... I wanted to try to be as impartial as possible, but it's quite challenging if you're willing to reject the premise of both sides being equal. This is not the case. Sure, the Left may have it's faults policy-wise, but it's at least based on reality. The Right is more concerned with ideology and focusing on the interests of the uber-wealthy. It's impossible to deal with reality and cater to the one percent at the same time. The reality of the vast majority of the people in this world is significantly different than the reality of the one percent.
So, the Right, in order to cater to this small, exclusive group, has to work to modify reality (at least those of the vast majority of people on this planet) to conform with their policies.
The Left, in dealing with 99 percent of people in this world, doesn't have that issue. They do have to conform their policies to existing and fluid situations (we don't live in a static world), and sometimes they get the policy wrong - but it's at least grounded in reality.
So, I wasn't dealing with the original question, only to the response. I'm interested in framing the debate on the absolute fundamental difference of the "political divide." That difference rests on which side deals with reality, and which side doesn't. I'm shocked that the equality of the two sides (that they're on equal footing foundationally) is axiomatic. It is not. We must first deal with the fundamental issue before we can attempt to bridge the divide. Everyone will have disagreements, but if you say that Bigfoot exists, you better have evidence of its existence before we even start to debate what we should do with it.
In essence, not all arguments or opinions are equal. And some are so absurd that we really shouldn't waste time dealing with it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
