I don't fit well anywhere

Akita Suggagaki said:

Allow Civil union as a civil right but leave Marriage to churches as sacrament or church recognized union.

Click to expand...

There is no religious component in legal marriage.

Akita Suggagaki said:

But we also need to create a society in which women no longer feel the need for abortion. That means healthcare and support for young mothers and their children

Click to expand...

How about we create a society where women (and men) are virtuous? Too hard? Most things which are valuable are hard to achieve. You don't become a world-class athlete by sitting on the couch eating potato chips.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Abortion: This is my major bone to pick with the Democrats. Life in the womb is human life most vulnerable and we need to acknowledge and respect that life as much as the rights of women. But we also need to create a society in which women no longer feel the need for abortion. That means healthcare and support for young mothers and their children

Click to expand...

Democrats rather than legally forcing women (and in many cases with the GOP without exception) to full term; leave that decision between the woman and her doctor. Kind of like prohibition, the US has a history of what happens when a women's right to choose is removed. So how do we go about dealing with that sure fire reality? And yes, we need to have women's access to healthcare to prevent unwanted pregnancies. One party if they had their way would just do away with that. The other sees the value in prevention.

I think Christians need to realize we live in an inequitable society with rules that apply to some not others and laws that can be bent depending on the person or situation. We should cease to put our faith in untrustworthy people who murmur talking points to gain our support and betray us later on. This isn’t Christ’s kingdom and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so.

If you continue at this rate you will fall into your enemy’s hands. He’s much shrewder than you and the bible says the same. You live in the moment and they’re 20+ years ahead in their strategy. Get back to the word and use that as your compass. Not politics, religion or the media. You will be led astray and regret your folly.

~bella

Akita Suggagaki said:

I don't fit well anywhere

Click to expand...

No one fits well on the schemas of national politics. National politics (in the U.S.) requires dividing 340 million people into two black and white groups. Local politics does not do this, except where it is slavishly beholden to national political positions.

zippy2006 said:

No one fits well on the schemas of national politics. National politics (in the U.S.) requires dividing 340 million people into two black and white groups. Local politics does not do this, except where it is slavishly beholden to national political positions.

Click to expand...

True. To be represented in this country you have to compromise with at appx 50% min of the entire voting population. So the best fit might not even feel like a good fit.

We could enact different representation or voting systems that would allow for more parties to emerge. But generally that would require action from the current party duopoly, who obviously dont want to open up the game.

durangodawood said:

True. To be represented in this country you have to compromise with at appx 50% min of the entire voting population. So the best fit might not even feel like a good fit.

We could enact different representation or voting systems that would allow for more parties to emerge. But generally that would require action from the current party duopoly, who obviously dont want to open up the game.

Click to expand...

The best solution would be to just deport 50% of the population. We should start with people who don't like the Ramones.

durangodawood said:

True. To be represented in this country you have to compromise with at appx 50% min of the entire voting population. So the best fit might not even feel like a good fit.

Click to expand...

Right.

durangodawood said:

We could enact different representation or voting systems that would allow for more parties to emerge. But generally that would require action from the current party duopoly, who obviously dont want to open up the game.

Click to expand...

Well suppose we take this advice and have ten national parties instead of two, and instead of representing 50% of the national population each party represents 10% of the national population. In that case we might "fit well" within one of the ten national parties, but we would still never be represented by a ruling party (given that no party would ever win enough votes to generate a mandate).

So I think the better approach is to focus on subsidiarity/localism, rather than focusing on national representation. National representation in a nation of 340 million people will never exist. It's a game that can't be won. Instead we should all agree that, given that no party represents 340 million people spread over 3.8 million square miles, therefore the power of the federal government should be minimal. Taxes and decision-making should be concentrated towards local levels, because that is where representation actually exists.

Chesterton said:

The best solution would be to just deport 50% of the population. We should start with people who don't like the Ramones.

Click to expand...

Ramones do the theme song for a sitcom I watched. A sitcom! Please deport me now.

zippy2006 said:

Well suppose we take this advice and have ten national parties instead of two, and instead of representing 50% of the national population each party represents 10% of the national population. In that case we might "fit well" within one of the ten national parties, but we would still never be represented by a ruling party (given that no party would ever win enough votes to generate a mandate).

Click to expand...

Represented doesn't mean you get your way every time. I mean, bills in congress (generally) would still require 50% of the reps/senate to pass. The remainder dont get their way.

But you will at least have someone in the process whos voice will match yours more closely, and who can help shape things just by sometimes being an essential part of whatever coalition has to come together for this bill of that.

Also, just having other parties there at all gives them a platform thats currently completely lacking.

zippy2006 said:

So I think the better approach is to focus on subsidiarity/localism, rather than focusing on national representation. National representation in a nation of 340 million people will never exist. It's a game that can't be won. Instead we should all agree that, given that no party represents 340 million people spread over 3.8 million square miles, therefore the power of the federal government should be minimal. Taxes and decision-making should be concentrated towards local levels, because that is where representation actually exists.

Click to expand...

Even if we truly pare back fed govt to just the responsibilities outlined in the constitution, thats still a heck of a lot of important stuff - to the point that it really matters who gets a say or even just influence.

Thats said, I do think local govt needs way more attention from citizens. We're going in the opposite direction tho. Local reporting is dying, and most people barely even care - until its too late and things go haywire.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I think we need to

Tighten borders but create a better path to citizenship for people who have been here working. Breaking families apart is barbaric.

Allow Civil union as a civil right but leave Marriage to churches as sacrament or church recognized union.

Better care for the environment. We have already seen that industry cannot hold themselves responsible. It took the Clean Water Act (1972) and Clean Air Act (1963) to turn things around.

And we certainly need financial regulation.

We in the United States need to once again become Leaders in foreigDo you have all of the names on the list?n aid and compassion here at home with effective programs to assist the poor and vulnerable in need of a safety net. Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs help low-income people,

Abortion: This is my major bone to pick with the Democrats. Life in the womb is human life most vulnerable and we need to acknowledge and respect that life as much as the rights of women. But we also need to create a society in which women no longer feel the need for abortion. That means healthcare and support for young mothers and their children

Click to expand...

I don't fit anywhere either, if by that you mean as a Democrat or a Republican. If you may remember I have been a member of each party over the years and have become deeply dissatisfied with both of them.

We have a border crisis because for about twenty years we have failed to have bipartisan immigration reform. So things get more and more out of whack and less and less fixable. The Biden 'fix' was to let everybody in. The Trump 'fix' is to kick some of them out. Neither are a real fix.

Civil marriage was predominantly to enforce rights so children would be treated well. But children aren't important any more and it's all about adult status. If I were getting married my beloved and I would pop in to a local judge for an exceptionally boring legal civil marriage on a Friday and then have a sacramental matrimony the next day, with pomp and ceremony and partying and all, totally separating the civil from the actual marriage. I am not in favor of civil unions, and would vote against them, but if they are the law of the land I would want a lot of distance between whatever the government thinks it's doing on the one hand and what God and my beloved and I and the Church are doing on the other hand.

I co-ran my high school's Earth Day events for the very first Earth Day.

We need more than just financial regulation. We need a different economic concept from socialist/communist and capitalist/oligarchist economies. I hesitate to call current corporatism capitalist. Whatever it is, it's a mess. I'd favor distributivism, but everybody says that can't work. As if what we have is working. But regulation isn't the way to get there anyhow.

A distributivist economy would be one of local solidarity where not everything would need to be federalized, and less people would fall through the cracks. The current system is complex enough that many people just give up trying to get benefits they should qualify for. It's madness. Like Worker's Comp, where the goal is to deny benefits.

I'm old enough to remember when the party of abortion was the Republican Party. How things change.