How Biden can unite the country

[BugI02]

But look at all the "free" stuff [STRIKE]we'll[/STRIKE] [everybody else will] get (after we pay for it)!

Fixy

 

[BugI02]

Well if I can turn in magazines I bought for 6$ a piece and get 200$ apiece, thats a pretty good return...

You don't turn them in for $200, you pay a $200 'tax' for the priviledge of keeping them

 

[Doug]

Any income you earn will be confiscated to pay for other's income.
NO ONE will be allowed any income higher than anyone else.
Party members will be provided appropriate non-cash perquisites for their service; cars, homes, vacations, debit cards, etc.

 

[foszoe]

You don't turn them in for $200, you pay a $200 'tax' for the priviledge of keeping them

Oh...well in that case, I don't have any....I thought there was a thread here about a 200$ buyback

 

[ditcherman]

Ok, back off topic again for just a sec.

Let me clarify what I mean by tolerance. I don't mean acceptance without attempt to change. What I do mean is an attempt to change through civil means.

When one gets married, most likely if there was a healthy dating period, one will discover things love, things they tolerate, things, they can change.

No relationship with any noun is static but dynamic. Things may move between categories.

No machine or firearm would function without correct tolerances.

Some tolerances are more important than others, some can be very tight and well made like a Beretta 9000S in 9mm. Others can be horrible like a Gluck 1911.

I suppose your last sentence IS tolerance in my opinion but it lacks the temporal component.

This is in no way the definition of tolerance, in this context. It sounds like a totally modern liberal way to look at it though. Please don’t infer any tone or judgement in my comment, I’m not putting you down it’s just the way I see it. Most ‘conservatives’ problems with ‘liberals’ are not that they want ‘them’ to be just like ‘us’, but that the conservatives themselves want to be left alone and not forced to change.
The only true tolerance is one that does not wish to change someone after listening to their point of view, IMO. More like a classical liberalism, a live and let live type of person. More like love. Jamil’s response to you here is more like a classical liberal.

I wouldn’t want to be here if there were no differences.

 

[foszoe]

Yeah, but we're talking about a word and how it's used by others. The following definition is apt.

Tolerance: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.


This assumes the part I object to. "Allow." Who am I to allow you to be you? I have no righteous claim to interfere. I can only deign such authority when the thing I might wish to tolerate or not is when you're interfering with my rights. Let me explain it in terms of behavior. My neighbor often mows a foot or two into my yard. I have every right not to allow that. It's my property. But I like my neighbor. He can't mow straight lines. He can't help it. There's no harm done. I allow it. I tolerate it. It would be within my rights and authority as the property owner not to tolerate it. My other neighbor has a son that likes to play basket ball constantly. I suppose I could be annoyed with the sound of the bouncing ball. It's not something within my power to tolerate or not. There's nothing I have any right to do about it. I accept that he does it. I recognize it's his right to do. That's not something that the world "tolerance" can apply to.

So it's the same thing with things that people talk about tolerating. Take religious tolerance, for example. WTF do I have any right to do about what someone believes about religious matters? I can be intolerant, and take steps I don't have the right to take, to interfere with that person's exercise of their religion. But that would be pretty ****ty of me to deign to have a say about another person's religious exercise. I could "tolerate" a religious person, and decide that I will not interfere with that person's religious exercise. But then that would make me an arrogant SOB for thinking I'm so high-minded for choosing not to be an ******* because I disagree with that person's religious beliefs. How about just not give a **** about what people choose to believe? Doesn't mean I won't engage them, or challenge their beliefs. Recognizing I have no right to interfere with other people's religious exercise is neither tolerance, nor intolerance. It's understanding my place in the world and what rights I have versus other people's rights.

I don't want to be "tolerated". I want a mutual understanding that we both have equal rights to our place in the world, and neither of us have a right to interfere with that. It is that mutual understanding that forms the necessary basis for the ability to live in a diverse world and not kill each other. You don't have a right to tolerate or not tolerate me. And of course I mean "you" rhetorically.

Ok, it looks like I misused the word tolerance. How would you respond to what I meant by tolerance rather than what the word itself means. Feel free to give me a word that would mean the concept as I was describing it.

 

[ditcherman]

Didn't read all the upthread posts, but here's my take on the question for this threads existence. It's not a question of how Biden can Unite our country but how far is he really willing to tear it apart?


He's not even in office yet and he his is alienating ALMOST each and every legal gun owner in the country and will do so if he tries to Unconstitutionally enact a tax on legal handgun's and rifles, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That places a undue hardship on Americans to protect themselves. It would not only force people to purchase new items and magazines where the prices would be inflated, but to pay a excessive cost to keep them, and this will only be the start. His plan of "Phasing out" fossil fuels and fracking" will lead to unrealistic prices to heat and power our homes and drive our vehicles.


Factor in other things he has said and it will drive a wedge between the richest and the rest. Because only the rich will be able to survive.

I think your bolded statement is dead on. They don’t care if we’re poor, all the more chance to control us. If you insist that you must buy their taxed mags, you deserve to be poor.
The good news is you don’t have to be rich to survive or even thrive in this, you just have to act like a rich person. It’s not free, but you don’t have to be rich. Prepare and protect, like someone with money prepares to not pay all the taxes that the takers of society think that they are forcing them to pay.
Act like you are defending your homeland, not a hired man.

 

[Thor]

He will unite the proletariat in poverty, he will unite the ruling class in perpetual power. First comes the disarmament, then comes the subjugation.

 

[Doug]

 

[jamil]

Well united doesn't mean 100% agree with each other. If anything, it means a willingness to tolerate different points of view. Acceptance that a democracy may vote to do things i don't personally believe are right but abiding by the rule of law. Using those rules of law to change what I don't like by persuading others to my point of view.

Wanted to nuance more but puppy is at the door!

Let me clarify what I mean by tolerance. I don't mean acceptance without attempt to change. What I do mean is an attempt to change through civil means.

When one gets married, most likely if there was a healthy dating period, one will discover things love, things they tolerate, things, they can change.

No relationship with any noun is static but dynamic. Things may move between categories.

No machine or firearm would function without correct tolerances.

Some tolerances are more important than others, some can be very tight and well made like a Beretta 9000S in 9mm. Others can be horrible like a Gluck 1911.

I suppose your last sentence IS tolerance in my opinion but it lacks the temporal component.

Ok, it looks like I misused the word tolerance. How would you respond to what I meant by tolerance rather than what the word itself means. Feel free to give me a word that would mean the concept as I was describing it.

IndyDave has it right. Rather than "allow", it's something closer to "accept". Accepting doesn't mean agreeing with or condoning.

I didn't have a problem understanding your first statement. By ranting about "tolerance" I was not misunderstanding your point. It was just that I've been thinking about the place of "tolerance" in society and how it's applied for a long time. I just used that as the opportunity to talk about it. Because "tolerance" isn't helpful to solve society wide things. And accepting different points of view isn't the issue. It's accepting that people get to have different points of view which is at issue. The public square is exactly the right place to discuss the different points of view, and to argue for and against. It is through that process of disagreement and argument that both the weak points and strong points are revealed.

I also don't like the way you explained your first statement either. "Attempt to change". How dare you tell me what I can or can't do? Could you at least modify that as "attempt to persuade". You're giving me all kinds of space to rant about words I don't like.

Point is, I don't have to accept that a minority of people through coercive means, can turn this country from a constitutional republic into a bloody commune of tyranny, through a pretense of the democratic process. Namecalling, and "othering", and talk of "enemies" and such isn't helpful to sort all that out. It just creates low resolution pigeonholes into which people sort themselves, "tolerating" some bad ideas on the side they chose because that side happens to (mostly) agree on the general paradigm. So on the right that looks like people accepting some things they don't like about the right, in order to keep the paradigm of a constitutional republic, otherwise known as a representative democracy rather than "tolerating" a paradigm shift into woke delusions. Or, on the left, we have people accepting the company of the woke deluded just so they don't have to put up with the orange man and mean tweets.

I accept that people have a right to believe what they want. It's when they act on it to shove it down my throat that my right to reject it is activated. The lack of unity today isn't due to the lack of acceptance of different viewpoints. It's because Overton's window is broken. We don't have a sense of common purpose that represents an intact, functional window.

I think a large part of the problem is the concept of activism itself. Activism is immoral when it's coercive. Activism that seeks social change through universally imposing new social paradigms on people who don't want it is coercive. Eventually the window cracks. I'll give two examples of activism on both sides that is, I think, immoral. School prayer activism, for example–that is, trying to change laws to require time for prayer in public schools–is immoral. It's not that school prayer is immoral. Actively trying to change the laws to impose the social paradigm of one group on the whole group is the immoral part. The activism around Universal healthcare is also immoral because people are trying to make laws that force people who don't want it to participate in it. When you attempt to change the world to your liking through activism, you're typically trying to impose social changes without considering the people who disagree. I am under no compunction to accept or even tolerate that.

Advocacy, on the other hand, seeks to persuade people to change their minds about the thing you're advocating. So if you mean by "tolerating", accepting that people get to advocate for changing how we order society through advocacy, sure. I'm down with that. If women want to bare their **** in public to advocate changing laws to make them more equal than the other animals on the farm (obvious Orwellian reference, so don't get to bent out of shape) have it it ladies. Convince me that you're not full of **** and then I'll be another advocate for that thing. Enough advocates for a thing often get that thing done. But there should also be limits to that. That's why we have a constitution. You don't get to make yourself more equal than the other animals on the farm. The constitutions protects us from that nonsense, notwithstanding activist judges.

 

[BigRed]

I have ZERO interest in uniting with biden, the communist trash of his ilk, or those that voted for it.

 

[Sigblaster]

When Democrats speak of unity, or tolerance, or compromise, what they really mean is capitulation.

They want you to unite under THEIR umbrella, they want you to tolerate THEIR agenda as they dismiss yours, and they want you to compromise by surrendering your liberties to THEIR restrictions.

I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to discuss serious issues in depth with very staunch leftists, but I have, and they have some bizarre beliefs. Really mind-blowing stuff. There is no amount of reason that can be applied to their beliefs to shake them free of them. You've heard the expression "I can't logic you out of a place that your emotions got you into"? It is absolutely true, and it's true of fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I have ZERO interest in uniting with biden, the communist trash of his ilk, or those that voted for it.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^... sorry, but my patience and tolerance for the "left" is pretty well used up. A group of humans who cannot think critically, cannot answer basic questions about their beliefs, and become enraged when challenged to defend plainly illogical positions really don't deserve much more of my effort to debate.

If Biden wants to unite the country he will have a lucid, ethical, and moral moment; call a press conference and proclaim the validity of the allegations against him and his son, admit to being owned by China and Ukraine / Russia, and list out all those on both side of the aisle he knows are complicit. Since that is not going to happen, I think turn-about is fair play; HE IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!

 

[Chewie]

Unite: Come or bring together for a common purpose or action.
Biden can't even bring together (unite) enough words to create a common sentence, how can he unite the country?

 

[jamil]

I saw a really good yard sign while traveling about the other day. Big ass sign right in the front yard. Said in big bold letters: "**** Biden!" and then under in smaller lettering, "And **** you for voting for him."

That probably doesn't unite us much. But I bet that guy felt real good while putting it in his yard.

You spend your platform saying "**** Trump" I can understand the sentiment of wanting to throw it back.

 

[BigRed]

I saw a really good yard sign while traveling about the other day. Big ass sign right in the front yard. Said in big bold letters: "**** Biden!" and then under in smaller lettering, "And **** you for voting for him."

That probably doesn't unite us much. But I bet that guy felt real good while putting it in his yard.

You spend your platform saying "**** Trump" I can understand the sentiment of wanting to throw it back.

Some folks are not fans of centralization, socialism, and marxism.

 

[jamil]

I'm not saying I didn't like it.

 

[drillsgt]

All the uniting talk is just lip service. If he really cared about unity he wouldn't be pushing such polarizing policies like gun control, amnesty, etc.

 

[jamil]

All the uniting talk is just lip service. If he really cared about unity he wouldn't be pushing such polarizing policies like gun control, amnesty, etc.

I honestly don't think that unity is possible. What basis is there for common ground between the two main parties now? The left things everyone who voted for Trump is a knuckle dragging racist. Either drop the socialist bull****, the partisan racism accusations, the woke nonsense, or **** all the way off. I think there are plenty of liberals who aren't bat **** crazy. I don't think Biden or his cronies are that. If they're not gonna be reasonable and make a good faith effort to move towards moderation, **** them. They can unify around my ****.

 

[Snapdragon]

.