The thread title is self explanatory. Regardless of who wins in November: How do the citizens and residents of the United States come back together and work together and slow and end the fighting and the crazed fear of "the other side" and what they will do? How do they ease the baseless screaming of the worst things on social media? How do we bring back compromise as an honorable and necessary part of governance and crafting and passing legislation?

Any thoughts?

Tugg

-Judicial reform - SCOTUS seats need to be less valuable at a minimum.

-The GOP needs to recommit to basic small-d democratic principles. No end-runs around state popular votes for allocating electoral college votes, no introducing voter-ID and voter-fraud legislation with the intent of suppressing votes, no winking and nudging to "second amendment remedies" and militiamen, no political intervention in the FBI and DOJ.

-The government needs to be allocated funds for its basic operation continuously, such that its employees aren't risking pay when someone feels like a little brinksmanship in the name of their pet legislative priority. The debt ceiling and government shutdown standoffs that happen every few years need to stop.

-Fox News can't continue to exist in its current form. I'm serious. There are other partisan outlets, but none of them have the same reach, and it's Fox's partisanship that drove the less neutral alignment of the other 24-hour networks. There's a couple ways that this could be done - reinstating the fairness rule at the FCC, or doing much more than we have to limit the size of media conglomerates (which would probably pay dividends elsewhere.)

Newark727 wrote:

-Judicial reform - SCOTUS seats need to be less valuable at a minimum.

-The GOP needs to recommit to basic small-d democratic principles. No end-runs around state popular votes for allocating electoral college votes, no introducing voter-ID and voter-fraud legislation with the intent of suppressing votes, no winking and nudging to "second amendment remedies" and militiamen, no political intervention in the FBI and DOJ.

-The government needs to be allocated funds for its basic operation continuously, such that its employees aren't risking pay when someone feels like a little brinksmanship in the name of their pet legislative priority. The debt ceiling and government shutdown standoffs that happen every few years need to stop.

-Fox News can't continue to exist in its current form. I'm serious. There are other partisan outlets, but none of them have the same reach, and it's Fox's partisanship that drove the less neutral alignment of the other 24-hour networks. There's a couple ways that this could be done - reinstating the fairness rule at the FCC, or doing much more than we have to limit the size of media conglomerates (which would probably pay dividends elsewhere.)

OK, thanks.
And what to "Democrats need to do"?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

OK, thanks.
And what to "Democrats need to do"?

Tugg

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

Newark727 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

NIKV69 wrote:

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

It has been a long time since Pelosi has been a radical. If you look at left-wing Twitter, they absolutely can't stand her. Ousting her would either bring up a younger Democrat with similar beliefs, or someone further to her left and less palatable to conservatives.

I’d be very content if Biden won by a squeaker, the Senate was 55-45 Republican and a narrow Democrat majority in the House and AOC became Speaker. Nothing would get done which is exactly what needs to get done. AOC could be the national embarrassment the Dems and Republicans need to campaign on in 2022. The one catch is the executive branch would run amok with based ideas empowered by lax law writing over the past 4 decades.

Trump is just ridiculous and high maintenance. Kevin D. Williamson has a great takedown on NRO this week.

The Democratic party is not a left wing party.
They are the most middle of the road capitalist, center to pretty far right party on the planet.

There is lots of room to the left of the DNC, not much on the right, except the extremist, dying GOP we are
now seeing.

I think that is a central point. There won’t be much left of the GOP after this disaster.

The populist right is toppling. The evangelicals are loosing the grip. There are millions and millions of americans that will get of the brainwashing grips of these phenomenons. That will reshape the political landscape, and hopefully make it more normal, with the center much, much further to the left.

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

I hope that the clownish ghouls on both the right and left extremes are rejected. Civilization requires that people reach a consensus in the middle. This requires disapproval of extremist human garbage. We are being told: the horrible lies, misbehavior and crimes, and pathetic excuses, on the extreme right (Nazis), and on the left (authoritarian Communists) are no big deal. But it is big deal. Right and wrong do matter. Hitler was bad. Stalin and Mao were also. All 3 men were pieces of shit, and their philosophies were made of shit. The solution is when we all agree about this.

We as Americans - if Biden wins - reject everything Trumpism and Trumpistas, and return to a more Obama-like presidency. Ignore the background noise that is Trump's hardcore base...which will dissolve. Move forward on science, equality, equity, healthcare, and getting low-income/non-office job/covid-affected people back to work. Heck, start a big jobs program.

LCDFlight wrote:

I hope that the clownish ghouls on both the right and left extremes are rejected. Civilization requires that people reach a consensus in the middle. This requires disapproval of extremist human garbage. We are being told: the horrible lies, misbehavior and crimes, and pathetic excuses, on the extreme right (Nazis), and on the left (authoritarian Communists) are no big deal. But it is big deal. Right and wrong do matter. Hitler was bad. Stalin and Mao were also. All 3 men were pieces of shit, and their philosophies were made of shit. The solution is when we all agree about this.

We agree on that and much more. Ghouls are ghouls, regardless of which extreme they’re on.

It's worth remembering, however, that some ghouls are far closer to the levers of power than others. It's an utter fantasy to think that Maoists would have the ear of a President Biden - whereas Trump's... complicated statements with regard to white supremacists are well known.

The GOP has rejected science, rejected education, rejected compromise, and rejected civility and integrity. Until Fox "news" and right wing radio can be exposed for the brainwashing it is , we are doomed for years more of ideocracy from the GOP. It is now the home of racists, gun nuts, and bible abusers. The fiscal conservatives are gone/diminished as are the hawkish neo cons. The evangelicals that actually practice what they preach instead of pushing it on others, have already migrated away from the party. The GOP is a sick party, that will take a lot of effort to resuscitate.

Normal people will move on as they always have, and we will watch as the GOP loses state after state for a few more years. Slowly in the states that go all dem, there will eventually be a break between more liberal parties and the moderate side, and the battles will be fought there for fiscal balance. Maybe the GOP will finally embrace their 2012 analysis. Probably not.


Either way the people themselves are capable of discussion even if the parties no longer work.

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Mitch McConnell started this crap. "We will make Obama a one term president" and not giving any hearings to any of his appointees and not compromising at all with Democrats. Democrats acted in good faith until McConnell decided to derail democracy and shred the Constitution.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Mitch McConnell started this crap. "We will make Obama a one term president" and not giving any hearings to any of his appointees and not compromising at all with Democrats. Democrats acted in good faith until McConnell decided to derail democracy and shred the Constitution.

Do they though? I'm a partisan hack and unlike some here I have the guts to admit it, but there's 'blame' to go around. Democrats got rid of the filibuster, passed some pretty unpopular bills by the skin of their teeth, and often acted very scorched earth to drive policy. People like Pelosi and McConnell are both political creatures who frame issues in terms of votes, not outcomes. Policy is horse-trading to please donors(!), get some version of a party plank out there, indulge in some pork, and make some concessions. It's why Congress is too impotent to do things a majority of Americans want, according to polling.

There is a reason Democrats court the minority and the urban/suburban educated white vote at the expense of rural and labor Democrats, and why Republicans dumped Goldwater conservatism for uneducated evangelica1s--they're chasing votes and money.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Mitch McConnell started this crap. "We will make Obama a one term president" and not giving any hearings to any of his appointees and not compromising at all with Democrats. Democrats acted in good faith until McConnell decided to derail democracy and shred the Constitution.

Absolutely correct, this man is a danger to us all and for the unity of this country. An old fashioned Racist to me.

You all should read up on the elections of 1800 and 1876, makes this stuff look like HS politics.

N867DA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Mitch McConnell started this crap. "We will make Obama a one term president" and not giving any hearings to any of his appointees and not compromising at all with Democrats. Democrats acted in good faith until McConnell decided to derail democracy and shred the Constitution.

Do they though? I'm a partisan hack and unlike some here I have the guts to admit it, but there's 'blame' to go around. Democrats got rid of the filibuster, passed some pretty unpopular bills by the skin of their teeth, and often acted very scorched earth to drive policy. People like Pelosi and McConnell are both political creatures who frame issues in terms of votes, not outcomes. Policy is horse-trading to please donors(!), get some version of a party plank out there, indulge in some pork, and make some concessions. It's why Congress is too impotent to do things a majority of Americans want, according to polling.

There is a reason Democrats court the minority and the urban/suburban educated white vote at the expense of rural and labor Democrats, and why Republicans dumped Goldwater conservatism for uneducated evangelica1s--they're chasing votes and money.

Truth here.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves here. There is no Democratic equivalent to the GOP's embrace first of its most extreme elements during the Obama administration, and then of Trump and his cult of personality.

That said, the Democrats would do well to remain committed to House legislation imposing greater accountability on the executive branch even if they control both, and structure whatever they do about the Supreme Court in such a way as to enhance the judicial branch's independence rather than simply add a few Democratic-appointed seats to even the score.

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Mitch McConnell started this crap. "We will make Obama a one term president" and not giving any hearings to any of his appointees and not compromising at all with Democrats. Democrats acted in good faith until McConnell decided to derail democracy and shred the Constitution.

Exactly what part of the Constitution did McConnell shred? Did he rewrite it? Where did he derail democracy? Links, please.

Say what one will about McConnell....he is much more realistic (and sensible) about COVID-19 than the WH administration.

Pellegrine wrote:

We as Americans - if Biden wins - reject everything Trumpism and Trumpistas, and return to a more Obama-like presidency. Ignore the background noise that is Trump's hardcore base...which will dissolve. Move forward on science, equality, equity, healthcare, and getting low-income/non-office job/covid-affected people back to work. Heck, start a big jobs program.

Bring back the rule of law to government, and don´t shrink from prosecuting anyone that committed crimes, covered for them, got in the way of prosecuting those, while holding office because of potential political push back. Don´t go witch hunting of course, but make damn sure that, if anyone ever has any idea ever again of not caring about the law has trouble finding co-conspirators, because someone in the room will remind them there are still people in prison from the last time around. If you compromise on law, there is no law.

best regards
Thomas

Is polarization a problem or a symptom?

Sokes wrote:

Is polarization a problem or a symptom?

It is a symptom of polarizing media channels(fox news and right wing are the largest ones right now because they have the trust of those with low critical thinking skills).

The old adage of consulting (pollical)

There is money to be found in finding a solution, but there is more money to be made in prolonging the problem..

Fox news and right wing sources excel at blaming others for problems while offering "conservative alternatives" that are never fully fleshed out, but are perpetually " right around the corner".

So the problem is a symptom of the problem. The more polarized we become the tighter the loop is.

1) Make it a legal REQUIREMENT to release 10 years of ANY and ALL 1040's and ALL schedules to be eligible to run for President/Vice President
2) Make it codified in statue that ANYONE can be indicted/charged/prosecuted for allegedly committing a crime...not "policy." If needs be, have the VP take over power while litigation takes place.
3) Give power to the US Marshal Service to enforce subpoenas and arrest any member of the 3 bodies of government for failure to appear before the Court when they refuse a summons...see #2 above.
4) Your staff members must pass security requirements or they are not allowed where secret materials are discussed...PERIOD, or be escorted from the presence of said materials.

I think if either party abides by the law, this shit would not have happened.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

It's statements like this that prevent us from every working together and having a congress that will oppose each other and never get anything done. First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Mitch McConnell started this crap. "We will make Obama a one term president" and not giving any hearings to any of his appointees and not compromising at all with Democrats. Democrats acted in good faith until McConnell decided to derail democracy and shred the Constitution.

Exactly what part of the Constitution did McConnell shred? Did he rewrite it? Where did he derail democracy? Links, please.

He didn't even give Merrick Garland a hearing in committee. He currently sits on bills passed by the House and tells We The People that the House has not passed any bills. He is against people voting, oh, and, don't forget his wife is a cabinet member and so she gets all the good deals.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 468222002/

And, by simply saying "we will make Obama a one term president" is a slap in the face to democracy. We The People voted for Obama. Twice. McConnell ignored the will of the people and just did whatever his party wanted. Not a majority of Americans. Much like a dictator. Very much against the Constitution.

bhill wrote:

1) Make it a legal REQUIREMENT to release 10 years of ANY and ALL 1040's and ALL schedules to be eligible to run for President/Vice President
2) Make it codified in statue that ANYONE can be indicted/charged/prosecuted for allegedly committing a crime...not "policy." If needs be, have the VP take over power while litigation takes place.
3) Give power to the US Marshal Service to enforce subpoenas and arrest any member of the 3 bodies of government for failure to appear before the Court when they refuse a summons...see #2 above.
4) Your staff members must pass security requirements or they are not allowed where secret materials are discussed...PERIOD, or be escorted from the presence of said materials.

I think if either party abides by the law, this shit would not have happened.

Dean Obidallah had a guest on last week (I wish I could remember who it was) who made a really great point:

Democrats pass legislation, Republicans use the courts. Republicans do not care about the vote, they care about seating judges. So, if those were to become law, Republicans would simply sue until they were as worthless as the paper they were written on.

It’s politics, cite the Constitutional requirement for the Senate to act on bills passed by the House. You can’t, because the system was designed to have two INDEPENDENT legislative bodies that each make rules for their procedure exclusively.

You may not like politics but both parties have run this country for 230 years on those rules.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s politics, cite the Constitutional requirement for the Senate to act on bills passed by the House. You can’t, because the system was designed to have two INDEPENDENT legislative bodies that each make rules for their procedure exclusively.

You may not like politics but both parties have run this country for 230 years on those rules.

Both parties?
You should think about that a bit.

seb146 wrote:

bhill wrote:

1) Make it a legal REQUIREMENT to release 10 years of ANY and ALL 1040's and ALL schedules to be eligible to run for President/Vice President
2) Make it codified in statue that ANYONE can be indicted/charged/prosecuted for allegedly committing a crime...not "policy." If needs be, have the VP take over power while litigation takes place.
3) Give power to the US Marshal Service to enforce subpoenas and arrest any member of the 3 bodies of government for failure to appear before the Court when they refuse a summons...see #2 above.
4) Your staff members must pass security requirements or they are not allowed where secret materials are discussed...PERIOD, or be escorted from the presence of said materials.

I think if either party abides by the law, this shit would not have happened.

Dean Obidallah had a guest on last week (I wish I could remember who it was) who made a really great point:

Democrats pass legislation, Republicans use the courts. Republicans do not care about the vote, they care about seating judges. So, if those were to become law, Republicans would simply sue until they were as worthless as the paper they were written on.

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s politics, cite the Constitutional requirement for the Senate to act on bills passed by the House. You can’t, because the system was designed to have two INDEPENDENT legislative bodies that each make rules for their procedure exclusively.

You may not like politics but both parties have run this country for 230 years on those rules.

Both parties?
You should think about that a bit.

Look back at the George Mitchell era, he was McConnell of the Democrats.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s politics, cite the Constitutional requirement for the Senate to act on bills passed by the House. You can’t, because the system was designed to have two INDEPENDENT legislative bodies that each make rules for their procedure exclusively.

You may not like politics but both parties have run this country for 230 years on those rules.

Both parties?
You should think about that a bit.

Look back at the George Mitchell era, he was McConnell of the Democrats.

230 years, there have been more than 2 parties. The issue is that we have some serious issues with some politicians ability to lead.

NIKV69 wrote:

First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Every day I believe conservatives are proof of Schrodinger's Cat.

Pelosi is both a radical leftist and an establishment elitist (even though both are mutually exclusive). The progressive left (the "radical left" in conservaspeak) almost derailed her bid to the Speaker's gavel which proves that she is not exactly a "radical leftist".

Of course, when you're SO far to the right in the spectrum, there comes a point where far left, left, and center left are all the same side.

And interesting that it's Democrats are the ones that have to do soul searching; let's say Pelosi is denied the gavel again next year (which I think SHOULD happen...let new blood take over). What then? Deny Schumer the majority leader position? Fair enough. I agree with that too...then what? Do tell since you seem to know what needs to happen...

Do the American people even want bipartisanship and compromise? I mean that as a serious question, because I genuinely think for the past several years the answer has been no, in which case nothing is going to change and power is the only thing that will matter. At any cost.

I'm not saying it will come to a head with armed conflict or any nonsense like that, but I think this iteration of partisan politics is here to stay until there is some sort of genuine, imminent external threat.

Depends on who wins. The GOP and MAGA cult have shown they are unwilling to compromise on anything, even if it leads them to death a la Herman Cain. Biden, however, as talked about compromise since day one. We shall see if he wins and actually follows through with it though, but he does seem to have a good track record with bipartisanship

einsteinboricua wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

First step has to be the Dems ousting Pelosi from leader of the house. If you don't do that the radicals will continue to rule the party.

Every day I believe conservatives are proof of Schrodinger's Cat.

Pelosi is both a radical leftist and an establishment elitist (even though both are mutually exclusive). The progressive left (the "radical left" in conservaspeak) almost derailed her bid to the Speaker's gavel which proves that she is not exactly a "radical leftist".

Of course, when you're SO far to the right in the spectrum, there comes a point where far left, left, and center left are all the same side.

And interesting that it's Democrats are the ones that have to do soul searching; let's say Pelosi is denied the gavel again next year (which I think SHOULD happen...let new blood take over). What then? Deny Schumer the majority leader position? Fair enough. I agree with that too...then what? Do tell since you seem to know what needs to happen...

Pelosi has tried to walk a fine tightrope and is trying to have it both ways. She is trying to both do the bidding of the corporate special interests that bankroll her, which are often aligned with establishment republican interests, but she is also trying to be a hyper partisan in that she doesn't want to appear that she is compromising with the GOP or else she will have to deal with the progressives in her caucus. One big issue the House democrats face is that their leaders are very old and have not even tried to groom younger people to take over the leadership. So what is more likely to happen is as the caucus gets more and more progressive, someone from that caucus is going to take over the leadership and turn the Party substantially further left. The comparison I would use is Bob Michel, who was an Illinois congressman in the late 80's early 90's and was the republican leader and a much more establishment type. He retired right before the GOP takeover in 1994, and Newt Gingrich took over, became Speaker, and shifted the GOP way to the right. My money on a new speaker if Pelosi goes would be Pramila Jayapal. She is a progressive, but is not part of the squad, and has more respect and is one person who could unite both the Progressives and the NeoLiberals and actually also work with Republicans.

Schumer has a similar problem, and I can see Schumer getting a primary challenge in 2022. AOC gets talked about a lot for this, and there is talk that if NY loses congressional seats after the census, her district could be eliminated. She would create a lot of problems for Schumer, but the thing is, if Schumer does get ousted, the likely new Democratic Leader would be Dick Durbin, who is as establishment as they come and is a rather boring politician. (He would be a lot like Bill Frist used to be on the other side)


Now on the original topic of the thread. I think the model example we can look to is Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, co-hosts of the rising. One is a Democrat, one is a republican, but they respect each other, they dont talk over each other, and this is the way it should be.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Yep. They also refused to work together on any bill. The ACA is a perfect example. Ram it through and if you don't agree with us you are a racist, bigot and want old people to die. I didn't make these things up. Dem lawmakers operated this way. Like I said get rid of the Reid types, the Schumers, Pelosi's Murrarys etc and maybe things can get done.

NIKV69 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Yep. They also refused to work together on any bill. The ACA is a perfect example. Ram it through and if you don't agree with us you are a racist, bigot and want old people to die. I didn't make these things up. Dem lawmakers operated this way. Like I said get rid of the Reid types, the Schumers, Pelosi's Murrarys etc and maybe things can get done.

Tax cuts from the GOP?
Supreme Court Nominations?

Nah the GOP has turned into a party of deadbeat cowards.
They still have no workable healthcare alternative other than killing everyone off for Money.

The first step would be coming to some kind of agreement on what constitutes reality. It used to be that reasonable people could disagree about the role of government in society or how best to accomplish certain goals. Now we can no longer agree on what's true. The rise of the Internet and social media has been instrumental in this, and even some of the replies in this thread indicate we have a long way to go.

More fundamentally, the US has an Age of Enlightenment government, but the Age of Enlightenment is long over. Until this problem is somehow addressed at the root, the political environment in the US is unlikely to improve much.

NIKV69 wrote:

The ACA is a perfect example.

Actually NIKV, you are wrong, it is not a perfect example of a Dem failure. It was the Republican's that refused to discuss it and negotiate on it. And the few who did were attacked and derided by everyone from their fellow legislators to "right wing media" until they too had to stop and refuse to work with the Dems on it. This forced the legislation to the left as the Dems needed to get even fringe support in order to pass it.

This is a perfect example though where if people had worked together you would have better legislation.

And I'm not trying to get into a finger pointing contest. I am just saying this is indicative of what I am asking. How to get people to talk to each other again. To reach across the aisle and work together even if its not really what you want.

One thing I think that affects this is the massive amount of super PAC money that will flow into any race and crucify anyone who did not "follow the party line" etc. It happens all the time now. This does not help.

Tugg

Newark727 wrote:

-Fox News can't continue to exist in its current form. I'm serious. There are other partisan outlets, but none of them have the same reach, and it's Fox's partisanship that drove the less neutral alignment of the other 24-hour networks. There's a couple ways that this could be done - reinstating the fairness rule at the FCC, or doing much more than we have to limit the size of media conglomerates (which would probably pay dividends elsewhere.)

Fox news is bad but so is CNN. If CNN doesn't go anywhere, neither should Fox. And actually, both networks should be able to continue to exist in their current forms because a free press-even a grossly irresponsible one-is constitutionally protected here. If you don't like Fox (or CNN), don't watch it an encourage others to do the same.

Let's be real here-no dramatic action is going to be needed. Biden is going to win, the MAGA hats are going to be upset, but after a while the moderate Republicans (yes, they are still out there) are going to realize that Biden isn't the extreme leftist that they feared he was and we'll see a gradual return to civility. The fringes will still be out there but they are realistically never going to go away and their voices will become much harder to hear once Trump leaves the office in January.

N583JB wrote:

but after a while the moderate Republicans (yes, they are still out there) are going to realize that Biden isn't the extreme leftist that they feared he was and we'll see a gradual return to civility. The fringes will still be out there but they are realistically never going to go away and their voices will become much harder to hear once Trump leaves the office in January.

In 2008 they said Obama was a Muslim socialist extremist born in Kenya. As his presidency unfolded.....

......they kept saying it. They never laid up. He was instituting “socialised medicine death panels” and “stoking racial hatred”. Their first mild moderate Presidential candidate failed, so they went for a guy who stoked those racially based “he was born in Kenya” fires and he won.

Regardless of whatever a Democrat does they’ll always be labelled as socialists. Joe Biden has stated nothing fundamental will change under his presidency and Wall St and Big Business love him, yet he is still labelled as a “socialist” by the GOP. They will always label Democrats as socialists. Whomever is the loudest at labelling Democrats as socialists will will their nomination.

casinterest wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Is polarization a problem or a symptom?

It is a symptom of polarizing media channels(fox news and right wing are the largest ones right now because they have the trust of those with low critical thinking skills).
...
So the problem is a symptom of the problem. The more polarized we become the tighter the loop is.

When I read your earlier comment about Fox news I decided that requires an own topic. Why don't you join and explain how public broadcasting is organized in the US?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1452709&p=22458893#p22458893

I believe the problem is reduced chances for the middle class. This frustration shows with the desire to "show" it to the establishment.
I myself would have voted Trump. Not that I like him in any way, but then I dislike even more what Hillary represented. That's also the reason I can imagine Trump wins again.
As I've never been to the US:
How many % of the population are convinced Trumpists?

My mother is smart. As I read a lot of books I often have information beyond the 8 o'clock news. If I tell my mother such information in contradiction to what the news speaker says, she doesn't want to hear it. She doesn't lack the skill. She doesn't like cognitive dissonance. And I speak of reputable government broadcasting news.
"Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Why do Trump critics assume that Trump supporters lack intelligence?
Trump is mean, arrogant and doesn't allow the opponent to finish a sentence. But that doesn't mean that he is wrong. Here a video which I enjoyed. Finally somebody who "shows it" to the establishment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9n7g8rTiaY

"A hello to all of you in the room who have known and loved me."
By behaving so weird it becomes difficult for a rational person to attack him.
Following his statement further it becomes clear Trump doesn't say that he is so lovely, but that the people in the room are hypocrites. So before he even starts to "tear" Hillary into pieces, he already poisons the mood.
His strategy is not to shine with own arguments, but to ridicule the opponent. And I say he is damn good in it. One can say his behavior is repulsive, but then we speak of politics. And to ridicule the establishment is very pleasing to people with frustrated expectations.
He is smart. I'm not sure why he makes comments like using disinfectant internally against Corona.

I believe some people hate Trump for his repulsive behaviour, not for his policies. Similar his real supporters love him for "showing it" to the establishment and pointing out the hypocrisy in politics. How to compromise?

I say Trump is a symptom caused by the failure of the establishment to satisfy people's aspirations. I don't believe Trump's policies can satisfy them either. But why to blame Trump instead of both?

Tugger wrote:

The thread title is self explanatory. Regardless of who wins in November: How do the citizens and residents of the United States come back together and work together and slow and end the fighting and the crazed fear of "the other side" and what they will do? How do they ease the baseless screaming of the worst things on social media? How do we bring back compromise as an honorable and necessary part of governance and crafting and passing legislation?

Any thoughts?

Tugg

From a European point of view: Replace First past the post with some kind of proportional representation.

I might be totally wrong, but when I look at the US political landscape I see a very polarized two party system. Sure, there are two independent senators but they seem to be de facto democrats. And one libertarian in congress is not going to change a lot. That has led to a very polarized political climate where you are either democrat or republican and there is not a lot of overlap where they can actually agree on things. I also have the impression that the parties have moved further from each other in the last 10-20 years. It also leads to voter apathy when people feel that no party represents their interests. Probably part of the reason Trump won, he was seen as something new.

If the parties continue to move further apart a new party will show up in the middle, or the libertarian party will try to fill that niche. But since first past the post leads to a two party system it will be hard for that party to make an impact. Some kind of proportional representation will on the other give all parties the same chance as voters feel like they can vote for the party they want to see in power and not just the lesser of two evils. Over time this will turn the current two party system into a multi party system, forcing politicians to cooperate and work with other parties as one party is unlikely to gain a majority anywhere.

And you can even keep your single seat constituencies if you want, using a system such as STV, [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting]Instant runoff[/url] or any similar system will let you do that but also have a proportional system.

But then again, I don't live in the US so my impression might be totally wrong.

Bostrom wrote:

From a European point of view: Replace First past the post with some kind of proportional representation.
...multi party system, forcing politicians to cooperate and work with other parties as one party is unlikely to gain a majority anywhere.

I tend to agree.
“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
Bertrand Russell
Solar cells are a good example. I believe eccentric ideas in a two party system have not much chance.

Then there is pork barrel policy. If parties have lists and each party gets seats proportional to its vote share, politicians don't need to fight for business in their constituency even if they feel the policy is wrong.


Contradicting evidence:
Israel had lots of parties in parliament because I believe with even less than 2% of votes a party could enter parliament. IIRC they changed this to something around 3%. Too many cooks spoil the dish. The German 5% sounds about right to me. What if at a later point in history no coalition can be formed with less than four partners if the party system fragments further?

The British Empire was replaced with the US hegemony. Both are first past the post systems.
US history did quite well with its election system. Maybe we live in a 30 year anomaly and believe we know better?

I believe some people hate Trump for his repulsive behaviour, not for his policies. Similar his real supporters love him for "showing it" to the establishment and pointing out the hypocrisy in politics. How to compromise?

I say Trump is a symptom caused by the failure of the establishment to satisfy people's aspirations. I don't believe Trump's policies can satisfy them either. But why to blame Trump instead of both?

That’s some truth right there.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

but after a while the moderate Republicans (yes, they are still out there) are going to realize that Biden isn't the extreme leftist that they feared he was and we'll see a gradual return to civility. The fringes will still be out there but they are realistically never going to go away and their voices will become much harder to hear once Trump leaves the office in January.

In 2008 they said Obama was a Muslim socialist extremist born in Kenya. As his presidency unfolded.....

......they kept saying it. They never laid up. He was instituting “socialised medicine death panels” and “stoking racial hatred”. Their first mild moderate Presidential candidate failed, so they went for a guy who stoked those racially based “he was born in Kenya” fires and he won.

Regardless of whatever a Democrat does they’ll always be labelled as socialists. Joe Biden has stated nothing fundamental will change under his presidency and Wall St and Big Business love him, yet he is still labelled as a “socialist” by the GOP. They will always label Democrats as socialists. Whomever is the loudest at labelling Democrats as socialists will will their nomination.

If, in fact, Biden governs that way, which I don’t believe, his own party will eat him alive. There’s a reason he’s not campaigning on the party platform—it’s a loser.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bhill wrote:

1) Make it a legal REQUIREMENT to release 10 years of ANY and ALL 1040's and ALL schedules to be eligible to run for President/Vice President
2) Make it codified in statue that ANYONE can be indicted/charged/prosecuted for allegedly committing a crime...not "policy." If needs be, have the VP take over power while litigation takes place.
3) Give power to the US Marshal Service to enforce subpoenas and arrest any member of the 3 bodies of government for failure to appear before the Court when they refuse a summons...see #2 above.
4) Your staff members must pass security requirements or they are not allowed where secret materials are discussed...PERIOD, or be escorted from the presence of said materials.

I think if either party abides by the law, this shit would not have happened.

Dean Obidallah had a guest on last week (I wish I could remember who it was) who made a really great point:

Democrats pass legislation, Republicans use the courts. Republicans do not care about the vote, they care about seating judges. So, if those were to become law, Republicans would simply sue until they were as worthless as the paper they were written on.

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Wait.... what? Say that again? Democrats passed laws like letting women make decisions about their bodies, telling people they could marry who they love, and leaving the country a better place for future generations but Democrats sued to keep those things legal? Really? Please explain. I am confusion......

One other thing that would help (but MAGA will not believe) is to vacate all the NDAs in place by the White House. Talk about a secretive government!

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-tru ... ook-2020-6
https://time.com/5518135/donald-trump-n ... greements/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/tr ... forceable/

I think we all agree that HIPPA laws should be enforced and if someone deals with classified documents, they should have some level of secrecy but this is beyond insane.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Dean Obidallah had a guest on last week (I wish I could remember who it was) who made a really great point:

Democrats pass legislation, Republicans use the courts. Republicans do not care about the vote, they care about seating judges. So, if those were to become law, Republicans would simply sue until they were as worthless as the paper they were written on.

It was the Democrats that advanced their social agendas, abortion, gay rights, environmental rules thru the courts when they consistently could NOT win their agenda in the political arenas.

Wait.... what? Say that again? Democrats passed laws like letting women make decisions about their bodies, telling people they could marry who they love, and leaving the country a better place for future generations but Democrats sued to keep those things legal? Really? Please explain. I am confusion......

Pay attention, Democrats tried over the years to get those laws passed and we’re blocked, so it was off to the courts to create “rights “ and legislate what they couldn’t win in state legislatures. Gay marriage lost in most places it was on the ballot or in front of the legislatures, but courts created a Federal right where there had never been a Federal law on marriage.