Do we build walls, or bridges?

[guillaumeb]

I recently posted an article dealing with Democrats who are attempting to address areas of commonality with the GOP.

In the article, Democratic Senator Chris Coons is described as reaching out to his GOP colleagues. The common ground is faith.

Some of the responses suggested that this approach, this search for commonality, is a terrible idea.

Why?

Should we as Democrats reach out, and build bridges to the GOP, and in so doing, accomplish things when we can agree, or do we build walls and stay inside the walls?

The second approach, building the walls, implies that there are essentially 2 separate nations uneasily co-existing.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. we are more than 2 separate nations very uneasily coexisting, in my view,.

[guillaumeb]

2. And can we reconcile these multiple entities?

President Obama reminded voters that he was the President of the UNITED states of America.

Trump obviously sees himself as the President of white America.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. I think it is quite a challenging thing to accomplish.

Off-hand - rural vs urban (and in general, with that, red vs blue)
Inclusive vs exclusive
One issue hot button (abortion, guns) vs more liberal views
Black vs non-black, not to mention all of the growing cultures - Hispanic, Asian, etc - keeping isolated vs blending
and of course - religious vs non-religious - and which religion?

I think the states being united has been a grand illusion that varies in success vs the politics at the time. Social networking is helping to divide, not unite.

Glad the job is so far above my pay grade! Can't even imagine....

[guillaumeb]

4. The rich love to divide people.

It makes the people easier to control.

But my view is that we must do our best to build bridges.

[marylandblue]

6. I don't think it's rich dividing people

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2019, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

People divide themselves with no assistance from the rich.

[guillaumeb]

8. But it serves the interests of the rich and powerful.

It is taking advantage of human behavior. My view is that we must try to build commonality.

[marylandblue]

13. Sometimes it serves their interests and sometimes it doesn't

I agree we have to build commonality. But you are always talking about tribalism and how difficult that is to overcome. What do you suggest?

[guillaumeb]

14. Coons is doing it.

We must talk to our opponents. And in this case, Coons, as a US Senator, recognizes what he should do and is doing it.

[Voltaire2]

23. And the example you cited of "Coons doing it" was the "bipartisan" FOSTA bill

which as documented in that other thread is a parternalistic moral outrage bill that has increased exploitation and violence against sex workers.

[guillaumeb]

25. I already read your claims.

[Voltaire2]

27. Yes you already ran away from providing any evidence that this bill reduce exploitation and violence

against sex workers.

[guillaumeb]

28. Evidence in advance?

A novel concept.

[Bretton Garcia]

59. NRaleigh? DU politics needs reports on Mark Meadows

The head of the infinitely divisive House "Freedom Caucus" is from your neck of the woods. Roughly, his carefully gerrymandered constituency seems to consist of antigovernment, anti-Yankee whites, survivalists. Looking to hide from an Apocalypse in the Great Smokies. But Meadows' anti government stance neglected to admit that much of his district works at or gets money from the local federal parks. And parks especially are shut down in government shutdowns.

[NRaleighLiberal]

61. Yes he is one of the worst, for sure

Embarrassing for our state

[Major Nikon]

5. Your concern is noted

[MineralMan]

7. Why don't you describe some of those "areas of commonality?"

That would be a good start, since I don't really see such areas.

What things do Republicans support that you also support, guillaumeb? You must have some in mind. Tell us about them.

Without specifics, what I see are Republicans actively blocking all progressive proposals. Where is the commonality?

So, you need to supply some answers before I can agree that we need to compromise with Republicans.

I'll wait here.

[guillaumeb]

9. Do you feel that GOP voters see themselves as patriots?

We all have a common interest in a functioning country, where the trains run on time. The issue is defining how we can agree on what to do about the problems. Refusing to talk to GOP voters is not a solution.

[MineralMan]

10. That is not an answer to my question.

Mussolini and Hitler made the trains run on time in their day. They also invoked patriotism in their followers. Patriotism is an emotional label, not an issue.

My question remains. What "areas of commonality" are you talking about, Guy? Answer the question and I'll discuss it with you.

For example, how do Republicans feel about women's right to choose with regard to their reproductive lives?

How do Republicans feel about universal health care?

How do Republicans feel about labor issues?

We could go on and on. So, show me the "areas of commonality" you are talking about. I know of none.

[guillaumeb]

11. I did answer it.

An interest in a functioning country.


What constitutes a functional country is another matter. But we are all humans, with the same general needs.

And my larger point is that if we surround ourselves with walls, we are dividing ourselves. And that serves only the rich and powerful.

[MineralMan]

12. You didn't answer at all.

Nazi Germany was a functional country, too. That is not an issue, Guy. That is a state of the nation's functional soundness.

Clearly you are simply going to evade my question, so I'm done here.

[Voltaire2]

20. "An interest in a functioning country." - no they want to "drown government in a bathtub".

Haven't you noticed that aside from their love of everything martial they have zero interest in a functioning country?

[guillaumeb]

22. Does every GOP voter support that idea?

Senator Coons, and many other Democratic politicians, disagree with you.

[Voltaire2]

24. The Republican Party does.

[guillaumeb]

26. The GOP is composed of actual, individual voters.

Neither Party is a monolith.

[Voltaire2]

29. It is a subset of Republican voters.

And the vast majority of registered Republicans are, at this point in time, fascists. I do not want or need to find common ground with fascists. We do not need to cooperate with fascists, nor is it ethical to normalize fascists and fascism.

[guillaumeb]

31. I understand that this is your belief.

And I disagree.

[Voltaire2]

33. great so you've basically learned nothing over the last 10 years about what

the Republican Party is and why it has put our Republic in peril.

Yeah we needs more kumbaya, that'll fix it.

[edhopper]

39. The Nazis thought that a functioning country

meant killing all the Jews.

[guillaumeb]

44. One view of functional.

[Lordquinton]

15. Except that the other post wasn't about that at all

And you're using this one to reframe your argument away from what it originally was to cast people who disagree with you in a bad light.

[guillaumeb]

16. Except for the fact that the other post is about exactly that.

So other than that, I have no further comment.

[Lordquinton]

17. It's not though

Except in the extreme abstract. It was about a specific person, not a general outreach.

But when you reframe things it's just fine, I forgot.

[guillaumeb]

18. General outreach is made by specific people.

Unless you are referring to a General named Outreach.

[Lordquinton]

34. So you understand now that it's different situation

People weren't objecting to "In the article, Democratic Senator Chris Coons is described as reaching out to his GOP colleagues." They were objecting to him reaching out to trump and the manner in which he was doing so. He found common ground in the oppression of a vulnerable population.

[guillaumeb]

36. Coons and others disagreed.

Do you understand that?

[edhopper]

40. What specific proposal

does Coons think he can get Republican support for?

Anything Progressives woulf also support?

[guillaumeb]

45. I cannot answer for Coons. eom

[edhopper]

48. So you think reaching across to the GOP

without knowing what they want to do is fine.
Last time that happened we got a war and a massive tax break for the Rich.

Tell us where the common ground is?

[guillaumeb]

49. I did not say reach blindly, or unquestioningly.

Common ground might be a bi-partisan infrastructure Bill.

[edhopper]

50. Trump's infrastructure bill

is to privatize. The GOP will follow him.

Next?

[marylandblue]

53. The Democrats will have an infrastructure bill, The Repubs will have nothing

Trump may agree to the Democratic bill to "prove" he can get something done. Democrats should try to get it through in this Congress, but no matter if Republicans refuse. If they don't accept the Democratic version with little or no change, then the voters decide in 2020. I am confident they will like the Democratic version better.

At the end of the last Congress, some modest prison reforms got through with support from both parties. IIRC some Republicans wanted to stop, but Trump backed it. I think he made a few calls to convince Republicans. It's not a major issue for most of us, but from what I read it sounds good.

If you don't like the bill, please don't discount it because you don't agree with it or have it confused with a different bill, as happened to me on a different post. You asked for examples of common ground, it is an example, not a piece of earth shattering perfection.

[edhopper]

54. This is about working with the GOP

through faith or something.
I am all for the Dem infratructure bill, but the GOP has been opposed to infrastructure spending since Obama and Trump wants to privatize the process.
I won't hold my breath to see common ground on this.

[marylandblue]

55. I won't hold my breathe either, it just makes sense strategically to try

As far as building bridges through faith, I don't know what will come of that. I think it's important for Senators to have personal connections across the aisle, even they are political rivals. Sometimes those relationships matter sometimes they don't, and most of the time we don't hear about it either way.

If faith works for Coons, I don't see a problem with that. It being Religion News, they played up the religious angle. Though I suspect it has a lot more to do with Coons' personal style, particularly when it comes to Trump. Trump doesn't really care about religion.

[guillaumeb]

63. I said "bipartisan". eom

[edhopper]

65. Have you seen any willingness

by the GOP to be bipartisan in infrastructure?
You have yet to come up with something the GOP wants that we should support?

Your talk about this is as vague as your God.

[Lordquinton]

41. Most people who use their religion to oppress others feel they are doing the right thing

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2019, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Even when they are objectively wrong, they have their good in their corner. Divine guidance that they are right even as they cause the suffering of others.

[guillaumeb]

46. People generally feel that they are doing the right thing.

That applies to theists and non-theists.

[Lordquinton]

51. Your attempt to reframe is noted.

[guillaumeb]

64. Your attempt to deny the obvious is noted. eom

[Lordquinton]

67. What am I denying?

If you want to talk about things in a non-religious context, there are other groups. This is the religious forum, and we're talking about religion here.

[guillaumeb]

70. But if we see the same human behaviors no matter the sub-group,

is it forbidden to point it out?

[Lordquinton]

96. You are using it as a straw man to avoid talking about it in the religious context

Where it is different from other contexts. It has been explained by multiple people, so you can't claim that you don't know what is at hand.

[Lordquinton]

103. So, to bring it back around to the topic you are avoiding

Religious or not, Coons is bonding with Trump over oppressing vulnerable populations. You brought it up in the context of religion, but now want to exclude religion from the discussion. Which is it?

[Major Nikon]

69. The difference is one of those can rely on delusion for justification

Despite your made-up nonsense, non-theists don't get to cite nonarbitrable commandments from imaginary friends as absolution for their bad behavior.

[guillaumeb]

71. The source of the justification can vary.

But justifying behavior by appealing to another source or code is universal.

[Major Nikon]

72. So which of those are immune to reason?

[guillaumeb]

73. What human is free from delusion? eom

[MineralMan]

74. Some humans at least try.

Others don't even bother to do that much.

[guillaumeb]

76. And that attempt insures perfect insight?

The same delusions that lead to faulty conclusions can also govern our judgement as to our own ability to properly analyze our own errors.

[MineralMan]

79. Only in your case, guillaumeb.

You have convinced yourself of that.

[guillaumeb]

83. And you have revealed yourself.

Interesting admission, and it explains much.

Go back to the Giraudoux quote and reexamine it in light of your admission.

[Major Nikon]

81. It at least provides the potential for correction

If one believes 2+2=5 their ignorance can be corrected by the acquisition of knowledge. If one believes homosexuality is evil because of revelation, education isn't the answer.

[Major Nikon]

75. Not many, but many are free of belief systems which require it.

Now that I've answered your question, are you going to answer mine?

God told me you won't. Just sayin'.

[guillaumeb]

77. Or, that many think that they are free.

A person might feel that they are free from delusion, and some here obviously do so feel, but that proves nothing other than state of mind.

[Major Nikon]

78. At least you proved He was right

I had pretty strong faith in it anyway.

[guillaumeb]

80. You have the right to your belief. eom

[Major Nikon]

82. Which isn't required when one has facts

In this case it's a fact my question remains unanswered while yours was, which supports my belief you have very little interest in substantive discussion.

[guillaumeb]

84. In the interest of dialogue, please repest your question. eom

[Major Nikon]

85. 72

In the interest of dialogue, I suggest you reply from there since you refrained from doing so previously.

[guillaumeb]

86. No one is immune to or unable to reason.

We are all capable of reason by virtue of our sentience.

[Major Nikon]

87. You didn't answer the question, again

Your assertion was, and I directly quote: "...justifying behavior by appealing to another source or code is universal."

I'm asking for an example. If you can't or won't answer, I understand. It has been foretold.

[guillaumeb]

88. Patriotism was the claimed reason for dropping nuclear weapons on Japan.

One example of many.

[Major Nikon]

89. Who told you that?

[MineralMan]

90. Really? Please demonstrate that.

The bomb was dropped to try to end the war quickly though a demonstration of our massive destructive capabilities. It worked, but at a very high cost in civilian lives. Its justification is still a matter of debate.

I was born only a few days before the Hiroshima bombing. I am a bomb baby.

[guillaumeb]

91. The claimed reasons for dropping the bomb are many.

And, even accepting that it was dropped primarily to demonstrate "massive destructive capabilities", why was the second dropped? Perhaps to show Russia that the US would use the weapons?


Patriotism, and defending the country, has been used to justify genocide, and trillions in war spending, and endless wars.

[MineralMan]

92. The Nagasaki bomb may well have been unnecessary.

There is debate on that. However those bombs were not dropped in service of patriotism, as you claimed. They were dropped as a strategy to end the Pacific war. That strategy worked.

Your case is not made. Exigency, not patiotism, led to the decision. Whether the decision was the best one is still debatable.

Patriotism, combined with other isms, like jingoism and bigotry, has often led to horrible actions, but you chose a poor example. Religious zeal, too, has caused genocide and other ills. The genocide of millions of indigenous peoples is just one examples, Guy.

[guillaumeb]

93. Patriotism is love of a concept.

As to your own personal views regarding the bombs, I disagree.

[MineralMan]

94. Your agreement is not required in any way.

Patriotism rises from nationalism. It is strictly associated with national issues. It is tribalism on a grand scale. Religious zeal crosses political boundaries.

[guillaumeb]

95. Both are examples of tribalism. eom

[MineralMan]

97. And so? Humans are tribal by nature.

It is essential for human survival to band together in groups. We evolved to be tribal.

[guillaumeb]

100. Glad that you recognize that.

And tribalism manifests in many ways, from family up to nation.

[MineralMan]

101. Oh, for pete's sake, Guy.

I never denied it. Anyone who has studied anything about human society knows that. You must think that everyone here who isn't you is an abject moron. Guess what? You're wrong. Again.

[guillaumeb]

102. An interesting, and some might say ironic, response.

[NeoGreen]

98. Patriotism...

...

“Patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.”

― Patrick O'Brian, Master and Commander

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/509906-patriotism-is-a-word-and-one-that-generally-comes-to

[MineralMan]

99. OK. However, bringing patriotism into a discussion about religion

is simply a diversion tactic. Bringing the Hiroshima bomb into a discussion about religion is simply a diversion tactic.

Both politics and religion are group activities for humans, who tend to form groups because we are social animals out of necessity.

This thread is about cooperation between opposing political groups through religious comity. Religion is the only groupthink process that extends beyond political borders, but it is also a groupthink process that tends to avoid logic and reason. It is based on faith, rather than logical processes.

So, that a Democrat and a Republican share a religion or even a denomination is no indication that they will be able to resolve their political differences and arrive at a solution. In fact, the opposite is more likely. Both Donald Trump and Chris Coons declare themselves to be Presbyterians. That is meaningless in a political discussion. The Presbyterian denomination has splintered and divided multiple times over doctrinal and philosophical disputes.

If religious folks cannot even agree on their own beliefs, why would anyone think they will cooperate over political issues? That is where the premise introduced in the opening post of this thread misses a grasp on reality.

[marylandblue]

52. What makes something "objectively wrong?"

[Lordquinton]

56. In this case when it's something they claim helps and it doesn't

The laws were billed to help human trafficking, but like most laws it just makes the problem worse while.further stigmatizing an already vulnerable population.

Removing subjective opinions shows objectivity. It's rarely so clear, but in this instance it is.

[marylandblue]

57. All that does is push the idea of "wrong" onto other things thought be wrong

Like it's wrong to lie (alternatively, wrong to be mistaken) and it's wrong to stigmatize a vulnerable population.

[Lordquinton]

58. I don't quite understand

If you mean that sometimes it's ok to lie even though it's thought to be wrong given circumstances. But to argue for the oppression of vulnerable populations you don't have a good case.

[marylandblue]

60. I mean there is no objective right and wrong. nt

[Lordquinton]

62. There is though

They signed FOTSA and SETSA to reduce human sex trafficking (the only kind of human trafficking people seem to care about) and it has increased sex trafficking.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/03/new-laws-forced-sex-workers-back-on-sf-streets-caused-170-spike-in-human-trafficking/

They are wrong, objectively.

[marylandblue]

66. You can show that the law did not meet it's stated goals

But you can't show that the stated goals are objectively right.

You also can't prove the law should be measured in terms of it's stated goals. Looking at the groups pushing it, it appears that there may be a hidden goal of driving sex workers off the internet so that they can be ignored easier or to make harder for people to use them. If true, then the law is a success.

[Lordquinton]

68. We can argue about all this all day

but that's not what I'm here for. Regardless of your view on that word, what they did was wrong, and is certifiably hurting people and doing the opposite of the stated intent, which is what I'm basing things off of. Plus they are using their religion to justify it, and it's being stated to bring them together.

If there's anything that heals religious wounds it's oppressing people. Just look at how the closest we've come to mending the great schism is the shared hatred of LGBTQIA people.

[Voltaire2]

19. You're supporting cooperation with the wall builder.

Right now, and for the last 8 years at least, "cooperating" with the Republican Party is enabling fascism.

[guillaumeb]

21. I am supporting building bridges, not walls.

I am not advocating for surrender.

[Voltaire2]

30. Oddly humorous considering that you are advocating cooperation with a fascist who wants to build

a literal wall across the southwest border in order to keep out "Mexicans".

Perhaps a bipartisan bill to build a super secure bridge over the wall so that rich gringo tourists won't be inconvenienced?

[guillaumeb]

32. Write to your Democratic members of Congress.

Express your concerns.

[MineralMan]

35. You may be revealing more than is wise, Guy.

Just saying...

[guillaumeb]

37. And you?

with your many posts? What do you think that they reveal?

[MineralMan]

38. Just my thoughts, Guy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. It is a terrible idea.

Because, in no particular order:

1) You don't define what you mean by "commonality". If we don't know what you're talking about, it is difficult to gauge whether or not finding it is practical.

2) You want to find commonality with Republicans, but do you think the Republicans want to find commonality with you?

3) If the right moves increasingly further to the right, the middle ground does not stay put.


This kumbaya shit is the liberal trickle-down economics. We've been at it for 40 years and it hasn't worked yet, not once. Every iteration of the Republican politician is increasingly worse than the last. And here we are, beating ourselves over the heads for not trying hard enough to be friends with the garbage people.

Fuck that. I'm done with them.

[trotsky]

43. The best thing Democrats can do in this regard...

is clearly communicate to voters what their plans are.

Vast majorities of the population support DEMOCRATIC proposals. They WANT to tax the rich. They WANT healthcare coverage. They WANT safe working conditions. They WANT good wages.

The Republicans offer none of that. So where are the "areas of commonality" you're so concerned about? What does the Republican party have to offer US, gil?

[guillaumeb]

47. I agree with your excellent "advice" to Democrats.

In the last Congress, there was a bi-partisan Bill to fund the Government. That was one example. There have not been many.