And just like that she loves me again

Jeff in TX · December 2018

A few weeks back I posted that my sister no longer wanted anything to do with me or my buddy if we wouldn't renounce satan in the White house. We were done she said. I left well enough a lone and haven't had any contact with her.

Yesterday my buddy and I get a text saying "are we drawing names for Christmas" as it's getting late in the shopping season! If you remember that was the last question I asked her when she said we were done! Her response was "FO"!

I was told absolutely no talking politics when the family gets together. This is cracking me up. I'm half tempted to wear a "Make America Great Again" hat and shirt. Well it sounds good in my brain, but I'll leave well enough a lone as I usually do. I'm diagnosing this as the "New Bipolar Left"!

It still amazes me how one person divided a country. Well one side let it happen. the problem is, we're only on the ground floor of this. With each new president I fear it will only get worse!

earlyagain · December 2018

It likely illustrates the power and potential danger of television and social media more than just one person.

Glad it all worked out.

Maybe some high school curriculums will eventually introduce classes in rhetoric or media interpretation.

zorba · December 2018

Why does she care about the sheets in the White House?

bisley · December 2018

Maybe she likes sack-cloth and ashes - satin is so...bourgeois.

mitdr774 · December 2018

zorba said:

Why does she care about the sheets in the White House?

bisley said:

Maybe she likes sack-cloth and ashes - satin is so...bourgeois.

Glad to hear that things seem to be working out. Hopefully cooler heads can prevail and no political flare ups happen.

zorba · December 2018

Me too!

CHIRO1989 · December 2018

Speaking from experience with my sister, it is not over, she just does not want to be excluded, but, I hope I am wrong. Pay attention, you will see when the fuse gets lit, then the blow up.

Jeff in TX · December 2018

CHIRO1989 said:

Speaking from experience with my sister, it is not over, she just does not want to be excluded, but, I hope I am wrong. Pay attention, you will see when the fuse gets lit, then the blow up.

Oh, you are dead right on this one! Christmas is a special get together, one we never want to miss! It's just a band aid on an open artery cut. The wheels will come off the cart shortly after Christmas! It not a matter of it happening, just a matter of when!

I'll continue to love her and one day when the left wins the white house all will be normal in her universe!

Jermanator · December 2018

Jeff in TX said:

A few weeks back I posted that my sister no longer wanted anything to do with me or my buddy if we wouldn't renounce satan in the White house. We were done she said. I left well enough a lone and haven't had any contact with her.

So you didn't text her the "Family is Forever" thing like you said you did in the last thread about this?

Jayhawker · December 2018

One thing I have discovered with my family is that the one who is loudest about "No religion or politics!" Is always the one who starts talking about religion and politics...

rberglof · December 2018

I still do not know why my younger sister cut ties with my younger brother and me, I heard recently that she stays in contact with my older brother and sister. After our mother passed away she said she wanted nothing to do with us, I thought it was all of us at the time. Can't be politics, I have no idea how she votes or if she votes.

Jeff in TX · December 2018

Jermanator said:

Jeff in TX said:

A few weeks back I posted that my sister no longer wanted anything to do with me or my buddy if we wouldn't renounce satan in the White house. We were done she said. I left well enough a lone and haven't had any contact with her.

So you didn't text her the "Family is Forever" thing like you said you did in the last thread about this?

Oh I did send her that on Thanksgiving! Other than that I've left her a lone! I'm sure this will end badly at our X-mas gathering but it won't be because I started it.

Make_My_Day · December 2018

If it were me, I'd wear the damn hat.....LOL

FFLshooter · December 2018

Damn, I actually agree with the liberal on that one. I recall quite a few evangelicals truly believing that Obama was the anti christ. It’s funny to watch people keep moving their goal post.

timc · December 2018

Jeff in TX said:

I'll continue to love her and one day when the left wins the white house all will be normal in her universe!

I hope that’s at least six more years so we can at least get the Supreme Court set up to keep America semi-sane until I die!

bisley · December 2018

FFLshooter said:

Damn, I actually agree with the liberal on that one. I recall quite a few evangelicals truly believing that Obama was the anti christ. It’s funny to watch people keep moving their goal post.

The wise thing is probably just to cancel out the radicals on each side, with one another. To put that into a business perspective, consider how some businessmen award bidded contracts to vendors - they throw out the highest bid and the lowest bid, and just make the assumption that neither may be able to accomplish the task. It's basically just averaging the data, with all of the 'outliers' removed to keep the average from being skewed

The most radical elements in politics, regardless of where they lie on the left/right scale, are usually emotion-driven, and will not accept any solution that doesn't support their mostly unsupported beliefs. Those who are actually problem solvers often tend to be closer to the center, unless the 'average' is skewed by figuring the radicals into the equation.

bisley · December 2018

alphasigmookie said:

bisley said:

FFLshooter said:

Damn, I actually agree with the liberal on that one. I recall quite a few evangelicals truly believing that Obama was the anti christ. It’s funny to watch people keep moving their goal post.

The wise thing is probably just to cancel out the radicals on each side, with one another. To put that into a business perspective, consider how some businessmen award bidded contracts to vendors - they throw out the highest bid and the lowest bid, and just make the assumption that neither may be able to accomplish the task. It's basically just averaging the data, with all of the 'outliers' removed to keep the average from being skewed

The most radical elements in politics, regardless of where they lie on the left/right scale, are usually emotion-driven, and will not accept any solution that doesn't support their mostly unsupported beliefs. Those who are actually problem solvers often tend to be closer to the center, unless the 'average' is skewed by figuring the radicals into the equation.

Here is the difficulty in that. The way our primary systems are designed by the parties it often helps the extremes. Our country is roughly 1/3 R, 1/3 D and 1/3 I. The primaries tend to attract the most ardent supporters of a party which often means the most radical. So in any given primary let's say less than 50% of the voters from each party vote (a major over estimate) so 1/6th of the population is voting in any given primary. So for radical candidates to win they only need 1/12th of the population to vote for them. So basically we have the 8% most radical on each side deciding who the other 84% get to vote for. And that's how we always end up with the choice between a poop sandwich and a giant douche.

I agree with that, for the most part. It manifested itself in the last election, in spades, and in the previous few, to a lesser degree.The question that needs to be understood is how we got to that point. I've got plenty of ideas about that, but the crux of the argument is that the parties began placing all of the emphasis on maintaining power, without regard for solving real problems.

The border security cluster**** that is now taking place is a perfect example. Donald Trump wants to keep a major campaign promise, no matter what is needed, and Chuck Schumer wants to deny him another win. Both are playing to what they consider to be the base of voters that elected them, without asking the questions about what is needed for the well-being of the country. Were they to agree on the questions that need to be answered, for the benefit of the majority, the solution would reveal itself, quickly.

Likely, they will not do it, because neither will even discuss removing incentives for illegals by punishing employers who hire the illegals. This should be a major incentive for Democrats, who have historically sought labor union support for their part of the mainstream vote. It's less attractive for Republicans, who have historically supported business entities.

With no political will, by either side, to implement the most obvious solution, they are left with the secondary solution, which is enforcing (with funding) existing immigration laws that work, and repealing or replacing those that don't.

Such weighty issues require more character than either has, because actual problem solving breeds contempt from the radicals, who get all of the media attention. Meanwhile, the country bleeds.

bisley · December 2018

I don't know the specifics of how other states operate, but Texas allows one vote from every citizen, and he/she may vote for candidates of either party. It's not open, in the sense that both candidates may end up being from the same party, as in California.

On the surface, I believe the actual test of what you (Alf) are describing is the California model, and I can't see where that system has passed the test of solving inequities caused by party loyalty. Had Texas adopted that a few years ago, it would have crushed the Democrat Party in Texas, just as it is doing in California, now, to Republicans.

I suppose that it might possibly sort itself out over an extended period of time, but I see no evidence of that happening at this time. In the short term, it may give one party a boost that will never be overcome.

Make_My_Day · December 2018

I don't believe in the concept of "open" primaries. It allows the opposition to manipulate the potential winner of that party's candidate by flooding the polls with opposition voters. What they should do is to allow the independent voters to vote for one party or the other in a primary.

zorba · December 2018

What they REALLY should do is do away with Parties completely. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody's thought of a better way of doing things, but our founders warned us about them.

bisley · December 2018

Our founders feared the power of parties, and warned against them, but they knew that their ascension was unavoidable. It is unrealistic to think that the common folk will not attempt to form groups with a common spokesman for their main issues. It's also unrealistic to think that opportunists won't try to corrupt those groups for their own personal gain.

It seems to be inevitable that people will become complacent, over time, with a few small victories, and that they will leave the door open for corrupt leaders to incrementally change the message that they wanted to be delivered.

zorba · December 2018

Yep. I don't have a solution...

Unfortunately, neither of the main two even come close to what I believe in, and the ones that do are either too small to be effectual, or aren't what they say the are (I'm looking at YOU, "Libertarian" party).

tennmike · December 2018

Make_My_Day said:

I don't believe in the concept of "open" primaries. It allows the opposition to manipulate the potential winner of that party's candidate by flooding the polls with opposition voters. What they should do is to allow the independent voters to vote for one party or the other in a primary.

As an independent, I can vote in either primary here in TN.

Make_My_Day · December 2018

tennmike said:

As an independent, I can vote in either primary here in TN.

Yours and maybe a few others? I don't think it's a widespread state policy..

RugerFan · December 2018

knitepoet said:

I can vote in either in AL as well, with the caveat that whichever primary I vote in, I can only vote in that parties run-off. Crossover voting (say voting in the R primary then the D run-off) is illegal.

Same here in MS.

coolgunguy · January 2019

Sounds a lot like ours. You can vote one primary or the other, but you can only vote in one. You aren't required to declare your party, so some folks like to vote "for" a candidate they don't actually want to win the office, but who they would like to see lose to "their" candidate... but, that means you can't cast a vote for your guy until the general election, which can mean you miss a chance to vote for you candidate altogether.

sgtrock21 · January 2019

tennmike said:

Make_My_Day said:

I don't believe in the concept of "open" primaries. It allows the opposition to manipulate the potential winner of that party's candidate by flooding the polls with opposition voters. What they should do is to allow the independent voters to vote for one party or the other in a primary.

As an independent, I can vote in either primary here in TN.

I can't in Oregon which is now unfortunately "central commiefornia" ( North, Washington, South, California, East, Colorado, and West Hawaii. July 1st 1971 I wanted to register to vote. Not sure which way to go I chose Independent until I discovered presidential primaries were R or D only. I literally flipped a coin and it came up R. I have no regrets.

Guns and Ammo

Forums

And just like that she loves me again

Replies

MORE YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Forums

And just like that she loves me again

Replies

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

MORE YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.