I think bigotry is growing, but we're also being forced into a very difficult situation.  The reality is the greatest organized terrorist threat to the world is Islamic in origin.  So we have some valid reasons to be careful about how we handle things ranging from terror prevention to visas.

 

I think one side is clearly rushing too far down the "it's all Muslims" out of fear while the other side doesn't let even a rational conversation happen without screaming "bigots!!!!".

 

The result, yet again, is we can't get anywhere with practical solutions.

When a rational discussion happens, I don't scream bigot. Wow, what an awful generalization.

 

I think bigotry is growing, but we're also being forced into a very difficult situation.  The reality is the greatest organized terrorist threat to the world is Islamic in origin.  So we have some valid reasons to be careful about how we handle things ranging from terror prevention to visas.

 

I think one side is clearly rushing too far down the "it's all Muslims" out of fear while the other side doesn't let even a rational conversation happen without screaming "bigots!!!!".

 

The result, yet again, is we can't get anywhere with practical solutions.

Agreed, which is why I generally refrain from using the word "bigot" unless I feel it's entirely obvious (Voldemort).

 

From what I've read and heard about our vetting process, it's one of the most rigorous in the world, if not the most rigorous.

 

And if people still believe it's not rigorous enough, propose change. Improve the system. Come at the situation with real solutions. Locking innocent people out of the country because you're afraid of a few bad apples is not a solution. In fact, it's an anti-solution. It only fosters more hatred between the involved parties, which leads to more... you guessed it, actual terrorists.

 

The word I will continue to use is demagoguery. America has fallen prey to rampant demagoguery. One side more than the other but both are certainly guilty of espousing it. We've stopped analyzing situations in favor of being scared of them and ramping up populace fears for political gain. It's embarrassing.

'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddles masses...................unless they are Muslim"

Someone I follow on Twitter said this and it's frighteningly true of modern America:

 

"I never thought I'd say it but I miss the quiet, intellectual dignity of George W. Bush."

 

I think bigotry is growing, but we're also being forced into a very difficult situation.  The reality is the greatest organized terrorist threat to the world is Islamic in origin.  So we have some valid reasons to be careful about how we handle things ranging from terror prevention to visas.

 

I think one side is clearly rushing too far down the "it's all Muslims" out of fear while the other side doesn't let even a rational conversation happen without screaming "bigots!!!!".

 

The result, yet again, is we can't get anywhere with practical solutions.

But what part of "the one who shall not be named" comments even sniffed of "rational". They deserved to be condemned, he is a bigot.  There is no rational discussion involving a person like that.

God, what has happened to us? I mean, THIS GUY made this speech. THIS GUY.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygTbwGrTELc

 

But what part of "the one who shall not be named" comments even sniffed of "rational". They deserved to be condemned, he is a bigot.  There is no rational discussion involving a person like that.

 

I don't disagree.  He's the living embodiment of what we mean when we say "troll".  

 

I guess I should've been more clear that I was referring to rational conversation, of which said candidate is not even close to a part of.

 

When a rational discussion happens, I don't scream bigot. Wow, what an awful generalization.

 

Perhaps you don't talk to enough liberals on these issues.  I mean, we have an entire section of political conversation that thinks even attaching "Islam" to "terrorism" is grounds to be labeled a racist.

 

The other side fear mongers and creates actual bigotry but in the middle is a conversation we NEED to have and no one is having.  At least not as a general populace.

George Bush looks moderate and good. And people wonder why I and others no longer feel welcome.

 

George Bush looks moderate and good. And people wonder why I and others no longer feel welcome.

Yes, but don't confuse looks with deeds, of course.

 

Yes, but don't confuse looks with deeds, of course.

 

Of course. but, compared to today's republicans, he's a democrat.

 

Perhaps you don't talk to enough liberals on these issues.  I mean, we have an entire section of political conversation that thinks even attaching "Islam" to "terrorism" is grounds to be labeled a racist.

 

The other side fear mongers and creates actual bigotry but in the middle is a conversation we NEED to have and no one is having.  At least not as a general populace.

Please don't put liberals on the balance scale with the likes of Trump. Seriously. I am a very liberal minded person, very. And I find your use of the word somewhat insulting. Yes, there are 'extremists' on both sides, but being a liberal is no more extreme than being a conservative.

OK, time for a humor break. Take a breath, everybody.

 

http://gawker.com/imagine-winning-an-award-from-the-president-and-then-yo-1747061242?trending_test_three_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.NesmD4FSTbKroxp5qEjtVQ.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fgawker.com%2Fimagine-winning-an-award-from-the-president-and-then-yo-1747061242%3Ftrending_test_three_c

 

George Bush looks moderate and good. And people wonder why I and others no longer feel welcome.

It's funny because he was actually a terrible president who got us into a pointless war by lying to the people about WMD's, a war that helped cause the formation of ISIS with destabilizing the entire region.

It's funny because Trump is 100x worse.

OK, time for a humor break. Take a breath, everybody.

 

http://gawker.com/imagine-winning-an-award-from-the-president-and-then-yo-1747061242?trending_test_three_c&utm_expid=66866090-68.NesmD4FSTbKroxp5qEjtVQ.3&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fgawker.com%2Fimagine-winning-an-award-from-the-president-and-then-yo-1747061242%3Ftrending_test_three_c

I guess you had to be there

I always felt Bush went lizard brain when trying to justify the war long after it proved to be a mistake. He really had to boil it down to "us vs. them" over a long period to keep people with him on it. Not that the war should have ever happened in the first place. All so heartbreaking.

Wait, Ben Carson's healthcare plan is basically the plan I've been advocating for 30 years?

 

Open a tax sheltered health account for everyone at birth, and put $x,000 a year in it for them? I could never endorse him, but a plan built around this (since we will not have one payer any time soon) is a plan I can get behind.

 

Please don't put liberals on the balance scale with the likes of Trump. Seriously. I am a very liberal minded person, very. And I find your use of the word somewhat insulting. Yes, there are 'extremists' on both sides, but being a liberal is no more extreme than being a conservative.

Also, please don't put conservatives on the same balance scale as Trump, because I think that is insulting.

 

Wait, Ben Carson's healthcare plan is basically the plan I've been advocating for 30 years?

 

Open a tax sheltered health account for everyone at birth, and put $x,000 a year in it for them? I could never endorse him, but a plan built around this (since we will not have one payer any time soon) is a plan I can get behind.

It's a decent idea but I struggle to believe any government in the world could handle the pressure of upholding legislation that would be costly and mostly ineffective for 30+ years. That's 5-6 administrations.

 

Hell, most public corporations struggle to implement plans that appear ineffective for five years but will pay off handsomely in the long run.

 

Carson, for all intents and purposes, is proposing a health Social Security and we all know what Congress did with SS funds the moment they had the chance.

 

Also, please don't put conservatives on the same balance scale as Trump, because I think that is insulting.

Nobody is doing that or implying that.

 

 

 

Also, please don't put conservatives on the same balance scale as Trump, because I think that is insulting.

I don't. If you read what I wrote, I put liberals and conservatives on the same scale ... not the extremists.

 

It's a decent idea but I struggle to believe any government in the world could handle the pressure of upholding legislation that would be costly and mostly ineffective for 30+ years. That's 5-6 administrations.

 

Hell, most public corporations struggle to implement plans that appear ineffective for five years but will pay off handsomely in the long run.

 

Carson, for all intents and purposes, is proposing a health Social Security and we all know what Congress did with SS funds the moment they had the chance.

I actually think Obamacare is looking pretty good for a solution overall, they could make it easier/simpler for people to pick a plan, but alot of that is still on the insurance companies basically getting people to sign up for **** they don't need with scare tactics.

 

I actually think Obamacare is looking pretty good for a solution overall, they could make it easier/simpler for people to pick a plan, but alot of that is still on the insurance companies basically getting people to sign up for **** they don't need with scare tactics.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. My ACA premium has skyrocketed two consecutive years and I only opted for a catastrophic plan.

 

The ACA is better than what we had before but it's so flawed it may not be salvageable in the long term.

 

As much as I loathe government overreach and control of markets, I don't see a viable alternative to our healthcare situation that doesn't involve a single-payer system.

 

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. My ACA premium has skyrocketed two consecutive years and I only opted for a catastrophic plan.

 

The ACA is better than what we had before but it's so flawed it may not be salvageable in the long term.

 

As much as I loathe government overreach and control of markets, I don't see a viable alternative to our healthcare situation that doesn't involve a single-payer system.

I think I pay like $385 a month for a decent plan, seems reasonable/affordable enough. And it was easier then having the company i work for (Canadian) set up a whole American health plan just for one employee (basically they just pay me an additional $385 to make up for it)

 

Haven't had any real issues with it, of course it would be nicer if it were cheaper, but it is what it is.

 

Please don't put liberals on the balance scale with the likes of Trump. Seriously. I am a very liberal minded person, very. And I find your use of the word somewhat insulting. Yes, there are 'extremists' on both sides, but being a liberal is no more extreme than being a conservative.

 

I didn't put them on equal footing, that's your spin.  I wouldn't call Trump a conservative, he's in his own category quite frankly.

 

I use the word to describe liberals the same as I do conservatives - a generalization.  Generalizations are by their very definition not true for everyone that identifies with the term.  So if that's your hang up, you should probably rethink your reaction.  

 

The truth is that bulk of the conversation on this issue is being dominated by Fox and MSNBC and that is, unfortunately, what the bulk of our conversations really look like.  There are many of us that cringe at that, but it's the truth.  And all you have to do is watch either of those networks to see that, yes, that is exactly the mess we're in.  One side that refuses to have the conversation and one that is creating bigotry.

 

  I wouldn't call Trump a conservative, he's in his own category quite frankly.

Why that is very true, it is important to note that as far off/crazy/etc as he may be, he IS still leading the GOP field. Will this last? Highly unlikely, but we have been saying this for months now, it's clear (and scary) that there is a very large number of people who do support him. Again, I don't consider these supporters your "average" conservative, but it is concerning that it is a rather large group numbers wise.

 

I didn't put them on equal footing, that's your spin.  I wouldn't call Trump a conservative, he's in his own category quite frankly.

 

I use the word to describe liberals the same as I do conservatives - a generalization.  Generalizations are by their very definition not true for everyone that identifies with the term.  So if that's your hang up, you should probably rethink your reaction.  

 

The truth is that bulk of the conversation on this issue is being dominated by Fox and MSNBC and that is, unfortunately, what the bulk of our conversations really look like.  There are many of us that cringe at that, but it's the truth.  And all you have to do is watch either of those networks to see that, yes, that is exactly the mess we're in.  One side that refuses to have the conversation and one that is creating bigotry.

I'm sorry, but this was your statement:

 

'Perhaps you don't talk to enough liberals on these issues.  I mean, we have an entire section of political conversation that thinks even attaching "Islam" to "terrorism" is grounds to be labeled a racist.

 

The other side fear mongers and creates actual bigotry but in the middle is a conversation we NEED to have and no one is having.  At least not as a general populace.'

 

I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying, but it seemed to me you were saying on the one had we have liberals who do one thing, and on the other side is those who are fear mongers, such as Trump. You seemed to be equating liberals on the balance scale to those, such as Trump, who use fear and extreme rhetoric. All I was asking is, if you want a rational conversation, don't equate liberals on the opposite side of the scale as Trump or the rational conversation you want goes out the window because you've just insulted the large majority you want to come to some middle ground with.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying, but it seemed to me you were saying on the one had we have liberals who do one thing, and on the other side is those who are fear mongers, such as Trump. You seemed to be equating liberals on the balance scale to those, such as Trump, who use fear and extreme rhetoric. All I was asking is, if you want a rational conversation, don't equate liberals on the opposite side of the scale as Trump or the rational conversation you want goes out the window because you've just insulted the large majority you want to come to some middle ground with.

 

This sort of thing is hard to talk about in terms of scale balancing.  On the very specific issue I was referencing: having a meaningful, rational conversation on what to do with Islamic terror, I would say that yes, both sides are contributing pretty much equally.  I say that because both throw out completely intractable road blocks to the conversation in different ways.

 

Yes, morally speaking, the conservative road blocks are far more reprehensible.  But in terms of practical effect on the discussion, the two sides are pretty equal, just coming at it from different angles. 

 

Here's the thing, the vast "middle ground" doesn't exist because so many people just go with what their side thinks and rarely think critically about what they are actually saying.  (Kind of like I had to point out in the other thread)  We need to talk about ways to let these refugees in.  To accept peaceful Muslims who want to become Americans.  We also need to talk about how to protect ourselves from a very real threat of Islamic extremism.  But what we get from one side is nothing but fear mongering about the threat and from the other we can't even talk about the threat at all because it's "racist" (a somewhat non-sensical definition in and of itself) to even broach the subject.

 

Look, you want to be a rational conservative or liberal and have that conversation?  Great!  You're in the vast minority.  It's evident by watching MSNBC, Bill Maher, Fox, reading Slate, reading Breitbart, by seeing the poll numbers for Voldemort, or Hillary (go check out the complete nonsense she offered for her reason for not saying "Islamic Terror" - talk about empty),etc.....that the people leading the majority of the conversation are both contributing greatly to a completely useless and meaningless conversation.

 

Meanwhile the one that needs to happen languishes and real people suffer.

 

It's funny because he was actually a terrible president who got us into a pointless war by lying to the people about WMD's, a war that helped cause the formation of ISIS with destabilizing the entire region.

It's funny because Trump is 100x worse.

 

And don't forget the torture. Never forget the torture.