No discussion is happening because neither of the political sides, nor the media, wants it to happen. Honestly most Americans agree about most things mostly. Now when you have two parties that are really very nearly matched how do you separate yourself? You find things to drive a wedge between people.

You think Republican or Democratic strategists want Dems and Republicans to be able to talk nicely with each other and hash out issues, maybe come to a compromise?

Answer that and then tell me why you’re treating me as “YOUR party” when I’m calling for both of us to be treated as individuals.

Stfu lib

Nah, I'd rather just post your hypocrisy as proof to why your party is the party that it is & why everyone sees it like that.

JFLOL.

As an individual salty there has been a huge ashole to be time and time again. But that’s him - not “a conservative.”

I’m also trying to triage posts here as I’m trying to respond to everything that’s not purely a personal insult.

Read the thread title, and opening post to yourself.

Can you in good conscience claim that it reads like you're calling for 'both sides to be treated as individuals'? If you didn't want negative responses and truly want everyone to be treated as an individual, you could've approached it diplomatically. Instead you framed it as a right vs left wing thing, and that's on you.

Cut the crap.

Whatever mental gymnastics you want to do, go for it.

Doesn't change that you attacked him for his opinions and insulted him, but want to be treated with respect, JFLOL.

Your threads done, just delete it.

Fuking liberals, when will they learn?

It’s wrong when anyone does it. On this forum it’s done by the right. I just posted a longish response on why neither US political party wants us talking to each other, btw.

Again, I dislike HIM because of HIM.

Read post #31 and think about it.

Yes, i read it and i sympathize. However, it's not how you framed the thread.. so you can't really be too salty about being responded to negatively. Most of the misc read the opening post, they don't read post #30 or whatever number your post was.

You could've made a thread about political polarization, its pitfuls, why it hurts politics, whatever, but instead you chose to frame it as a left vs right thing. That is on you.

I am here for your original post, not what mental gymnastics you got to at #31 to defend yourself now after being caught as being what you claim not to be.

Just stop, you're making yourself look like an actual fool now.

FFS this is some cancel culture sht here. Don’t “gotcha” me in my words. I was calling out people here. In this place this that is what happens.

I’m doing my best to explain what I mean post after post, but instead you want to quote one line and tell me “what I really meant” so you don’t have to deal with subsistence you don’t want to hear.

the best part of this whole thread is that OP claims to be a lawyer

The actual definition of a Liberal is that the person is a free thinker, creative, and would like to find new ways to do things.

The people who founded the US were Liberals.

The definition of Conservative is a person who wants to use traditional ways of solving problems.

The US actually isn't based on allowing rich people to run everything, that is a traditional view about royalty.

Anyway, the hated "Liberal" is not a Liberal according to the definition.

They tend to promote the same ideas as the 60s which was over 50 years ago. It's the same exact kinds of messages about sexual politics, racism, etc. So, it's a traditional message.

They do not have solutions, so they don't promote new solutions to old problems.

Liberals today are complainers about classic problems, the environment, pollution, sex, racism. They have no answers.

Modern Liberals are very vocal Bourgeois, not Liberals.

Bourgeois are middle class people who want to maintain a fake bubble of stability so that they feel comfortable in their fairly easy life.

That's why they want to censor and shut down unpopular topics.

For instance, if you get into talking about homosexauls, no matter what you say is wrong, unless it's delusionally positive. The same goes for race issues, you cannot talk about them unless it's positive. With the environment, you must say cars are bad, or else you are bad.

If you say, what can we do to help black people improve, you are bad. If you say, yes but we need cars, you are bad. You cannot talk about trannies, you must agree men can get pregnant. It's all to preserve the fake bubble Bourgeois live in so they don't have to think others are uncomfortable and so they don't have to do anything about it.

Real Liberals were always focused on poverty and equal opportunity, but that is not talked about at all any more. That's because you can't deny poverty, so you ignore it to maintain the bubble.

A liberal complaining. I'm shocked!

probably some ambulance chaser

Ahh an essay telling me who I am starting with a dictionary definition from the 1700s.

Wow - I’ll take that right to heart.

JFLOL again.

Are you interested in a discussion like your claimed in your original post and throughout this thread or you just going to be what you say we think you're?

Just continuing to prove the point of what your party is.

How is it cancel culture? Have you been cancelled now? How am i doing a 'gotcha'? I'm explaining why you're getting negative responses, because you seem to struggle to fully grasp why.

Please, next time you respond to me, engage your brain first, kay? I even told you i sympathize with post 31, learn to read - but this is the misc, and based on how you opened the thread it's ultimately probably too late.

The simple fact is' you made a post on a predominantly conservative forum, and turned it into a left vs right debate, and now you're whining because you got negative responses and you were 'trying to be neutral HONEST'

At no point have i told you what you really meant - that's a strawman argument. I don't know what you really mean, but i do know how the thread is framed, and WHY you're getting negative responses... which i'm trying to explain to you but you seem to be really struggling with.. so instead you've attacked a strawman about me apparently 'cancelling' you or 'telling you what you really meant' (neither of which i've done)

I am not stating a thing about you so let's stop the strawman argument bullchit, i'm trying to explain to you why you got the responses you did. I'm not even sure i've argued with anything political about you in this thread at all.

You could have just as easily opened this thread talking about why politics is so polarized or similar, without labelling one side or the other and it probably would've gone quite differently, but instead you picked sides (whether intentional or not). What's hard to grasp about this?

I weep for our educational system if he graduated from college

I read his post, in which he tells me all kinds of things based on a group identity. If you didn’t notice I’m trying to reject that.

Thus I rejected his post.

WTF is the problem?

Find it very odd that so many of our liberal friends from R/P self identify as lawyers.

I read his post as well, he didn't claim you were anything - his response to your thread was actual the better ones that you've gotten and you shyt the bed w/ your reponse.

Your ego got the better of you, and just like your other responses, failed you.

Look, I was under no illusions this would go as I hoped. But, we have to try. This thread is getting a negative response because it’s not what people want to hear and this is, effectively, a male conservative safe space. I enjoy it because it’s a place you can say sht that’s super not PC and get a laugh.

I enjoy the posts of posters here that called me all kinds of things. I enjoy them because they seem like fun people and I’d get a beer with them irl and I bet politics would never even come up.

Treat me like an individual and I’ll do the same - whatever party you voted for. As the thread goes on and I say more and more things there are more and more things for people who don’t want to hear this to latch onto. Me dismissing salty for his hypocrisy, for example, is probably going to play out as long as this thread goes on.

lib plz

He defined what “liberals” are today. He didn’t say the party, he didn’t some or many, he didn’t say most - he said “liberals.”

If I said “modern Conservatives are neo-Nazis” and you’re a conservative I’m willing to be you think I’m talking about you.

Have some introspection.

Then that's your opinion just as this is his, I don't see where your mental gymnastics are taking you?

Your whole post was about being treated w/ respect and not being labeled, but you seem to be the most attached w/ labeling people in this thread.

I am trying to figure out whether you think you're onto something or making a point, but I am not too sure.

Huh? You understand that was purely a hypothetical - right?

I’m not making that claim.

Uh huh, of course it was hypothetical.Who are these supposed "nazis" that voted for Trump or are you, just as you don't want to be, labeling people based on no evidence?

Angry, blue haired, lib detected. Yes yes. Throw another hissy fit.