Divided, We Stand?

[toomuchtime_]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

This rhetoric might sound good but it’s fundamentally a false comparison, as conservatives have – for the most part – sought for decades to divide the American people with hot-button wedge ‘issues’ that are in fact not ‘issues’ at all, in an effort to conceal and deflect from the real problems the Nation must address, problems conservatives want to ignore.

lol For example?

 

[Slade3200]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

Nice sentiment, but either Pelley is dense as hell, or simply does not understand the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

One does not normally unite with an enemy striving to fundamentally change the country into a model that has failed wherever forced.

The Democratic Party is no longer American, and must be driven from political authority.

There are 34 other political parties out there. It's not as if they are not expendable.

The problem is that your attitude only fuels the trolls and the division which strengths the wings of each party. You actually contribute to strengthening the movement that you are so adamantly against. Both parties actually have a lot of common areas as well. Why not focus on those. Not every issue has an absolute and opposite solution as defined by our ruling classes.

Lol
You do realize socialism cannot tolerate anyone that thinks different?

I realize that you’re nothing more than a troll that incorrectly labels everything on the left as socialism.

 

[Slade3200]

We have centuries of proof that socialism does not work for the good of any society. Why continue the insanity of trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

I don't know what you mean by "socialism".

The word has been so over-used that it now means nothing. Or anything.
.

He doesn’t know what he means when he says socialism.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

Nice sentiment, but either Pelley is dense as hell, or simply does not understand the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

One does not normally unite with an enemy striving to fundamentally change the country into a model that has failed wherever forced.

The Democratic Party is no longer American, and must be driven from political authority.

There are 34 other political parties out there. It's not as if they are not expendable.

You advocate one party rule while claiming while claiming Democrats must be driven out of political authority.

I do not. I advocate the removal of a political force hostile to the American system of government. You comprehend the number 34, yes?

How unAmerican can you get? Being a Trump supporter puts the first foot on that path.

Defense of the Republic and foundational American thought cannot by its very nature be un-American.

 

[toomuchtime_]

not because of policy disagreements but only because of a desire to deny to America anything that might also benefit Trump.

Oh really? Is that why the republican senate rejects Trumps trade deals?

Senate rejects Trump's deal to save Chinese company ZTE

Is that why the Republican senate rejected trump's border emergency?

Senate votes to reject Trump's border emergency declaration

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on the saudi/yemen war?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6a24a8-45c2-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on tariffs?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/senate-trump-tariff-vote/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Or, on russian sanctions?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/sanctions-senate-republicans-trump/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1

It is why Pelosi refuses to consider the new trade agreements negotiated with Canada and Mexico, and why she refuses to consider infrastructure repair and development unless Trump rolls back his tax cuts and why she refuses the same immigration reforms Trump proposed which are identical to the immigration reforms the Democrats wanted in Schumer's 2013 Senate bill S. 744. There are no policy disagreements on these issues, but the Democrats refuse to deal with them because they are Trump initiatives and he would get some of the credit for the outcomes.

 

[bripat9643]

You may not change their opinion, but you definitely make them reluctant to voice it public.

Which was true of racist pukes for a while, there. Then president moron ran.

"Racist pukes" refers to anyone who wants to control our border. You just demonstrated how effective the technique is and how leftists use it.

 

[bripat9643]

not because of policy disagreements but only because of a desire to deny to America anything that might also benefit Trump.

Oh really? Is that why the republican senate rejects Trumps trade deals?

Senate rejects Trump's deal to save Chinese company ZTE

Is that why the Republican senate rejected trump's border emergency?

Senate votes to reject Trump's border emergency declaration

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on the saudi/yemen war?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6a24a8-45c2-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on tariffs?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/senate-trump-tariff-vote/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Or, on russian sanctions?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/sanctions-senate-republicans-trump/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1

Establishment douchebags.

 

[Nosmo King]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

Nice sentiment, but either Pelley is dense as hell, or simply does not understand the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

One does not normally unite with an enemy striving to fundamentally change the country into a model that has failed wherever forced.

The Democratic Party is no longer American, and must be driven from political authority.

There are 34 other political parties out there. It's not as if they are not expendable.

You advocate one party rule while claiming while claiming Democrats must be driven out of political authority.

I do not. I advocate the removal of a political force hostile to the American system of government. You comprehend the number 34, yes?

How unAmerican can you get? Being a Trump supporter puts the first foot on that path.

Defense of the Republic and foundational American thought cannot by its very nature be un-American.

Your assertions about the Democrat party have no basis in fact. Your partisanship is more like a sports fan's attachment to a team. Blinded by raconous partisanship, you now fail to see anything, even America, as anything other than something to root for or, more commonly, root against.

 

[Slade3200]

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And calling somebody you don’t know a moron is useful in what way besides providing a false sense of superiority to compensate for deep rooted insecurities?

Who gives a fuck whether it's useful? I said it was fun. It's fun to argue and beat people in arguments and debates. Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

You’re right, it is a sad state we are in. Politics is almost entirely about winning elections and dirty campaigning unfortunately has proven to be the most effective tactic. We the people have become drama hungry puppets being fed by trolls. Don’t know how it changes but I hope something can change our course

It begins in places just like this. We may post because we won't to change hearts and mind but what we really do is build walls between us such that the opposition hears only what confirms their position. What we should be doing is creating threads that are more neutral where ideas can be shared and agreements can be reached. And secondly, we should use techniques that actually work. Calling someone a stupid idiot will never change their opinion and will just derail the thread.

Do discussions on USMB of race, religion, abortion, climate change, illegal immigration, etc change the minds of the opposition? I think not and that's because posters are far more interesting in stating their own opinion than actually changing the opinions of others.

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

Yes I understand... you get enjoyment out of deluding yourself into thinking you are dominating your political enemy’s through insults and debate. In reality, nobody gives a shit. It’s childish and shows your personal insecurities but if that floats your boat then go right ahead.... also I didn’t take anything you said out of context. You made the point that if the world isn’t going to act defend then why should you and I was responding to that... here’s your statement.

“Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is why Pelosi refuses to consider the new trade agreements negotiated with Canada and Mexico

That's not what the US Trade representative says:

"Senate Republicans said on Tuesday that Lighthizer believes that negotiations with Pelosi over passage of the trade deal were making progress and being handled “in good faith.” - Reuters, 5/23/19

Apparently your knowledge of this comes only from trump tweets.

she refuses to consider infrastructure repair and development unless Trump rolls back his tax cuts

Haha...what embarrassing, cultist nonsense. Just this week she met with trump on infrastructure. He instantly had an embarrasing little toddlerish hissy fit and stomped out.

she refuses the same immigration reforms Trump proposed which are identical to the immigration reforms the Democrats wanted in Schumer's 2013 Senate bill S. 744.

They are not identical. That's a wingnut blogger talking point, and you ate it right up:
CHART: How Trump's Immigration Proposal Compares With Other Plans

 

[percysunshine]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

I googled searched ‘hairy navel gazing’, but the images were so disturbing, I was hesitant to share them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

Nice sentiment, but either Pelley is dense as hell, or simply does not understand the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

One does not normally unite with an enemy striving to fundamentally change the country into a model that has failed wherever forced.

The Democratic Party is no longer American, and must be driven from political authority.

There are 34 other political parties out there. It's not as if they are not expendable.

You advocate one party rule while claiming while claiming Democrats must be driven out of political authority.

I do not. I advocate the removal of a political force hostile to the American system of government. You comprehend the number 34, yes?

How unAmerican can you get? Being a Trump supporter puts the first foot on that path.

Defense of the Republic and foundational American thought cannot by its very nature be un-American.

Your assertions about the Democrat party have no basis in fact.

Not up on 20th Century history or the last two decades, huh?

 

[Flopper]

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And calling somebody you don’t know a moron is useful in what way besides providing a false sense of superiority to compensate for deep rooted insecurities?

Who gives a fuck whether it's useful? I said it was fun. It's fun to argue and beat people in arguments and debates. Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

You’re right, it is a sad state we are in. Politics is almost entirely about winning elections and dirty campaigning unfortunately has proven to be the most effective tactic. We the people have become drama hungry puppets being fed by trolls. Don’t know how it changes but I hope something can change our course

It begins in places just like this. We may post because we won't to change hearts and mind but what we really do is build walls between us such that the opposition hears only what confirms their position. What we should be doing is creating threads that are more neutral where ideas can be shared and agreements can be reached. And secondly, we should use techniques that actually work. Calling someone a stupid idiot will never change their opinion and will just derail the thread.

Do discussions on USMB of race, religion, abortion, climate change, illegal immigration, etc change the minds of the opposition? I think not and that's because posters are far more interesting in stating their own opinion than actually changing the opinions of others.

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people standing up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling them how wrong and how stupid they are.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And calling somebody you don’t know a moron is useful in what way besides providing a false sense of superiority to compensate for deep rooted insecurities?

Who gives a fuck whether it's useful? I said it was fun. It's fun to argue and beat people in arguments and debates. Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

It begins in places just like this. We may post because we won't to change hearts and mind but what we really do is build walls between us such that the opposition hears only what confirms their position. What we should be doing is creating threads that are more neutral where ideas can be shared and agreements can be reached. And secondly, we should use techniques that actually work. Calling someone a stupid idiot will never change their opinion and will just derail the thread.

Do discussions on USMB of race, religion, abortion, climate change, illegal immigration, etc change the minds of the opposition? I think not and that's because posters are far more interesting in stating their own opinion than actually changing the opinions of others.

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people sanding up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling how wrong and how stupid they are.

 

[Nosmo King]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

Nice sentiment, but either Pelley is dense as hell, or simply does not understand the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

One does not normally unite with an enemy striving to fundamentally change the country into a model that has failed wherever forced.

The Democratic Party is no longer American, and must be driven from political authority.

There are 34 other political parties out there. It's not as if they are not expendable.

You advocate one party rule while claiming while claiming Democrats must be driven out of political authority.

I do not. I advocate the removal of a political force hostile to the American system of government. You comprehend the number 34, yes?

How unAmerican can you get? Being a Trump supporter puts the first foot on that path.

Defense of the Republic and foundational American thought cannot by its very nature be un-American.

Your assertions about the Democrat party have no basis in fact.

Not up on 20th Century history or the last two decades, huh?

Under Democrat rule the Great Ddpreseion ended, two World Wars were won, civil rights, voter rights and women’s rights were defended, Social Security and Medicare were established.

 

[emilynghiem]

How many stars in the American flag?

Fifty, you say? I'm not sure. If there were fifty, then citizens of liberal states and conservative states would join in common purpose on the blue field which is, after all, called, "the union."

Instead, it seems, we are recklessly tugging at the thread that holds us together. Today, liberals and conservatives barricade themselves in digital citadels where some media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that what they already believe is correct. If we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Cold War. This time, a cold civil war.

Given this danger, why do both parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals? Because it is so much easier than health insurance or immigration reform. Taking on actual challenges would require work, and listening, and thought, and union.

"Divided, we stand"? Scott Pelley on our American flag, and our common purpose - CBS News

Dear Flopper

This is because we have allowed political beliefs to get established by government.
This is what you get when you don't limit government by keeping religion out.
You get unresolvable conflicts because people aren't going to change their beliefs,
and can't be forced by government to compromise.
Because beliefs are not supposed to be embedded in government to begin with!

This is why!

SEE Amendments 1, 5, 14 and Civil Rights Act against Discrimination by Creed.
All these laws HAVE BEEN VIOLATED by allowing Parties to abuse Govt to establish "political beliefs" that violate the consent and beliefs of citizens who have equal right to defend their creeds against such unlawful discrimination by Govt.

(Because liberals who believe in establishing law through Courts may require this as "legal proof" that their beliefs violate the Constitutional rights, beliefs and creeds of others, we may need a formal LAWSUIT and COURT ORDER that meets "due process" standards before depriving citizens of their liberty to exercise "Socialist beliefs in establishing Socialist programs and policies through Govt." We may actually have to PROVE LEGALLY THROUGH COURT RULING that rights and beliefs are being VIOLATED in order to bar such "unconstitutional" policies from being railroaded through Govt by majority rule or court ruling.)

Here are the arguments that Constitutionalists make, but liberals/Socialists
do not seem believe are legally valid "unless it is established by Court Ruling":

Whether abusing Govt, majority rule, or judicial rule to do so, it remains UNLAWFUL to DISCRIMINATE against people by mandating or dictating BELIEFS through Govt WITHOUT CONSENT and AGAINST THE BELIEFS of such citizens, as such Govt abuses violate the following:
* First Amendment on religious freedom from establishment of faith-based beliefs or religious biases (where Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs including political religions)
* Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection of the laws including due process of laws BEFORE denying liberty
* Civil Rights Act barring Discrimination by CREED

Individuals and even groups remain free to mandate their beliefs for their own followers and adherents. But have NO RIGHT to abuse Govt to force those beliefs on others, including political beliefs, unless people CONSENT.
And clearly people DO NOT consent to Govt establishing beliefs that violate their own.

(including either SOCIALIST beliefs that it is legally necessary for Govt to endorse such beliefs, or CONSTITITIONAL beliefs that it is unlawful for Govt to do so IE NOT "AGREEING" WITH LIBERAL OR SOCIALIST BELIEFS does not justify abusing Govt and majority rule to DEPRIVE others of LIBERTY to defend and exercise CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS IN LIMITED GOVT without due process to LEGALLY PROVE such people are committing some abuse meriting loss of liberty.)​

CITATIONS:
A. Constitutional Amendments
(Amendment I)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Amendment V)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Amendment XIV)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

B. Civil Rights Act
TITLE VI OF THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

“No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, race, national origin, creed,
age, marital status, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Flopper we can try to follow the Code of Ethics for Government Service (below)
and "Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished"
by EDUCATING, MEDIATING and AGREEING TO STOP the unlawful imposition by Parties of political beliefs
through Govt against the beliefs, creed and consent of others, WITHOUT resorting to more costly legal actions and expenses.

However, if Liberal and Socialist Democrats BELIEVE such precedent, ruling, law or interpretation
CAN ONLY BE ESTABLISHED BY GOVT, then we would have to go through the process of either:
1. Constitutional Amendment to recognize Political Beliefs or Religion equally as a form of religious belief or creed
2. Congress passing a law regulating Parties as Political Religions limited from establishing or prohibiting beliefs through Govt
3. Setting up a separate democratic process for addressing, mediating, and resolving matters of political beliefs that would work in conjunction with the existing branches and processes of government

SEE ALSO:
C. Code of Ethics for Government Service, Public Law 96-303
that is also violated by biased policies passed through govt by individuals or groups putting
PARTY above Constitutional principles, including equal protection of interests of ALL people regardless of creed.

Again, in order to enforce this Code of Ethics, we should agree on what are the most "efficient and economical ways" of resolving conflicts over establishing or prohibiting political beliefs, instead of allowing equal free exercise of such beliefs WITHOUT unlawful infringing on the rights and beliefs of others to defend, express and exercise their own beliefs.

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

www.ethics-commission.net​

 

[Flopper]

not because of policy disagreements but only because of a desire to deny to America anything that might also benefit Trump.

Oh really? Is that why the republican senate rejects Trumps trade deals?

Senate rejects Trump's deal to save Chinese company ZTE

Is that why the Republican senate rejected trump's border emergency?

Senate votes to reject Trump's border emergency declaration

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on the saudi/yemen war?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6a24a8-45c2-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

Is that why the republican senate rebuked trump on tariffs?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/senate-trump-tariff-vote/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Or, on russian sanctions?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/sanctions-senate-republicans-trump/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1

It is why Pelosi refuses to consider the new trade agreements negotiated with Canada and Mexico, and why she refuses to consider infrastructure repair and development unless Trump rolls back his tax cuts and why she refuses the same immigration reforms Trump proposed which are identical to the immigration reforms the Democrats wanted in Schumer's 2013 Senate bill S. 744. There are no policy disagreements on these issues, but the Democrats refuse to deal with them because they are Trump initiatives and he would get some of the credit for the outcomes.

As I recall, the meetings between Pelosi and Trump seem to end with him storming out of the room. The president told reporters afterwards that he wouldn’t negotiate with Democrats on any policies as long as they continued investigations. Trump has absolutely no interest in passing any legislation before the election which is why he has not been willing to negotiate. He just wants put on a good show for his base which means being more contentious than the opposition.

Obama's proposed immigration reform addressed dreamers and Trump's did not. Obama strongly supported family based immigration. Trump introduced merit based immigration as a replacement. Obama supported improvements in border security focusing on technology. Trump plan for border security is his wall. The two proposals could not be further apart which is why Trump's plan will be DOA in the House.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And calling somebody you don’t know a moron is useful in what way besides providing a false sense of superiority to compensate for deep rooted insecurities?

Who gives a fuck whether it's useful? I said it was fun. It's fun to argue and beat people in arguments and debates. Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

It begins in places just like this. We may post because we won't to change hearts and mind but what we really do is build walls between us such that the opposition hears only what confirms their position. What we should be doing is creating threads that are more neutral where ideas can be shared and agreements can be reached. And secondly, we should use techniques that actually work. Calling someone a stupid idiot will never change their opinion and will just derail the thread.

Do discussions on USMB of race, religion, abortion, climate change, illegal immigration, etc change the minds of the opposition? I think not and that's because posters are far more interesting in stating their own opinion than actually changing the opinions of others.

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people standing up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling them how wrong and how stupid they are.

Well said! I also find it useful to ask questions and allow the person you are engaged with to explain their ideas. It helps me understand their knowledge and perspective but also allows room to find commonalities and expose flaws in their logic should flaws exist. At that point introducing alternative ideas can be explored. But it does take two to tango and often both are using flawed sources for information and the debate never gets below the surface.

 

[Slade3200]

And calling somebody you don’t know a moron is useful in what way besides providing a false sense of superiority to compensate for deep rooted insecurities?

Who gives a fuck whether it's useful? I said it was fun. It's fun to argue and beat people in arguments and debates. Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people sanding up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling how wrong and how stupid they are.

a true troll response. Bravo

 

[Flopper]

And calling somebody you don’t know a moron is useful in what way besides providing a false sense of superiority to compensate for deep rooted insecurities?

Who gives a fuck whether it's useful? I said it was fun. It's fun to argue and beat people in arguments and debates. Trying to better ourselves won't fix this divide, unless the entire country is in agreements, and since that won't happen, I might as well use it to have some fun arguing with people on the internet.

Well for somebody who likes to win arguments you just threw out a pretty piss poor one. We can only control our own actions. Doing something you know isn’t right because “everybody else is doing it” is a lesson we learn in grade school. People who do that lack character, integrity and personal responsibility.

Dude, can you read or is your brain out-to-lunch. I don't care. Keep sucking your own dick about morality - I'm having fun. Oh, and when did I say I'm arguing because "everybody else is doing it." Take that shit out of quotes you disingenuous fucker. I said I'm doing it because it's enjoyable. Not because it's moral. Not because everyone is doing it. Because it's fun. You can attack me all you want; I don't give a shit. I'm enjoying myself on this message board arguing, and you want to please yourself by sucking your own dick about morality and how arguing on the internet "isn't right" and that I "lack character" then go for it. That's what message boards are for. Real life is for real issues. You take this place way too fucking serious if you think shit that happens on USMB actually matters in any way.

You’re right, most of what goes on here is trolling and fighting. I’ve engaged in some good debates which have caused me to rethink my positions and/or learn events and history that I wasn’t aware of. I’ve also been guilty of engaging in ugly attacking ways. In the end, we are all responsible for how we engage and we all need to better

Yes, having civil discussions is nice, but nowhere near as fun as calling someone you don't know a fucking moron because they think making the 1% pay for everything will fix our country.

And that is much of what USMB and similar forums are all about, a place to lash out against strangers with different beliefs, something you would never do at work or at home. It's also good entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.

Hey, that's why I joined. I have to sit at work and listen to people attack my political beliefs listen to Democrats talk about how all Republicans are racists, and stupid for supporting unborn children. Naturally, I'm not going to say anything to my coworkers, otherwise I'll be ostracized. So, I can come here and vent my frustrations. YES! And that's what I'm saying, but this dude is acting like discussions on the internet are fucking sacred. If REAL changes about the partisan divide are going to be made, it needs to start in the real world, not on a fucking internet message board.

I have lived in democrat and republican strongholds and have been members of both parties. Real change comes from people standing up for what they believe in the right way, not by hiding behind some fake montra on the internet and telling the opposition how stupid they are for not agreeing with you. That only assures they will not listen to you. You have to confront the opposition not as the enemy but as one seeking to work toward common goals which must be conciliatory enough in order to establish a dialog. For example, if you want to change someone's opinion that does not support reduction in greenhouse gases, begin by agreeing with them on the need for petroleum in order to start a meaningful dialog. The first step in changing the opinion of the opposition is get them to listen to you which won't happen as long as you are telling them how wrong and how stupid they are.

Well said! I also find it useful to ask questions and allow the person you are engaged with to explain their ideas. It helps me understand their knowledge and perspective but also allows room to find commonalities and expose flaws in their logic should flaws exist. At that point introducing alternative ideas can be explored. But it does take two to tango and often both are using flawed sources for information and the debate never gets below the surface.

Most people are not that knowledgeable on issues they support. So asking them to explain what they believe followed by non-accusatory questions lead people to the conclusion that they don't understand their position they are taking as well as they thought they did which makes it easier to negotiate with them.

Of course none of this is likely to work on USMB because most everyone here has come to do battle and vanquish the enemy, not to change opinions.