Getting Tired of Hearing About "Undecided" (Dense) Voters?

[Cruella]

yeah, I agree with that statement... so what does that have to do with undecided voters who don't support either party again?

Nothing. I was responding to your post. You brought up the sidebar of incarceration.

I've never committed a crime or been to jail or anything like that. I just happen to care about people, and have gotten to know plenty of them and plenty of their stories. Some people will probably never learn, and keep making the same mistake until they die (and that's true not just for criminals but everyone in all areas of life.) And others, thanks to some caring individuals who actually believed in them and stuck with them, have succeeded in making lives out of what used to be a one way ticket to disaster. Plenty of people had written them off as being born bad and a waste of time, but thankfully, not everyone listened.

That's great. I too believe that there are shades of grey in every aspect of life. (Think I said that already)

Conservatives like to write any attempt at social change as being wishy-washy liberal fantasies that just waste taxpayer's time and money. Like everything else, that is probably true in some situations, and untrue in others. But spending money helping people makes a lot more sense than spending money fighting them.

Painting conservatives as black or white and uncaring doesn't work here either. Shades of grey, remember?
I don't know any conservative that doesn't believe in helping people. Spending money isn't the problem either, as long as we have it to spend. The problem is with telling people that they don't have to be responsible for their own lives and expect that someone else will take care of them.

 

[Centrehalf]

I definitely have hard stances on things that are black and white.

Good. Can't wait to read them. How long do I have to wait?

The fact that greed-driven corporations basically own both major parties with their lobbyists, that's a pretty black-and-white issue. I want those guys out, I want people to stop accepting that they are part of the political landscape and fight back with their wallets and votes (the only two weapons people have, other than actual weapons.)

True, but disagree that wallets and votes are the way to fight back.

With crime, I'm just trying to define our terms- too often people don't bother and then everyone just ends up chanting things without clearly explaining what they mean.

Actually, the terms are clearly defined. No one in this nation has to ponder what crime is.

I personally don't think any person should be killing any other person- that's morally reprehensible. Are there circumstances where you have to do it? Sure, of course, that's true for anything. I don't think being a soldier is an excuse for killing someone, but I'm also not going to advocate prosecuting people who become soldiers when that's the kind of world we currently live in.

The fact that you even brought up the possibility of prosecuting soldiers makes me wonder about you. Why would you even think that considering the fact that you're talking about domestic crime?

You can find cases of people who go into jail over and over and never learn... but you can also find cases of people who DID learn, you started studying in jail, started bettering themselves, and truly reformed themselves the way all liberals imagine and no conservatives will ever admit. So when you say I want it both ways, it's because both ways ARE possible and DO happen. I'm not being wishy-washy, I'm acknowledging reality.

That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the initial crime they committed to get themselves in jail in the first place. You say you aren't wishy-washy but the one example you gave of not being wishy-washy was. If they hadn't already committed the crime they wouldn't be doing the time.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Sorry, did I miss something, or did I write some post about how no one should go to jail ever? All I ever said is we need to go beyond the simple, temporary solutions of "did the crime, pay the time!" Yes, do that of course, but don't stop there- that's not going to ever reduce crime because the situations that breed criminals will continue. All I said was, we need to think more productively, which will not only save lives in the long run, but spending, and create a better, calmer country people can raise their families in. Until folks realize that prison is a short-term, stop-the-immediate-bleeding solution rather than the end-all-be-all, we're not moving forward.

The answer isn't making more jails or removing jails altogether, but using our heads- identifying that the problem has many roots, including parents not doing their job, underfunded school systems that aren't providing good educations, and an economic situation where more and more people are either really rich or really poor, rather than the majority not being rich but having enough to cover their expenses and provide a healthy life to their family (you know, like it was back in the good ol' days.) Like any sickness, eliminate the root cause and you'll eliminate the disease. It's just that this particular sickness has lots of root causes.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Sorry, did I miss something, or did I write some post about how no one should go to jail ever? All I ever said is we need to go beyond the simple, temporary solutions of "did the crime, pay the time!" Yes, do that of course, but don't stop there- that's not going to ever reduce crime because the situations that breed criminals will continue. All I said was, we need to think more productively, which will not only save lives in the long run, but spending, and create a better, calmer country people can raise their families in. Until folks realize that prison is a short-term, stop-the-immediate-bleeding solution rather than the end-all-be-all, we're not moving forward.

The answer isn't making more jails or removing jails altogether, but using our heads- identifying that the problem has many roots, including parents not doing their job, underfunded school systems that aren't providing good educations, and an economic situation where more and more people are either really rich or really poor, rather than the majority not being rich but having enough to cover their expenses and provide a healthy life to their family (you know, like it was back in the good ol' days.) Like any sickness, eliminate the root cause and you'll eliminate the disease. It's just that this particular sickness has lots of root causes.

Generation after generation after generation after generation has thought this EXACT SAME THING.
Did their best to change it, spent trillions trying to make it stop.
Little has changed. Younger people always think everything just need some "smart thought".
Like no one ever thought of all this before.
Solve poverty--easy! To the young. Give the poor more money! Wealth re-distribution.
But--WHOSE money?
That is--the dilemma.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Solve poverty--easy! To the young. Give the poor more money! Wealth re-distribution.
But--WHOSE money?
That is--the dilemma.

I never said it was easy. All I said was, it's better than giving up, and the only course of action for a country that likes to talk about the ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for every person.

The wealth distribution thing isn't THAT hard to understand. I'm sure you can remember growing up in an America where things were a little more even all around. We weren't living in a socialist state, we didn't have any presidents forcing rich people to give up their money, we simply had a set of laws that provided checks and balances (remember that phrase?) so that small businesses had a chance competing with larger businesses; so that companies that were caught doing illegal things with big amounts of money were actually punished. All of these laws have been distorted over the past 20 years, and that has led to a very lopsided wealth distribution. The solution isn't communism or socialism, it's just reinstating the laws we used to have back when things worked better. Not perfect, but better than they are now. Neither major candidate is interested in doing that by any stretch of the imagination, sadly.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I never said it was easy. All I said was, it's better than giving up, and the only course of action for a country that likes to talk about the ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for every person.

The wealth distribution thing isn't THAT hard to understand. I'm sure you can remember growing up in an America where things were a little more even all around. We weren't living in a socialist state, we didn't have any presidents forcing rich people to give up their money, we simply had a set of laws that provided checks and balances (remember that phrase?) so that small businesses had a chance competing with larger businesses; so that companies that were caught doing illegal things with big amounts of money were actually punished. All of these laws have been distorted over the past 20 years, and that has led to a very lopsided wealth distribution. The solution isn't communism or socialism, it's just reinstating the laws we used to have back when things worked better. Not perfect, but better than they are now. Neither major candidate is interested in doing that by any stretch of the imagination, sadly.

Then--you should go out and make all these things happen.
I have done my part--I am on the way out of here.
But--I would caution you to NOT follow pretty propaganda and get to KNOW the subject.
Your post reads like dreamy talking points--which is where you got them.
And--they are noble--they just are not rooted in any reality I know of.
They DID NOT come from personal experience or research.

I wish you luck.
It is your duty now to take the baton and run to the solutions.
Maybe you will be the one to fund things without having any money.

 

[Pandora]

It's a matter of many factors- it's not as simple as black and white. When you're poor, certainly, stealing is a temptation- even your mother, I'm sure, she was tempted. Now, other factors come into play as to how you (or your mother) will turn out.

Stealing is a temptation for those people who want something but are unwilling to work for it or haven’t figured out yet that you can work for it instead of stealing it and for those who like the quick cheap thrill andadrenaline rush. There are cases of people who stole food because they were hungry but most stealing is about wanting something that you are not willing to work for or drugs or again the rush you get when doing it.

If your mom had parents that instilled strong values into her and gave her the concept of a greater good that superseded her immediate needs, then she was able to fight temptation because she believed in something greater. But if her parents didn't have those values, because no one ever taught THEM about it, then she probably would have started stealing. Since stealing is the easier option with the most obvious immediate benefits, it's the one most people in that situation are going to do.

My mother’s mom was a poor old Lakota woman who was always drinking off her bottle of wine. She taught my mom lots of things, morals and values were not any of them. She was probably never taught them either by her parents. But both my mother and grandmother could have risen above it had they wanted to. Two of my aunts raised by the same mother did rise above it and two of my mother’s children did rise above it regardless of our up brining. Don’t get me wrong I have stolen before, the first thing I ever stole was a purse I wanted at about age 7 and my mother told me how to do it. And as an early teen I stole from jewelry stores for the rush. I never even wore Jewelry, most of it ended up in trash cans because I didn’t know what to do with it but I liked the rush I got when I stole it. I found my moral core at about age 16 and never did that sort of thing again. Even though we were poor and had little, I never stole out of the need for something; it was always because I wanted something. When I realized I could get pretty much anything I really wanted by working for it my world view changed and so did my behavior.

Some might realize the risks aren't worth it and stop, others may never start, and others might find that the risks ARE worth it and they keep going until they're caught (or, in the case of Wall Street, caught and not punished.)

Is this wallstreet guy poor? Is that why he is tempted? This sort of counters your first argument about being poor makes you tempted, Id say being greedy and lazy makes you tempted not being poor.

"Personal Character" is a vague way of talking about things that actually have specific beginnings. It can be a long string of generations in a family that has always acted a certain way- and unless you are going to claim that you choose where you're born, it's not really something an individual can control.

A really horrible lazy lying thief can be born to a really decent person who has done their best to teach good values just like someone can grow up to be a really honest decent person who helps the community but were born to drunken scammers. I know this from a personal level.

It's our responsibility to help each other become better citizens, rather than just pointing fingers because we happened to be lucky enough to have good parents.

Its our responsibility to be good citizens and lead by example, not make excuses for others who don’t care to follow the rules.

So solving the issue of crime isn't just saying "those people over there don't have personal character so let's throw them in jail." I'm not saying abolish jails, I'm saying that jails are a temporary stop-gap, not a long-term solution.

Not sure anyone argued that people without personal character should go to jail, if they did I didn’t read that post.

Advocating for more jails or bigger jails without thinking about the deeper roots of this problem is just ignorant, but that's exactly what most politicians do- they just argue over the prison system rather than focusing on things like educating people that will result in lower crime in the long term.

People who molest kids should go to jail for good period, no release. You are not going to rehabilitate someone who gets off on hurting kids like that. Most crimes I have no problem with doing their time and getting out. Not that crime though. Most people who are in prison are there to keep society safe. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

^^^^^^^^^^^^Well Said Pandora^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

 

[bobbyjimmy]

People who molest kids should go to jail for good period, no release. You are not going to rehabilitate someone who gets off on hurting kids like that. Most crimes I have no problem with doing their time and getting out. Not that crime though. Most people who are in prison are there to keep society safe. I see nothing wrong with that.

Since we seem to agree on most of what you're saying, I'm just going to point out that the reason you guys seem to think I'm being soft about things is that I'm simply offering you a different but equally valid point of view. If this were a forum full of liberals, I'd be providing arguments similar to those you're saying. Why? Because both points of view are true- in their respective circumstances. The reason we're so polarized is that no one wants to acknowledge this. Your "reality" based on your life experience is that you can have bad parents and still make morally-sound decisions. Very true. Also very true is the opposite- that the way your parents are directly influence how you are. There's no way to rewind your life and figure out all the different influences you had that made you what you are today and helped you grow past your childhood environment. But it is true that for every story like yours, there's a true story that contradicts the conclusion you're drawing. Which is why making one-sided-laws that only address one point of view, regardless of what it is, will always end up making as much of a mess as they do fix the mess- because people's lives are complicated, and not everyone requires the same solution.

No one is arguing for the release of serial child molesters, please. There are plenty of shades of grey between what you're saying and an innocent person. My only point here was to point out that neither candidate is anywhere close to being useful to this country, not with their priorities so messed up. If you are as conscientious as you seem to be, I would think you'd be interested in supporting a person that mirrors your own values- which very clearly, neither of the big 2 do. That's all I gotta say for this thread!

 

[Pandora]

If you are as conscientious as you seem to be, I would think you'd be interested in supporting a person that mirrors your own values- which very clearly, neither of the big 2 do. That's all I gotta say for this thread!

I don’t think I want to support either party, Just individual people. There is no party that supports what I believe in fully so I’ll go with the candidate that closest resembles what I think is good and right.



BTW I agreed with much but not all of what you said in your post. But if you are done with that topic, I can be done too

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I don’t think I want to support either party, Just individual people. There is no party that supports what I believe in fully so I’ll go with the candidate that closest resembles what I think is good and right.



BTW I agreed with much but not all of what you said in your post. But if you are done with that topic, I can be done too

Dominus Vobiscum.

 

[dogtowner]

yeah, I agree with that statement... so what does that have to do with undecided voters who don't support either party again?

I've never committed a crime or been to jail or anything like that. I just happen to care about people, and have gotten to know plenty of them and plenty of their stories. Some people will probably never learn, and keep making the same mistake until they die (and that's true not just for criminals but everyone in all areas of life.) And others, thanks to some caring individuals who actually believed in them and stuck with them, have succeeded in making lives out of what used to be a one way ticket to disaster. Plenty of people had written them off as being born bad and a waste of time, but thankfully, not everyone listened. Conservatives like to write any attempt at social change as being wishy-washy liberal fantasies that just waste taxpayer's time and money. Like everything else, that is probably true in some situations, and untrue in others. But spending money helping people makes a lot more sense than spending money fighting them.

all of this sounds like what communities used to do 'back in the good old days. for example, the slumlord grandfather of one of my best friends growing up was very well respected in the community he served because he kept his properties up (and they stayed nice because the tennants would not abuse them)and worked with his tenants

when they were struggling including personally running a mission to help those who had demons to battle.

conservatives take issue with this as they prefer to start with personal responsibility and expect it of all.

it was a sad day when the so called Great Society shattered this and with no constitutional authrity to do so.

 

[Cruella]

all of this sounds like what communities used to do 'back in the good old days. for example, the slumlord grandfather of one of my best friends growing up was very well respected in the community he served because he kept his properties up (and they stayed nice because the tennants would not abuse them)and worked with his tenants

when they were struggling including personally running a mission to help those who had demons to battle.

conservatives take issue with this as they prefer to start with personal responsibility and expect it of all.

it was a sad day when the so called Great Society shattered this and with no constitutional authrity to do so.

Like nanny Bloomberg. He's made it illegal to donate food to the homeless.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Like nanny Bloomberg. He's made it illegal to donate food to the homeless.

Bloomberg needs to take a somersault trip down the Empire State Building staircase.
Big City Tin God.
Boss Tweed.

 

[dogtowner]

Like nanny Bloomberg. He's made it illegal to donate food to the homeless.

an inexplicable move especially from a self described advocate for the disadvantaged ?