Dissension Becomes Our Ally

[Sonny Clark]

In my opinion, both Republicans and Democrats equally practice division, dissension, party politics, and anti-America agendas. I've followed both parties for decades now, and I have found little if any difference between the two. Neither party is pro-America.

How about some specifics instead of all the broad brushed polemics?

Specifics, you ask? Okay, no problem. Lets start with the astronomical and rising national debt, our unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies, the injustices of our judicial system, taxation without fair, equal, and just representation, the senseless deadly costly wars, government corruption, our Lobbyists' control of the U.S. Congress, the obvious waste and abuse of tax dollars, our deteriorating infrastructure, the many issues concerning illegal immigration, the gap between the rich and the poor, our forced lower standard of living, the cost of living to real wages ratio, deterioration of the Middle Class, the economically devastating effects of health care, the rising cost of higher education, our long continuing trade deficits, failed foreign policies, the failed war on illegal drugs, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, our growing dependency on foreign imports, off-shore tax havens for the rich and corporations, no-bid government contracts ( Halliburton ), failed campaign finance reforms, the creation of a poor and dependent citizenry, loss of privacy, law enforcement agencies given a free pass to commit cold blooded murder, assault, rape, child molestation, stealing, and taking bribes from known criminals and drug dealers, and on and on and on and on.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's written well but politics has always been a blood sport. What's different today is the round the clock media and cyber communications where people voice their opinions. We just didn't see it before.

You have to take everything with a grain of salt. Some people insist there's no difference between political parties and others claim we've never been more polarized. I believe the answer is somewhere in between.

The two stances are not at odds.

The parties are almost identical AND there is more division now then in recent memory. The reality is that division actually allows the parties to essentially be the same. The unadulterated hate that we see in many partisans today is centered around the letter next to the candidate and has nothing to do with actual policies.

The left could not stand Romney - he was the poster child of everything terrible in the republican party. Even though Obamacare was modeled after his healthcare plan....

The republicans were absolutely tyrannical for stripping our right away with the PA. That is until the democrat government decided to reauthorize it. Now, of course, it is kosher.

Bush is one of the worst presidents in history and Obama the best even though Obama has changed very little. Unless you ask the right - then Obama is the worst president in history and Bush will be vindicated as a fine president later. Cognitive dissonance is strong in politics.

 

[FA_Q2]

You need to post a link to the article per the posting guidelines and you're not suppose to post the complete article. Just trying to help out here.

As for the article itself, I completely agree with it.

There is NO link. I wrote the piece myself. The rules and guidelines do NOT say that one can not write a piece themselves, using their own words. Why do you think that it came from someone else? The piece is my own opinion, in my own words.

Kool, why did't you claim it as your own, instead of "This piece was written"?

I didn't think it was necessary. I'm relatively new here ( I joined in December ) and didn't know that it was required. I haven't seen anyone else state that they wrote a piece when no link was given. I guess that I have over-looked it. I'll have to go back and read the rules and guidelines again.

It just prevents confusion, unfortunately it usually painfully obvious when an OP writes their own stuff.

I'll try to remember that, thanks. I thought that mine was obvious also. Especially since I didn't give a link like I usually do when posting others' material.

Obvious original material here at USMB:
Kenyan Obama terrible anti-American hate monger ate a hambuger today and destroyed the nation by doing so.

or

Republo-Natzi racist hatemonger Boner seen visiting a zoo and went to the monkey cage. See what a racist he is...


If you are going to include thought or leave the vitriol out you might want to say it is original. Just saying, lol

 

[FA_Q2]

"Division" might be a sign of weakness in party politics but so is playing "party politics " a sign of weakness in the government. The voters make the choices and if their chosen representative has a different viewpoint from "party politics" so be it. Does it make the government strong when the democrat party does not allow dissension in the ranks? Are we better off as a Nation that the democrat party kicks their own former vice president candidate out of the party for being too moderate? Republican politicians might not be perfect but at least they allow debate and discussion.

In my opinion, both Republicans and Democrats equally practice division, dissension, party politics, and anti-America agendas. I've followed both parties for decades now, and I have found little if any difference between the two. Neither party is pro-America.

Agree completely. They lie profusely about their agenda's and then pass almost the same legislation when actually in power. most of the 'fights' seem contrived to me - something to give the public so that they actually believe there are differences.

Want a real eye-opener about the difference in parties: look at the major donors and note how many are giving to BOTH parties. Real differences would not lead to donations on both sides.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There is NO link. I wrote the piece myself. The rules and guidelines do NOT say that one can not write a piece themselves, using their own words. Why do you think that it came from someone else? The piece is my own opinion, in my own words.

Kool, why did't you claim it as your own, instead of "This piece was written"?

I didn't think it was necessary. I'm relatively new here ( I joined in December ) and didn't know that it was required. I haven't seen anyone else state that they wrote a piece when no link was given. I guess that I have over-looked it. I'll have to go back and read the rules and guidelines again.

It just prevents confusion, unfortunately it usually painfully obvious when an OP writes their own stuff.

I'll try to remember that, thanks. I thought that mine was obvious also. Especially since I didn't give a link like I usually do when posting others' material.

Obvious original material here at USMB:
Kenyan Obama terrible anti-American hate monger ate a hambuger today and destroyed the nation by doing so.

or

Republo-Natzi racist hatemonger Boner seen visiting a zoo and went to the monkey cage. See what a racist he is...


If you are going to include thought or leave the vitriol out you might want to say it is original. Just saying, lol

No problem. I try to be fair across the board. I have no political party. I'm an American for America, period. I bash both sides of the aisle.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's written well but politics has always been a blood sport. What's different today is the round the clock media and cyber communications where people voice their opinions. We just didn't see it before.

You have to take everything with a grain of salt. Some people insist there's no difference between political parties and others claim we've never been more polarized. I believe the answer is somewhere in between.

The two stances are not at odds.

The parties are almost identical AND there is more division now then in recent memory. The reality is that division actually allows the parties to essentially be the same. The unadulterated hate that we see in many partisans today is centered around the letter next to the candidate and has nothing to do with actual policies.

The left could not stand Romney - he was the poster child of everything terrible in the republican party. Even though Obamacare was modeled after his healthcare plan....

The republicans were absolutely tyrannical for stripping our right away with the PA. That is until the democrat government decided to reauthorize it. Now, of course, it is kosher.

Bush is one of the worst presidents in history and Obama the best even though Obama has changed very little. Unless you ask the right - then Obama is the worst president in history and Bush will be vindicated as a fine president later. Cognitive dissonance is strong in politics.

You didn't see any significant differences between obama and Bush? Foreign policy was like night and day. Social issues, night and day. Spending, not so much, but nobody ever accused Bush of being a fiscal conservative.

That's the whole problem with this political parties the same bs, you have to pick and choose what you want and ignore everything else.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's written well but politics has always been a blood sport. What's different today is the round the clock media and cyber communications where people voice their opinions. We just didn't see it before.

You have to take everything with a grain of salt. Some people insist there's no difference between political parties and others claim we've never been more polarized. I believe the answer is somewhere in between.

The two stances are not at odds.

The parties are almost identical AND there is more division now then in recent memory. The reality is that division actually allows the parties to essentially be the same. The unadulterated hate that we see in many partisans today is centered around the letter next to the candidate and has nothing to do with actual policies.

The left could not stand Romney - he was the poster child of everything terrible in the republican party. Even though Obamacare was modeled after his healthcare plan....

The republicans were absolutely tyrannical for stripping our right away with the PA. That is until the democrat government decided to reauthorize it. Now, of course, it is kosher.

Bush is one of the worst presidents in history and Obama the best even though Obama has changed very little. Unless you ask the right - then Obama is the worst president in history and Bush will be vindicated as a fine president later. Cognitive dissonance is strong in politics.

You didn't see any significant differences between obama and Bush? Foreign policy was like night and day. Social issues, night and day. Spending, not so much, but nobody ever accused Bush of being a fiscal conservative.

That's the whole problem with this political parties the same bs, you have to pick and choose what you want and ignore everything else.

Obama is just as much a warmonger without the boots on the ground. And why no boots?

Because Bush stopped that from happening for the next few decades.

Social issues - don't make me laugh. There is abortion and gay marriage - those are not 'issues.' They are distractions as the courts have taken both of those off the table. When it comes to the massive issues - the ones that matter - they do not differ much at all. Again, I point out that the ACA was a republican brain child until it wasn't. Social security remains unchanged. Corporate subsidies untouched by either party. The electorate remains focused on differences like 'abortion' while the politicians spend TRILLIONS doing the same bullshit that the other party did.

The differences are mostly superficial. the only real issue I see that is largely different is the tax code and they both want a complex tax code that no one can read so that they can participate in massive giveaways. The republicans just advocate for a lower base tax rate.

 

[Iceweasel]

Obama is just as much a warmonger without the boots on the ground. And why no boots?

Because Bush stopped that from happening for the next few decades.

Social issues - don't make me laugh. There is abortion and gay marriage - those are not 'issues.' They are distractions as the courts have taken both of those off the table. When it comes to the massive issues - the ones that matter - they do not differ much at all. Again, I point out that the ACA was a republican brain child until it wasn't. Social security remains unchanged. Corporate subsidies untouched by either party. The electorate remains focused on differences like 'abortion' while the politicians spend TRILLIONS doing the same bullshit that the other party did.

The differences are mostly superficial. the only real issue I see that is largely different is the tax code and they both want a complex tax code that no one can read so that they can participate in massive giveaways. The republicans just advocate for a lower base tax rate.

Bush stopped boots on the ground for decades? Does not compute.

History disagrees with you because I remember quite well that candidates were asked about gay marriage and abortion. Usually the Republicans but obama was for traditional marriage until just after his second election. The court may take it off the legal table for now but that doesn't make the issues go away as they are still being debated across party lines.

The ACA is a national plan, Romney's was a state plan and he isn't "the Republicans". Calling it a Republican plan is disingenuous. If the GOP proposed it you'd be right. I'm not sure how you think one party is going to overhaul social security or why it's the Republican's fault.

Many on the right do want all cronyism with government eliminated, I don't see any opposition from the left, in fact they want more government involvement, not less.
The electorate isn't focused, period. About a third supports most right wing issues, about a third on the left and the rest is up for grabs when it can be squeezed into their TV viewing. What direction we head as a country, how much government, how involved overseas, social matters, healthcare, tax reform, employment and opportunity is not superficial. There's more debate about how to implement those things within the GOP, that's why they are accused of being fractured, the party of no, etc.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, Bush stopped 'boots on the ground' for a long damn time because the American public has gotten so sick of the asinine war over there in Iraq. Politicians don't really support sending troops anywhere because it would torpedo their reelection.

The issues might not be superficial - what the parties actually do about it is.

You are talking like the electorate within the GOP is what the GOP actually stands for. It is not. When they attain power they do not actually address any of those things. Look at Bush, there were 6 years where the republicans had virtual total control AND the nation was not as fractured as it is today. How much of those social issues were addressed? Was social security addressed? Was ANYTHING that the party 'stands for' addressed.

Calling Obamacare a republican plan is not disingenuous. The basis for it came from republicans. Then it was presented as requiring people to be responsible. Now it is the end of the nation. The sole difference being which side presented the plan.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, Bush stopped 'boots on the ground' for a long damn time because the American public has gotten so sick of the asinine war over there in Iraq. Politicians don't really support sending troops anywhere because it would torpedo their reelection.

The issues might not be superficial - what the parties actually do about it is.

You are talking like the electorate within the GOP is what the GOP actually stands for. It is not. When they attain power they do not actually address any of those things. Look at Bush, there were 6 years where the republicans had virtual total control AND the nation was not as fractured as it is today. How much of those social issues were addressed? Was social security addressed? Was ANYTHING that the party 'stands for' addressed.

Calling Obamacare a republican plan is not disingenuous. The basis for it came from republicans. Then it was presented as requiring people to be responsible. Now it is the end of the nation. The sole difference being which side presented the plan.

I don't see who you're addressing your comment to. Are you addressing me?

 

[FA_Q2]

no, Ice. the post above mine.