Liberals asked if they would be friends with a conservative/Conservatives asked if they would be friends with a liberal (Congress, interview)

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by elvis44102

as a liberal i don't condemn any other humans i know i cant talk history to a conservative the don't like history much

the capitalist industrial revolution has spread more wealth than any time in history...but we have been tweaking capitalism for many years as in child labor laws...

we are all only as good as the information we absorb or have time to absorb we are exposed to slick corporations advertising

pushing ideas from both sides.... i support the humanness and fallibility of man as far as fact based that includes as many viewpoints as possible something conservatives are loath do do...

the saying goes the right is going straight to hell...the left has the brake on


when we look at stone age man we find a caring for wounded hurt people and designate that as perhaps a marker for civilization...


the conservatives site biblical passages such as the poor shall always be among us (good excuse for inaction)

You seem to confusing religious conservatives, with Constitutional conservatives. The bible thumpers have a religious agenda; you can see it in abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc...


But don't paint "conservatives" with such a broad brush, and accuse them of being ignorant of history. That just makes you look ignorant and shallow.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Arguing that we are better off than we were 50 years ago isnt the same as there being no problem at all.


You seem to be arguing that since we are better, we shouldnt talk about the problems we still face.

I said that racism still exists but less so, so how did you translate that as me saying that there is no problem at all? Disgussing the problems is one thing, calling people names, blowing things all out of proportion and rioting, stereotyping, rioting and looting and playing victim is quite another.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by Nov3

True, the devoid of passion or substance by a republican is often their manipulative tool to use against the fully embodied human . Glad you graciously admit to the emotional manipulative tactic.

Have yet to be reasoned with by a hard core republican. Maybe it's because the ILLOGICAL rants parlayed out of their mouths are easily disputed with Facts.

I have moderate friends. Some lean towards certain causes or concerns that are favored by a particular party.
None though care to use emotional hostage .

As Shania twain says...you (repubs) don't impress me much.
Disappoint sure. Impress . Hardly.

Wait I take it back, I am impressed with the creative lies and the gullible followers of the right wing. Just when you think they can't stoop.lower, they do.

Well here it is folks. I rest my case. Calling conservatives on what these liberals actually say and do themselves. Let me ask you this. Many if not most conservatives object to illegal immigration. Have you ever had a conversation with them about it? What was your response? I know the typical liberal response is "you're a racist". Is that what you do. Just curious.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

I said that racism still exists but less so, so how did you translate that as me saying that there is no problem at all?

Because that is in fact what we are discussing. the use of the terms BLM vs ALM.

people who use ALM dont just not use BLM, they seem to not want to talk about racism at all.

If you believe im wrong, thats fine, but doesnt that then make BLM a strawman argument ?

I mean if people who say ALM really do care to talk about issues, then why does what we use as a slogan to bring attention to those issues matter so much ?

To use a different example. If a republican misuses the term nationalism, but I understand that they mean american industrial superiority, then I dont harp on the fact that they used the wrong word. and forget the overall conversation, where as most ALM types do.

Disgussing the problems is one thing, calling people names, blowing things all out of proportion and rioting, stereotyping, rioting and looting and playing victim is quite another.

I dont justify rioting, most people dont. I also dont group people who riot in with people who peacefully protest.

There were 100s if no 100,000 of people at those daytime marches, but somehow they are judged by the actions of 200 at night hours after everyone else has left ???

honestly, that just feels like a scapegoat.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Because that is in fact what we are discussing. the use of the terms BLM vs ALM.

people who use ALM dont just not use BLM, they seem to not want to talk about racism at all.

If you believe im wrong, thats fine, but doesnt that then make BLM a strawman argument ?

I mean if people who say ALM really do care to talk about issues, then why does what we use as a slogan to bring attention to those issues matter so much ?

To use a different example. If a republican misuses the term nationalism, but I understand that they mean american industrial superiority, then I dont harp on the fact that they used the wrong word. and forget the overall conversation, where as most ALM types do.



I dont justify rioting, most people dont. I also dont group people who riot in with people who peacefully protest.

There were 100s if no 100,000 of people at those daytime marches, but somehow they are judged by the actions of 200 at night hours after everyone else has left ???

honestly, that just feels like a scapegoat.

I never said a whole group should be judged by the actions of a few. However, how many lefties in here painted all Trump supporters as white supremacists because of the actions of a couple hundred Capital building rioters? See how that works? Neither side should do that.

[elvis44102]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

You seem to confusing religious conservatives, with Constitutional conservatives. The bible thumpers have a religious agenda; you can see it in abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc...


But don't paint "conservatives" with such a broad brush, and accuse them of being ignorant of history. That just makes you look ignorant and shallow.

only the "conservatives" i talk to don't "like" history but ever since the Koch Bros funded tea party movement i think the republican party is best described as populist...i am not a new liberal as ive been that way since the 70s and i don't agree with much of the new party members do..i understand real conservatives are called rinos by the current party...people like George will who do know and write from historical perspective..


my view would be perhaps capitalism best describes mans natural impulses, but we have outlawed murder and gangster ism which in effect are socialist social controls maybe we could do better just a little


i have to listen to people ramble on about some free market when we in fact have controls on interest rate and such to cool down or heat-up the market again socialist controls

[xboxmas]

Originally Posted by Caramelized Onion

It's like saying, "Stop raising money for breast cancer research. ALL cancer matters!!!"

Or, "Excuse me, why are you folks hosing down the house that's on fire? ALL houses matter!!!"

Or, "Why are we at this funeral for Grandpa Smith? ALL Smiths matter!!!"

"Black lives matter," doesn't mean "only black lives matter." It means "Black lives matter, too." So when you counter with "ALL lives matter!!!" you're saying, "no, they really don't. Let's just get back to the way things were so I don't have to be uncomfortable."

Bad comparisons.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

I never said a whole group should be judged by the actions of a few.

But you did, thats what the above deflection was.

However, how many lefties in here painted all Trump supporters as white supremacists because of the actions of a couple hundred Capital building rioters? See how that works? Neither side should do that.

Not even close to the same thing since we dont support the random stranger burning buildings, but some of you do still support the man who told them to storm the capitol.

[GuitarHero45]

I think there's ways to have nuanced discussions on politics and current events with people without it involving antagonism on either side.

For example, has anyone discussed high taxes and inflation with people? Well, speaking from experience, these issues are universally reviled by both liberals and conservatives save for the fringe, far left.

So, just like that, you can have a normal political discussion that explains why you believe in fiscal conservatism or vote for candidates who aren't socialist leaning just off of complaints of taxation and rising prices. You'll generally be able to find a common ground just off of that.

Personality plays a role too. You don't want to come off bitter or antagonistic. If you dive into deeper partisan issues, you can explain your points and positions in a way that won't totally throw people off just based on your approach and demeanor. I remember telling a liberal in college about why I own a gun and support the second amendment and we simply agreed to disagree then we changed the conversation to Walking Dead lol.

I've dealt with a number of liberals on these topics as a Centrist/Independent.

Even dealt with one this Saturday when I was promoting my tutoring business. An older White woman who appeared to be in her 60's started asking me questions about my business when I gave her my card. Out of nowhere, she randomly asked me what my business was doing to address racial inequality and social justice. I literally felt like putting my hand on my forehead like the Picard meme and sighing but I simply told her that a lot of the kids we tutor are Black and Hispanic and we believe that helping to boost the mathematical skills of these kids will place them in a better position to achieve success. alongside their White counterparts.

I can tell she was thrown off because she probably assumed a young Black man like myself would have a whole bunch of "woke" nonsense involved but that wasn't the case at all.

But, case in point: If you're a moderate like me or a Conservative, there's ways to approach or have political discussions with liberals that aren't too zany that can result in casual or even fruitful discussions.

[Clarallel]

Originally Posted by xboxmas

Interesting to see the difference. Democrats say they don't want any Republican friends, meanwhile Republicans/Conservatives say they would be open to having Democrat friends. And the left call themselves "open minded."

First, I find the source very suspect. Prager has a pro-conservative bias to begin with, and my impression is that those are just random interviews, which means they may be heavily edited, the way Jay Leno used his to show what morons people are.

Second, if you want to take anecdotal evidence, then I'll tell you that I'm a Dem with Rep friends.

Third, I'll give you another way to interpret those fake statistics: Reps are willing to have Dem friends not because Reps are more open-minded but because they recognize that they've been in the wrong, politically. I'm guessing that Dems are more likely to have black or non-Christian friends, which would make Dems more open-minded.