• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Democrats v Republicans = Eagles v Rattlers

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not sure if these "goals" are really big enough to be goals. It feels like they are more like goal posts. Is there a purpose for these measures? (Besides do more drugs and sue more people) What do we hope this will achieve? What is the end goal?

The goal of opposing qualified immunity (as its currently defined) is to hold public officials (like cops) legally accountable for horrible behavior. The goal of decriminalizing drugs is to stop incarcerating people for "crimes" that don't hurt others, and to treat addicts as people with a mental health problem that needs treatment instead of criminals.

Shared policy goals are always going to have to get down to the nitty gritty. Broad principles or values are nice and sound warm and fuzzy, but don't actually accomplish anything until we specifically define what we're going to do about them.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
As I recall from junior high school in the last century, girls
form cliques from which the "mean girls" meme arises.
True, but the basics between boys and girls is girls do tend to find more cooperative means and form relationships moreso than boys. And it's not just humans, but even other primates have been observed behaving in very similar ways, to the point boy and girl chimps will typically play with the same boy and girl human toys, with the boys of both species preferring to play with cars while the girls of both play with dolls. Even psychologist who tried to raise their children in a gender-neutral way embarked on a futile quest as the sons of one psychologist researcher turned "the table legs of a kitchen play set into guns."
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. The other
side is horrible, wallowing in lies & ignorance, & evil intent. To point
this out brings strident denials...tis impossible to share this flaw.

Sometimes, I encounter this whenever I disagree with someone.

 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I'm not sure if these "goals" are really big enough to be goals. It feels like they are more like goal posts. Is there a purpose for these measures? (Besides do more drugs and sue more people) What do we hope this will achieve? What is the end goal?
Legalizing, regulating, and taxes all drugs removes barriers to studying drugs, researching treatment, and it removes all fears of legal repercussions for seeking treatment of an illegal substance. It helps keep non-violent offenders of victimless crimes out of jail and prison (for many decades they have made up the majority of those incarcerated in the US), and it allows for addicts to be treated for the illness they have instead of criminals who need to be locked away and suffer.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
The goal of opposing qualified immunity (as its currently defined) is to hold public officials (like cops) legally accountable for horrible behavior. The goal of decriminalizing drugs is to stop incarcerating people for "crimes" that don't hurt others, and to treat addicts as people with a mental health problem that needs treatment instead of criminals.

Shared policy goals are always going to have to get down to the nitty gritty. Broad principles or values are nice and sound warm and fuzzy, but don't actually accomplish anything until we specifically define what we're going to do about them.

That's fine as long as we are clear that there is a difference between an end and a means to achieve an end. One of these is a goal, the other is not. The OP suggests that having a common goal is stronger than simply being together in a group.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
True, but the basics between boys and girls is girls do tend to find more cooperative means and form relationships moreso than boys. And it's not just humans, but even other primates have been observed behaving in very similar ways, to the point boy and girl chimps will typically play with the same boy and girl human toys, with the boys of both species preferring to play with cars while the girls of both play with dolls. Even psychologist who tried to raise their children in a gender-neutral way embarked on a futile quest as the sons of one psychologist researcher turned "the table legs of a kitchen play set into guns."
The claimed "more so" difference doesn't negate the basic
problem. And that's been clearly evidenced on RF & IRL
by hostile female partisans.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The claimed "more so" difference doesn't negate the basic
problem. And that's been clearly evidenced on RF & IRL
by hostile female partisans.
While that is true, it's also true many studies found different results when the participants were all or mostly female, rather than a more typical all or mostly male participant base. It's something *very* contemporary medicine and psychology are having to reconcile with.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hopefully after the election is over we can come to our senses a bit. Attitudes always seem to become more extreme during presidential campaigns.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
While that is true, it's also true many studies found different results when the participants were all or mostly female, rather than a more typical all or mostly male participant base. It's something *very* contemporary medicine and psychology are having to reconcile with.
Could be that males are a corrupting influence on females.
No doubt your former self has made your later self hostile.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Could be that males are a corrupting influence on females.
No doubt your former self has made your later self hostile.
Yes, no, yes, no. It's too complicated to make a short post for a quick joke or rebuttal or much of anything without spending the rest of the day on one post.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Could be that males are a corrupting influence on females.
No doubt your former self has made your later self hostile.
Still to difficult to simplify, but I thought of a "quick glimpse" sort of look at it.
Be as angry as I am now, I'm still less angry than Indiana Me was, but that's all Indiana Me knew, and not getting away from I never realized I was always angry. I wasn't phased much then whenever someone told me to leave. The par was set so high it was hard to make me more angry than I already was. But now that I'm not, and knowing what it means to be calm and relaxed and not pissed at something I became to realize and understand I am actually quite angry. As the women typically go in my family. With each generation being worse than the last. My mom is angry, but I'm definitely more angry than her. I'm a firecracker, however, next to my stick of dynamite niece. Maybe it's genetic? Maybe it's learned?
And I'm hardly comparable to the Old Me, that former self who lost everything after turning away from god and set on a path that surely would have me with a criminal record and health problems or death from excessive drinking (I suppose it may haunt me yet, as I did drink a lot back then). Old Me was hyper masculine, angry, bitter, mean, verbally hostile, homophobic, and strongly transphobic. And now, I don't really do hostile anymore, but I'm still angry. I don't hate almost everyone like I used to, but I still strongly despise a large portion of them. Of course I do. I love Ricky Gervais. But I'm definitely not as bad as I was. And I've got other issues driving that anger, such as chronic pain. So it can't really be said to be entirely all an influence of Old Me, but I certainly can't dismiss that influence though as much as I would like to.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Perhaps Democrats and Republicans are more united than we think. Perhaps, this is really a disagreement about how to achieve common goals.
Higher or Lower Taxes
Likeable personality vs Makes Deals
Cut Unnecessary Regulation vs Green New Deal
Build a Wall vs Don't Build a Wall
That may be true for some, and 60 or 70 years ago, when conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans were not uncommon, such policy-oriented identification was probably common, too.
It was easier back then. America was strong, confident and prosperous. Jobs were plentiful, the middle class was growing. It was a land of opportunity.

Now many people are angry. Wages are stagnant, jobs moved overseas, the middle class is struggling, social mobility's diminished the social hierarchy's changing. Many people feel insecure, resentful, even threatened -- and justifiably.

Who's to blame? The special interests that undid the checks and balances, the regulations, the social programs and unions; have convinced the right that their problems are due to those elitist, know-it-all liberal radicals that want to destroy our freedom, take our guns, raise our taxes to redistribute our earnings to lazy slackers.

The far right has allied itself with their oppressors, and against the left -- who opposed all the 'small government, free trade deregulation that caused their problems.
 

averageJOE

zombie
What common goals do you think Democrats and Republicans could unite behind?
They are more in lock step than you think. They unite behind:

More wars
tax cuts for the wealthy
more money for the military industrial complex
more money for big pharma
more money for big oil
more money for big banks
more money for insurance companies
more money for Wall Street

It's illusion of choice.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
That may be true for some, and 60 or 70 years ago, when conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans were not uncommon, such policy-oriented identification was probably common, too.
It was easier back then. America was strong, confident and prosperous. Jobs were plentiful, the middle class was growing. It was a land of opportunity.

Now many people are angry. Wages are stagnant, jobs moved overseas, the middle class is struggling, social mobility's diminished the social hierarchy's changing. Many people feel insecure, resentful, even threatened -- and justifiably.

Who's to blame? The special interests that undid the checks and balances, the regulations, the social programs and unions; have convinced the right that their problems are due to those elitist, know-it-all liberal radicals that want to destroy our freedom, take our guns, raise our taxes to redistribute our earnings to lazy slackers.

The far right has allied itself with their oppressors, and against the left -- who opposed all the 'small government, free trade deregulation that caused their problems.

According to Gallup more Americans (56%) say they are better off than they were fours years ago, which is a just a better statistic (closest contender is 47% in 2004).
https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...duction/Cms/TGBCMS/hobqwcnhcuohd8gvv29fjq.png

I think that despite the consensus about goals (and the overall prosperity enjoyed under the Trump administration), there is polarization between Democrats and Republicans. While the OP suggests that people can come together over common goals, the question remains: What is dividing the Democrats and Republicans so deeply?

Do the people in these different parties actually have divergent goals? And, if so, what are these goals?
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
They are more in lock step than you think. They unite behind:

More wars
tax cuts for the wealthy
more money for the military industrial complex
more money for big pharma
more money for big oil
more money for big banks
more money for insurance companies
more money for Wall Street

It's illusion of choice.

I would've agreed 20 years ago.

What do you think causes the "illusion" of conflict between the parties today?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
According to Gallup more Americans (56%) say they are better off than they were fours years ago, which is a just a better statistic (closest contender is 47% in 2004).
https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...duction/Cms/TGBCMS/hobqwcnhcuohd8gvv29fjq.png
Trump has managed to rally a disaffected demographic, and consumer confidence, for whatever reason, was fairly good till the pandemic hit.
But I'm talking not about the last four years, but the last 40 or more, and the dozens of small, seemingly insignificant steps that have undermined the post war economy.
My question is: Is a burger flipper at McDonalds better off today than he was 50 years ago?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/
I think that despite the consensus about goals (and the overall prosperity enjoyed under the Trump administration), there is polarization between Democrats and Republicans. While the OP suggests that people can come together over common goals, the question remains: What is dividing the Democrats and Republicans so deeply?
The Eagles and Rattlers were essentially identical demographics, and once they realized that they were not "Others," and were working together on common goals, the animosity dissipated.
This is not the case with today's Democrats and Republicans. Whatever homogeneity they had fifty years ago is largely gone. They've sorted themselves by worldview, socio-economic status and psychological type into separate camps.
Do the people in these different parties actually have divergent goals? And, if so, what are these goals?
Broadly speaking, The Republicans are Neoliberals and conventionalists. They see the world as threatening. They support unregulated business, extreme individualism, "small government," law and orderliness, and the status quo. They lean toward authoritarianism, tribalism and anti-socialism.
The Democrats used to be the party of the people, but today are more 'Republican light'. They're the party of the technical classes. They're less tribal, more pro-social, more comfortable with novelty. They tend to have a broader, more long-term view of social, environmental and technical issues.

Today's Democrats and Republicans are different creatures, not just politically, but neurologically. They're wired differently.
 
Top