This is the very sentiment that helped Trump win. When your side wins, you can't assume that the other side, which disagrees with you, no longer matters. The basket of deplorables rose up and defeated democrats because they were sick and tired of being "plowed under" by the left.
Obama has led the democrats in doing that his whole presidency. Republicans, now, should not make the same mistake. This isn't a dictatorship where winning means you can eliminate your opposition. The opposition has not been, nor can be, eliminated in our system, other than their ideologies fading away through social evolution. Winning an election is not a meaningful mandate signifying the end of the left. They can't be plowed under any more than you were. The left thought that the right was effectively plowed under.
This is just an admonition to right leaning people not to be foolish as the left was. There is another side, and that side as a voice. You can't take their voice away and still have a free republic.
I like that emoji. Sith be kickin ass.
I entirely agree. The issue isn't on what divides us, it is on what we agree upon. There are NO reasonable people who "want" crime, but reasonable people DO differ on how to fight it.
The gun is an easy target. It draws attention to itself. It goes "BOOM" and everyone hears it. It makes killing easy. So some people kneejerk to "let's get rid of guns." Of course, they weren't born that way, they are only responding to the easy target. The reality is most inner city folks wouldn't give two (2) 's about guns if all the violence went away.
Ahh, but making all the violence and crime go away is a hard thing to do. That takes real work and I don't believe there is a society in the world that has done away with crime and the violence that surrounds it.
On the other side of thinking is keeping the guns but, "lock the bastages up forever (or kill 'em!)" That also doesn't work. It is expensive and unproductive, because again it doesn't address the root cause of the issue. Both of these proposed solutions are like giving pain medication to a patient but not really going in and solving the problem that is causing the pain.
Each solution feels really good to say but never really works.
Then our leaders, congressmen and senators, get pushed by the loudmouths back home to go a certain direction. With the improved efficiency of gerrymandering all a liberal needs to do in California is pay attention to their liberal constituency and they will always be elected. The same goes for a conservative in Kentucky. There is actually pressure to NOT come together as the purists on each side demand rigidness without compromise. Yet compromise is exactly what is needed around the edges to make the solutions fit the problems. (CAVEAT: I am not talking about compromising core philosophical beliefs, only in mechanisms and nuances.)
As far as I am concerned we all want the same thing, basically. Where we disagree is on which route to take to get there. Most folks simply want to live their lives in peace, have a meaningful job, raise their children in a safe environment, and retire content. They want to be able to afford most things they want to do. They want the same and better for their kids. But how we get there depends upon our mindset and how we think.
This is why I think Jamil's post is so important. Trying to ignore the "other side" puts us in the same mine field that they were in on election day. And that is someplace we do not want to be.
Regards and Happy New Year,
Doug