J.C.MacSwell

You seem to have the belief that we're advocating compromising with the extremes, or the extreme positions of the extremes. Half of America can't be all bad on this issue if 83% are in favour of gun control. On this issue at least, if the political bigotry can be set aside it would seem some progress can be made.

Progress? https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html

Compromise toward worthwhile progress is hard work. Maintaining polarization is cheap and easy.

Political polarization is much more acute in Congress. There are far more conservatives than the lawmakers themselves.

Swing and a miss. Start by showing less animosity toward your independent and conservative allies on gun control, and follow with the same toward others that are open minded. Look for a path to a win, and when you see it avoid that tempting cookie jar of political gamesmanship.

The Canadian race are naturally the best ice hockey players. So much so in fact, that we've built more ice hockey rinks per capita of any other race on Earth.

LOL. Seems we all agree with "Meathead"...we just don't agree on the best way to get there.

With just 11% of your population were also bound to have less examples of pants-on-crazy. And while we do have the advantage of more than 2 parties, a party can be elected by majority without even a plurality of votes. But I do think we have better control of election spending and political lobbying. And we let those with criminal records vote, even those currently incarcerated. On topic. Our gun laws still need work, but at least they are comparatively reasonable.

What would be the right audience? You see yourself as someone trying to break the political polarization?

Stop accepting the short term expedience of polarization. Even if you favour one side over the other, if you find yourself always on your Party's side of the argument you might ask yourself why. Talk to your potential allies from the other side. Pretend to be interested in their point of view. If your party rejects you for it be open to a new moderate one with balanced views. Eventually of course if they (new party) get in power they will become corrupt as well and need given the boot, but real progress can be made in the interim and/or the current parties will shift toward the middle and perhaps do the same. E. Warren has many reasonable views. To bad about the political expedience fail. I wonder how she would talk if there was a moderate third party (or better yet hoping to head it)

https://www.forwardparty.com/ Talk with these guys. You don't even need to burn your Democrat membership to do so, or even to join. Does Yang have all the answers? Certainly not...but he's not the same old taco turd or shit sandwich...maybe even better than poutine with apple pie for dessert.

I realize that Phi. You however are very good at it, much better than I ever hope to become. Not only are they all claiming it, many are actually doing it Are you careful with yours? (I don't own one) Sometimes it is. I hope that's the case for your ownership of one.(no pun intended) I do have this weird idea that there is good and bad on all parts of the political spectrum, and often feel that the baby needs protection, even if the bathwater stinks. I do admit to struggling to keep up with all the politically motivated Orwellian shifts in language. The NRA would be more than pleased to quote you on that... For your politics? Or for gun control?

It's the basis for a political cartoon in some right wing publication you would never read. Brought to you by far right gaslighting, and supported by left wing overstatements.

P1: May I have a campfire if I'm careful and the risk of forest fire is low. P2: What are you? Some kind of arsonist? Do you have any idea of the costs of forest fires? Forest fires kill people, and unlike me, you are responsible for the many deaths!

To be fair, I only took exception to the nope. Phi said conservatives (truth to it but attacking conservatives more than the actual thinking behind the gun laws he suggests 80 percent of conservatives, 46 percent of independents, and 8 percent of democrats support). I said Americans (more truth to it...do the math...but intentionally equally unhelpful...I guess no one got it...my bad, but I certainly don't regret the blunt clarification) I have no doubt you held a reasonable gun control sign and might have lamented a few of the signs held on behalf of the same effort. No. Those people are are at best ill advised and at worst PsOS. Whining about cancel culture is pretty much everyone not busy virtue signalling. +1 for the above post though. I would be frustrated as well on many fronts, and have held my nose while voting here more than once.

If you think that was the point then no, you don't get it. To be blunt...I wasn't taking a shot at all Americans, I was mocking your polarizing methodology...which at best gets you votes...but at worst ensures little progress gets made. Not exactly sure what was asked, but if true you already have 94 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents, and 20 percent of Republicans likely onside, and perhaps many others open to being convinced if you make rational arguments and don't scare them all off with your BS. So get it done. Even if you have to compromise a bit. You don't get a pass just for insisting you're right. Or just get out of the way and let a new moderate party take over.

Unless you are talking about the far right in some other country... Yep. (note how cheap and easy that was)

Americans in the US are allowing shots to be taken at their children.

Exactly. Not the factor you claimed. Just a shot at conservatives that does nothing to focus on the problem. I'm sure the NRA appreciates that type of unintended support.

Some dyslexic insomniac, who stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

Certainly some of the beliefs generally categorized as right wing are a huge part of the problem. The one you keyed in on certainly has it's issues, but it's pretty low on the list with regard to gun control IMO.

It's always tough to turn to respecting the good in people that have deservingly lost respect. It's one of the reasons I think those incarcerated or on parole should be allowed to vote, at least provincially or nationally (and it is allowed in Canada, though I doubt it will come any time soon in the US, for reasons that have nothing to do with democratic fairness)

More on topic. Haven't paid attention other than hearing the score was 15-2 or something...but I think best to include anyone subject to abuse in the public discourse is to respect known facts as they emerge, and stay open minded otherwise...even if you want to pick sides.

From your link: "Even worse, perhaps, he pretended to be an undergraduate student to deceive younger women into sleeping with him." These obviously weren't his students (so no conflict of interest I would expect) . He was 27 (he said he looked younger IIRC from SYJ, and often told the truth in a smartass way...no doubt expecting to be disbelieved) when the war ended and there were many undergraduates that age after coming back from the war. Not exemplary behaviour, but if that is the "worst perhaps"...probably not the worst example of misogyny...certainly not "I think I'll vote for him for POTUS level"

Never thought I'd say this...but Go cancer Go!