04-13-2024, 04:10 PM
My views are pretty far from the political middle of the U.S. so the best I can do is empathize for those who value the middle ground. For those valuing the middle ground I will say that I am amenable to compromise that ends up in middle ground as long as it doesn't compromise something really central in my value "system".
I think it's obvious that the reason the middle has "shrunk" is because the Republicans have been accelerating away from the middle and are less and less willing to compromise. Essentially, Trumplugicans keep forcing us into accepting their preferences or they'll break things. You are either for them or against them. There is no ground for middle to conservative "Republicans" (RINOs!!!!).
I basically agree with your view on the 1A issues you addressed.
Sorry, but I am very reticent about talking about 2A issues because it has been done do beyond death here (at least it feels like that to me) and I've shared my beliefs many times in much earlier threads.
Roe v. Wade - I do think many men wanting to control women is a central impulse driving "conservative" abortion policy preferences. But I do think that many abortion opponents have genuine feelings that abortion is killing an innocent person. (I think for many of them it comes from a misguided sense of mysticism but that doesn't mean that their feelings aren't genuine.) If you meld those together, you get some misogynistic politicians using the anti-abortion sympathies of a large block of voters to get the power to "keep" women in their place.
Population - I think we definitely need to quit expanding the overall population load on the planet. I worry about economic dislocations due to quick and large shifts in populations but I also worry about the consequences on the environment if we don't reduce the load fairly expeditiously.
Gaza - don't want to talk about this much because the personal temperature is pretty hot here on that. I know that some of my views would likely just exacerbate the hostile feelings in those discussions.
Immigration - opening up the borders completely is a bad and politically untenable (not saying that is what you are advocating). So there has to be at least a reasonable amount of control of who comes into the country. To me, the number one group we need to let in is genuine asylum seekers. We need more officials to handle those much more expeditiously. I'm less clear on what criteria we should have for deciding what non-asylum seekers should be allowed to enter with legal sanction.
As far as getting people here more engaged in more nuanced discussions - I get it. I try on occasion and when I first started I would often get frustrated that there wasn't more engagement. For myself, anymore I tend to look at it as occasionally throwing a line out and seeing if I can get some nibbles. If not, I figure the fish aren't in the mood for biting on nuances or maybe there isn't an appetite for that particular topic.
I think it's obvious that the reason the middle has "shrunk" is because the Republicans have been accelerating away from the middle and are less and less willing to compromise. Essentially, Trumplugicans keep forcing us into accepting their preferences or they'll break things. You are either for them or against them. There is no ground for middle to conservative "Republicans" (RINOs!!!!).
I basically agree with your view on the 1A issues you addressed.
Sorry, but I am very reticent about talking about 2A issues because it has been done do beyond death here (at least it feels like that to me) and I've shared my beliefs many times in much earlier threads.
Roe v. Wade - I do think many men wanting to control women is a central impulse driving "conservative" abortion policy preferences. But I do think that many abortion opponents have genuine feelings that abortion is killing an innocent person. (I think for many of them it comes from a misguided sense of mysticism but that doesn't mean that their feelings aren't genuine.) If you meld those together, you get some misogynistic politicians using the anti-abortion sympathies of a large block of voters to get the power to "keep" women in their place.
Population - I think we definitely need to quit expanding the overall population load on the planet. I worry about economic dislocations due to quick and large shifts in populations but I also worry about the consequences on the environment if we don't reduce the load fairly expeditiously.
Gaza - don't want to talk about this much because the personal temperature is pretty hot here on that. I know that some of my views would likely just exacerbate the hostile feelings in those discussions.
Immigration - opening up the borders completely is a bad and politically untenable (not saying that is what you are advocating). So there has to be at least a reasonable amount of control of who comes into the country. To me, the number one group we need to let in is genuine asylum seekers. We need more officials to handle those much more expeditiously. I'm less clear on what criteria we should have for deciding what non-asylum seekers should be allowed to enter with legal sanction.
As far as getting people here more engaged in more nuanced discussions - I get it. I try on occasion and when I first started I would often get frustrated that there wasn't more engagement. For myself, anymore I tend to look at it as occasionally throwing a line out and seeing if I can get some nibbles. If not, I figure the fish aren't in the mood for biting on nuances or maybe there isn't an appetite for that particular topic.