View Full Version : Simple Political Opinions
OR simple political ideas, is it possible in today's crazy political world? Not asking who's the best or worst choice, but more asking is it possible to walk in the middle without any really strong views today? Do you find this something that is even an option?
For me it is so strange today, I am to the point of not even mentioning my choice or my choice to vote against. Nothing seems simple about this year's election. My one neighbor is D other is R and both have strong views and speak them. I feel so wishy washy :|( that I say nothing good bad pro con.
Do you find this something that is even an option?
It's usually stacked so it can't be. Every issue is a multidimensional spectrum entangled with all the other multidimensional spectrums as complicated as far as you're willing to go down that rabbit hole. But what happens is an issue is separated from its connections to everything else, it's reduced to two opposing views predefined by someone else, and they limit you to choosing one side or the other, no if's, and's or but's allowed.
And if you don't embrace one view, you'll be accused of opposing it and embracing the other. So you end up forced into the game even when you choose not to play.
The political landscape over here in Germany is not easy at the moment, too. So I understand your trouble with the presidential elections. I am no fan of political debates or party programs, a lot of words but only few content. On one hand I follow my hart, on the other I check with the "Wahl-O-Mat" (some kind of online quiz) which parties match my positions best.
There is one for the presidential election online, too. Maybe this helps: https://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz
I any case I try not to think too much about politics in general, just too frustrating...
It does seem like there is a lot of strong-to-the-point-of-hysterical rhetoric floating around. Mrs. Clinton tells the New York Times "I'm the last thing standing between you and the Apocalypse." Anti-Trump imbeciles fire-bomb one of his campaign offices. Trump and Sanders make perfervid claims about rigged economies and elections. Major news sources decide the election is just too important for normal standards of journalistic objectivity to apply. Many seem to believe we are in a desperate struggle between the forces of light and darkness. The flee-to-Canada trope wears yet thinner.
But despite all that bloviation, the sun will rise on November 9. The Republic will endure, however messily.
It does seem like there is a lot of strong-to-the-point-of-hysterical rhetoric floating around. Mrs. Clinton tells the New York Times "I'm the last thing standing between you and the Apocalypse." Anti-Trump imbeciles fire-bomb one of his campaign offices. Trump and Sanders make perfervid claims about rigged economies and elections. Major news sources decide the election is just too important for normal standards of journalistic objectivity to apply. Many seem to believe we are in a desperate struggle between the forces of light and darkness. The flee-to-Canada trope wears yet thinner.
But despite all that bloviation, the sun will rise on November 9. The Republic will endure, however messily.
Yup - but it makes for great reality TV, doesn't it? The real winners in this election has been the media. You couldn't pay writers to make this kind of stuff up. And people are watching.
BTW, given Trump's recent dislike for the party, it may not have been anti-Trump folks bombing that office. One could also imagine them bombing their own office for how the story plays out in the press. We'll see.
When the world seems to be running around acting mad, I stop, think and choose my priorities very quietly and ignore all the chaff blowing around.
Yes, the media is having a wonderful time but unless people continue to choose to be mesmerized by it all, they would have to modify their ways. Sort of a chicken and egg question, is the media or the public's demand for more and more sensationalism?
BTW, given Trump's recent dislike for the party, it may not have been anti-Trump folks bombing that office. One could also imagine them bombing their own office for how the story plays out in the press. We'll see.
I understand the theory of a sort of Trumpian Reichstag fire is already bubbling up in the internet fever swamps.
I understand the theory of a sort of Trumpian Reichstag fire is already bubbling up in the internet fever swamps.
If Trump is elected the governor of Maine has already said he should be granted those kind of powers. And that was before this incident.
If Trump is elected the governor of Maine has already said he should be granted those kind of powers. And that was before this incident.
One troubling aspect of the last several years has been the erosion of respect for traditional constitutional norms on both sides.
Neither the current incumbent nor the two major party candidates seem to view the normal checks and balances as anything but an obstacle to their agendas.
Gridlock is shaping up to be our best option.
I find it simple enough to walk through life attempting to honor my political view of "I do not wish to initiate the use of force against another."
To my neighbors, this makes me an evil fellow. Odd.
I find it simple enough to walk through life attempting to honor my political view of "I do not wish to initiate the use of force against another."
To my neighbors, this makes me an evil fellow. Odd.
Hmmm....but you probably own the most weapons/guns of everyone else on this forum put together. ??
Hmmm....but you probably own the most weapons/guns of everyone else on this forum put together. ??
One thing anti-gun people never seem to understand is that everyday people own weapons for self-defense, not offense. A properly trained gun owner will never brandish a weapon without the intent to use it, and would never use it except to safeguard their life or the life of another.
You have more to fear from anti-gun zealots than from lawful gun owners.
One thing anti-gun people never seem to understand is that everyday people own weapons for self-defense, not offense. A properly trained gun owner will never brandish a weapon without the intent to use it, and would never use it except to safeguard their life or the life of another.
You have more to fear from anti-gun zealots than from lawful gun owners.
I understand what you're saying Alan. I just find it curious that Bae has shown us/talked about his guns/knives/swords a fair number of times, yet talks a "peaceful" talk. And he also mentioned that he eats his breakfast with his gun on the table. Yes, anyone could break in at any moment, but still........what he said above and what he's shown us in the past just don't seem to add up to me. How many weapons do you need to have or show people, in order to feel safe? It seems like it's something more than that.
Oh, and P.S. Alan..........I think I have more to fear from all those who have guns and use them on others everyday in the local city, than anti-gun zealots.
Being prepared to inflict violence and being aggressively violent are two different things.
Reducing the number of guns owned by the general population accomplishes little if people inclined toward violence are able to get access to the guns that are still obtainable. There are societies as well-armed as the US who aren't as willing to turn their weapons on each other as we are. There are well-armed segments of our society who have less interest in shooting people than other segments.
I think gun violence may be more a matter of culture than logistics.
Getting back to OP's original question I personally don't think it's possible. Not when there's a candidate for president trying actively to undermine the legitimacy of the election, and a long term senator who has just vowed to ignore their constitutional duty (as they have been for more than 6 months now) to advise and consent Hillary's Supreme Court nominees. There's nothing center of either of these jerk's acti No and everything about trying to destroy the legitimacy of the government just because they are pathetic cry baby losers.
Being prepared to inflict violence and being aggressively violent are two different things.
I think CathyA missed a crucial word - "initiate".
I'm really very good at violence. Many many sorts of violence. I practice an hour or more a day doing violent things. I help people translate, interpret the instruction, and publish old manuscripts that are training manuals for historic european martial arts. I've studied unarmed styles of combat daily for 40+ years. I haunt the back rooms of museums weighing, measuring, and determining points of balance, center of percussion, blade profiles, and so-on of ancient weapons, and recreate them in the forge to research their real-world use properties. Etc. etc.
I'm pacific, not a pacifist. I hope I can manage to make it through life without using any of these various skills again, but that is really up to the choices made by others.
I've studied unarmed styles of combat daily for 40+ years. I haunt the back rooms of museums weighing, measuring, and determining points of balance, center of percussion, blade profiles, and so-on of ancient weapons, and recreate them in the forge to research their real-world use properties. Etc. etc.
This is interesting. Could you answer some quick questions please, Bae, and then we can go back to the OP. By unarmed, what exactly is included?
Have you also examined the protective gear that was worn by man and horse and the manufacture of them? What got you interested in them?
Did any of the indigenous populations have these weapons or are they more from the Mediterranean or Asian cultures? I see them in museums and have often wondered on the history so any suggestions for introductory subjects to explore would be appreciated.
Back to the OP...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.