Country Not as Divided as Seems

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There’s no “both sides” to this, there’s no polarization from the left. Whatever your politics, you sound like an angry conservative,[/quote]
Liberal here. I see a lot of polarization on the left. Both sides are angry right now. [/quote]

Not a rhetorical question- What the heck do the Republicans have to be mad about? Can a real Republican please explain it to me like I'm 5?[/quote]

I'm not a Republican, but my view is that the country is changing too fast for them. Conservatives are more uncomfortable with rapid change than liberals are. They may even think it's dangerous. I am not saying they are wrong, it's a psychological disposition. Liberals are more inclined to accept change and believe change is necessary to solve new problems.
[/quote]
There's a difference between "changing too fast" and "changing for the worse." I'd be delighted with fast change - IF it were for the good. [/quote]

What would “good” change look like to you?
[/quote]
Well.....I could write an entire book on what good change looks like, but let's start with some easy ones:

1) Democrats will stop calling for incivility until they are returned to power.
2) Democrats will stop calling everyone who disagrees with them an asshole, racist, or idiot.
3) People will stop physically attacking those who support the opposite political party.
4) Republicans will be allowed to eat a meal with their families without being harrassed or thrown out.

And a couple of harder ones, focusing on immigration:

1) Immigration will be based on merit, which means that adults over 18 must have a high school diploma and a marketable skill.
2) Immigrants who sponsor their elderly parents (bringing them over when they're 70+ and therefore will not work or pay taxes) will not be able to sign them up for any taxpayer benefits.....EVER.
3) Children of illegal immigrants still get an education, but their parents pay a fee for each child in ESOL classes.
3) We abolish the birthright citizenship law.

And to help finance our government programs:

1) The minimum AMT will be restored for everyone earning over $25,000 to equal 1% of their income, so a rich person earning $1 million pays $10,000 and a working class person pays $250. The only people who get completely free rides will be the working poor.
2) Parents in welfare (or whatever the term is these days) with at least one child over 13 must work or be enrolled in a training program in order to continue benefits. The young teen can babysit younger siblings.

Well, those are a few off the top of my head.
[/quote]
Those are not the kind of changes I meant. There are social and economic changes that come with bringing in large numbers of immigrants. Conservatives find this threatening. You aren't wrong, it's a national challenge to absorb a lot of low skill immigrants at once. Your policy changes on immigration are meant to slow down and reduce the impact of immigration.

Also, the changes on civility are something I think a lot of people on both sides can agree with, but they are just changes back to how things were a few years ago.

And there are other differences between conservatives and liberals as well. Some conservatives are authoritarian and want there to be more rules to keep people in line -i.e. no welfare cheats, no free riders. Liberals tend to think there aren't a lot of people on welfare who actually could work. There might be some, but they'd accept a few if that means others won't starve. Conservatives call those liberals, "bleeding hearts." Conservatives are necessarily wrong about that.[/quote]
Well first of all, you asked me what changes sound "good" to me, so my answer reflects my focus on the areas we can change via policies, and immigration is front and center.

As for economic and social changes that come with bringing in large groups of people, these changes are minimized if we allow in people based on meet, which in my opinion are people who have the minimal education/skill level to support themselves and their families. (Exceptions would still be in place for asylum cases.)

I also wonder if what you have in mind re "social change" is related to diversity, but that's where I see a difference betweem conservatives and liberals. Liberals seem to think that diversity is a good end goal in and of itself, such as we have with that diversity lottery (or whatever they call it). I don't think we need more brown people, or yellow people, or whatever-color people to immigrate here as an end goal. I think we need GOOD people, regardless of color, and by that I mean law-abiding people who have a basic education, a job skill, and who support their families without govt assistance. [/quote]
A different poster asked you what you thought a good change was. My response was just to clarify my idea about conservatives and liberals having different psychology that lead to policy differences. Neither side is wholly right or wrong, but the different modes of thinking make it hard to communicate.

Liberals do think that cultural and racial diversity is an inherent good. But I also think we downplay other important diversities such as urban/rural and liberal/conservative. The number of conservatives teaching humanities and social science is way down from 20 years ago. That's an important loss of diversity right there and I'd support "affirmative action" to bring more conservative scholars into faculty positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no “both sides” to this, there’s no polarization from the left. Whatever your politics, you sound like an angry conservative,

Liberal here. I see a lot of polarization on the left. Both sides are angry right now.

Not a rhetorical question- What the heck do the Republicans have to be mad about? Can a real Republican please explain it to me like I'm 5?

I'm not a Republican, but my view is that the country is changing too fast for them. Conservatives are more uncomfortable with rapid change than liberals are. They may even think it's dangerous. I am not saying they are wrong, it's a psychological disposition. Liberals are more inclined to accept change and believe change is necessary to solve new problems.

There's a difference between "changing too fast" and "changing for the worse." I'd be delighted with fast change - IF it were for the good.

What would “good” change look like to you?

Well.....I could write an entire book on what good change looks like, but let's start with some easy ones:

1) Democrats will stop calling for incivility until they are returned to power.
2) Democrats will stop calling everyone who disagrees with them an asshole, racist, or idiot.
3) People will stop physically attacking those who support the opposite political party.
4) Republicans will be allowed to eat a meal with their families without being harrassed or thrown out.

And a couple of harder ones, focusing on immigration:

1) Immigration will be based on merit, which means that adults over 18 must have a high school diploma and a marketable skill.
2) Immigrants who sponsor their elderly parents (bringing them over when they're 70+ and therefore will not work or pay taxes) will not be able to sign them up for any taxpayer benefits.....EVER.
3) Children of illegal immigrants still get an education, but their parents pay a fee for each child in ESOL classes.
3) We abolish the birthright citizenship law.

And to help finance our government programs:

1) The minimum AMT will be restored for everyone earning over $25,000 to equal 1% of their income, so a rich person earning $1 million pays $10,000 and a working class person pays $250. The only people who get completely free rides will be the working poor.
2) Parents in welfare (or whatever the term is these days) with at least one child over 13 must work or be enrolled in a training program in order to continue benefits. The young teen can babysit younger siblings.

Well, those are a few off the top of my head.

Those are not the kind of changes I meant. There are social and economic changes that come with bringing in large numbers of immigrants. Conservatives find this threatening. You aren't wrong, it's a national challenge to absorb a lot of low skill immigrants at once. Your policy changes on immigration are meant to slow down and reduce the impact of immigration.

Also, the changes on civility are something I think a lot of people on both sides can agree with, but they are just changes back to how things were a few years ago.

And there are other differences between conservatives and liberals as well. Some conservatives are authoritarian and want there to be more rules to keep people in line -i.e. no welfare cheats, no free riders. Liberals tend to think there aren't a lot of people on welfare who actually could work. There might be some, but they'd accept a few if that means others won't starve. Conservatives call those liberals, "bleeding hearts." Conservatives are necessarily wrong about that.

Well first of all, you asked me what changes sound "good" to me, so my answer reflects my focus on the areas we can change via policies, and immigration is front and center.

As for economic and social changes that come with bringing in large groups of people, these changes are minimized if we allow in people based on meet, which in my opinion are people who have the minimal education/skill level to support themselves and their families. (Exceptions would still be in place for asylum cases.)

I also wonder if what you have in mind re "social change" is related to diversity, but that's where I see a difference betweem conservatives and liberals. Liberals seem to think that diversity is a good end goal in and of itself, such as we have with that diversity lottery (or whatever they call it). I don't think we need more brown people, or yellow people, or whatever-color people to immigrate here as an end goal. I think we need GOOD people, regardless of color, and by that I mean law-abiding people who have a basic education, a job skill, and who support their families without govt assistance.

So you are fearful of the way immigration has been for centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no “both sides” to this, there’s no polarization from the left. Whatever your politics, you sound like an angry conservative,

Liberal here. I see a lot of polarization on the left. Both sides are angry right now.

Not a rhetorical question- What the heck do the Republicans have to be mad about? Can a real Republican please explain it to me like I'm 5?

I'm not a Republican, but my view is that the country is changing too fast for them. Conservatives are more uncomfortable with rapid change than liberals are. They may even think it's dangerous. I am not saying they are wrong, it's a psychological disposition. Liberals are more inclined to accept change and believe change is necessary to solve new problems.

There's a difference between "changing too fast" and "changing for the worse." I'd be delighted with fast change - IF it were for the good.

What would “good” change look like to you?

Well.....I could write an entire book on what good change looks like, but let's start with some easy ones:

1) Democrats will stop calling for incivility until they are returned to power.
2) Democrats will stop calling everyone who disagrees with them an asshole, racist, or idiot.
3) People will stop physically attacking those who support the opposite political party.
4) Republicans will be allowed to eat a meal with their families without being harrassed or thrown out.

And a couple of harder ones, focusing on immigration:

1) Immigration will be based on merit, which means that adults over 18 must have a high school diploma and a marketable skill.
2) Immigrants who sponsor their elderly parents (bringing them over when they're 70+ and therefore will not work or pay taxes) will not be able to sign them up for any taxpayer benefits.....EVER.
3) Children of illegal immigrants still get an education, but their parents pay a fee for each child in ESOL classes.
3) We abolish the birthright citizenship law.

And to help finance our government programs:

1) The minimum AMT will be restored for everyone earning over $25,000 to equal 1% of their income, so a rich person earning $1 million pays $10,000 and a working class person pays $250. The only people who get completely free rides will be the working poor.
2) Parents in welfare (or whatever the term is these days) with at least one child over 13 must work or be enrolled in a training program in order to continue benefits. The young teen can babysit younger siblings.

Well, those are a few off the top of my head.

Those are not the kind of changes I meant. There are social and economic changes that come with bringing in large numbers of immigrants. Conservatives find this threatening. You aren't wrong, it's a national challenge to absorb a lot of low skill immigrants at once. Your policy changes on immigration are meant to slow down and reduce the impact of immigration.

Also, the changes on civility are something I think a lot of people on both sides can agree with, but they are just changes back to how things were a few years ago.

And there are other differences between conservatives and liberals as well. Some conservatives are authoritarian and want there to be more rules to keep people in line -i.e. no welfare cheats, no free riders. Liberals tend to think there aren't a lot of people on welfare who actually could work. There might be some, but they'd accept a few if that means others won't starve. Conservatives call those liberals, "bleeding hearts." Conservatives are necessarily wrong about that.

Well first of all, you asked me what changes sound "good" to me, so my answer reflects my focus on the areas we can change via policies, and immigration is front and center.

As for economic and social changes that come with bringing in large groups of people, these changes are minimized if we allow in people based on meet, which in my opinion are people who have the minimal education/skill level to support themselves and their families. (Exceptions would still be in place for asylum cases.)

I also wonder if what you have in mind re "social change" is related to diversity, but that's where I see a difference betweem conservatives and liberals. Liberals seem to think that diversity is a good end goal in and of itself, such as we have with that diversity lottery (or whatever they call it). I don't think we need more brown people, or yellow people, or whatever-color people to immigrate here as an end goal. I think we need GOOD people, regardless of color, and by that I mean law-abiding people who have a basic education, a job skill, and who support their families without govt assistance.

So you are fearful of the way immigration has been for centuries.

Interesting the way liberals try these "gotcha!" responses when they don't have a clue.

No, my sanctimonious friend, we haven't had ".diversity lotteries" for centuries. To the contrary, we've had restrictions limiting the number of immigrants by country. And, to the horrors of liberals, immigrants were required to demonstrate a means of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no “both sides” to this, there’s no polarization from the left. Whatever your politics, you sound like an angry conservative,

Liberal here. I see a lot of polarization on the left. Both sides are angry right now.

Not a rhetorical question- What the heck do the Republicans have to be mad about? Can a real Republican please explain it to me like I'm 5?

I'm not a Republican, but my view is that the country is changing too fast for them. Conservatives are more uncomfortable with rapid change than liberals are. They may even think it's dangerous. I am not saying they are wrong, it's a psychological disposition. Liberals are more inclined to accept change and believe change is necessary to solve new problems.

There's a difference between "changing too fast" and "changing for the worse." I'd be delighted with fast change - IF it were for the good.

What would “good” change look like to you?

Well.....I could write an entire book on what good change looks like, but let's start with some easy ones:

1) Democrats will stop calling for incivility until they are returned to power.
2) Democrats will stop calling everyone who disagrees with them an asshole, racist, or idiot.
3) People will stop physically attacking those who support the opposite political party.
4) Republicans will be allowed to eat a meal with their families without being harrassed or thrown out.

And a couple of harder ones, focusing on immigration:

1) Immigration will be based on merit, which means that adults over 18 must have a high school diploma and a marketable skill.
2) Immigrants who sponsor their elderly parents (bringing them over when they're 70+ and therefore will not work or pay taxes) will not be able to sign them up for any taxpayer benefits.....EVER.
3) Children of illegal immigrants still get an education, but their parents pay a fee for each child in ESOL classes.
3) We abolish the birthright citizenship law.

And to help finance our government programs:

1) The minimum AMT will be restored for everyone earning over $25,000 to equal 1% of their income, so a rich person earning $1 million pays $10,000 and a working class person pays $250. The only people who get completely free rides will be the working poor.
2) Parents in welfare (or whatever the term is these days) with at least one child over 13 must work or be enrolled in a training program in order to continue benefits. The young teen can babysit younger siblings.

Well, those are a few off the top of my head.

Those are not the kind of changes I meant. There are social and economic changes that come with bringing in large numbers of immigrants. Conservatives find this threatening. You aren't wrong, it's a national challenge to absorb a lot of low skill immigrants at once. Your policy changes on immigration are meant to slow down and reduce the impact of immigration.

Also, the changes on civility are something I think a lot of people on both sides can agree with, but they are just changes back to how things were a few years ago.

And there are other differences between conservatives and liberals as well. Some conservatives are authoritarian and want there to be more rules to keep people in line -i.e. no welfare cheats, no free riders. Liberals tend to think there aren't a lot of people on welfare who actually could work. There might be some, but they'd accept a few if that means others won't starve. Conservatives call those liberals, "bleeding hearts." Conservatives are necessarily wrong about that.

Well first of all, you asked me what changes sound "good" to me, so my answer reflects my focus on the areas we can change via policies, and immigration is front and center.

As for economic and social changes that come with bringing in large groups of people, these changes are minimized if we allow in people based on meet, which in my opinion are people who have the minimal education/skill level to support themselves and their families. (Exceptions would still be in place for asylum cases.)

I also wonder if what you have in mind re "social change" is related to diversity, but that's where I see a difference betweem conservatives and liberals. Liberals seem to think that diversity is a good end goal in and of itself, such as we have with that diversity lottery (or whatever they call it). I don't think we need more brown people, or yellow people, or whatever-color people to immigrate here as an end goal. I think we need GOOD people, regardless of color, and by that I mean law-abiding people who have a basic education, a job skill, and who support their families without govt assistance.

So you are fearful of the way immigration has been for centuries.

Interesting the way liberals try these "gotcha!" responses when they don't have a clue.

No, my sanctimonious friend, we haven't had ".diversity lotteries" for centuries. To the contrary, we've had restrictions limiting the number of immigrants by country. And, to the horrors of liberals, immigrants were required to demonstrate a means of support.

Of course, I never said that. But nothing really stops you from spewing your BS.

Education and skills are given preference for immigration but they aren’t required. Scary, scary boogeymen, huh?