the poor and middle classes, just not on the rich and powerful), and individual responsibility (we're not the party that tries to sign religious morals into law). We just think about them in a somewhat different way than Republicans. But again, I think you make a good point in regards to JFK.

"So in my world, a candidate would register in each state."

I think we've finally found some solid common ground. I think the plan you propose would be brilliant and is a good way to further democratize our bizarre (in reference to the rest of the first world) election system. As you probably gathered from my last response, I'm especially in support of your plan to make federal election days a holiday. with polls open 24 hours.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes,
Jun 5

Nice debate, I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am. While I many not agree with you on everything I do want hear your views.

“… I'm being stubborn because people who know more than you say that you're wrong.”

But they’re not saying I’m wrong, what he said was no intent to violate the laws, it isn’t his job to find intent. It also wasn’t his job to say if she should be charged or not. Again the job of the FBI, like all police is to investigate, discover evidence and provide that to the prosecutor, and it’s the prosecutor’s job to charge or not. But like I said it was well known she’d never be charged, no matter how badly she broke the laws.

As a climate skeptic, which is way different than a climate denier, I’ll say the same thing that I’ve said for years now. If AGW is as bad as those pushing it say it is, why haven’t they released everything? And if it is as bad as they say it’s criminal for them not to release everything. A discussion for another question.

“But until you can tell me that you know more than the director of the FBI about investigations of this sort that I cannot buy your argument.”

No I don’t know more than the director of the FBI, but I can and have shown you his testimony.

BRYAN NISHIMURA
Nishimura, a former Naval reservist in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 and a regional engineer for the U.S. military, was investigated for downloading and storing classified information on his personal electronic devices.
Prosecutors say he carried the materials with him off-base in Afghanistan and took classified Army records to his home in Folsom, California, after his deployment ended.
His lawyer, William Portanova, said Nishimura never intended to break the law but was a "pack rat" who thought nothing of warehousing Army records at home alongside personal belongings.
FBI agents who searched his home found classified military records, both in hard copy and digital form. Nishimura also admitted to investigators that he had destroyed some of the information.
Nishimura pleaded guilty in July to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. A judge fined him $7,500, and he was ordered to surrender his security clearance.
The violation was a technical and unintentional one, Portanova said, but one that the Justice Department nonetheless thought it needed to punish "to make its point."
I’ll give you a link to a story and you can decide if these people did things that were worse than what Hillary did.
thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

“If Russia had simply said "we endorse Trump,"…”

Again we know the US has done the same, the “leaking” of information at just the right time to get our way. It’s nothing new. Like you said we don’t know, and I’m betting we’ll never know. Again unless there is direct evidence Trump was involved, it will be nothing but talking points for the mid-term elections.

The Senate was setup so that big states couldn’t bully smaller ones. Look at the house, if you went with a 60% majority to pass a law the top 13 states (assuming they work together) could pass any law they wanted, if you go with a 50% majority the top 9 states could pass any law and nobody else could have a say. So California and a few other states could MANDATE all cars be electric and no other cars could be sold, and the rest of the country would be stuck with it. Same thing with the presidential race, if you went with just the house you’d only need to carry 9 states, get the win right now you only have to carry 11 states. California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey. So really the Mid-west have very little say when it comes to electing the president.
“…isn't it right that areas with low populations have very little power?”

Which is why we have state rights, it’s the job of the state to meet the need of the people in their state. California has stricter pollution controls for cars than my state, we don’t have the same issue, but would it be fair for California to dictate what North Dakota should do? Remember the Federal government is restricted on what it can do, (yes the state have let a lot of their power go to the federal government without any complaint) so on the federal level it must work for all the states not just the big ones.

Free trade works only if the countries involved have basically the same economy. If you have a huge wage, or environmental law discrepancy free trade won’t work. Really if one of the free trade partners has a much lower wage, it doesn’t take long for business to move their factories to that country. The UK has found that out, and it’s causes them some headaches.

“religious morals into law”

I try not the judge the democrats for the actions of the far left, so looking at the far right isn’t fair either. Whenever someone on the far right says we need religion, I ask if I get to choose which one? When I tell them I’m a Pastafarian, they tend to get real nervous.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Approve.
0 votes,
Jun 6

Definitely enjoying this conversation. Mr. Wee, I always appreciate the depth of our discussions.

A discussion for another question"

You're right, my fault for getting off on constant tangents.

"Which is why we have state rights, it’s the job of the state to meet the need of the people in their state."

A good point. As I said, I was just trying to get your point of view, and I've gotta say, you've convinced me on this one.

"Free trade works only if the countries involved have basically the same economy."

I understand that completely. I was just pointing out the oddity of Democrats suddenly seeming to become less protectionist and more cavalier about free trade, considering the overall liberal economic perspectives.

"I try not the judge the democrats for the actions of the far left,"

Much appreciated.

"so looking at the far right isn’t fair either."

Is it only the far right though? This is a genuine question; you know more about the everyday Republican than I do, as you live among more of them than I do. But from what I see on the outside, looking in, morals with a religious foundation, particularly against homosexuality (or anything outside the gender binary) and abortion, seem to be fairly well accepted within the mainstream party. Or is that the mainstream politicians just trying to cater to the more extreme demographics?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Disapprove.
0 votes,
Jun 6

"You're right, my fault for getting off on constant tangents."

Not your fault, it's just where the discussion went. And this will go way off the discussion, in order to show you what I see as the difference between the left and right.

It's the far right that make the news, just like the far left makes the news, more often then those who are more in the center. And with the press the way it today, they tend to show the extremes to make their points.

Take the example from the news Proposition 8 in California (this happened before the court ruling) The right was saying marriage was between one man one woman, while the left said no that's discrimination marriage can be between any two people (never mind that sometimes more then two people want to marry each other).

As a Conservative, I felt they were both asking the wrong question. I felt the question should have been "Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place?"

Marriage when you really think about it is a contract, and as such should be treated like one. So with a few minor changes to some programs, the government would have been out of the marriage business. The people could enter into a contract with whomever and with as many people as they wished. And if you wanted a Christian, Jewish, CFSM, wedding then go to that church and do so. Your religious beliefs don't and shouldn't matter to the government.

But the press took sides, and rather than do an in-depth story on why people feel the way they felt, they took the point of view of the left. Had the press asked both sides why the government was involved at all I wonder what they would have said.

The press today (on both sides) isn't interested in facts, and providing information people can used to decide, they are instead trying to push an agenda. So the far right and far left get trotted out as good or bad examples (generally as a bad example) and until people start demanding facts and not commentary, the press won't change. Then add to the mix the fact people in general like to listen to people they agree with so they are hearing less and less of the other side and what they do hear is generally bad. It's small wonder why people are getting more polarized.

subscribe
load further replies (4)
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: