24 ms·

Is there really any common ground? My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to

Is there really any common ground? My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? In addition their leadership appears to be completely unwilling to act and good faith and the rank in file appear unwilling to hold them accountable for that fact. I would love to be able to see some way to find common ground, but It seems to me that doing so would just be playing the sucker.

miked85 6y ago
> My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. This absolutely goes both ways; that is the biggest problem.
- pm90 6y ago
  Sorry, this isn’t true, and it’s important to call out as such. https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-party-pathological https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-...
  - miked85 6y ago
    I think you just proved my point.
    - pm90 6y ago
      How?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - eagsalazar2 6y ago
      Nothing was proved either way.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      No, no that didn't. Just because someone denies an adverse position doesn't mean that they are fanatically denying evidence, it can easily be the case that the adverse position is false, and that they are open to seeing it proven true but haven't seen it.
    - Mitzi 6y ago
      Perhaps a better question would be: Consider two parties starting out relatively reasonable. Over time, members of both parties claim the other party is becoming unreasonable or outright crazy. This could be true in the following to scenarios: (1) Both parties have become crazy. Both parties would be correct in their claims but of course also guilty of having gone crazy. (2) Party A has stayed reasonable and party B has become crazy. Party A would be correct in their claim and party B's claim would be part of them being crazy. How do you distinguish between (1) and (2) from the outside?
- faitswulff 6y ago
  Absolutely not equivalent. Find me a liberal police captain who’s calling for Trump supporters to be shot in the head: https://abc3340.com/news/local/alabama-police-chief-on-social-media-about-biden-voters-put-a-bullet-in-their-skull https://abc3340.com/news/local/alabama-police-chief-on-socia...
  - curious_fella1 6y ago
    One loud, crazy voice doesn't represent the majority.
    - nate_meurer 6y ago
      Normally I'd agree, but in this case, the loud crazy voice is often Trump himself.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      She is not alone.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    If intransigence is justified by any violent idiocy among the opposition, we will have mass intransigence indefinitely. We cannot reasonably ask for peaceful daytime demonstrations to be considered separately from after-sundown looting and arson if we aren't willing to make likewise considerations.
    - faitswulff 6y ago
      The difference is that the police captain can shoot you and me and get away with it.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    If you go hunting for extreme examples then you'll certainly find them, on every side. Or perhaps we should stop cherry-picking the extremes as representative of all the people.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  It goes both ways, if you don't consider that one side has a leader calling out his people to be vigilant and prepared and in fact two men father and son have been arrested yesterday in Philadelphia armed of ar-15 with hundreds of rounds, the other has leaders thanking the volunteers of all sides and talking about reuniting American people
  - famouslastwords 6y ago
    >one side has a leader calling out his people to be vigilant and prepared What's wrong with being vigilant? I remember more than four years of accusations that Russia somehow hacked the last election. Vigilance would be prudent. >in fact two men father and son have been arrested yesterday in Philadelphia armed of ar-15 with hundreds of rounds Read up on the story. They weren't even carrying the rifle. The fake ballots were just a publicity stunt to mock the story of Biden's receiving miraculous overnight ballots. >thanking the volunteers of all sides and talking about reuniting American people Politicians all over the world say that after they won the election through various means. It's just a platitude and doesn't mean anything.
- linuxhansl 6y ago
  All this talk about "sides" is not helpful. What I will say is that there are those are reflective of their viewpoint, will question and review their choices, and change their mind about things in light of new information... And then there are those who are not and won't; those who act out of tradition and pride, those who believe in conspiracy theories, those who let themselves be played like marionettes with simple trigger topics, etc. There is a difference; but it's not left or right, conservative or liberal, it's reflective or not reflective.
- raegis 6y ago
  Disagree. When Obama was elected, the Republicans in congress swore to never support any of his policies, regardless of whether they agreed with them. (Eric Cantor and others admitted this in interviews.) This severely degraded the relationship between the parties beyond repair.
  - winter_blue 6y ago
    Precisely this.
  - arkis22 6y ago
    right. its THE BAD REPUBLICANS. not THE GOOD DEMOCRATS. completely ignore the never trump idea. (they didnt do this with trump huh?)
    - tempestn 6y ago
      No, they didn't. Remember the CARES act? House Democrats are still trying to work with Trump, and it's still Senate Republicans that are blocking.
      - arkis22 6y ago
        uh no. you're talking about pelosi refusing to go below 2.2 trillion. they stopped working weeks before just so that Trump wouldn't pass anything before election day. where have you been?
        tempestn 6y ago
        Sorry, should have said 'were' rather than 'are'. I don't agree with your framing, but thinking about it more it probably would be fairer to say that both sides can't agree in this case, rather than that one side is obstructing.
        arkis22 6y ago
        I'm sorry but it would be most correct that one side refuses to go below a certain value and thats the value they've decided is worth it. And you know which side it is.
- tw04 6y ago
  True. The ACA was after all, literally the republican plan straight from Mitt Romney, but Democrats were unwilling to negotiate or compromise. (Yes this is sarcasm, ACA was literally the Democrats meeting in the middle when they didn't even have to) Everytime someone like you makes this claim I ask the same question: show some examples. "both sides are the same" is a weak excuse for supporting bad behavior. The Republicans haven't acted in good faith since about the early 90s.
  - Steltek 6y ago
    Err, you meant Republicans were unwilling to compromise, right? Because the Democrats bent over backwards to introduce 160 Republican amendments to the ACA and even delayed votes to have more Republican voices heard during debate.
    - tw04 6y ago
      It was tongue in cheek, apologies if that wasn't obvious.
      - Steltek 6y ago
        Ah, yup, Poe's Law got me again. Sorry.
  - mmaurizi 6y ago
    I think this is a bit of historical revisionism. Yes there are some amendments in the bill from Republicans because Dems wanted a "bipartisan" bill even if they only got a handful of GOP reps (they ultimately got none). But the Democrats couldn't have gotten a bill more left-wing through the senate. They tried, but various Dem senators stripped out both lowering the Medicare age and the public option.
- jkubicek 6y ago
  I’m excited and eager to have discussions with people who don’t share my political position on the issues. However, I am not at all eager to have a discussion with people who are arguing in bad faith or staking their position on lies and falsehoods. What’s the point in having a discussion on the best ways to combat the effects of climate change when one political party has taken the position that anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist? What’s the point in having a discussion on the best way to fix the broken US healthcare system when one political party not only refuses to acknowledge that it’s broken, but is trying to undo what minor improvements we’ve been able to make in the last 12 years? The GOP has marked itself as an opponent to everything that Democrats suggest and has painted itself into the stupidest possible corner, where they need to fight tooth and nail against their own policies because there’s a Democrat administration.
  - pzone 6y ago
    The way you have framed conservative positions on these issues seems like you’re imputing bad faith to them and assuming no reasonable person could hold those views. With climate change, one doesn’t have to deny the science at all to hold a position that the optimal policy choice should be to do nothing, or to wait several decades before taking action. The science predicts some real but finite amount of harm in the future from global warming. Mitigations would also be very painful, eg carbon taxes that make air travel unaffordable to all but the very wealthy. And in terms of healthcare, everyone agrees the system is broken. In fact, one of Trump’s biggest campaign promises was to fix the US healthcare system. The difference is that conservatives see the government intervention in the healthcare industry as the main problem. (The Federal government pays 2/3 of all healthcare spending in the country, so our system is pretty “socialized” already.) Trump’s first step was an attempt to repeal Obamacare and start to return the healthcare system to more market-based solutions. However Congress was not willing to go through with it so we haven’t had any progress on healthcare since. Conservative views are not simply a bunch of people arguing in bad faith.
    - philosopher1234 6y ago
      There are some reasonable conservatives, and many completely insane trump supporters. I believe there are more insane trump supporters than reasonable people on the right these days, and denying the existence of this very vocal group that has a stranglehold on the zeitgeist is not helpful at all.
pm90 6y ago
Correct and it appears that even though Trump lost, Trumpism allowed most Republican Senators to keep their seats and they even won more seats in the House, and didn’t lose a single Statehouse. This election has been a repudiation of Trump but not Trumpism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I think there’s a good chance that the GOP leaders are almost as happy to see the backside of Trump as the DNC leaders are.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dbrueck 6y ago
Yes, there is a ton of common ground with 99% of the people on the "other" side, whichever side that is from you. If one big problem facing U.S. politics right now is that everything is distilled down to a binary either-or with no room for nuance, its sibling problem is assuming that everyone on the "other side" from you is the same, i.e. that the crazy extremist you see on TV is a prototypical example of everyone in that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
- harimau777 6y ago
  That's what I used to believe, but these aren't people I see on TV, these are people I actually spoke to. When they ignored the facts I asked them what facts would change their mind and was told point blank that there were no facts that would change their mind. I don't see how you can engage with that.
  - dbrueck 6y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree with you on that point at all - but for every 1 of those there are 10 (100? 1000? more?) who aren't like that but who, given what was effectively a binary choice, voted the same way that they did. The die-hard (blind) fanatics on either end of the spectrum don't make a big enough group to win an election, but the assumption that they are representative of everyone in that group is incorrect and - maybe more important - counterproductive.
  - gootdude 6y ago
    Indeed, how does one have a serious discussion with someone that refuses to acknowledge 2+2=4 because they "believe" the answer is 5.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    Without knowing anything about you personally except the distribution of intelligence here on HN and the way you talk about how much smarter you are than these yokels, you are probably not smart enough to have an outsize economically valuable model of the world and your “facts” are probably low-value memes you picked up in school and on television.
djitz 6y ago
This is not exclusive to any one side. That’s the problem with having “sides”.
ablekh 6y ago
I sincerely believe that there is definitely some common ground. Otherwise I would not have posted that thought. Is it easy to find that common ground? Of course, not. Will it take a lot of time and effort (from all sides)? Absolutely. But, in the end, it is certainly worth trying, at the very least. That is why I have listed the areas, which I think represent some aspects that I hope we all could easier agree on than some other aspects. Finally, I think that it is important not to generalize people, based on our own (limited) experience. Some people on other side(s) are more flexible than others. Moreover, I believe that people can change, including their point of view on various issues. If we will dismiss the idea that others are or can become open minded, we will shut the door to a potential dialog, which could bring us even more trouble.
rectang 6y ago
The USA seems bound for "illiberal democracy", a la Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Erdogan in Turkey, Kaczyński in Poland, and Modi in India. (If you are a Republican, assume a Democratic autocrat, and if you are a Democrat assume a Republican autocrat.) Democracy in general has the weakness that the party in power can constrain the ability of the opposition to compete. We don't yet know how to stop the slide into illiberal democracy from happening.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Hi, I'm from Australia. Voting is mandatory here! Turn out in our elections is 99.x%. You are not obligated to make a choice, but you are obligated under pain of a $30 fine to be registered at a polling station on election day. You can avoid the fine if you present a valid reason for not voting after the election when notified. Such a reason would definitely include "I was prevented from voting" or "I was threatened if I voted", and would be registered with the AEC and investigated seriously. Our Electoral commission is the most trusted government body in the country, and has maintained a culture of independence and accuracy. We don't have any form of electronic voting, but generally have election results on election night. Our system has multiple viable political parties! Factions on both the left and right of the spectrum at multiple government levels have successfully won and lost seats over the years depending on their ability to poll within the electorate. This has not resulted in them being regarded as "spoilers" to the main political parties, and has acted at times as an effective check on government policy since it encouraged cross-party negotiation through multiple avenues. Is our system perfect? No - no system is. But come election night, our representative government actually represents the people. If you got 51% of the vote, then 51% of the population, through some means, selected you as a preferred candidate.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    24 hours ago, a group of demonstrators chanted "stop the count" at an elections office. How do you get there from here?
    - old_hat 6y ago
baybal2 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? Politics is all about uncommon ground. People hardly ever can have one, as the word suggests the tragedy of commons follows quickly upon reaching it. Mutually beneficial status qua don't last as somebody always want to get more of the benefit than others, and exploit the situation. People are not born equal, tribes are not equal, nations are not made equal. There are always the weaker, and stronger. Politics is how you get along, and live another day with all above concerned. How somebody weak can live along somebody strong, without having the later kill him simply because he can. Same way, how a strong one can live with peace of mind knowing that if he lets the weak leave, they may well live to grow big, and surpass him in the future. Life is an endless play of king of the hill.
joe_the_user 6y ago
My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? Your comment about "facts or reason" is sort of odd given your post gives no details concerning what you consider these to be. I mean, I could fill in some but it seems like without you giving a clue as to what you're referring to, people can only shout for you or against you.
- xnyan 6y ago
  Here's an example. My facts, which I think are shared by almost all people for at least hundreds of years (at least anywhere there has ever been a plauge): 1) Sometimes human spread illness to each other via spit, like when they talk 2) A piece of cloth in the path of spit will probably block some or all of the spit That is the entire argument for wearing masks. Wearing a mask costs almost nothing, and you know it might help save lives if you believe 1 and 2. I live in a state where not wearing a mask is very common. Most people don't even have them on in something like a gas station. People are dying here at 2x the national average. My neighbors, whom I have known for a decade, told me that my personal wearing of a mask was a politically-motivated attack on their beliefs. Millions of people have similar beliefs.
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    Have you forgotten that we couldn't buy masks or other medical equipment for months because of China, and everyone, including WHO, Fauci, Obama, etc. were advising people against using masks due to shortage? - January 14, WHO: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳(https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152) - January 31, Trump suspends travel from China: Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation...). A move condemned by many, including WHO and Biden. - February 1, Biden: We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370 https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370) - Feburary 2, Health Commissioner of New York City: As we gear up to celebrate the #LunarNewYear in NYC, I want to assure New Yorkers that there is no reason for anyone to change their holiday plans, avoid the subway, or certain parts of the city because of #coronavirus.(https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/1224043155852537863 https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/12240431558...) - Feburary 24, Pelosi: You should come to Chinatown. Precautions have been taken by our city, we know that there's concern about tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc) - Feburary 29, U.S. Surgeon General: Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!(https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...) - Feburary 29, WHO: Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact.(https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...) - March 2, Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of WHO: Stigma, to be honest, is more dangerous than the virus itself. Let's really underline that. Stigma is the most dangerous enemy.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-final-02mar2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) - March 2, U.S. Surgeon General: You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider(https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips) - March 3, Bill de Blasio (NYC Mayor): Since I’m encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions. Here’s the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see "The Traitor" @FilmLinc. If "The Wire" was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film.(https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229 https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229) - March 4, Obama: Save the masks for health care workers. Let’s stay calm, listen to the experts, and follow the science.(https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208 https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208) - March 8, Fauci (Director of NIAID): People should not be walking around masks. There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better, but it's not providing the perfect protection people think it is, and often there are un-intentioned consequences(https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI) - June 5, WHO: If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.(http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.in...) - June 8, WHO: It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-08jun2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) --- China brought up medical equipment all over the world, which is why you couldn't buy any masks and other medical equipment for many months. This was not just a result of Daigo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90), but rather, China had its overseas companies send their employees all over the country to buy up all the medical equipment they could find: - Chinese property developing group Greenland scoured Australia to purchase bulk medical supplies - including masks, gloves and thermometers - which were flown to China. "Basically all employees, the majority of whom are Chinese, were asked to source whatever medical supplies they could," one company insider told the Herald. This exercise went on for weeks through January and February, he said. The entire accounts department, contract managers, the human resources team and even receptionists were sent on a mission to find bulk supplies of surgical masks, thermometers, antibacterial wipes, hand sanitisers, gloves and Panadol. According to a company newsletter, the Greenland Group sourced 3 million protective masks, 700,000 hazmat suits and 500,000 pairs of protective gloves from "Australia, Canada, Turkey and other countries."(https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mission-to-source-australian-medical-supplies-20200325-p54du8.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mis...) - Chinese-owned Risland Australia, boasted online last month that "90 tons (sic) of selective medical supplies" were sent "air transport direct from Sydney to Wuhan via corporate jet."(https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent-90-tonnes-of-australian-medical-supplies-to-china/news-story/be74b7679d7c8cb910d0f34713b2f008 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent...) - Sydney-based Mr Kuang, former officer in the People's Liberation Army, imported 35,000 sets of protective medical suits, 200,000 pairs of gloves and 10 tonnes of disinfectant from Australia to China.(https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-behind-export-of-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-20200330-p54f8a.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-...) - China stockpiled 2 billion face masks and 25m medical items.(https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stockpiled-2-billion-face-masks-and-25m-medical-items/news-story/5304e5a5080bd4087e4a9be9de210b97 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stoc...) Other related news: - Beijing demanded praise in exchange for medical supplies(https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-for-medical-supplies-16f5183e-589a-42e5-bc25-414eb13841b0.html https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-fo...). - Chinese government rejects allegations that its face masks were defective, tells countries to 'double check' instructions(https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-double-check-instructions-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-do...) - Italy gave China PPE to help with coronavirus — then China made them buy it back(https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/ https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/) --- If Biden/the democrats were interested in uniting the nation then perhaps they should’ve united with Trump against China instead of pushing CCP propaganda to attack Trump and blame him for everything. Perhaps they should’ve been honest about why they didn’t want people to wear masks for the first many months. Accept responsibility for the fact that USA is so heavily reliant on China, largely thanks to the likes of Biden. Perhaps they should acknowledge that they were wrong to encourage people to gather, wrong to attack Trump for limiting flights from China.
h0l0cube 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? Some policies, when detached from political partisanship, could be appreciated by voters on both sides. For instance, for those who believe in human rights and social justice (a supposedly 'left' concern), there's good cause for opposition to China. In terms of jobs and national security, wresting some of China's high-tech manufacturing capability back within US borders would be a boon for employment across 'middle-America' (a supposedly 'right' concern). More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. I think most people want the world to be a better place to live, with better human rights, and a wage. Allowing China to gain leverage on the world, despite a track record of human rights abuses, and building a trade deficit with them, isn't really in the general voters interest. And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy.
- akiselev 6y ago
  > More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. McConnel has already demonstrated that he will make it a partisan issue by ramming through a Supreme Court justice and recessing the Senate without even giving the appearance of considering a second round of COVID relief. > And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy. It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate, regardless of any common ground between voters because they, as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. Acting as the opposition even when they're in power is built into the party at this point, as demonstrated by the President's many legislative failures starting with the ACA repeal. It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    You've missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about one legislator, I'm talking about an entire nation. At the end of the day, the one leverage you and I have over our policy-maker overlords, is the vote. > It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate [..] as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. The only way you can hold this belief, is to also believe that voting behaviour doesn't change over time, and that you don't have a part to play in that. What else could motivate you to speak with such passion if it were only futile? > It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo. You miss every shot you don't take. A platitude, maybe, but also a falsifiable proposition, which is clearly true. For instance, there's nothing magical about taking your vote to any of the independents with much better policies. Sure, their pitch for the white house is impossible, but they might make headway into the senate, and each % point that goes to an independent provides a signal to the established Red/Blue teams that maybe they should adopt some of those policies. Nothing magical about organising with like-minded people, creating and crowd-funding a lobby group. Or even taking part of one that suits your interests.
centimeter 6y ago
There’s a slate star codex post that describes research demonstrating that conservative Americans can predict the responses of progressive Americans to political questions, but the converse is not true. It’s not that conservatives are “unwilling to consider” conflicting ideas; in fact, they do a much better job of modeling conflicting ideas than progressives do! Most of the difference is, I think, not based on factual disagreement, but based on principal disagreements on issues like the personhood of fetuses.
- ghomrassen 6y ago
  It's the old adage, "conservatives think liberals are stupid, liberals think conservatives are evil."
  - klipt 6y ago
    I know a lot of liberals who think conservatives (especially poorer conservatives) are stupidly voting against their class interests.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      They probably still hate those conservatives though. Even now you can see the hate being directed to Blacks or Hispanics that may have voted for Trump.
      - crooked-v 6y ago
        One must consider the major confounding factor here that Republicans have made a substantial effort to publicly taunt and insult liberals from positions of power[1], and that being the target of that kind of thing can easily override what would otherwise be more compassionate interaction. [1]: One example: https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313 https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      What that tells you is... they don't understand those interests. Or they don't understand that their proposed solutions don't sound likely to solve the interests.
davrosthedalek 6y ago
Try to assume their views, and then work from there. What would you believe if you start out with the opposite's viewpoint? What is the easiest acceptable modification of their believe system? Move them step by step.
jcims 6y ago
In most cases you're likely just engaging in rhetorical volleys with the other person. Until someone trusts you to handle their concerns and vulnerabilities with care, you aren't going to get anywhere. The relationship is paramount in communication, and it's the one thing that social media (and the pandemic) has most effectively eliminated from our daily lives. In this particular case I think we all need to 'act local and think global'...stop sparring on the Internet and try to make inroads to mutual understanding with those that you can see and hear.
Rapzid 6y ago
I will give you an example: gun control. Wait what?! Doesn't one side want to take the guns away? Doesn't the other side want teachers with guns in schools? Well, it turns out the majority of Americans not only agree on the need for better gun controls, they actually agree overwhelmingly on certain specific controls as well. It's a classic wedge issue though, and FUD is deployed to drive that wedge between both sides which prevents most major cooperation on the matter. Unless there is a crisis, and then both sides will make an easy sacrifice to look like they are doing something. Like bump stocks. Nobody really gives AF about bump stocks, so they banned them.
newacct583 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? Florida Amendment 2. That's right, on the same ballot where Florida solidly selected a republican president, republican legislature and republican house delegation, they went >60% on a $15 minimum wage. Progressive legislation is popular. Progressives are not, because of branding and demagoguery (and no small amount of bald-faced lying). That's common ground. It may not look like it, but it's there.
tomrod 6y ago
Regarding common ground, I believe so. Just as several people were shy to admit voting for [candidate name redacted] those are the same willing to seek common ground. I worry more about those for whom politics is a team sport, and who ignore whom they marginalize in their quest for ideals.
lsiebert 6y ago
A lot of people support cannabis legalization, and Biden wants to decriminalize it and leave it to the states to handle. I've seen a lot of people noting how drug policy liberalization won big across the country, even in red states.
giardini 6y ago
harimau777 asks:>Is there really any common ground?< First one must ask whether there is "common ground" within the factions of the Democratic party itself. Once victory has been declared and legislators and executives ensconced in their offices, a feeding frenzy will ensue within the Democratic Party. Each faction will demand that their agenda be pursued first with the most money, time and effort. Unfortunately resources are limited (in particular time is limited to 4 and, in some cases, 2 years). Political infighting amongst these factions will increase to a level so intense that people may long for the return of Donald Trump.
markvdb 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? There can be. On an individual level, where there's mutual trust. At the right time, better not in the heat of this moment. I remember having a very fruitful discussion with a Trump/Pence supporting friend, somewhere in the middle of Trump's presidential term. My friend's background as a conservative evangelical is _very_ different from mine. He is a decent and caring man, and I am 100% sure he'd describe me in the same way. It started with hearing the news together. A few discussion points were Trump's pussy grabbing video, his anti-intellectualism, and the environment. The discussion also meandered through science and religion, religion as a fertile ground for symbolic language and ended up with virtue signaling. We were able to come to the conclusion that this Trump-evangelicals alliance would damage them for years to come. How it would be better for them to ally with decent people instead, whatever their view on religion. And here we are...
vonwoodson 6y ago
No. “Common ground” is a false peace flag... a friendly sounding phrase meant to play on liberal preoccupation with “a fair system” If you’re unfamiliar with how conservatives do business, it’s worth investigating. Start here: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A When you need to expand your knowledge beyond YouTube videos I’d recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Donald/dp/0190692006 https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-... A conservative plea for “common ground” is very similar to a mind game explained here: https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc

miked85 6y ago

> My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. This absolutely goes both ways; that is the biggest problem.

pm90 6y ago
Sorry, this isn’t true, and it’s important to call out as such. https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-party-pathological https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-...
- miked85 6y ago
  I think you just proved my point.
  - pm90 6y ago
    How?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - eagsalazar2 6y ago
    Nothing was proved either way.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    No, no that didn't. Just because someone denies an adverse position doesn't mean that they are fanatically denying evidence, it can easily be the case that the adverse position is false, and that they are open to seeing it proven true but haven't seen it.
  - Mitzi 6y ago
    Perhaps a better question would be: Consider two parties starting out relatively reasonable. Over time, members of both parties claim the other party is becoming unreasonable or outright crazy. This could be true in the following to scenarios: (1) Both parties have become crazy. Both parties would be correct in their claims but of course also guilty of having gone crazy. (2) Party A has stayed reasonable and party B has become crazy. Party A would be correct in their claim and party B's claim would be part of them being crazy. How do you distinguish between (1) and (2) from the outside?
faitswulff 6y ago
Absolutely not equivalent. Find me a liberal police captain who’s calling for Trump supporters to be shot in the head: https://abc3340.com/news/local/alabama-police-chief-on-social-media-about-biden-voters-put-a-bullet-in-their-skull https://abc3340.com/news/local/alabama-police-chief-on-socia...
- curious_fella1 6y ago
  One loud, crazy voice doesn't represent the majority.
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    Normally I'd agree, but in this case, the loud crazy voice is often Trump himself.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    She is not alone.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  If intransigence is justified by any violent idiocy among the opposition, we will have mass intransigence indefinitely. We cannot reasonably ask for peaceful daytime demonstrations to be considered separately from after-sundown looting and arson if we aren't willing to make likewise considerations.
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    The difference is that the police captain can shoot you and me and get away with it.
- manigandham 6y ago
  If you go hunting for extreme examples then you'll certainly find them, on every side. Or perhaps we should stop cherry-picking the extremes as representative of all the people.
romanoderoma 6y ago
It goes both ways, if you don't consider that one side has a leader calling out his people to be vigilant and prepared and in fact two men father and son have been arrested yesterday in Philadelphia armed of ar-15 with hundreds of rounds, the other has leaders thanking the volunteers of all sides and talking about reuniting American people
- famouslastwords 6y ago
  >one side has a leader calling out his people to be vigilant and prepared What's wrong with being vigilant? I remember more than four years of accusations that Russia somehow hacked the last election. Vigilance would be prudent. >in fact two men father and son have been arrested yesterday in Philadelphia armed of ar-15 with hundreds of rounds Read up on the story. They weren't even carrying the rifle. The fake ballots were just a publicity stunt to mock the story of Biden's receiving miraculous overnight ballots. >thanking the volunteers of all sides and talking about reuniting American people Politicians all over the world say that after they won the election through various means. It's just a platitude and doesn't mean anything.
linuxhansl 6y ago
All this talk about "sides" is not helpful. What I will say is that there are those are reflective of their viewpoint, will question and review their choices, and change their mind about things in light of new information... And then there are those who are not and won't; those who act out of tradition and pride, those who believe in conspiracy theories, those who let themselves be played like marionettes with simple trigger topics, etc. There is a difference; but it's not left or right, conservative or liberal, it's reflective or not reflective.
raegis 6y ago
Disagree. When Obama was elected, the Republicans in congress swore to never support any of his policies, regardless of whether they agreed with them. (Eric Cantor and others admitted this in interviews.) This severely degraded the relationship between the parties beyond repair.
- winter_blue 6y ago
  Precisely this.
- arkis22 6y ago
  right. its THE BAD REPUBLICANS. not THE GOOD DEMOCRATS. completely ignore the never trump idea. (they didnt do this with trump huh?)
  - tempestn 6y ago
    No, they didn't. Remember the CARES act? House Democrats are still trying to work with Trump, and it's still Senate Republicans that are blocking.
    - arkis22 6y ago
      uh no. you're talking about pelosi refusing to go below 2.2 trillion. they stopped working weeks before just so that Trump wouldn't pass anything before election day. where have you been?
      - tempestn 6y ago
        Sorry, should have said 'were' rather than 'are'. I don't agree with your framing, but thinking about it more it probably would be fairer to say that both sides can't agree in this case, rather than that one side is obstructing.
        arkis22 6y ago
        I'm sorry but it would be most correct that one side refuses to go below a certain value and thats the value they've decided is worth it. And you know which side it is.
tw04 6y ago
True. The ACA was after all, literally the republican plan straight from Mitt Romney, but Democrats were unwilling to negotiate or compromise. (Yes this is sarcasm, ACA was literally the Democrats meeting in the middle when they didn't even have to) Everytime someone like you makes this claim I ask the same question: show some examples. "both sides are the same" is a weak excuse for supporting bad behavior. The Republicans haven't acted in good faith since about the early 90s.
- Steltek 6y ago
  Err, you meant Republicans were unwilling to compromise, right? Because the Democrats bent over backwards to introduce 160 Republican amendments to the ACA and even delayed votes to have more Republican voices heard during debate.
  - tw04 6y ago
    It was tongue in cheek, apologies if that wasn't obvious.
    - Steltek 6y ago
      Ah, yup, Poe's Law got me again. Sorry.
- mmaurizi 6y ago
  I think this is a bit of historical revisionism. Yes there are some amendments in the bill from Republicans because Dems wanted a "bipartisan" bill even if they only got a handful of GOP reps (they ultimately got none). But the Democrats couldn't have gotten a bill more left-wing through the senate. They tried, but various Dem senators stripped out both lowering the Medicare age and the public option.
jkubicek 6y ago
I’m excited and eager to have discussions with people who don’t share my political position on the issues. However, I am not at all eager to have a discussion with people who are arguing in bad faith or staking their position on lies and falsehoods. What’s the point in having a discussion on the best ways to combat the effects of climate change when one political party has taken the position that anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist? What’s the point in having a discussion on the best way to fix the broken US healthcare system when one political party not only refuses to acknowledge that it’s broken, but is trying to undo what minor improvements we’ve been able to make in the last 12 years? The GOP has marked itself as an opponent to everything that Democrats suggest and has painted itself into the stupidest possible corner, where they need to fight tooth and nail against their own policies because there’s a Democrat administration.
- pzone 6y ago
  The way you have framed conservative positions on these issues seems like you’re imputing bad faith to them and assuming no reasonable person could hold those views. With climate change, one doesn’t have to deny the science at all to hold a position that the optimal policy choice should be to do nothing, or to wait several decades before taking action. The science predicts some real but finite amount of harm in the future from global warming. Mitigations would also be very painful, eg carbon taxes that make air travel unaffordable to all but the very wealthy. And in terms of healthcare, everyone agrees the system is broken. In fact, one of Trump’s biggest campaign promises was to fix the US healthcare system. The difference is that conservatives see the government intervention in the healthcare industry as the main problem. (The Federal government pays 2/3 of all healthcare spending in the country, so our system is pretty “socialized” already.) Trump’s first step was an attempt to repeal Obamacare and start to return the healthcare system to more market-based solutions. However Congress was not willing to go through with it so we haven’t had any progress on healthcare since. Conservative views are not simply a bunch of people arguing in bad faith.
  - philosopher1234 6y ago
    There are some reasonable conservatives, and many completely insane trump supporters. I believe there are more insane trump supporters than reasonable people on the right these days, and denying the existence of this very vocal group that has a stranglehold on the zeitgeist is not helpful at all.

pm90 6y ago

Correct and it appears that even though Trump lost, Trumpism allowed most Republican Senators to keep their seats and they even won more seats in the House, and didn’t lose a single Statehouse. This election has been a repudiation of Trump but not Trumpism.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 6y ago
I think there’s a good chance that the GOP leaders are almost as happy to see the backside of Trump as the DNC leaders are.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dbrueck 6y ago

Yes, there is a ton of common ground with 99% of the people on the "other" side, whichever side that is from you. If one big problem facing U.S. politics right now is that everything is distilled down to a binary either-or with no room for nuance, its sibling problem is assuming that everyone on the "other side" from you is the same, i.e. that the crazy extremist you see on TV is a prototypical example of everyone in that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

harimau777 6y ago
That's what I used to believe, but these aren't people I see on TV, these are people I actually spoke to. When they ignored the facts I asked them what facts would change their mind and was told point blank that there were no facts that would change their mind. I don't see how you can engage with that.
- dbrueck 6y ago
  Sure, I don't disagree with you on that point at all - but for every 1 of those there are 10 (100? 1000? more?) who aren't like that but who, given what was effectively a binary choice, voted the same way that they did. The die-hard (blind) fanatics on either end of the spectrum don't make a big enough group to win an election, but the assumption that they are representative of everyone in that group is incorrect and - maybe more important - counterproductive.
- gootdude 6y ago
  Indeed, how does one have a serious discussion with someone that refuses to acknowledge 2+2=4 because they "believe" the answer is 5.
- centimeter 6y ago
  Without knowing anything about you personally except the distribution of intelligence here on HN and the way you talk about how much smarter you are than these yokels, you are probably not smart enough to have an outsize economically valuable model of the world and your “facts” are probably low-value memes you picked up in school and on television.

djitz 6y ago

This is not exclusive to any one side. That’s the problem with having “sides”.

ablekh 6y ago

I sincerely believe that there is definitely some common ground. Otherwise I would not have posted that thought. Is it easy to find that common ground? Of course, not. Will it take a lot of time and effort (from all sides)? Absolutely. But, in the end, it is certainly worth trying, at the very least. That is why I have listed the areas, which I think represent some aspects that I hope we all could easier agree on than some other aspects. Finally, I think that it is important not to generalize people, based on our own (limited) experience. Some people on other side(s) are more flexible than others. Moreover, I believe that people can change, including their point of view on various issues. If we will dismiss the idea that others are or can become open minded, we will shut the door to a potential dialog, which could bring us even more trouble.

rectang 6y ago

The USA seems bound for "illiberal democracy", a la Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Erdogan in Turkey, Kaczyński in Poland, and Modi in India. (If you are a Republican, assume a Democratic autocrat, and if you are a Democrat assume a Republican autocrat.) Democracy in general has the weakness that the party in power can constrain the ability of the opposition to compete. We don't yet know how to stop the slide into illiberal democracy from happening.

XorNot 6y ago
Hi, I'm from Australia. Voting is mandatory here! Turn out in our elections is 99.x%. You are not obligated to make a choice, but you are obligated under pain of a $30 fine to be registered at a polling station on election day. You can avoid the fine if you present a valid reason for not voting after the election when notified. Such a reason would definitely include "I was prevented from voting" or "I was threatened if I voted", and would be registered with the AEC and investigated seriously. Our Electoral commission is the most trusted government body in the country, and has maintained a culture of independence and accuracy. We don't have any form of electronic voting, but generally have election results on election night. Our system has multiple viable political parties! Factions on both the left and right of the spectrum at multiple government levels have successfully won and lost seats over the years depending on their ability to poll within the electorate. This has not resulted in them being regarded as "spoilers" to the main political parties, and has acted at times as an effective check on government policy since it encouraged cross-party negotiation through multiple avenues. Is our system perfect? No - no system is. But come election night, our representative government actually represents the people. If you got 51% of the vote, then 51% of the population, through some means, selected you as a preferred candidate.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  24 hours ago, a group of demonstrators chanted "stop the count" at an elections office. How do you get there from here?
  - old_hat 6y ago

baybal2 6y ago

> Is there really any common ground? Politics is all about uncommon ground. People hardly ever can have one, as the word suggests the tragedy of commons follows quickly upon reaching it. Mutually beneficial status qua don't last as somebody always want to get more of the benefit than others, and exploit the situation. People are not born equal, tribes are not equal, nations are not made equal. There are always the weaker, and stronger. Politics is how you get along, and live another day with all above concerned. How somebody weak can live along somebody strong, without having the later kill him simply because he can. Same way, how a strong one can live with peace of mind knowing that if he lets the weak leave, they may well live to grow big, and surpass him in the future. Life is an endless play of king of the hill.

joe_the_user 6y ago

My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? Your comment about "facts or reason" is sort of odd given your post gives no details concerning what you consider these to be. I mean, I could fill in some but it seems like without you giving a clue as to what you're referring to, people can only shout for you or against you.

xnyan 6y ago
Here's an example. My facts, which I think are shared by almost all people for at least hundreds of years (at least anywhere there has ever been a plauge): 1) Sometimes human spread illness to each other via spit, like when they talk 2) A piece of cloth in the path of spit will probably block some or all of the spit That is the entire argument for wearing masks. Wearing a mask costs almost nothing, and you know it might help save lives if you believe 1 and 2. I live in a state where not wearing a mask is very common. Most people don't even have them on in something like a gas station. People are dying here at 2x the national average. My neighbors, whom I have known for a decade, told me that my personal wearing of a mask was a politically-motivated attack on their beliefs. Millions of people have similar beliefs.
- abc-xyz 6y ago
  Have you forgotten that we couldn't buy masks or other medical equipment for months because of China, and everyone, including WHO, Fauci, Obama, etc. were advising people against using masks due to shortage? - January 14, WHO: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳(https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152) - January 31, Trump suspends travel from China: Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation...). A move condemned by many, including WHO and Biden. - February 1, Biden: We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370 https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370) - Feburary 2, Health Commissioner of New York City: As we gear up to celebrate the #LunarNewYear in NYC, I want to assure New Yorkers that there is no reason for anyone to change their holiday plans, avoid the subway, or certain parts of the city because of #coronavirus.(https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/1224043155852537863 https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/12240431558...) - Feburary 24, Pelosi: You should come to Chinatown. Precautions have been taken by our city, we know that there's concern about tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc) - Feburary 29, U.S. Surgeon General: Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!(https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...) - Feburary 29, WHO: Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact.(https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...) - March 2, Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of WHO: Stigma, to be honest, is more dangerous than the virus itself. Let's really underline that. Stigma is the most dangerous enemy.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-final-02mar2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) - March 2, U.S. Surgeon General: You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider(https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips) - March 3, Bill de Blasio (NYC Mayor): Since I’m encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions. Here’s the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see "The Traitor" @FilmLinc. If "The Wire" was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film.(https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229 https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229) - March 4, Obama: Save the masks for health care workers. Let’s stay calm, listen to the experts, and follow the science.(https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208 https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208) - March 8, Fauci (Director of NIAID): People should not be walking around masks. There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better, but it's not providing the perfect protection people think it is, and often there are un-intentioned consequences(https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI) - June 5, WHO: If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.(http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.in...) - June 8, WHO: It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-08jun2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) --- China brought up medical equipment all over the world, which is why you couldn't buy any masks and other medical equipment for many months. This was not just a result of Daigo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90), but rather, China had its overseas companies send their employees all over the country to buy up all the medical equipment they could find: - Chinese property developing group Greenland scoured Australia to purchase bulk medical supplies - including masks, gloves and thermometers - which were flown to China. "Basically all employees, the majority of whom are Chinese, were asked to source whatever medical supplies they could," one company insider told the Herald. This exercise went on for weeks through January and February, he said. The entire accounts department, contract managers, the human resources team and even receptionists were sent on a mission to find bulk supplies of surgical masks, thermometers, antibacterial wipes, hand sanitisers, gloves and Panadol. According to a company newsletter, the Greenland Group sourced 3 million protective masks, 700,000 hazmat suits and 500,000 pairs of protective gloves from "Australia, Canada, Turkey and other countries."(https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mission-to-source-australian-medical-supplies-20200325-p54du8.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mis...) - Chinese-owned Risland Australia, boasted online last month that "90 tons (sic) of selective medical supplies" were sent "air transport direct from Sydney to Wuhan via corporate jet."(https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent-90-tonnes-of-australian-medical-supplies-to-china/news-story/be74b7679d7c8cb910d0f34713b2f008 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent...) - Sydney-based Mr Kuang, former officer in the People's Liberation Army, imported 35,000 sets of protective medical suits, 200,000 pairs of gloves and 10 tonnes of disinfectant from Australia to China.(https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-behind-export-of-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-20200330-p54f8a.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-...) - China stockpiled 2 billion face masks and 25m medical items.(https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stockpiled-2-billion-face-masks-and-25m-medical-items/news-story/5304e5a5080bd4087e4a9be9de210b97 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stoc...) Other related news: - Beijing demanded praise in exchange for medical supplies(https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-for-medical-supplies-16f5183e-589a-42e5-bc25-414eb13841b0.html https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-fo...). - Chinese government rejects allegations that its face masks were defective, tells countries to 'double check' instructions(https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-double-check-instructions-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-do...) - Italy gave China PPE to help with coronavirus — then China made them buy it back(https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/ https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/) --- If Biden/the democrats were interested in uniting the nation then perhaps they should’ve united with Trump against China instead of pushing CCP propaganda to attack Trump and blame him for everything. Perhaps they should’ve been honest about why they didn’t want people to wear masks for the first many months. Accept responsibility for the fact that USA is so heavily reliant on China, largely thanks to the likes of Biden. Perhaps they should acknowledge that they were wrong to encourage people to gather, wrong to attack Trump for limiting flights from China.

h0l0cube 6y ago

> Is there really any common ground? Some policies, when detached from political partisanship, could be appreciated by voters on both sides. For instance, for those who believe in human rights and social justice (a supposedly 'left' concern), there's good cause for opposition to China. In terms of jobs and national security, wresting some of China's high-tech manufacturing capability back within US borders would be a boon for employment across 'middle-America' (a supposedly 'right' concern). More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. I think most people want the world to be a better place to live, with better human rights, and a wage. Allowing China to gain leverage on the world, despite a track record of human rights abuses, and building a trade deficit with them, isn't really in the general voters interest. And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy.

akiselev 6y ago
> More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. McConnel has already demonstrated that he will make it a partisan issue by ramming through a Supreme Court justice and recessing the Senate without even giving the appearance of considering a second round of COVID relief. > And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy. It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate, regardless of any common ground between voters because they, as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. Acting as the opposition even when they're in power is built into the party at this point, as demonstrated by the President's many legislative failures starting with the ACA repeal. It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  You've missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about one legislator, I'm talking about an entire nation. At the end of the day, the one leverage you and I have over our policy-maker overlords, is the vote. > It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate [..] as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. The only way you can hold this belief, is to also believe that voting behaviour doesn't change over time, and that you don't have a part to play in that. What else could motivate you to speak with such passion if it were only futile? > It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo. You miss every shot you don't take. A platitude, maybe, but also a falsifiable proposition, which is clearly true. For instance, there's nothing magical about taking your vote to any of the independents with much better policies. Sure, their pitch for the white house is impossible, but they might make headway into the senate, and each % point that goes to an independent provides a signal to the established Red/Blue teams that maybe they should adopt some of those policies. Nothing magical about organising with like-minded people, creating and crowd-funding a lobby group. Or even taking part of one that suits your interests.

centimeter 6y ago

There’s a slate star codex post that describes research demonstrating that conservative Americans can predict the responses of progressive Americans to political questions, but the converse is not true. It’s not that conservatives are “unwilling to consider” conflicting ideas; in fact, they do a much better job of modeling conflicting ideas than progressives do! Most of the difference is, I think, not based on factual disagreement, but based on principal disagreements on issues like the personhood of fetuses.

ghomrassen 6y ago
It's the old adage, "conservatives think liberals are stupid, liberals think conservatives are evil."
- klipt 6y ago
  I know a lot of liberals who think conservatives (especially poorer conservatives) are stupidly voting against their class interests.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    They probably still hate those conservatives though. Even now you can see the hate being directed to Blacks or Hispanics that may have voted for Trump.
    - crooked-v 6y ago
      One must consider the major confounding factor here that Republicans have made a substantial effort to publicly taunt and insult liberals from positions of power[1], and that being the target of that kind of thing can easily override what would otherwise be more compassionate interaction. [1]: One example: https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313 https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    What that tells you is... they don't understand those interests. Or they don't understand that their proposed solutions don't sound likely to solve the interests.

davrosthedalek 6y ago

Try to assume their views, and then work from there. What would you believe if you start out with the opposite's viewpoint? What is the easiest acceptable modification of their believe system? Move them step by step.

jcims 6y ago

In most cases you're likely just engaging in rhetorical volleys with the other person. Until someone trusts you to handle their concerns and vulnerabilities with care, you aren't going to get anywhere. The relationship is paramount in communication, and it's the one thing that social media (and the pandemic) has most effectively eliminated from our daily lives. In this particular case I think we all need to 'act local and think global'...stop sparring on the Internet and try to make inroads to mutual understanding with those that you can see and hear.

Rapzid 6y ago

I will give you an example: gun control. Wait what?! Doesn't one side want to take the guns away? Doesn't the other side want teachers with guns in schools? Well, it turns out the majority of Americans not only agree on the need for better gun controls, they actually agree overwhelmingly on certain specific controls as well. It's a classic wedge issue though, and FUD is deployed to drive that wedge between both sides which prevents most major cooperation on the matter. Unless there is a crisis, and then both sides will make an easy sacrifice to look like they are doing something. Like bump stocks. Nobody really gives AF about bump stocks, so they banned them.

newacct583 6y ago

> Is there really any common ground? Florida Amendment 2. That's right, on the same ballot where Florida solidly selected a republican president, republican legislature and republican house delegation, they went >60% on a $15 minimum wage. Progressive legislation is popular. Progressives are not, because of branding and demagoguery (and no small amount of bald-faced lying). That's common ground. It may not look like it, but it's there.

tomrod 6y ago

Regarding common ground, I believe so. Just as several people were shy to admit voting for [candidate name redacted] those are the same willing to seek common ground. I worry more about those for whom politics is a team sport, and who ignore whom they marginalize in their quest for ideals.

lsiebert 6y ago

A lot of people support cannabis legalization, and Biden wants to decriminalize it and leave it to the states to handle. I've seen a lot of people noting how drug policy liberalization won big across the country, even in red states.

giardini 6y ago

harimau777 asks:>Is there really any common ground?< First one must ask whether there is "common ground" within the factions of the Democratic party itself. Once victory has been declared and legislators and executives ensconced in their offices, a feeding frenzy will ensue within the Democratic Party. Each faction will demand that their agenda be pursued first with the most money, time and effort. Unfortunately resources are limited (in particular time is limited to 4 and, in some cases, 2 years). Political infighting amongst these factions will increase to a level so intense that people may long for the return of Donald Trump.

markvdb 6y ago

> Is there really any common ground? There can be. On an individual level, where there's mutual trust. At the right time, better not in the heat of this moment. I remember having a very fruitful discussion with a Trump/Pence supporting friend, somewhere in the middle of Trump's presidential term. My friend's background as a conservative evangelical is _very_ different from mine. He is a decent and caring man, and I am 100% sure he'd describe me in the same way. It started with hearing the news together. A few discussion points were Trump's pussy grabbing video, his anti-intellectualism, and the environment. The discussion also meandered through science and religion, religion as a fertile ground for symbolic language and ended up with virtue signaling. We were able to come to the conclusion that this Trump-evangelicals alliance would damage them for years to come. How it would be better for them to ally with decent people instead, whatever their view on religion. And here we are...

vonwoodson 6y ago

No. “Common ground” is a false peace flag... a friendly sounding phrase meant to play on liberal preoccupation with “a fair system” If you’re unfamiliar with how conservatives do business, it’s worth investigating. Start here: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A When you need to expand your knowledge beyond YouTube videos I’d recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Donald/dp/0190692006 https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-... A conservative plea for “common ground” is very similar to a mind game explained here: https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc