Cugalabanza

I can answer that. It’s going to continue to limp along in its dysfunctional state, with the political center identifiable as the charred barren patch chewed up by all the grenades thrown from the opposing sides which all fell short of their target.

Oh good, you ruined it.

You should make a t-shirt. I'd make that my go out drinking shirt.

Correct

This is an automated response. The title of this thread is misleading. Please change the thread title to “All Time Lamest Dimwit Snaps Battle Ever.” Thank you.

Better to be a 9 fingered 90 year old than a scarless corpse at 65.

I wish I liked marijuana more. My go-to vice is drinking. And although I don't think I drink to excess, it has done damage to my health. I have a lot of friends who smoke pot regularly and I think it helps them as a wind-down aid after work and I don't think it's as harmful to the body over the years as booze is. Pot just doesn't agree with me as much. It tends to make me anxious. And if you use a vaporizer, I think it's a lot healthier for your lungs.

Well, I haven’t gotten into the nuts and bolts of gun reform. I’ve never been a gun guy and I don’t know the ins & outs. For example, the semantics of what constitutes an “assault” rifle and the technical difference between automatic and semi-automatic… I’m no expert. Generally, I think you have to accept that gun ownership is a part of the USA. The 2nd amendment is with us for good. And gun owners need to concede that some level of regulation is necessary and reasonable. I don’t have any specific proposals. But this is the conversation that needs to happen. What you’re talking about with background checks is definitely in the ballpark. What’s the right level of intrusion, I don’t know. I like the cars analogy. Yes, you have the right to drive a car, but we don’t let little kids do it and you have to show that you’re competent and you have to follow some rules. Because the fundamental concern, of course, is Safety. I remember as a kid how pissed people were when seatbelt laws started getting passed. Many saw it as a serious threat to civil liberty. And car companies had spent a lot of money to further those arguments and to block & stall those laws. Kind of like how the NRA is running interference today. People have (for the most part) a different perspective on the seatbelt debate now. Also, I feel like GUNS have kind of been a red herring for a lot of societal ills. What tools are available to maniacs who want to commit mass killings is part of the discussion, but it’s not the whole discussion. And I feel like gun owners have (understandably) some resentment that the arguments made from the other side have demonized responsible gun owners and tried to place the blame on them for violent acts committed by a few crazy people. That’s just one example of how divisiveness gets bred and the conversation gets derailed.

Wow, I would in a second. Power’s overrated. I’ll just take those assbaskets of cash on my way out and live in peace. The only things I need power over are the alarm clock and tv remote. I guess that explains why I’ll never be faced with a choice like that.

That’s something I haven’t given much thought to. Honestly, it’s not something I would lose sleep over. I trust that people who come here want (fundamentally) the same things we do. Maybe that’s naïve. It’s something I should give more thought too. At this moment, my relatively unexamined take is that human nature would cause things to remain balanced enough that our democracy would not be threatened. I mean (half seriously), what are they gonna do, establish a paralyzing corporatocracy in order to obliterate the middle class? That’s already been done. I hasten to point out, I do not believe in unlimited immigration.

I agree, those are all good questions. Some on the left have been guilty of implying that it's somehow inappropriate to ask some of those questions. I'll say, on the idea of "melting pot": For me, assimilation is not a huge concern. At least, I don't think it's something worth trying to control. Where I come from on this point is: People are people and how they fit in with others is a fluid thing. As long as it's understood that the rule of law applies to everyone, I'm ok with groups of people defining their cultural identity how they please. How the ingredients come together in that soup, I'm willing to let myself be surprised how it turns out. Whether it's more of a consommé or bouillabaisse, I'm ok with it. EDIT: Full disclosure... I did in fact google "kinds of soups" in order to help make my point.

Yes. That's a good beginning! Following your questions: Specifically with our nation's "melting pot" history, how does an evolving cultural identity increase or threaten our security?

It's a big question, so it's hard to say where to begin. My first thought is that immigration is unique in that it has the "border" (us/them) component. That freedom vs. responsibility equation is in play, but also the question of whether and how much do we extend consideration to those outside of our [current] national identity. And that's where it would be valuable for people to make clear where they're coming from. For some people, the fundamental value is this nation and its Sovereignty. Also, to what extent is that national identity a fluid thing. Others view it more globally than nationalistically (sorry to invoke those loaded terms). In other words, how the hell do I know?

I’m not able to watch videos at the moment, but I think I hear you. When I used the word “principles” before, I should have put it in quotes because I was talking about the divisive ideological schemes that obfuscate real issues, not actual fundamental moral principles that many people might be surprised to find are generally shared in common. I’m not sure how fundamental you want to get, but at the heart of it, those axiomatic values would be the well-being & security of those that I care about and simultaneously preserving the liberties we enjoy and expect as Americans. I think the more deeply people look at what are the foundations of their beliefs, the more they would realize that they value the same things as the people they’re arguing with. When you talk about “structural systems and accompanying foundational belief systems” I have to admit I get a bit lost. How people build these constructs and make them work in the world—that’s complicated ****. It’s hard for me to explicate. It’s also how institutions and political parties and platforms come about, which are things that limit actual understanding and dialectic. I’m more interested in the ideas themselves. The heart of these issues, for me, is the tension that exists among the ideas of Freedom (to do whatever I want), Responsibility (including compassion and acknowledging the freedoms of others to somewhat trespass upon me) and Fear (of vulnerability and harm coming to me/us). Not sure if that’s what you’re getting at, but I do agree that it’s important for people to say what it is they are trying to do when they advocate a position. And what it is that they think is important fundamentally, worth preserving or fighting for. I think the more people do that, the less divisive the conversation becomes because it tends towards humanizing and finding common ground. Ok, I realize I’ve probably gotten a bit too abstract about it all. Sorry if I’ve gotten off track or misrepresented anything you were trying to say.

Well said. The gun debate as an example: Both sides dig in on a principle and it's ALL OR NOTHING! There's a huge expanse of middle ground in there, uninhabited. There's no discussion about what LEVEL OF REGULATION would be reasonable. Not everyone who wants to keep guns out of the hands of children and the criminally insane is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment. And lost in the war of principles is that the low hanging fruit of this particular problem (school shootings) would be to take a frank look at the security measures that were either not in place or not followed. For example: Why was the Parkland security footage on a long DELAY, making it impossible to see what was happening in real time? That's asinine. And why is it so easy for anyone to enter a school and bypass the front desk without signing in? And why was that resource officer so clueless, unprepared and unwilling to intervene?

I agree, but I don't see it happening. Those end goal principles, on both sides, have been so thoroughly demonized that it would be an instant partisan slapfight. It's one of the true hot button issues of this time. It's very unlikely that we'll see any rational conversation about it or any compromise.

It does take some skill, but if you choose your words carefully and are concise you can achieve pedantry and blowhardistry in a small space. In a sense, that is what poetry is. So, congratulations, you are a poet!

I don't think this is a good example of a "bombshell." It's not clear that this means anything at all. Some of the other things you've posted have been more compelling. This particular piece seems like a stretch. I can't see anything concrete in it. Am I missing something?

Agreed. He's a true monster of a person.

I honestly don't know what did or didn't take place between any of these guys. But Roger Stone is fascinating to me. He's like the answer to the question, what would happen if Bert from Sesame Street grew up to be a hard line Republican power player?

He’s already under scrutiny for excessive travel spending. He’s being looked at for getting a sweatheart deal on a nice condo from the wife of an energy lobbyist. Now it’s reported that the EPA approved a pipeline project for that lobbyist’s firm, during the time of Pruitt staying at the condo. Also, he reportedly used dept. resources (an EPA aide) to help him shop for housing. And he gave big raises to his favorite aides after the White House declined his request for those raises. So far Trump is standing by him, but I don’t think it will hold out. Today even a couple of Republican congressmen publicly called for Pruitt to resign. I’ll be surprised if he makes it to the weekend.

No. You said Mueller admitted there is nothing at all here (presumably meaning on collusion). Where did Mueller make this admission? No exegesis—just asking for a link.

Wow, I certainly haven’t seen this. I tried to find a story on it and couldn’t. Can you provide a link?

He has a natural skill as a shyster, yes. I think it's possible (and reasonable) to be dissatisfied by the mainstream media and still have an issue with the Sinclair move.