TexasCHLforum.com

It's apparently many of us feel passionately about the upcoming election. However, allowing passion, fear, anger, frustration or loyalty to overcome us and drive the discussion is neither a good excuse or productive. I too am guilty of this and plan to work on getting better being more civil when engaging with someone with different opinions if they are willing to do the same. Dr. Hurd does a good job of discussing this.

https://drhurd.com/2016/10/18/61340/

I keep hearing the question: How to weather political differences with friends and associates, given this combative presidential election year?
Then I read this at Psychology Today online, by Susan Heitler Ph.D.:
The impulse to convince others of the rightness of your view and the wrongness of theirs gets all the stronger for everyone when the issue feels like one of importance. The outcome of Presidential elections in [particular] is likely to have strong impacts on people’s lives, i.e., on their financial status, on how much government programs will either help or hinder them, on whether our citizens will be safe from physical danger with regard to guns, terrorism, international enemies, etc.
Some people have more, and some less, ability to allow others to be different. This ability takes patience. It takes willingness to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, that is, to assume that there is something valid in their viewpoint as well as in yours. This ability also rests on ability to keep your emotions in the calm zone.

If you go into a discussion on the premise, “I must change his mind…I must change his mind!” then it logically follows you’ll be much more intolerant and hostile than if you entered the discussion on a rational assumption. Example: “I probably won’t change his mind. But at least I got my point-of-view out there.”

Emotions arise because of what’s important to us. If things start to escalate, it’s easy to feed into the problem by resorting to personal attacks. But that’s a dead-end street, and an indication the discussion has already gone wrong. Better to abort than continue. The moment someone attacks me personally for my views, discussion is over. It’s worse than pointless to continue, because it’s no longer a political or intellectual discussion you’re having.

Gowdy makes some excellent points. Feeling a little convicted.

https://youtu.be/0oASbNihf3w

Last night I ran across a replay of several Presidential debates from 1984, 1988 and 1992. I watched the 1984 debate between Reagan and Mondale in its entirety and it made me yearn for the "good ol' days". WHAT a stunning difference 30 years has made. Not ONCE did either candidate interrupt or attempt to speak over the other. They behaved "Presidentially" with good manners and respect for each other. They disagreed strongly on several topics, but did so with the utmost respect and each listened to the other's statements intently and quietly and responded when the moderator told them it was their turn. They disagreed with good humor and wit, without ever being rude or hateful. They even acknowledged each other with a nod or smile when one made a good point in a rebuttal statement or scored an obvious point.When the debate ended, they walked straight to each other and shook hands warmly and patted each other on the back and congratulated each others performance. My wife said "don't you wish we could vote for either one of them today...I'd be tickled to death to have a conservative Democrat like Mondale over anyone that ran this year." I agreed with her. Reagan won that election carrying every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesota and Washington DC.

Yep, the libs/progs/socialists/Dems decided that being nice and attempting to explain and justify their positions was not going to win them many elections - hence civility and politeness were flushed down the drain.

Yep, the libs/progs/socialists/Dems decided that being nice and attempting to explain and justify their positions was not going to win them many elections - hence civility and politeness were flushed down the drain.

Rules for Radicals and other collectivist reference books have a few common threads. First, subvert the education system. Second, co-opt the media. Third, use ad hominem attacks on adversaries who use facts and reason to debate. Fourth, repeat falsehoods often enough and loud enough, and they will begin to ring as truth in the minds of people. What we are witnessing is a political landscape altered by these collectivist methods -- and to promote the collectivists vision. The playing field never was really level, but the collectivists have gained home-field advantage and they are playing downhill. Barring a Trump victory and true reforms in many areas, the Republic is almost certainly lost. Stay on your soap-boxes, make your deposit in the ballot box, and keep the ammo box dry and secure.

I too wish that we could return to a degree of civility. The liberals try and make everything about race and sexism and the NRA endorsed candidate keeps going off message and railing about the Dem candidate's health and lack of respect for the truth. In my opinion, neither of these tacks is what the independent voter wants to hear. I believe that the independent wants to hear what the candidate will do for the economy, for national defense, and about the myriad of social issues from education to religious liberty, to respecting the constitution. Could this not be done without interrupting. talking over, and name calling?

bblhd672 wrote:Yep, the libs/progs/socialists/Dems decided that being nice and attempting to explain and justify their positions was not going to win them many elections - hence civility and politeness were flushed down the drain.

When Reagan ran against Mondale, the big issues were the prosecution of the Cold War (in all hemispheres), the fate of the nation's space program, and not so much whether or not we ought to have a welfare system, but whether or not it should be structured so as to encourage or discourage people to be on it. Oppo research wasn't nearly the political "discipline" it is today.

But beyond that, politics takes place in the context of a culture, and our culture has changed and coarsened radically since then. There was no anonymity of the Internet back then, to give people an avenue to express toxic social habits without fear of reprisal. The penalties for bad moral decisions could destroy political ambition. Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice torpedoed his election hopes at a time when he was considered the most dynamic post-WW2 democrat presidential candidate.

These days, people say "what.....he had an affair? Well at least he didn't murder anybody." ......unless it's Hillary Clinton, in which case it's irrelevant to the nation's media because Donald Trump.

In that climate, it is very difficult to have a collegial discussion with someone who takes the lib/prog viewpoint - because at its heart, their political movement is aimed at enabling criminality, abolishing the rule of law, and trampling on my personal freedoms .......unless of course it is to be free to kill as many babies as I want to, or have the state pay for all the unprotected sex I want, etc., etc. When the other side conflates licentiousness with liberty, then he and I have nothing to talk about, except would they like a piece of raw meat to put over that black eye I'm about to give them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Yep, the libs/progs/socialists/Dems decided that being nice and attempting to explain and justify their positions was not going to win them many elections - hence civility and politeness were flushed down the drain.

When Reagan ran against Mondale, the big issues were the prosecution of the Cold War (in all hemispheres), the fate of the nation's space program, and not so much whether or not we ought to have a welfare system, but whether or not it should be structured so as to encourage or discourage people to be on it. Oppo research wasn't nearly the political "discipline" it is today.

But beyond that, politics takes place in the context of a culture, and our culture has changed and coarsened radically since then. There was no anonymity of the Internet back then, to give people an avenue to express toxic social habits without fear of reprisal. The penalties for bad moral decisions could destroy political ambition. Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice torpedoed his election hopes at a time when he was considered the most dynamic post-WW2 democrat presidential candidate.

These days, people say "what.....he had an affair? Well at least he didn't murder anybody." ......unless it's Hillary Clinton, in which case it's irrelevant to the nation's media because Donald Trump.

In that climate, it is very difficult to have a collegial discussion with someone who takes the lib/prog viewpoint - because at its heart, their political movement is aimed at enabling criminality, abolishing the rule of law, and trampling on my personal freedoms .......unless of course it is to be free to kill as many babies as I want to, or have the state pay for all the unprotected sex I want, etc., etc. When the other side conflates licentiousness with liberty, then he and I have nothing to talk about, except would they like a piece of raw meat to put over that black eye I'm about to give them.

talltex wrote:Last night I ran across a replay of several Presidential debates from 1984, 1988 and 1992. I watched the 1984 debate between Reagan and Mondale in its entirety and it made me yearn for the "good ol' days". WHAT a stunning difference 30 years has made. Not ONCE did either candidate interrupt or attempt to speak over the other. They behaved "Presidentially" with good manners and respect for each other. They disagreed strongly on several topics, but did so with the utmost respect and each listened to the other's statements intently and quietly and responded when the moderator told them it was their turn. They disagreed with good humor and wit, without ever being rude or hateful. They even acknowledged each other with a nod or smile when one made a good point in a rebuttal statement or scored an obvious point.When the debate ended, they walked straight to each other and shook hands warmly and patted each other on the back and congratulated each others performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj_xt5G1sFE

There is only one talking point that swings my vote. SCJ nominations. Period. Point Blank. I can survive 4 years of Trump in the Whitehouse, no matter what I personally think of him. I however do not believe this country can survive 4 years of a Clinton presidency. Not with who she's nominating for SCJ seats.

This election cycle is definitely the nastiest in my lifetime. I have seen exactly one HRH ad that mentioned anything positive about her - that she is a champion for women. Putting aside the absurdity of that claim coming from someone who has repeatedly attacked her husbands female victims, it was at least trying to be positive. Every other ad I have seen from her just attacks Trump.

We have one candidate who has based her entire campaign on hate and who can not tell the truth if her life depended on it. And we have another candidate whom the media is doing everything they can to portray in the same manner. So to the average voter, it is a choice amongst "deplorables" and each one is trying to convince you that the other guy/gal is more deplorable than they are.

I vote for secession.