The Democrat Party Hates America

[BigMike]

I am still uncertain about BigMike.

Sorry. I'm taken.

[BigMike]

It’s true that in a lot of online spaces, real constructive dialogue feels like an uphill climb. Misunderstandings, competing interpretations, and even outright distrust often stand in the way of what could otherwise be rich conversations. And I agree—taking a hard look at why we struggle to find common ground could be a useful line of inquiry on its own.

When you talk about the root of discord, I think you’re touching on something deeper. In American society, for example, we’re at a point where ideological divides run so deep they affect everything—from our news sources to our dinner tables. And this discord isn’t just limited to any one forum or platform; it’s almost baked into the structure of our interactions. People end up talking past each other, more intent on defending their ground than really listening or reaching for that mutual understanding.

As for my perspective on Harris and Trump, I won’t deny that I lean a certain way politically. But it’s not about blind partisanship; it’s about principles. I believe deeply in policies that prioritize fairness, equality, and support for working families. If that view strikes you as partisan, that’s fair. But I’d say it comes from an honest belief in what I think will best serve people, not from allegiance to a party line.

I understand if my stance seems “saccharine” or “sophomoric” from your perspective; we’re each working with our own set of experiences and interpretations. But I’m here to engage, to listen, and to keep peeling back the layers of these conversations—because, despite the challenges, I think there’s always a possibility to find something real in all this back-and-forth.

[henry quirk]

Are you assholes at all concerned about what they did to P’nut the Squirrel?!?

3C05787B-29D0-4034-BA56-837682B10BF0.jpeg

[seeds]

...America bears responsibility to take-in the innocent men, women, and children whose homelands we've help to make unlivable for them...

So: how many of these innocents, these down-trodden, these victims of the US Jackboot, are you feedin', shelterin', carin' for, and attendin' to?

It's easy to talk the talk, but are you walkin' the walk?

I've always tried to live by the old Biblical axiom put forth in Matthew 6:3,...

"...when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..."

...which, according to Google's AI Overview...

This verse is interpreted to mean that when performing acts of charity, one should do so discreetly and without seeking attention or praise from others...

However, seeing how you asked,...

...I have been trying to help (in my own extremely limited way) the "innocents" and "down-trodden" since the 1970s through world hunger organizations such as World Vision International, and The World Food Program (a recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize), and sponsored by the UN.

Back in the 80s, I was even invited to (and attended) a small sit-down luncheon (of about a dozen people) with one of the past presidents of World Vision (Ted Engstrom).

How about you, henry?
-------
In case anyone is interested...

World Vision International:
https://www.worldvision.org/sponsor-a-c ... ild%20with

(WFP) World Food Programme:
https://www.wfp.org/who-we-are#:~:text= ... 0Programme
_______

[seeds]

I don't think the mild little term "buttinsky" quite covers the damage America has done (and plans to do) to other societies across the planet.

And the point was, that if America is going to help facilitate,...

"...regime changes, support coups, and back authoritarian regimes to counter left-wing [aka, democratic] movements..."

...which, in turn, has led to,...

"...political instability, economic hardship, and human rights abuses in the affected countries..." - (in South America and the Middle East to name a few)

...then don't you think that America bears responsibility to take-in the innocent men, women, and children whose homelands we've helped to make unlivable for them?

Again, it takes a special kind of (blind and heartless) American idiot who whines about needing to block the flood of refugees (by violence if necessary), when it was America's violent foreign policies that helped create the problem to begin with.
_______

I think you and Henry might be trying to accomplish a similar goal (justice)...

If you are talking about the seeking of "justice" for the humans of whom America's imperialistic endeavors have harmed across the planet, and who are seeking refuge in the U.S., because America has helped to make their homeland unlivable,...

...then I hardly think that the message and sentiment that henry is attempting to convey with postings such as this...

close the border

...is indicative that me and henry are trying to accomplish a similar goal.

I tend to wonder if there's common ground to be had or if we're all going to remain divided and constantly bickering over who's got it right. And I think it all comes down to which is the case; are we humans all one species or are we as many different species as there are differences in genotypes, phenotypes, religions and political systems. Lumpers vs. splitters. It's the Tower of Babel all over again.

Let's go with the "...we humans are all one species..." bit and try to figure out how to transcend the Tower of Babel.

Got any ideas on how we might do that, Gary?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

But I’m here to engage, to listen, and to keep peeling back the layers of these conversations—because, despite the challenges, I think there’s always a possibility to find something real in all this back-and-forth.

And so you should.

The back and forth, in and of itself, will not of itself produce any revelation or understanding.

I notice that you seem to be involved with a method or an area of study (a sort of general theory) that you think can be applied to gain understanding but I don’t think you’re expressing what that method or theory is.

[commonsense]

I understand if my stance seems “saccharine” or “sophomoric” from your perspective; we’re each working with our own set of experiences and interpretations.

From what you’ve posted here, as well as the elsewhere, I take it that you already understand that individuals on each side firmly believe that their opponents are irrational.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From what you’ve posted here, as well as the elsewhere, I take it that you already understand that individuals on each side firmly believe that his opponent is irrational.

Is that really it?

For me part I see particular tendentious viewpoints as being, often, partial and incomplete.

Factionalism in understanding is fatal.

[BigMike]

And so you should.

The back and forth, in and of itself, will not of itself produce any revelation or understanding.

I notice that you seem to be involved with a method or an area of study (a sort of general theory) that you think can be applied to gain understanding but I don’t think you’re expressing what that method or theory is.

You’re right... the back-and-forth alone won’t necessarily lead to any big revelations or shifts in understanding. It’s true that I’m approaching this conversation with a certain framework in mind, one that focuses on looking for cause-and-effect relationships to understand behavior, systems, and ultimately the issues we face today.

If I had to describe it, I’d say this approach comes from a belief in determinism: the idea that everything, from individual actions to larger social dynamics, can be understood through the chain of causes that produce them. Instead of seeing people or ideologies as abstractly “good” or “bad,” I try to look at what shapes them—historical events, economic pressures, even biological or neurological factors. It’s about stepping back and analyzing how things work rather than just passing judgment on them. That’s why I often talk about the importance of stripping away assumptions and getting down to the root of the issue.

So, yes, there’s a method there, and it’s one that prioritizes understanding the conditions that create our realities, even if those realities are messy. This framework shapes how I see the world and how I navigate these kinds of discussions, always with an eye on what factors, seen and unseen, influence outcomes. Because everything that happens is caused. By something. Something other than a supernatural or immaterial divinity, soul, mind, spirit, or free will.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If I had to describe it, I’d say this approach comes from a belief in determinism: the idea that everything, from individual actions to larger social dynamics, can be understood through the chain of causes that produce them. Instead of seeing people or ideologies as abstractly “good” or “bad,” I try to look at what shapes them—historical events, economic pressures, even biological or neurological factors. It’s about stepping back and analyzing how things work rather than just passing judgment on them. That’s why I often talk about the importance of stripping away assumptions and getting down to the root of the issue.

Very good. You have revealed a method or a means of analysis. What I think you need to do now is offer a practical application of the theory and method to an actual problem.

One of the reasons I asked you about what you have read on contemporary issues (I gather that you have read very little but correct me if I am wrong) is because there actually is a defined discourse about what is *going wrong* and what is wrong, or off-track, in our nation. In fact, a great deal of the social discourse is about just those things.

[BigMike]

Very good. You have revealed a method or a means of analysis. What I think you need to do now is offer a practical application of the theory and method to an actual problem.

One of the reasons I asked you about what you have read on contemporary issues (I gather that you have read very little but correct me if I am wrong) is because there actually is a defined discourse about what is *going wrong* and what is wrong, or off-track, in our nation. In fact, a great deal of the social discourse is about just those things.

So let’s go deeper into this. You’re absolutely right that there’s a lot of discussion out there about what’s going wrong in society—about what feels off-track in the nation. But I’d be interested to hear how you define these issues, what you see as the root problems, especially if we’re steering clear of ideas like people simply acting out of “free will.”

What do you think is truly driving the breakdowns we’re seeing, beneath all the surface-level analysis? In your view, what forces or factors are pushing things off-course? I’m genuinely curious to hear how you frame these challenges because I think that understanding the forces you see at work could take this conversation in an interesting direction.

[Gary Childress]

I tend to wonder if there's common ground to be had or if we're all going to remain divided and constantly bickering over who's got it right. And I think it all comes down to which is the case; are we humans all one species or are we as many different species as there are differences in genotypes, phenotypes, religions and political systems. Lumpers vs. splitters. It's the Tower of Babel all over again.

Let's go with the "...we humans are all one species..." bit and try to figure out how to transcend the Tower of Babel.

Got any ideas on how we might do that, Gary?
_______

I do not have any ideas how we might overcome the current state of affairs.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think the mild little term "buttinsky" quite covers the damage America has done (and plans to do) to other societies across the planet.

And the point was, that if America is going to help facilitate,...

"...regime changes, support coups, and back authoritarian regimes to counter left-wing [aka, democratic] movements..."

...which, in turn, has led to,...

"...political instability, economic hardship, and human rights abuses in the affected countries..." - (in South America and the Middle East to name a few)

...then don't you think that America bears responsibility to take-in the innocent men, women, and children whose homelands we've helped to make unlivable for them?

Again, it takes a special kind of (blind and heartless) American idiot who whines about needing to block the flood of refugees (by violence if necessary), when it was America's violent foreign policies that helped create the problem to begin with.
_______

I think you and Henry might be trying to accomplish a similar goal (justice)...

If you are talking about the seeking of "justice" for the humans of whom America's imperialistic endeavors have harmed across the planet, and who are seeking refuge in the U.S., because America has helped to make their homeland unlivable,...

...then I hardly think that the message and sentiment that henry is attempting to convey with postings such as this...

close the border

...is indicative that me and henry are trying to accomplish a similar goal.

No, I'm not talking about seeking justice for people we've harmed. I doubt that's even possible, other than to change our behavior. And changing our behavior is probably more along the lines of the justice I was referring to when I said that you and Henry are both seeking justice but in different ways with different results. Henry seems to think that if we mind our own business and not butt into other nations' affairs, then we wouldn't be in the situation we're in. That's probably true. Perhaps disbanding the CIA, NSA and other instruments of manipulating people here and abroad would be a good first step. Of course, good luck telling that to anyone who works for those agencies. Maybe we could offer them a really good package deal to all retire? \_('_')_/

[Alexis Jacobi]

What do you think is truly driving the breakdowns we’re seeing, beneath all the surface-level analysis? In your view, what forces or factors are pushing things off-course? I’m genuinely curious to hear how you frame these challenges because I think that understanding the forces you see at work could take this conversation in an interesting direction.

Now you are asking me the question that really you were asked to answer.

The sources of discord in the nation the USA are certainly varied. And the definition of what they are seems to vary with who is telling the story. (Like you in fact with your pro-Harris spiel on another thread: a decidedly partisan position).

To ask what is “truly driving” political and social conflicts feels like a grandiose question.

However, I think one might be able to begin to offer more humble answers. Common sense observations. Historical analysis would surely be a part of it. It is a wide conversation.

[BigMike]

What do you think is truly driving the breakdowns we’re seeing, beneath all the surface-level analysis? In your view, what forces or factors are pushing things off-course? I’m genuinely curious to hear how you frame these challenges because I think that understanding the forces you see at work could take this conversation in an interesting direction.

Now you are asking me the question that really you were asked to answer.

The sources of discord in the nation the USA are certainly varied. And the definition of what they are seems to vary with who is telling the story. (Like you in fact with your pro-Harris spiel on another thread: a decidedly partisan position).

To ask what is “truly driving” political and social conflicts feels like a grandiose question.

However, I think one might be able to begin to offer more humble answers. Common sense observations. Historical analysis would surely be a part of it. It is a wide conversation.

Alright, Alexis, let’s get down to the core of how I see this. Have you ever considered that every law in nature—every single one—is either a specific case of a conservation law or it’s simply a definition? Conservation laws are fundamental to understanding the entire structure of physical interactions. And here’s where it gets fascinating: the transfer of these conserved quantities happens through just four fundamental physical forces. Not more, not less.

Let me ask you this: do you understand that each interaction, every single one, involves exactly two entities? When one acts on the other, the reaction is equal and opposite. It’s an unbreakable cycle of balance and exchange. So here’s where I’m going—something that’s non-physical can’t enter this physical system because it has no conserved quantity to exchange. It simply can’t interact. Now think about it: if free will isn’t physical, how could it interact with the physical world? How could it start, stop, or change neural processes in the brain to produce thoughts or actions?

Isn’t that, in essence, psychokinesis—a force from nowhere, defying the very laws that keep this whole system intact? If we claim free will can influence the physical world, we’re suggesting a direct violation of conservation laws. And without free will, what does that mean for concepts like moral responsibility? And if moral responsibility is in question, what do ideas like free speech or religious freedom even mean?

These aren’t just abstract questions—they have practical implications that shape everything about how we view law, ethics, and personal accountability. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.