Can we stop the arguments about which side wants freedom?

[OddBeMe]

And also that stupid argument that republicans freed the slaves. Liberals freed the slaves and want equal rights for everyone. NOT conservatives.

Old white man. The face of the GOP

Yes it’s clean

No cuz…. uh

[Stoner710]

Was Lincoln a democrat know he was a republican Lincoln was a conservative.

Both sides have a completely different definition of what freedom is.

Let take sex outside of marriage. Republicans believe men and women who sleep with as many people as they want isn’t freedom it’s licentiousness. Your freedom is to be allowed to do you responsibly to get married have kids take care of your wife or husband in a straight relationship.

Democratic think freedom is I can sleep with anyone I want they think getting married and having kids is slavery or at the very least, you are undermining your freedom.

If someone is living on a desert island truly free? Or is he a slave to his own limitations?

[OddBeMe]

You are too enveloped by political party names. What was your preferred party during the Democratic-Republican versus the Whig era?

On some things Lincoln might have been “conservative”. But freeing the slaves and passing the 13th Amendment was as liberal as you could get in that day.

[Stoner710]

Probably would have started off in the Federalist Party. (There was only 1 president from that party). After that probably a democratic-republican if I didn’t know the corse of history. Jefferson was a great president very articulate writing wise Aaron burr was a jack ass (remember that was the time when the opponent became vice president) it was Jefferson second term (and the fact burr was convicted of murder). That they stopped doing to looser as vp. After Madison i probably would be voting mixed ticket. Especially with the legends of Andrew Jackson and Davey Crockett in the Seminole war. Jackson was a democratic republican and Dave’s Crocket was a wig. If I was still alive by 1830 would have officially joined the wig part. I use to be an independent, In 2012 voted Obama democrat and Rob Mckena I was 19, I voted mix ticket in 2016 by 2018 with the hole trans crap getting called a racist for voting for trump I went full blown republican. Even know if Democrats all they were fighting for it was legal weed and not pushing to the point of bankruptcy or green energy I would probably be an independent. (The record. I never really supported solar panels and wind turbines always been a fan of nuclear energy my dad know way more about nuclear energy then I do but it’s the best green energy I know of)

[riverrat3]

Exactly

[Adaeva]

Neither side wants freedom. They just claim we have freedom. However, in effect, we are all slaves because their is almost nothing you can do from adding a room to your house, driving a car to earning a salary that doesn't require, permission, a permit, a license, and/or is not taxed. Just like the serfs from the middle ages, their is a limit to how much you can be taxed or else a sufficient number of the people cannot survive. In the middle ages, it was 30%. Now because of technology it is 50% or a bit more and we are close to that limit.

[Anonymous]

Why did Democrats want slaves? Why not just pay them?

[OddBeMe]

Back before the civil war like 150 year ago? You seriously think the name Democrats are the same as today?

[Opinion Owner]

Why did they do it? Would you have? I wouldn't. I can't believe you people.

[OddBeMe]

Again, you think the Democrats of 150 years ago are the same as today?

Ok. Who were the abolitionists? Liberals or conservatives? Who wanted equal rights for slaves and who wanted the status quo? Liberal or conservative?

[Effably]

Lets say we stop it.

We agree both sides want freedom. They probably do. Freedom is pretty cool to have.

How do we move closer to freedom? Is there any common ground?

Could we all agree for example that... Press and journalists being owned by parties is a bad idea? I think so. Could we agree that death threats need to be addressed more seriously? I think so.

Could we further agree that legalizing political birbery is probably not in any people's interest and restricts freedom by disabling the drivng force for change? I reckon we can.

Now if we actually could all agree on things like those. All, more than those, maybe just one of them. Then what? Now we need to demand change and a response. I personally think people are scared witless at the idea of doing so only to realize their hopes will be undermined.

But there are Many things we can agree on. More than we disagree over I am sure.

[OddBeMe]

Um press and journalism aren’t owned by parties they’re owned by ideologies. Small change, but important.

[Effably]

I somewhat agree and facts are always important but also think you're missing my point on that one. Also they are not owned by ideologies but people. These people usually have political affiliations.

Which for example is why Fox will always come with a republican angle. Its owner is an outspoken republican.

That is not wrong by default. But having no neutrals means you always get biased news because their jobs often depend on it. News being owned by people with their own agendas is an issue for freedom. My notion is not to prevent it outright but to highlight that trustworthy news is needed. Most countries have managed this.

[OddBeMe]

Yes…but I doubt we’d actually agree what sources or agencies are neutral. Like this article researched it. I don’t agree with some, but I’m willing to let it pass. Like WSJ being centered. But ok, I’m sure they’re talking about news and not commentary.
www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

[goaded]

I think people, voters, agree that political bribery ("campaign contributions") are bad, but the legislators and right-wingers on SCOTUS disagree.

Bias in media isn't nearly as bad as outright lies by the media.

Left wing media, for example, aren't going to talk about The Laptop until someone comes up with a serious crime that isn't overshadowed by the fact that the blind store owner probably no legal right to copy and distribute that private information. The right will keep harping on about it and influence peddling, which they suddenly think should be illegal when the name's Biden, ignoring the number of Trump family members who profited greatly from his administration.

The lies about the election, however, are a serious harm to the country. Tens of millions of Americans still believe the election was stolen. Most of them haven't heard the facts of the Dominion case, because they're watching Fox News.

[Effably]

I am okay with us not agreeing on everything. If we agree on one thing we can start there.

For example I think campaign contributions should be null and void. It is legalised bribery. Buying politicans should furthermore be illegal and come with severe penalties for all involved. They are there to represent people, not barter their voters for personal benefit.

Lets say we could agree on that. We agreed we want increased transparency for politicans. Actually demanding that people representing a country are some of the best of that country is very reasonable - to compensate we can multiply their actual salary by 10 (this is actually going to hurt income levels among many of them). Changes towards this will go a long way to decreasing corruption and cause a positive upward spiral in other areas.

I think we could all agree on the broad strokes or that. Maybe specifics need to be discussed.

And then we tackle the next thing. And the next. And before we run out of things we agree on any country will be a Lot better than it was at the start. Now why is that not the general approach taken? Who benefits from two sides fighting? Surely not the two sides.

[OddBeMe]

Not agreeing on facts is an issue…and only one side has a real problem with that. I hate when people try to equate both sides.

[goaded]

I was thinking of posting a question along the lines of "Do you miss the days when people accepted facts?" (I'd just heard Nine million bicycles and its lyrics: "That's a fact/it's a thing we can't deny".)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd0e0gBhae8

[OddBeMe]

@goaded there are 8 billion people now, so fake news! But good song.

[Effably]

I still feel the focus on sides is nonsensical for achieving results. If someone says they're a feminist or masculist people will shout them down - perhaps for good reason.

If the same someone says they want gender equal health/mental care, opportunites and alike? Pretty much everyone agree. They may disagree on what that should look like but not on it being desirable.

And so to me, for a long time, anyone who legitimately cares about something and makes it a political rather than human cause does not genuinely care, or is too blind to be self-critical.

Good to see people are able to get along somewhat though. Song ain't bad.

[goaded]

Have you seen the latest Fox News poll?

[OddBeMe]

@goaded that surprises me.

[PragmaticProfit]

The Democrats have been frequently demonstrating policies that lean towards authoritarianism and socialism, potentially threatening the liberties of everyday Americans. While one might argue that Republicans are doing something similar by restricting transgender education in schools, some people believe that such topics shouldn't be taught to young children. The debate seems less open to discussion now. For instance, Biden's executive order requiring individuals with high credit scores to pay a monthly fee on their homes, which in turn enables people with lower credit to qualify for houses they wouldn't otherwise be eligible for, raises concerns. This situation contributes to a significant liquidity crisis in the banking sector, and instead of allowing banks to manage their risks, the Biden administration is pressuring them into precarious positions. This example, among others, illustrates that the Democrats may not always represent the party of freedom.

[OddBeMe]

My god…Biden is helping risky homeowners by forcing a small fee those higher scorers pay anyway?
www.newsweek.com/biden-raises-costs-homebuyers-good-credit-help-risky-borrowers-1795700

[PragmaticProfit]

The seemingly insignificant fee can accumulate to a considerable sum annually and an higher amount throughout the entire duration of the loan. It's essential to understand that with the introduction of this fee, landlords will likely increase rent, as they factor the fee into monthly payments. A problem emerges when a system encourages negative conduct while penalizing positive behavior. Historically, such socialist policies have been shown to undermine society over time, with abundant evidence to support this claim.

A major concern arising from these policies is that they compel banks to take on substantial risk without taking into account the volatile market, where they are already struggling to stay afloat. Banks must be given the freedom to manage risk in response to costly debt, interest rate hikes, quantitative tightening, and cascading liquidity problems. By forcing banks to provide loans to individuals with poor credit, the policy negates the very actions they need to take, exacerbating an already difficult situation.

Furthermore, the implementation of this policy through an executive order, rather than a democratic vote, demonstrates a concerning display of authoritarianism.

[PragmaticProfit]

A sustainable solution that does not impose undue risk on the banking sector would involve investing in human capital, specifically through education. By providing subsidized higher education to individuals in lower-income brackets, we can enable them to improve their earning potential and eventually achieve credit scores of 700 or higher.

The current education system already offers some support for low-income students, with financial aid and grants making it possible to obtain a degree at minimal cost when attending state-funded universities. Expanding and enhancing these programs can further promote economic mobility and financial stability for those in need.

Why doesn't the Democratic Party pursue this solution? One reason could be that it has proven effective. Since the era of FDR's administration and the challenges of the Great Depression, the Democratic Party has become known for providing social safety nets. By implementing policies, such as welfare programs, on which people rely, the Democrats have managed to maintain a steady voter base.

[PragmaticProfit]

In politics or game theory, individuals often act based on self-interest rather than for the welfare of others. They respond to incentives while seeking personal gains from the system. Human nature tends toward selfishness, and without democracy, tyrannical rule might quickly emerge. The need for votes to stay in the game is what makes democracy effective.

The Democratic Party has a history of implementing short-term solutions that appeal to voters, allowing them to claim concern for their constituents. However, game theory logic suggests that their primary motivation may not be genuine care. This behavior can be seen as a strategy to secure votes. Some argue that Democrats might not want low-income individuals to prosper, as their dependence on social programs ensures continued support at the polls.

The idea can be compared to the notion that pharmaceutical companies benefit from the ill health and obesity of Americans. By keeping people reliant on medications and treatments for chronic conditions, these companies may secure ongoing profits. This perspective suggests that the incentives in the system could encourage organizations to prioritize their financial interests over the well-being of the population.

[PragmaticProfit]

José Santos Zelaya, who held the office of President of Nicaragua from 1893 to 1909, governed during a notably corrupt period in the nation's history. He expressed a desire for his people to be "like oxen, strong to work and easy to direct." This statement is frequently cited as evidence of his authoritarian governance style and his intention to manipulate and exploit the population. I'm suggesting that the Democrats employ a similar strategy within the framework of game theory. Gaining knowledge of historical events is crucial for understanding contemporary issues and trends.

[OddBeMe]

I can tell when I get under a conservative’s skin when they leave five replies to my one sentence. Lol

[PragmaticProfit]

I would not have written five paragraphs if you were not interested in having a conversation lol. I hope that my reply here did not seem like a rant. I can sometimes be verbose, but I thought it was pertinent and could initiate a meaningful conversation.

[OddBeMe]

Ranting is a convo. And I read your shit and it ain’t even worth replying to.

[PragmaticProfit]

You're being insincere by not acknowledging the value of my points. It appears you exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect, overvaluing your intellect while undervaluing mine. You dismiss my arguments due to a lack of understanding. Your unwillingness to participate in meaningful dialogue and think critically is evident. Go ahead and support your political stance blindly, but don't expect positive outcomes from such a strategy.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah that ain’t Kruger effect. But anyway, you really want me to discuss fckin nicaugara and go through each of your bullshit points? Basically everything you value in those paragraphs, Dems are trying to do. Sometimes not well.

But democrats aren’t trying reintroduce bible study in school as well as banning child labor laws. Those are actual bills that have been voted for by Republican legislatures.

[PragmaticProfit]

"The Dunning-Kruger effect effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence."

[OddBeMe]

Yes it has nothing to do with another person.

[najekim]

Unfortunately, in this day and age, neither side wants any citizen to have freedom. That's how far to the extremes things have become. The Democrats wants to shred the US Constitution and have direct control. The Republicans want the same but within the constitutional framework.

The only way to regain our freedoms is to vote both the Dems & Reps out of office by installing third party candidates as the majority. 33% or less Democrats; 33% or less Republicans; and the rest third parties. And with NO religious influences.

[OddBeMe]

Don’t try to equate the sides. Dems are corporate but we still try to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. The Repubs are trying to bring back child labor. Or didn’t you hear?

[exitseven]

I feel a lot less free with Biden in the White House. With crushing prices of everything I probably will not get to have a vacation this year and will have to put off retirement at least until the election and maybe never if Mr Potato Head gets re-elected.

[OddBeMe]

You feel a lot less free? I didn’t feel less free with Trump. Yes there’s economic instability. Too bad we wasted money in Trumps tax breaks instead of reinvesting in the economy. But hey.

[exitseven]

I put those tax breaks to good use. Much better than pissing it away in Ukraine.

[OddBeMe]

You didn’t get any tax breaks.

[OddBeMe]

I seriously factored out a grand in tax breaks for us and it ended up not being so. All went to the top.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe I paid a little over $4000 less on my federal income taxes when the Trump middle class tax cut went into effect.. I made more money too. This year I got clobbered. Inflation was an indirect tax that also hurt most middle class taxpayers. The only reason i didn't get clobbered last year was because I collected unemployment for the whole year and Biden decided not to tsx unemployment payments. So I guess there was that even thought it was the federally mandated lockdows that caused my unemployment.

[OddBeMe]

I can’t disprove that and can only take your word. And then only read research from accredited sources
itep.org/.../

www.policygenius.com/.../

[exitseven]

Honest, I have a big property y tax bill that I used to be able to deduct the whole thing. Trump capped it at 10K. I used to write my wife's car off and deduct all her travel expenses but Trump did away with work related expenses. I expected to get screwed again but after I did my taxes and took the standard deduction I was 4K ahead of the year before and I made more money.

[OddBeMe]

Sometimes the math or “math” works out, wink.

But seriously, wider macroeconomic scale…Trump tax cuts was a huge influx of wealth from the middle class to the rich. Maybe we got scraps.

[exitseven]

I am not the only one who ended up with more than scraps. There have been published reports that the middle class got the lions share of the tax cuts.

[OddBeMe]

Where are those reports?

[exitseven]

I have seen a few of these on the news. They were from legit sources and i even saw one from the feds. Here is one I found
thehill.com/.../

[OddBeMe]

Fair, fair. But here’s the issue, billionaires don’t get “income”. But from what I see as the COST:
“reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion…(and)… increase the national debt by 80%.”
www.americanprogress.org/.../
www.politico.com/.../tax-cuts-trump-gop-analysis-430781

[exitseven]

I am sure that mist of my fellow middle clsss taxpayers that saw their taxes go down did not complain.

[OddBeMe]

That’s the scraps billionaires are giving us. I guess I’m the only one who can tell the difference.

[Ptrmbrs88]

Abe Lincoln (you know, that guy who freed the slaves) was a Republican president, so what on earth are you talking about? The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, the Confederacy, and was led by Jefferson Davis.

I know this and I'm not even American, and yet here you are, an American, and you're not even familiar with your own nation's history. You're a disgrace.

[inhua]

yeah we should stop the arguments because the political left has proven to want control the masses time and time again

[OddBeMe]

How so?

[inhua]

cancel culture, censorship, riots, violence, indoctrination, propaganda etc. the list goes on

[OddBeMe]

Long list of bullshit. Sorry but you need to stop consuming right wing media, try taking a break.

[inhua]

lol you don't need right wing media to objectively see the real bullshit being spewed by the left

[OddBeMe]

No you do. Because the spewing is from retards on the street amplified by your YouTube playlist. Doubtful any leftie actually beleives most that shit.

[gorydetails]

So then the party who wants to ban gas stoves is not liberal by your definition. Good to know.

[OddBeMe]

FOR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS

[Anonymous]

You are a massive hypocrite.

[OddBeMe]

How do?