• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a solution for everyone?

Is there a solution for everyone?

  • Total voters
    18
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,942
Reaction score
58,495
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ok, here is how I see politics.

Everyone wants the problems they perceive in the world to be fixed in a way that they would like. Very generic statement there, but its important to understand.

Because, everyone has their own view on what should or should not be done society wise, combined with sheer population numbers. Meaning this, x% of the country is conservative, x% is liberal, x% is moderate, etc. Sheer population forces of the citizenry, whether one agrees with them or not, are still going to be a force to get things done their way. In the end, this means, even if one is staunchly conservative/liberal and whether or not they feel they are correct in their solutions, population numbers are still going to weigh in, meaning that even if you think something is the right thing to do, you will continue to win and lose various political battles.

So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
 
megaprogman said:
Ok, here is how I see politics.

Everyone wants the problems they perceive in the world to be fixed in a way that they would like. Very generic statement there, but its important to understand.

Because, everyone has their own view on what should or should not be done society wise, combined with sheer population numbers. Meaning this, x% of the country is conservative, x% is liberal, x% is moderate, etc. Sheer population forces of the citizenry, whether one agrees with them or not, are still going to be a force to get things done their way. In the end, this means, even if one is staunchly conservative/liberal and whether or not they feel they are correct in their solutions, population numbers are still going to weigh in, meaning that even if you think something is the right thing to do, you will continue to win and lose various political battles.

So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
Click to expand...

Sure, but only if (1) you create a culture that values political cooperation (which can take generations, the fewer the more active the effort is) or (2) somehow force people who continue to dissent to go along with it. It highly unlikely at this point that people will be convinced by any amount of evidence or reason that partisan politics are destroying our country's socio-economic structure and that everyone has a republican duty to be centrist.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Sure, but only if (1) you create a culture that values political cooperation (which can take generations, the fewer the more active the effort is) or (2) somehow force people who continue to dissent to go along with it. It highly unlikely at this point that people will be convinced by any amount of evidence or reason that partisan politics are destroying our country's socio-economic structure and that everyone has a republican duty to be centrist.
Click to expand...

That sums up my thoughts about it very well. I would only add that we are more unlikely to be able to reach the centrist positions (in Congress) with the current requirement for a super majority to pass any major legislation.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok, here is how I see politics.

Everyone wants the problems they perceive in the world to be fixed in a way that they would like. Very generic statement there, but its important to understand.

Because, everyone has their own view on what should or should not be done society wise, combined with sheer population numbers. Meaning this, x% of the country is conservative, x% is liberal, x% is moderate, etc. Sheer population forces of the citizenry, whether one agrees with them or not, are still going to be a force to get things done their way. In the end, this means, even if one is staunchly conservative/liberal and whether or not they feel they are correct in their solutions, population numbers are still going to weigh in, meaning that even if you think something is the right thing to do, you will continue to win and lose various political battles.

So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
Click to expand...

You're going to piss of a lot of minority groups by doing this.
For me, I'm not really interested in stomping on the voices of minorities.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're going to piss of a lot of minority groups by doing this.
For me, I'm not really interested in stomping on the voices of minorities.
Click to expand...

I see it as opposing paradigms between live people seeking creature comforts and security, both long term and short term, versus Corporations seeking profit. Those are the major paradigms, but there are probably a thousand minor ones.
 
I'd say it is feasible but unlikely. We'd have to get over our hyperpartisanship on both sides and actually have to strive to work together to better America.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok, here is how I see politics.

Everyone wants the problems they perceive in the world to be fixed in a way that they would like. Very generic statement there, but its important to understand.

Because, everyone has their own view on what should or should not be done society wise, combined with sheer population numbers. Meaning this, x% of the country is conservative, x% is liberal, x% is moderate, etc. Sheer population forces of the citizenry, whether one agrees with them or not, are still going to be a force to get things done their way. In the end, this means, even if one is staunchly conservative/liberal and whether or not they feel they are correct in their solutions, population numbers are still going to weigh in, meaning that even if you think something is the right thing to do, you will continue to win and lose various political battles.

So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of this happens already... but in kind of a haphazard fashion. This or that side has more control, passes certain bills... the pendulum swings and the other side has control and passes legislation... if it's not too far from the middle, compromises have to be made, "riders" get attached... almost no bill ever gets passed in an ideologically pure form.

With a few exceptions now and then, the ship mostly steers to the middle of the river, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I gather that you're talking about doing it more consciously and deliberately, however.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok, here is how I see politics.

Everyone wants the problems they perceive in the world to be fixed in a way that they would like. Very generic statement there, but its important to understand.

Because, everyone has their own view on what should or should not be done society wise, combined with sheer population numbers. Meaning this, x% of the country is conservative, x% is liberal, x% is moderate, etc. Sheer population forces of the citizenry, whether one agrees with them or not, are still going to be a force to get things done their way. In the end, this means, even if one is staunchly conservative/liberal and whether or not they feel they are correct in their solutions, population numbers are still going to weigh in, meaning that even if you think something is the right thing to do, you will continue to win and lose various political battles.

So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
Click to expand...
You'll never reach a solution for a given problem that pleases everyone.

One of the problems is that people try anyway.

Thus, we get bills with “pork”.
-------------------
I’d much rather something like this:
  1. Politician makes proposal.
  2. Political body politician is a member of votes on proposal.
  3. If accepted, pass to other body (using Congress as example here, this would be from Senate to House, or opposite).
  4. If rejected, either cease efforts in that direction or rewrite and re-propose.
Additional limits:

Only the politician who proposes bill may make changes, and none of the changes may address anything other than the central aspect of the bill. Further, none of the changes may specifically address an area of the country as separate from another (replace country with state or local area as needed).​

-------------------
Now, obviously, this is just a half-formed idea at the moment.

But I dislike the way most if not all things are handled in the current system, in all areas.

Far too many openings for corruption, stupidity, etc.

Said dislike prompted this thought(s).

Meh.
 
megaprogman said:
So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
Click to expand...

no. simply put, there are too many mutually contradicting assumptions, and not enough Venn Diagram overlap to produce the kinds of solutions you are talking about. And even if there were, the partisan incentives of our leadership would lead them to attack such solutions, once proposed, and a large number who would otherwise be fine with said solution will follow them.

See: cutting the wealthy out of the entitlements. which by all rights should be about as bipartisan as you get.
 
cpwill said:
no. simply put, there are too many mutually contradicting assumptions, and not enough Venn Diagram overlap to produce the kinds of solutions you are talking about. And even if there were, the partisan incentives of our leadership would lead them to attack such solutions, once proposed, and a large number who would otherwise be fine with said solution will follow them.

See: cutting the wealthy out of the entitlements. which by all rights should be about as bipartisan as you get.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is it assumes every problem solved at once with one action, which is not the case. Every area has different sets of overlaps, different areas where compromise is possible. Not compromising does not serve our country, and compromises are possible.
 
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're going to piss of a lot of minority groups by doing this.
For me, I'm not really interested in stomping on the voices of minorities.
Click to expand...

Neither am I, but that is how things work right now. A lot of minority groups get representation by latching onto a major party or they are like libertarians.
 
sorry, I was to distracted by your epic sig.
 
Redress said:
The problem with that is it assumes every problem solved at once with one action, which is not the case. Every area has different sets of overlaps, different areas where compromise is possible. Not compromising does not serve our country, and compromises are possible.
Click to expand...
Apparently not. :shrug:

.
 
Redress said:
The problem with that is it assumes every problem solved at once with one action, which is not the case. Every area has different sets of overlaps, different areas where compromise is possible. Not compromising does not serve our country, and compromises are possible.
Click to expand...

it doesn't assume that at all - what I am pointing out instead is that people's mutually exclusive assumptions about human nature and interaction will lead us into mutually exclusive conclusions. compromises are not always possible, especially when questions are more binary in nature.

so, for example, as an adherent of The Great Faith of Rum-ism, my god tells me to convert the whole world, and kill those who disagree. you, are not a Rumist, and have no intention of becoming one. Me saying you will, you saying you will not; outside of you saying "okay, kill me", there's not alot of room for compromise there.

Or, consider the question of abortion - and what a fun topic that is. One side is dedicated wholeheartedly to the notion that women should not have their bodies and reproduction controlled by others, and one side is dedicated wholeheartedly to the notion that children should not be killed when they become inconvenient. Now, both sides accuse the other of opposing their motive, but in reality both sides are opposed to the notion of government control of our personal medical decisions (think of the overlap between opponents of abortion and opponents of the health insurance mandate), and both sides are generally opposed to the notion of killing children when they become inconvenient. The question at the heart of the matter is non-compromisable, because it is binary. Is the life being extinguished a human child, or not? It is or it isn't - your identity can't be "somewhat of a human child" or "a human child on even numbered days, but not on odd numbered days." And so Abortion remains a heated, non-long-term compromisable debate; because the assumptions are mutually exclusive.

Sometimes compromise is possible - but only really when the assumptions are not mutually exclusive, but rather exist on a scale. So, for example, we agree that the state has a role to play in ensuring that all children are educated, but differ on how to go about providing it - we can find compromise within that spectrum. But increasingly our political process has come to offer us two mutually contradicting worldviews about how we should and do interact with each other. This election is going to be a real "ideology" election in a sense that we haven't had in a while, I think. Not since Reagan, really.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're going to piss of a lot of minority groups by doing this.
For me, I'm not really interested in stomping on the voices of minorities.
Click to expand...

How? Are their views more valuable than mine or others?

What he's talking about is compromise - you can't have everything you want but you can at least decide what's most important and devise a plan that tries to find a middle ground.

Unfortunate thing is that many people don't want compromise - they want *their way* or *no way*
 
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I think that many people oppose compromise because the two parties have become so diametrically opposed in their core goals that to compromise would be the same as letting the other side win.

That, and some people believe so strongly in X position that to compromise it would be to compromise their very nature. Or something like that.

For myself, I tend to have very few hard positions – but gun rights is one. In my ideal world, the fewest gun laws possible is ideal.

None would be best, but that is, I think, impossible. Humans being humans.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok, here is how I see politics.

Everyone wants the problems they perceive in the world to be fixed in a way that they would like. Very generic statement there, but its important to understand.
........

So, in the end, because various groups disagree, I think we should be getting creative and looking for solutions that suit everyone or at least the groups that are large enough to matter in any practical sense. (since this is not about truth, but about the sheer number of voices in our society)

My question, is this possible?
Click to expand...
Politics for most part is based on beliefs rather than problem solving with the tools available. In design engineering, not politics, you would think that it’s all problem solving but it’s not. Many engineers come to believe that certain solutions work and others don’t. These beliefs are generally based on having a solution work or not work in the past, then believing it will work or not work in the future regardless of some things changing. If people can’t do it in an engineering environment very well, how are they going to do problem solving in politics?
 
Frankly, I believe that as long as our legislators put re-election at or near the top of their agenda, legislative "solutions" will continue to be politically polarized in support of those that contributed the most money to their election campaigns. All the rest is just blah-blah...
 
Easy Rider said:
Frankly, I believe that as long as our legislators put re-election at or near the top of their agenda, legislative "solutions" will continue to be politically polarized in support of those that contributed the most money to their election campaigns. All the rest is just blah-blah...
Click to expand...

I think you are on the right path, all that sh*t about X% of this and X% of that is pointless. Because the people of this country don't have a say in the way it is being run. We the people of this country can take a good person and send them to Washington, and the lobbists for the big money in this country will swoop in and buy them off and the people get screwed agin.

The question I'd like to have the answer to is, Why do we need Representatives to represent us in America today? Why not just post the laws to be voted on, on a web site and let the people cast their own vote. To keep it legal post all votes on the site so that when the vote is over with you can go and make sure your vote was represented right. This way the true vioce of the people will be heard. If you are a minority then you are just going to have to live with the rule of the majority and hope that the morals of the majority protect your rights. I don't think you would be any worst off than with the system we have now with big money keeping all of us down.
 
dumbasdirt said:
I think you are on the right path, all that sh*t about X% of this and X% of that is pointless. Because the people of this country don't have a say in the way it is being run. We the people of this country can take a good person and send them to Washington, and the lobbists for the big money in this country will swoop in and buy them off and the people get screwed agin.

The question I'd like to have the answer to is, Why do we need Representatives to represent us in America today? Why not just post the laws to be voted on, on a web site and let the people cast their own vote. To keep it legal post all votes on the site so that when the vote is over with you can go and make sure your vote was represented right. This way the true vioce of the people will be heard. If you are a minority then you are just going to have to live with the rule of the majority and hope that the morals of the majority protect your rights. I don't think you would be any worst off than with the system we have now with big money keeping all of us down.
Click to expand...
The good citizens of the USA are too stupid to elect decent representatives and you what them to understand the ramifications of the actual laws well enough to vote correctly on them. Yeah, that'll work. :roll:

.
 
You cater to more people by having fewer rules. Every part of this country has communities that know what's best for it.

I think that the things which make people happy in life are not that complicated. But we now live in a culture of entitlement where everyone's desires should be fulfilled by government - and yes, this goes for both modern conservatives AND liberals.
 
Last edited:
To answer the base question no there is not. There is no shortage of people in this country who want to steal, oppress and kill under some bull**** guise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom