houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

I vooted too. Yes my individual vote does not matter in the grand scheme of things such as the federal government, but it does matter for more local races and measures. The more local the issue, the more important the vote.

But no one should have voting as their only hope and plan in life. If you are looking for election results to save you, you are already doomed.

I need to remember that Trump winning is not going to truly solve our biggest problems. The United States still has exorbitant debt, too much welfare spending, and an empire they cannot maintain, as well as many other issues. At best we just have more time to prepare for the bad times.

https://merovingian.club/@houseoftolstoy/113223933332914204

Looks like we are getting war with Iran. Or maybe someone who has their sanity left will pull the plug on that operation.

Chance of leftist butthurt: very, very high.

https://archive.is/0iDEC

>Democrats need to win them with respect – but to do that, they need to actually respect them.

Kind of hard to do that when so many on the left have open contempt for the people on the right and consider them evil for having a different political outlook than themselves.

There is a reason why men value virginity in a woman. It is because you are being picked first if she actually had restraint from sex before you.

But now very few men who want marriage can find a woman who fit this criteria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWG-mWoFBk

And this does not even get to the topic of what works and what doesn't. That is often where the debate truly lies, because we still have this debate when everyone is not on the same page about what works and what does not work.

You cannot get the people who want government to do more to have an agreeable solution with those who want the government to do less. The same goes for you cannot get agreement when two or more factions want the government to act but in divergent ways.

Another point to debate is how different approaches to solving a problem cannot be rectified just because "we want the same things."

Let us say that everyone can agree that poverty is bad and we want less of it. How do we end it? The left may advocate for wealth redistribution in many forms, while the right may advocate for less government intervention. It should be clear that these two solutions cannot work together, since wealth redistribution is the government intervention the right opposes.

The pro-stability rightwing individual would want to see people fall in line with the rule of law. They may not like income inequality or poverty, but those concerns are lesser priorities to them.

While I may have oversimplified the outlooks for brevities sake, the point is that unity is not found in "wanting the same things" if you have not clearly defined what that even means.

One example of "wanting the same things" not working out is due to the definition of "the same things" being too vague.

"We want everyone to have a better life."

What does that mean? The answer depends on the ideology of who you ask. The more socialist/progressive minded individual may want incomes/wealth to be evenly distributed, while the more libertarian/free market individual may want everyone to just not have poverty without a care for equity.

I have stated before that "we want the same things" is not often true when it comes to politics. I will state another thing: even if two or more groups with different political idealogies want to achieve the same outcome, vague or specific, this cannot be a source of unity because of the different means that each group will want to use. The real dividing factor here would be implementation of the goals, and you cannot unify on implementation when your plans work against each other.