Kansas Crimson

Geezer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:34 pm Still not over the asshole Bork.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:20 am man, I was hoping to hold out for some more snarky conservative zingers before actually attempting civil discussion, but let's just get into it.

Trump is arguably the most extreme example of a lack of civility in politics, and very well may have changed the game. But is he a cause or a symptom? Weren't things getting ugly before he got into politics?

and what's something that both wings can agree on? 1 percenters are too rich and average joes is too poor? whatever happened to that occupy wall street movement anyway?

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:36 am jfish, my impression watching politics in this particular election cycle is that people are paying less attention to the national noise and deciding on local issues from their own district/state. That is a big change from recent elections and probably a good start. Although there are teams at the local level, there is also a lot of crossing of party lines to get things done.

In the end, politics really is all local, but the electorate has not fully accepted that somewhat for awhile. This cycle seems to be returning to earlier times, maybe because people are just tired of the national circus. Maybe because there are tons of female candidates, who tend to be more focused on details and local policy issues.

Lonestarjayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:15 pm

seahawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:07 pm

Lonestarjayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:55 pm I think we saw some on Friday. Three GOP Senators (Blake, Collins, Murkowski) and perhaps three Democrats (Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp) formed a coalition and got something for both sides of the aisle. Small steps. GOP wanted a vote on Tuesday. Dems wanted a FBI Investigation. Each got something. Maybe vote on Friday or Saturday. Not as deep as they wanted but the FBI is on the job asking questions. This all came about with Senator Flakes and Senator Coons being friends. A GOP and a Dem. It was give and take. I have hope for the Senate. I wish that Flakes had also included all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to votes with him based on the FBI Report. If the FBI Report is substantially the same findings of the Committee's Investigators, then all of the Flake Gang votes with Senator Flake. All 10 of the Democrats from the Judiciary (Feinstein, Harris, Booker, Durbin, Coons, Whitehorse, etc) vote for Kavanaugh on the Floor Vote with the before mentioned Flake Gang. If the FBI Reports comes back different, then Flake and the Gang vote NO.

Leahy, Harris, Whitehorse, Blumenthal, Klobuchar are all former prosecutors. The likelihood of a former prosecutor voting for a man they know--without an FBI investigation--has lied repeatedly and lied in the hearing on Friday to serve on the highest court in the land--unlikely.

If you are right that Democrats didn't need a FBI Investigation to decide...why did they beg for it? If they came in with a closed mind then vote and let the chips fall where they may. Does sound very tolerant for your tribe to decide before the actual facts are confirmed.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 amReligious nut.

Lonestarjayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:15 pm You just explained why you are closed-minded and then declared me closed-minded. Care to define TOLERANT to me too?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:19 pm soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:27 am I suppose a lot is on the media.

OWS had critical mass in a lot of places, but they were always dismissed in the (big rich corporate) news, because the real story was Obama's birth certificate...

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:14 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:19 pm soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

My personal operational definition would include:
1.) No profanity
2.) No name-calling
3.) No personal attacks

It is possible to argue issues without attacking the person, but it is a slippery slope around here for some reason.

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:49 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:14 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:19 pm soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

My personal operational definition would include:
1.) No profanity
2.) No name-calling
3.) No personal attacks

It is possible to argue issues without attacking the person, but it is a slippery slope around here for some reason.

4. No trolling. If you have a take, then support it.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:34 pm One way to define it may be, when someone is being snarky and antagonistic without any apparent intent to contribute to a substantive dialogue?