ELAINE HARRIS SPEARMAN: In partisan times, how do you understand the other side?

Some subjects are as hard to write about as they are to talk about. Everybody has their own point of view about most subject matters, and many people believe that what they say and believe should prevail, no matter what.

A lot of those opinions are not based upon any facts as a result of independent reading or research. People rely upon conversations within their groups: family members or friends who commonly agree with their positions.

Many people rely upon social media and ultimately end up relying upon misguided information.

A major discussion in the partisan times that we are living in involves America’s two-party system. There are two major political parties in the United States. There are degrees of labeling in each party.

This labeling includes moderate, conservative, extreme, centrist, right-wing, left-wing and now progressive. I do not debate the worthiness of any of those labels. Nor do I debate the need for a third party. There are several "third parties" in existence. Many voters vote for candidates from those parties or they write-in candidates.

As it stands today, the two-party system consists of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. For most elections held in this country, you must make a choice. Some elections are non-partisan.

How good would it be if you could simply vote for the candidate who offered the best representations for all of the people, political party notwithstanding?

Politics and religion are defining relationships. I have written in this space before about terrible statements made about a Republican candidate having friends and family members who have “Democratic friends,” as if they were consorting with murderers or child abusers.

Here comes the trite, pathetic statement that you have heard used, maybe by you, about friendships that some find unacceptable or not to their liking. I have many friends who are Republican and Democratic alike. It is, of course, bothersome when I see what and whom the GOP supports.

It gives me pause. I find myself wondering, how could such smart, decent and wonderful people accept a candidate who spouts proven lies and defrauds people in business and the general public? How can they believe that it is OK to commit lewd acts against woman? In these cases, the results were rendered by both judge and jury. Is it acceptable by them to engage in name calling and make fun of people? Do they accept this low-level behavior from a 77-year-old man who has no other aspiration than to rule over the United States of America?

In the recent 93-page opinion in the New York fraud case, the judgment included more than $435.5 million, with interest in “joint and several liability” against Donald Trump and certain entities. Judge Arthur Engoron wrote that "joint and several liability is warranted when the misconduct of the company and its top controlling officers are indistinguishable.”

This candidate for president of the United States, who is guilty of gross misconduct and fraud stood before his base at a rally, and called the current president “crooked.” You learned growing up that you accuse others of what you do yourself, no proof needed.

Th 93-page opinion also contained the following: “Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological.” “They are unremorseful and highly likely to commit fraud again. Their lives are defined by breaking the rules.” Trump, “is a pathological fraudster who would not stop unless forced.”

What about this can’t his supporters — who are smart, honorable and decent ― understand? Am I to believe that the behavior is acceptable to the entire base of supporters and that I have misplaced trust?

I find myself asking: Is this all there is. Are politics and religion the only barometers used to measure friendships and relationships of any kind? Aren’t there other things with value that can join people together?

People are wrapping themselves in the flag, and pseudo-religious gobbledygook: simply put, “speech or writing that is complicated and difficult to understand.”

This is done with the fervor that suggests that others do not support the flag that represents America, and that whatever faith that others practice does not rise to level of the flag and religion wrappers (Pun intended).

Dear God. Trump attended an aptly named event, “Sneaker Con.” The disgraced former president hawked shiny, gold sneakers with an American flag detail on the back of the shoes. This after trading cards, photo books of his time in office and letters written to him.

At $399 a pair for the shoes, take your chances. They are most certain to crack and crumble in the worst way upon one wearing. Good luck with your attempt to secure a refund.

Elaine Harris Spearman, Esq., a Gadsden native, is an attorney and is the retired legal advisor to the comptroller of the City of St. Louis. The views expressed are her own. 

This article originally appeared on The Gadsden Times: ELAINE HARRIS SPEARMAN: Partisan politics divides us as a nation