Not Partisan

[Ken]

What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

The political parties are controlled by the party leaders, not the people.

The party leaders are controlled by (1) the banking establishment, (2) the CIA, and (3) the military industrial complex, which never reflects the will of the people.

If that was actually the case we would never have seen Donald Trump. And he would most certainly not be the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination. Say whatever you want about Donald Trump. But he has never been under the control of the party establishment. Rather, he has remade the party in his image and has made it his mission in life to destroy those in the party with whom he disagrees. Which has been very much to the detriment of the party as a whole. The party and business establishment secretly wants ANYONE but Trump.

I personally think the personality cult surrounding Trump is to the long-term detriment of the party and country. And had Trump not chosen to run again, we'd currently be looking at a very vibrant slate of younger Republican candidates competing to be the very likely next president. But instead we are getting the Trump re-run show. And other than perhaps the topic of immigration, his campaign seems all about past grievances and very little to do with policy or the future of the country.

On the Democratic side I would suggest that the Bernie Sanders campaign (and refusal to concede and support the nominee) were a big contributing factor to Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016. He was basically the lefty version of Trump although less successful at it. But he was successful enough to have possibly brought down the eventual nominee and produce a Trump win in 2016. Clinton lost for a lot of reasons but in a razor close election, every factor looms important.

Biden, however, is very much part of his party establishment.

[barnhart]

What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

I think of a non partisan entity as an organization that has other goals, like car repair, street maintenance, dentistry, dry cleaning, roofing, animal shelters, ECT... things that don't easily fit into a single political category and are needed by a wide variety of people.

It's not necessary for the individuals in the organization to hold to some idea of neutrality, I'm not so concerned if a mechanic is a Jan. 7 truther as long as he doesn't rant about it and fixes my car and my dentist is free to be as lefty as he likes as long as his work is good.

[JohnHurt]

If that was actually the case we would never have seen Donald Trump. And he would most certainly not be the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination. Say whatever you want about Donald Trump. But he has never been under the control of the party establishment. Rather, he has remade the party in his image and has made it his mission in life to destroy those in the party with whom he disagrees. Which has been very much to the detriment of the party as a whole. The party and business establishment secretly wants ANYONE but Trump.

You are right, the Republican Party leaders hate Trump, because he is not under their control.

There are other groups that exert control on the two party leaderships, such as Big Oil and Big Pharma.

Trump encouraged the drilling of new oil wells, which lowers the price of oil, which enraged the Big Oil lobbyists and the Republican party leaders.

Trump with his "Operation Warp Speed" showed that he was not against Big Pharma, so he did not have to fight a battle on that issue.

RFK Jr is against "not all vaccines", but "vaccines that hurt people" and thinks Big Pharma should have to pay the people who were injured by their bad vaccines. So that has put RFK Jr. against Big Pharma, which is why he will never be President.

Mitch McConnell represents Big Pharma, receives money from them and always votes for their interests as a true "partisan" of the Republican party. If you remember, there was Simon Girond, the Amish farmer who was put in prison for many years for making "chickweek salve" that would remove skin cancers. The judge that put Mr. Girond in prison "forever" was made a judge by Mitch McConnell, representing Big Pharma. Mr. Girond was not put into jail because some customer complained that his salve did not work. No, he was put in jail because his salve did work, and is an "escharotic" that makes the skin cancer die and separate from the healthy skin. Hemp oil does the same thing, which is why it is illegal.

So the two party system leaders are the reason why America is being held back, and not developing new cures for cancer, or being energy self sufficient.

Biden, however, is very much part of his party establishment.

Yes, he supports Big Oil by stopping the pipelines and restricting the drilling of new oil wells, which pushes up the price of gasoline so that Big Oil can make huge profits. Biden (or his handlers) represents Big Pharma by pushing vaccine mandates, etc. which most people have rejected.

Big business wants an unlimited supply of cheap labor, which is why Biden's Handlers support illegal immigration, and do not amend the laws to let these people come in legally. So Biden's Handlers represents Big Business in this way too.

My ancestors were all very prominent members of the Democratic Party of the 1960's, when it stood for Civil Rights and the needs of the average working man. That party is gone. The Democratic Party represents the interests of the Elites, not the people. Same with the Republicans.

I cannot tell the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties - I can in what they "say", but I cannot in what they "do".

And I can see why every political party leadership hates Trump, including the Mockingbird Media.

And I know, first hand, why the average working person and small business owner is voting for Trump.

Under Trump, gas used to be $1.78, inflation was low, and we had low interest rates. My business did well. And without illegals pushing down labor costs my sons could work a job with just a high school diploma and still survive. Not anymore.

10 years ago, I had a government job for 30 years and did not care about the business cycle. Now I run a small business and Biden has destroyed it - from day one, - when he shut down the gas pipelines and sent oil prices to the moon. That tripled the cost of PVC pipe which we use in our business, which meant I had to triple my prices, and lost 3/4 of my customers as my products were no longer as good of a value proposition. Not that the idea was not sound, but because Biden shut down oil production.

If you have a government job, you won't understand this. But if you and I lived on a desert island, and you had to pick your own cocoanuts to survive, and some clown chopped down all of the cocoanut trees in the name of the "environment", or "socialism", etc, then you would understand that your survival depends on stopping these clowns. That is where we are today.

The most galling thing is that I had to watch them steal the 2020 election, run the vote watchers out of the vote counting area and put cardboard over the windows to get away with their crimes. And now I and my family have to suffer because of these criminals.

So I have turned to agriculture, to support my family, and I will only sell food to people that are not socialists and actually work for a living by producing something that other people need. The socialists that caused this mess can either starve, or go do something productive, like plant a garden, instead of running an HOA that prohibits gardens.

Yes, "partisan" politics has been our downfall. Just like socialism.

Socialism has destroyed every country that has tried it.

And the two party "partisan" leadership system - in cahoots with Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Military, etc. is hooking up our government to work with Corporations, and not the people. This is the definition of Fascism.

Perhaps that is why we are at war.

[Bootstrap]

What sort of habits/patterns/practices do you expect from an individual or entity that is not partisan?

I assume this is about political partisanship. In modern America, this often means "negative political partisanship". We have debates that people want to win, not discussions where people want to learn. Debate is often less about policy or truth or evidence than attacking or discrediting the other side. Instead of discussing what is good or true or right or useful, and how we can know these things, the focus is on tearing down people and scoring points. Everything becomes red team versus blue team, wanting your team to win, wanting to shut the other side down.

I'm sure I get this wrong plenty, but here are some things I am trying to do:

1. Focus on our shared Christian identity. We are strangers and aliens, not loyal Republicans or Democrats. How do we, as the Kingdom of God, respond to the world around us? As Christians, who do we identify with? Who do we put our trust in?
2. If you choose to discuss politics, focus on facts and issues, not political identities.
3. Use the same standards for both political teams.
4. Avoid the emotional techniques used in propaganda. Name calling and strong adjectives don't prove anything.
5. Don't pretend that you know the "evil" inner thoughts of everyone you disagree with. Assume we probably don't. Don't make up stories based on your certain knowledge of their motivation - we don't know their motivation, we only know what we can see through evidence.
6. If you make a claim, be ready to discuss the evidence for your views. Don't be offended when someone asks. If you don't have evidence, it's OK to say you just feel that way.
7. Assume that we may disagree on some things. Even if you think you have proven something, the other person may not think you have. The goal is not to beat the other person into submission.

FWIW, my signature is meant to be a reminder, to me, about some of these same things. When I see a new issue, what questions do I start with?

[Bootstrap]

Because the driving characteristic is pride and a desire to be accepted and seen by others, politics inherently ends up meaning people try to hold the “right” positions rather than dispassionately and objectively looking at the facts and positions and making balanced, nuanced statements. Partisanship is an expression of the desire to be seen as “right”, as opposed to others who are ignorant, foolish, wrong, and the “other”.

I strongly agree with this.

Most likely they simply aren’t interested in politics. Most people I talk to aren’t very interested in politics (particularly state level, national, and global politics). Perhaps they are interested in talking about a nearby road closure.

It's hard not to be interested in some political questions. I see the suffering by both Israelis on October 7th and Palestinians since then, I feel overwhelming grief, I care. I see the need to have elections that Americans are willing to accept, and I care.

Interest in politics is the domain of the highly intellectual, and people are attracted to it whom wish to feel “smart” and to showcase to others how smart they are by their repertoire of information.

I disagree here. The most partisan media often gives very little verifiable information. These days, they tell us how to feel about which people and which groups. They produce vivid videos with strong claims, but without a way to determine if they are telling the truth.

And the goal of looking at information is not to seem "smart", but to learn from the information. Both Hitler and Stalin knew that intellectuals were a danger to them. Precisely because they cut through the propaganda and looked for information. Often, people claim to have deep knowledge of extremely complicated subjects without ever sorting through the facts. It's like writing the answer on a math exam without showing your work. If we are going to discuss these things, it's going to require some facts and some time.

[Josh]

It's hard not to be interested in some political questions. I see the suffering by both Israelis on October 7th and Palestinians since then, I feel overwhelming grief, I care. I see the need to have elections that Americans are willing to accept, and I care.

I don't think saying "people shouldn't be slaughtered by Hamas agents" and "Gazans shouldn't be gunned down by IDF soldiers" are political statements (although I realise many people do try to turn these into partisan issues). Neither of those two issues are even things that are really up for a vote for Americans. There aren't any significant American Presidential candidates who are pro-Hamas. And there aren't any who are anti-Israel either.

I disagree here. The most partisan media often gives very little verifiable information. These days, they tell us how to feel about which people and which groups. They produce vivid videos with strong claims, but without a way to determine if they are telling the truth.

That's what I mean. A steady diet of partisan media means the main goal is to have the "right" opinions and showcase how you believe the "right" things, in opposition to the "other". Actual truth tends to take a back seat.

It's like writing the answer on a math exam without showing your work. If we are going to discuss these things, it's going to require some facts and some time.

This isn't intended as a personal insult, Bootstrap, but I see you as being one of the ones often guilty of this - you seem to me to have presupposed conclusions and then go hunt for facts that support what you already believe. I realise that everybody does this, but I think it's disingenous to act like your political stances are based on "facts" and everyone else's are somehow less informed.

[Bootstrap]

I disagree here. The most partisan media often gives very little verifiable information. These days, they tell us how to feel about which people and which groups. They produce vivid videos with strong claims, but without a way to determine if they are telling the truth.

That's what I mean. A steady diet of partisan media means the main goal is to have the "right" opinions and showcase how you believe the "right" things, in opposition to the "other". Actual truth tends to take a back seat.

OK, we agree on that.

It's like writing the answer on a math exam without showing your work. If we are going to discuss these things, it's going to require some facts and some time.

This isn't intended as a personal insult, Bootstrap, but I see you as being one of the ones often guilty of this - you seem to me to have presupposed conclusions and then go hunt for facts that support what you already believe. I realise that everybody does this, but I think it's disingenous to act like your political stances are based on "facts" and everyone else's are somehow less informed.

Often, I think what I am saying is this: instead of turning toward whatever we are discussing, in many threads, people are turning on each other. We can't discuss facts because people want to drown that out. Instead, if I am leaving out an important fact, perhaps you could supply it? Balance it out. That's why there's more than one person in a conversation.

I know the process I go through, and it's not what you describe. I start by asking what questions seem most important, then I ask where I can find reliable answers to those questions. I use a wide variety of sources, sometimes the original source documents and statistics, and I often show you the sources I am using.

And I think I do try to show my work - perhaps more than most here.

But it's not a contest to say who the good people are and who the bad people are. That's the partisan game. It's a conversation to try to determine what the truth is, a cooperative game of looking for facts together. We may come away with different opinions, but hopefully we come away more informed.