(12-13-2017 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't think we need to blame anyone - we agree on that.
And I read your sentence in context, which is why I was a bit more taken back with the perceived blame. The way you wrote your sentence sounded like you were trying to scapegoat younger generations for a problem that currently exists.
You said: "I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our young people have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people."
Had you said "I think one reason we have become so fractured and polarized is that so many of our citizens have no experience doing things in a group of dissimilar people."
You focused on a specific generation in relation to the problem you've identified, even though that problem is related to more than just young people. As I said in another post, service across the board has dropped since the greatest generation.
Regardless, I'll just take all of the blame for this misunderstanding so you can continue to be infallible.

The context was that we were talking about programs for young people. Read the post to which I was responding, and those that preceded it. If you just read what I wrote without any context, then I can see how you could misinterpret it.

And I'll not dignify the final sarcastic comment by responding to it.

So, why don't we drop blame altogether and just focus on solutions. What do you think of the idea? And I almost hate to ask this, but what do you think of what I thought would actually be the controversial part of my comments, the thing about primaries? And how could or would we solve that?

Dropped.

I've said I agree with the idea - a GI Bill Part II makes a lot of sense, and I have no issue with the requirement portion of it. Countries we consider allies and partners already do that.

I also agree with your comments on the primaries. I think that's where the Democratic Party (for President at least) is a bit better off than the Republicans because of super delegates. They can basically help take over if a truly outlandish person runs. Keeping some voice of the people involved is necessary, but the primaries have become a litmus test in how far left or right you'll go, which isn't good.

I think the biggest thing that has caused polarization though is the advent of the internet and the deregulation of news. These have allowed people to silo themselves and find communities of like-minded individuals that won't challenge their views, just reinforce it. At this point, Fox News is basically the Republican Party TV, and CNN only ever has talk shows that are stocked with liberal guests. At some point, we have to either collectively decide that the sky is blue and reject places that say it is green, or be willing to let some other entity decide for us. Our current situation is untenable in the long run, where people literally live in two different realities. I could go down this rabbit hole for hours.

Yet it was the superdelegate system that led to the screwing of Bernie, was it not?

Each party has every right to do those things in the way they see fit; the problem with the heavy preponderance
on the superdelegate system is precisely what you see is its advantage --- it gives a set of superpower keys to a small group of people who might be scared about what happens if the kids take over.

Potayto, potahto