What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Finding common ground (5 Viewers)

Posted elsewhere, but to find common ground, the Trump voters first need to find a little grounding in reality.  It is impossible and completely unproductive to attempt a coherent, reality-based, reasonable discussion with Trump voters if the majority believe (as revealed last night) that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why the immigration ban is needed.

I mean, I'm willing to try, but only on the condition that Trump voters abandon the shtick, consider facts as facts, and otherwise embrace reality.  Until then, just as a general rule--leave aside politics--there's nothing to be gained by having a rational conversation with folks who are delusional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And another thing, David. It's time to stop with this "many people in this country......" shtick. "Many people in this country are concerned about our safety from terrorists." Don't try to disassociate yourself from it and try to convince us that you're only trying to get the anti-Trumpers to recognize a large group's fears. Own it. Tell us why you're afraid and want ankle bracelets for the new folks.

 
and something being suggested today about a psychiatrist for the Whitehouse.  I would take it further.  I think there needs to be a doctor assigned to all Presidents checking mental capacity that is truly neutral.  Reagan developed Alzheimer's, HRC had something going on making it tough to walk, and Trump could very well have something wrong.  This kind of detail should not be held in confidence.  It transcends party lines.  
- The ludicrous medical report - and ludicrous doctor - that Trump trotted out during the campaign maybe might have possibly been a sign that he had something wrong with him, just perhaps? You want a real doctor's opinion now?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And another thing, David. It's time to stop with this "many people in this country......" shtick. "Many people in this country are concerned about our safety from terrorists." Don't try to disassociate yourself from it and try to convince us that you're only trying to get the anti-Trumpers to recognize a large group's fears. Own it. Tell us why you're afraid and want ankle bracelets for the new folks.
I think he's trolling.  

 
I think he's trolling.  
Yeah, I used to hope so to. His complete meltdown after getting called out on Pizza gate seems to indicate that he's pretty hugely personally / emotionally invested in the alt-right 4chan / Breitbart nonsense, however.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I used to hope so to. His complete meltdown after getting called out on Pizza gate seems to indicate that he's pretty hugely personally / emotionally invested in the alt-right 4chan / Breitbart stuff, however.
Weird.  He seemed like a pretty reasonable guy years ago.  

 
I am confused. For the last 8 years, I witnessed constant attacks toward a president, such as accusations of being Muslim, he's a founder of ISIS, he wasn't a legitimate president because of his false birth certificate etc. Then I then witnessed this very same vitriol toward HRC over an email server and Benghazi. And the obstruction by Congress throughout the last 8 years ... absolutely disgusting.

But yet, one of the biggest conspiracy theorist on this site who believes in Pizza Gate, now wants to find common ground? Absolutely ironic and hilarious.

My common ground with you and others like you is to peacefully coexist. That is it and quite frankly, you and others like you deserve nothing more. I have zero interest finding common ground with you because there is nothing common about us. This is not a time for us to come together as a nation and support a mentally ill, fascist demagogue. This is the time that we people like me will rise up against the president through activism and financial support.
:thumbdown:

I've never seen so much political piss and vinegar, from BOTH side, in all my 50 years on the earth. It's going to be a long ####### four years.

 
:thumbdown:

I've never seen so much political piss and vinegar, from BOTH side, in all my 50 years on the earth. It's going to be a long ####### four years.
Who could have ever predicted that electing a juvenile obnoxious bigot who constantly insults his rivals and refuses to engage on the issues might have a negative effect on the quality of the national discourse?

 
:thumbdown:

I've never seen so much political piss and vinegar, from BOTH side, in all my 50 years on the earth. It's going to be a long ####### four years.
I tend to agree.  Common ground?  Are you ####### kidding me?  The right stole a Supreme Court seat.  Common ground.  GTFO.  Good one.  

 
Who could have ever predicted that electing a juvenile obnoxious bigot who constantly insults his rivals and refuses to engage on the issues might have a negative effect on the quality of the national discourse?
Agree that the the backlash on Trump was certainly predictable. He's as polarizing a political figure as any in my lifetime so I'm not shocked.

What I am surprised about is the CONSTANT venom, labeling and incessant anger from people on both sides of the fence for things that shouldn't be. I'm surprised and disgusted on a daily basis at the things that piss people off.

 
Vermin Supreme sounds like a Tenacious D song.  
Now, it's personal! Verm, as we call him up here in north country is a perennial candidate, famous for wearing an ol' boot as a hat, who supports mandatory, supervised tooth-brushing and a pony for every household. How dare you assail this great American?!

 
Things I'm for in no particular order:

Equal Taxes

Equal Pay

Clean Environment (within reason; don't want it to destroy our economy)

Equal Votes

Immigration Reform.  If you've been here for 10 years (as most have) or have a family here and are working...congrats.  If not, please take your place in line. 

Border Protection

Strong Military but an efficient one (DoD desperately needs to be audited)

Sane gun laws (if you can't fly, you can't own for example)

Things I'm against:

Abortion (but not willing to make it my sole reason in who I vote for)

Corruption

NSA intruding into my house

 
Things I'm for in no particular order:

Equal Taxes

Equal Pay

Clean Environment (within reason; don't want it to destroy our economy)

Equal Votes

Immigration Reform.  If you've been here for 10 years (as most have) or have a family here and are working...congrats.  If not, please take your place in line. 

Border Protection

Strong Military but an efficient one (DoD desperately needs to be audited)

Sane gun laws (if you can't fly, you can't own for example)

Things I'm against:

Abortion (but not willing to make it my sole reason in who I vote for)

Corruption

NSA intruding into my house
Good post  I agree with most of these.  I would add to the "for" list:

Term Limits

Equal rights

Simplified tax code

Campaign Finance Reform

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, it's personal! Verm, as we call him up here in north country is a perennial candidate, famous for wearing an ol' boot as a hat, who supports mandatory, supervised tooth-brushing and a pony for every household. How dare you assail this great American?!
Not assailing anyone.  I love Tenacious D.   Love the combo of music and humor.  

Eddie Vermin

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But yet, one of the biggest conspiracy theorist on this site who believes in Pizza Gate, now wants to find common ground? Absolutely ironic and hilarious.

My common ground with you and others like you is to peacefully coexist. That is it and quite frankly, you and others like you deserve nothing more. I have zero interest finding common ground with you because there is nothing common about us. This is not a time for us to come together as a nation and support a mentally ill, fascist demagogue. This is the time that we people like me will rise up against the president through activism and financial support.
:lmao:  Spittin fire 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We get it.  The left hates everything about Trump.  And the right hates everything about the left.  And the FFA loves to be snarky with gotcha moments, etc.  You know side you usually sit with on most issues.  I am opening up this thread in hopes we can try and find middling ground by people posting something from their side of politics that they disagree with.
I think this is one of the root problems.  We've allowed our country to be defined as red/blue, right/left, R/D, etc.  My politics are mine.  I don't get them from some straight-line party manifesto, I get them by listening, learning, and thinking.  The idea that there are things "from my side that I don't agree with" is oxymoronic.

 
I think this is one of the root problems.  We've allowed our country to be defined as red/blue, right/left, R/D, etc.  My politics are mine.  I don't get them from some straight-line party manifesto, I get them by listening, learning, and thinking.  The idea that there are things "from my side that I don't agree with" is oxymoronic.
Great point.  I feel the same way.  I'm not going to disagree with myself.

 
I think this is one of the root problems.  We've allowed our country to be defined as red/blue, right/left, R/D, etc.  My politics are mine.  I don't get them from some straight-line party manifesto, I get them by listening, learning, and thinking.  The idea that there are things "from my side that I don't agree with" is oxymoronic.
I didn't even notice that little bit of nonsense. Good call.

 
Thorn said:
I think this is one of the root problems.  We've allowed our country to be defined as red/blue, right/left, R/D, etc.  My politics are mine.  I don't get them from some straight-line party manifesto, I get them by listening, learning, and thinking.  The idea that there are things "from my side that I don't agree with" is oxymoronic.
This is something the people who need a credo don't understand. They see everyone else as one viewpoint in variance with their own, not that there are many varieties of opposite views. The old ingrained FDR left represents less than a quarter of the non-right viewpoint and the rest is pretty diffuse. It's pretty hillariarious that there are only two sides when one side doesn't actually exist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buzzbait said:
Agree that the the backlash on Trump was certainly predictable. He's as polarizing a political figure as any in my lifetime so I'm not shocked.

What I am surprised about is the CONSTANT venom, labeling and incessant anger from people on both sides of the fence for things that shouldn't be. I'm surprised and disgusted on a daily basis at the things that piss people off.
The point isn't that he's "polarizing."  The point is that he constantly spews venom and unfairly labels people and is incessantly angry. Not, like, sometimes, or when he was having a bad day, or just with a couple people he doesn't like.  All the time, to everyone, always.  It's who he is.  He antagonizes everyone who disagrees with him and makes no effort to heal divisions. Voting for him as president is by definition condoning that sort of behavior.  The reaction was inevitable.  And it's going to get worse.

 
I think we can all agree this is funny if not awesome...

Netanyahu on meeting with Chuck Norris: 'Israel is strong but it's indestructible now'

 
The point isn't that he's "polarizing."  The point is that he constantly spews venom and unfairly labels people and is incessantly angry. Not, like, sometimes, or when he was having a bad day, or just with a couple people he doesn't like.  All the time, to everyone, always.  It's who he is.  He antagonizes everyone who disagrees with him and makes no effort to heal divisions. Voting for him as president is by definition condoning that sort of behavior.  The reaction was inevitable.  And it's going to get worse.
So that justifies a grenade in a "Common Ground" thread? How about attacking people because of a shirt with a political statement (non-derogatory)?

You're glossing over my main point. The level of attacks, and the reasons for which they are initiated, are not OK and cannot be justified.

 
Buzzbait said:
:thumbdown:

I've never seen so much political piss and vinegar, from BOTH side, in all my 50 years on the earth. It's going to be a long FUN four years.
As a member of NPA - No Political Affiliation, this could not have worked out any better. Watching everyone melt down (mostly on the left) is a bonus to electing someone who will trash the rest of Washington, like the Trumpster is doing. The guy is certifiable and it's awesome. They got what they deserved for the decades of ####### up. 8 years would be much better than just 4 although I still believe he hands over power to the VP before 4 years.

 
So that justifies a grenade in a "Common Ground" thread? How about attacking people because of a shirt with a political statement (non-derogatory)?

You're glossing over my main point. The level of attacks, and the reasons for which they are initiated, are not OK and cannot be justified.
Honestly?  I wouldn't do it myself, and I actually posted something in line with the thread theme and then stayed away until others blew it up. But I can absolutely buy the argument that it's justified.

Imagine you're a member of some group who feels they were the target of Trump's rage and insults and scapegoating.  Maybe you're a Muslim or someone close to you is a Muslim. Maybe you're African-American or someone close to you is an African-American, or maybe you're Mexican or someone close to you is Mexican.  Maybe you're a woman who has been victimized by sexual harassment or assault or maybe you're just overweight or otherwise insecure about some aspect of your appearance that Trump has insulted in other women. Maybe you're a government employee.  Maybe you're a journalist. The list goes on and on and on.

A presidential candidate regularly insulted, disrespected and/or scapegoated you or someone you love throughout his campaign and has made zero effort at reconciliation since winning the presidency; in fact in most cases he's doubled down.  And now that he's won a supporter of this man, someone who helped him become the most powerful man on earth, comes to you and says  "hey, let's try find some common ground." 

What do you honestly think is the natural human response to that?  Not the best possible one or the Christian one or whatever.  The normal, most likely response. I'd say it's somewhere between "you first, can you show me you understand why I'm so upset you supported someone who [insert offending Trump action here]" and "GFY."

Is that ideal?  No, of course not. Is it OK or justifiable? Maybe. In many cases I think it probably is.

Anyway, consider this attempt to reasonably explain of the extreme anger from many anti-Trumpers an effort to find common ground. I don't expect pro-Trump people who agree, but perhaps some effort to understand?  In exchange I'm more than happy to listen to any similar effort by a pro-Trump person as to why they feel the way they do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buzzbait said:
I'm surprised and disgusted on a daily basis at the things that piss people off.
"Speech" used to be a privacy issue as well as a constitutional one. A person does not have the right to say - even with a t-shirt - anything he wants to with impunity. He has only the right to accept the full social consequence, good or bad, for his expressions without intervention from the government.

In the world i grew up in - back when we used to have to watch TV by candlelight - your icon picture would be unacceptable in any public forum. The constipated displeasure it expresses is something the world does not need to see and is therefore superfluous if not destructive to moral fiber. It was also widely believed that any adult person had as much a right not to have himself or any member of his family be discommoded be the expression of another. That was successfully argued legally as a privacy right. 

Society (and you may think white society but i grew up in a multi-ethnic ghetto where these rules held as fast) used to act with extreme prejudice to any expression of deviation or miscreation of the norm by holding not only the offender responsible but his entire family, not hiring them, promoting them, allowing them to social gatherings. This was but two generations ago and is still tacitly legal.

It's just that those same people held on to beliefs that impinged on personal liberty of entire classes of humanity and that lost them the social leverage tto keep that toothpaste in the tube. But the fight to include decency within tolerance is still as strongly felt in some quarters as the abiding fight to include tolerance within decency is today.

 
"Speech" used to be a privacy issue as well as a constitutional one. A person does not have the right to say - even with a t-shirt - anything he wants to with impunity. He has only the right to accept the full social consequence, good or bad, for his expressions without intervention from the government.
Agree. "How about attacking people because of a shirt with a political statement (non-derogatory)"

A "Make America Great" t-shirt however should be able to be worn without consequence.

In the world i grew up in - back when we used to have to watch TV by candlelight - your icon picture would be unacceptable in any public forum. The constipated displeasure it expresses is something the world does not need to see and is therefore superfluous if not destructive to moral fiber. It was also widely believed that any adult person had as much a right not to have himself or any member of his family be discommoded be the expression of another. That was successfully argued legally as a privacy right. 
Too much moral fiber perhaps?  ;)

 
cashman88 said:
Clean water.  We can all agree that we want clean water to drink, right?
Have you seen the nominee for the EPA? Not sure if we're going to agree there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree. "How about attacking people because of a shirt with a political statement (non-derogatory)"

A "Make America Great" t-shirt however should be able to be worn without consequence.
The shirt is the instigation, the wearer the offender. Doesn't justify any reaction, but is the invitation.

 
"Speech" used to be a privacy issue as well as a constitutional one. A person does not have the right to say - even with a t-shirt - anything he wants to with impunity. He has only the right to accept the full social consequence, good or bad, for his expressions without intervention from the government.

In the world i grew up in - back when we used to have to watch TV by candlelight - your icon picture would be unacceptable in any public forum. The constipated displeasure it expresses is something the world does not need to see and is therefore superfluous if not destructive to moral fiber. It was also widely believed that any adult person had as much a right not to have himself or any member of his family be discommoded be the expression of another. That was successfully argued legally as a privacy right. 

Society (and you may think white society but i grew up in a multi-ethnic ghetto where these rules held as fast) used to act with extreme prejudice to any expression of deviation or miscreation of the norm by holding not only the offender responsible but his entire family, not hiring them, promoting them, allowing them to social gatherings. This was but two generations ago and is still tacitly legal.

It's just that those same people held on to beliefs that impinged on personal liberty of entire classes of humanity and that lost them the social leverage tto keep that toothpaste in the tube. But the fight to include decency within tolerance is still as strongly felt in some quarters as the abiding fight to include tolerance within decency is today.
I grew up in the I Love Lucy era too and I'll take today's offensiveness over that era's moral constipation any time.

 
Honestly?  I wouldn't do it myself, and I actually posted something in line with the thread theme and then stayed away until others blew it up. But I can absolutely buy the argument that it's justified.
Appreciate the well thought out post. I do understand the sentiment and why people are upset for all the reasons you posted.

However I respectfully disagree with the idea that it's always justified. There is a great difference in my mind between disliking the politician and attacking a person incessantly simply because they support that politician.

I did not vote for Trump and he makes me cringe on a daily basis BUT I get that people were so sick of other options and status quo that he was the more attractive option.

We aren't going to agree on this one and that's OK.

 
I grew up in the I Love Lucy era too and I'll take today's offensiveness over that era's moral constipation any time.
Not defending, as anyone who's read my work will know. Just informing people for perspective's sake that, in most American communities of two gens ago a political t-shirt or public representation of buzzbait's icon would likely disqualify him and every member of his family from acceptance and advancement in society. And it is not entirely wrong that that was so. Sooner or later, we're going to have to pick up the pieces of the society we are presently burdening to the breaking point with personal litter and we're probably going to have to do it without any of the societal ethics we've relied upon for the entire history of civilization. It would be a mistake for folks to think that the way things presently are are entirely a progression from rather than a violation of the way things always have been.

 
If someone is offended by a "Make America Great" t-shirt I think it says more about them than the wearer.
what you think is societally irrelevant. and i just might agree and that is equally irrelevant. what you and i might do with that may become societally relevant, but all will make a pile that others will feel a need, if only for sanitation's sake, to clear away.

ETA: America became great by making the progress of both liberty and security possible. Deciding that the public good had precedence over private will was a veryveryvery big part of that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AT&T CEO, Randall Stephenson, made a great speech on diversity, seems to fit with the theme of this topic, although it was mainly focused on racial tensions.

Here's the video, it's worth the 12 minutes to watch.

 Small transcript posted from here: 

http://www.theroot.com/at-t-ceo-delivers-rousing-speech-on-racial-tension-in-a-1790857039

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson spoke poignantly on the issue of racial tension in America at a Sept. 23 conference for AT&T employees in Dallas.

At the eighth annual National Employee Resource Group Conference, Stephenson took the stage and encouraged AT&T employees to have candid, open dialogues about race and inequality. The speech was captured on video by one of the conference attendees and posted on YouTube.

“There’s no other group in the AT&T family that I would rather start this dialogue with than you, the AT&T ERG Group,” Stephenson began.

 
“You are a model for how you can take a really large body of people with radically different backgrounds, beliefs, ages, religions, sexual orientations,” he said, “and we’re demonstrating how you can not only live together, but you can love each other, you can compete and you can win together.

“Sadly, racial tension is ripping apart the very fabric of our communities right now,” Stephenson continued, noting the high-profile police-shooting cases in Ferguson, Mo.; Falcon Heights, Minn.; and Baton Rouge, La., as well as the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla. Stephenson also mentioned the shootings of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

“We got a problem,” he said.

Stephenson noted that there were some in attendance who may have the attitude that police need to crack down and gain control over the communities where these troubles have occurred, while others acknowledge that protesters are expressing “legitimate, pent-up anger over injustice and violence.”

“There’s going to be several people in between those two ends,” he said. “The question I have to ask is, where are you on this?”

Stephenson told the crowd how he was ashamed to learn of the racial injustice faced by his close friend Chris, an African-American cardiopulmonary physician from southern Louisiana. He said he wondered how the two of them could never have discussed the matter of race.

“If two very close friends of different races don’t talk openly about this issue that’s tearing our communities apart,” Stephenson said, “how do we expect to find common ground and solutions for what’s a really serious, serious problem? Our communities are being destroyed by racial tension, and we are too polite to talk about it, even among our best friends.”

The executive said that he gets Chris’ anger when someone responds to a Black Lives Matter protest by saying, “All Lives Matter.”

“When a person struggling with what’s been broadcast on our airwaves says, ‘Black Lives Matter,’ we should not say, ‘All Lives Matter’ to justify ignoring the real issue,” he said.

Stephenson acknowledged that race is a difficult, tough issue that is not pleasant to discuss, but said that we have to start communicating.

“If this dialogue is a dialogue that’s going to begin at AT&T, I feel like it probably ought to start with me,” he said.

But he said that mere "tolerance" is not the answer. “I’m not asking you to be tolerant of each other,” Stephenson said. “Tolerance is for cowards.” He said that being tolerant requires nothing but being quiet and not making waves.

Stephenson ended his speech on the following note: “Do not tolerate each other. Work hard. Move into uncomfortable territory and understand each other.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Show me how common ground has been and is being explored by our representatives in DC and that should give you an indication of why this thread derailed.  The right made a calculated decision to demean, deflect, disparage, and derail everything Obama sought to do, and he was a moderate democrat.  Bernie's popularity and Trump's election has awakened the far left and they are playing the exact same game that the right did with Obama.  The only difference is that Trump is not going to lay down and pander to those antics the same way Obama did because he has no interest in finding middle or common ground.  He seems to enjoy the conflict, so this unrest will be business as usual during his presidency.  You reap what you sow.

Now, in the spirit of common-ground finding, can't we all agree that we need to invest heavily in non-wall public infrastructure?   

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top