Divided, We Stand?

[edward37]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

Ummm ... well, there's my kid. He's Gen Y, even more opinionated than I am, and he's not alone.

You think I hate republicans and Trump ? My children make me look soft

 

[Flopper]

Keep in mind that although we have sets of beliefs that we label as being conservative or liberal, people we identify as conservative or liberal do not necessary accept all beliefs association with that ideology. Studies have show that both liberals and conservatives strongly support only 25% to 30% of the key points in that ideology. 40% to 50% of the ideology is supported but not considered a major concern. The remaining points in the ideology is of little personal interest.

For this reason Flopper, I'd say it's best to take each issue one by one,
and just mediate between the different groups, parties and beliefs.

Just because people flip one way on one issue shouldn't dictate representation on another issue.

We can organize representation loosely by party. to start, but then on each issue, let
people represent their own views and make sure we include and cover each other.

After all points, objections and issues tied to each matter are spelled out,
then all sides can coordinate policies and solutions based on that input.

So it doesn't have to mean a blanket label across the board.
We should address each issue that involves beliefs, and work out all points pertaining
to arrive at policy decisions that include, address and resolve all grievances and objections people have
so their beliefs and interests are represented equally in solutions.

In regard to the constitution, in any discussion, the first issue that has to be addressed is how do you interpret the constitution?

Just the fact that people interpret it differently, is enough.
It isn't necessary to spell it all out and agree on everything, like a labeled denomination.
But just to respect where people have their different beliefs. That's good enough.

If we just let people represent themselves, they can answer yes and no for what
they agree with or not. It doesn't have to be perfectly defined, because it can change in the process,
and like you pointed out, people may not be uniform across the board but have mixed beliefs.

Again, I'd also take each Constitutional principle, article and issue separately.

At any point that people diverge in their beliefs, allow both sets of variations to co-exist equally.
And work out solutions that don't rely on putting one over the other.

Either they CONSENT to a solution, or they don't, or they come up with a better alternative.
That process of coming to consensual solutions is the real goal.
If we end up spelling out the specific beliefs and differences along the way, that's helpful but not necessary.

Also, each conflict addressed may lead to different solutions by different groups or regions.

The same solutions that works for one school or district, may not represent what works for another.

It's funny, that I was just talking with a friend about how to set up a process to handle political beliefs.
And he also brought up how do we DEFINE what is a belief.
And I said if we sat around arguing how to define it, we'd go in circles dissection and deconstructing the terms.
NO. I said we should just APPLY the process to issues we KNOW and AGREE involve conflicting beliefs,
and go for it, go ahead and address these and work out solutions. Not theorize and argue how to word and define it.

I think we can agree these type of issues involve beliefs that people cannot be forced to change by govt:
1. Right to health care as necessary through federal govt or separate from govt as a civil liberty reserved to people or States
2. Marriage, same sex or LGBT orientation/identity, and terms of benefits
3. Abortion, right to life, where the woman's right to due process and the right to life of the unborn should both be equally protected to prevent infringement (similar to gun rights and voting rights, where legislation should not deprive law abiding citizens of rights
because of attempts to regulate against criminal abuses)
4. Citizenship, immigration, birth rights, rights of taxpayers
5. Death penalty, restorative justice and criminal issues of rehab and restitution
So mediation is necessary to craft policies, reforms and solutions that "work around"
the conflicting beliefs instead of violating one set or another by compromising for "political expedience" or other compelling pressures

If we can work toward what we can agree on and set aside the rest for another day, then we have taken the first step toward making goverment work for the people. But how do you do that in a political environment that is so polarized? For example, there is no argument in congress or across the nation that we need a major overhaul of our infrastructure. Our bridges are literally falling down. Our highways are so inadequate that we are approaching gridlock in many of our major cities. Both parties have promised to overhaul our infrastructure for years. The problem of course is that the minority party is not willing to allow the majority party to shape the legislation and take credit.

We need republican liberals and democrat conservatives that can form coalitions in congress to get things done. We are so polarized that progress only occurs when one party controls government which is less than a third of time. When the other party gains control of government, the primary goal becomes to undue what the opposition accomplished. Just as republicans have tried to reverse everything the Obama administration accomplished, democrats will try to reverse everything Trump has done when they get control of goverment.

Flopper What I do when I get stuck with one or more friends, butting heads and getting "el nowhere"
we turn to other people we trust to "get us out of our own heads." We ask other friends "well NOW WHAT do we do"
"this person is melting down and we can't even talk. WTF????"

With parties, we have overlooked the input and objections of major influences
in the Green party, Libertarian, and Constitutionalists. By reaching out to tap talent, insights and leadership
from these other groups, we create opening and avenues for new discussions and angles on the "same old deadlocks"

I just found out through a Constitution party group that was "butting heads"
one of the leaders in ANOTHER STATE is actually for life imprisonments instead of the death penalty.

This means a whole new opportunity to bring in a new ally where the right/life liberal/conservative blocs
in Texas cancel each other out. I've been arguing as a Constitutionalist to SEPARATE FUNDING.
Well now I can make that argument, and either get somewhere, or expose the conflict at a BROADER LEVEL nationally.

These people may still keep butting heads, but what if someone else GETS IT. Then THEY start interjecting
and we might break the deadlock.

That's where I think this is heading Flopper
Notice even Ms. AOC was borrowing material from the Greens,
and Al Gore and other "Global Awarmists" took the green message and twisted it beyond recognition for their elitist political agenda.

Since around 2009-2012, heads of the REAL progressives and libertarians, including Ralph Nader and Ron Paul,
started calling for alliances and partnership between third party movement. And have been meeting and hosting conferences.

When is THAT bubble they are building going to burst in public?
I'd been working on forming alliances with people across different parties, to compile and include the BEST solutions
and ideas from ALL sources I could find.

It's just a matter of time before the barriers break that these major parties have been enforcing through media
projections of agenda back and forth. If half the nation supports one agenda while the other contests it, and vice versa,
then CLEARLY those are NOT the positions that represent ALL AMERICA. It's going to take a MIX of all these,
so it's other parties and programs that have put together solutions that don't DEPEND on taking "one side or the other"
that are going to work and sustain in an environment where we have BOTH hard left and hard right stances going on.

The solutions are going to be built and work AROUND these factions, but can't depend on any one of them dominating
and excluding the others. So these solutions naturally arise from the grassroots up.

Given our democratic media, where everyone has freedom of speech and access to free press,
these solutions are going to rise to the top, as people give up "butting heads" on the one-way bullying that isn't changing the other person's mind. When we turn to our other colleagues and ask "what would you do, how do you solve this crap" that's when we will start getting and hearing answers from other sources that have had to work it out without depending on party leadership or positions.

Democratic Self-Government: Are we heading there or not even close?

^ Here Flopper I just posted a separate link or thread to a list I made of some of these "solutions from third parties" which I shared with someone else calling for anarchy and self-government. It was too long, and also includes the original anarchist links, so I broke this up into separate posts on a separate thread, and linked it back here.

But THAT'S where I believe we are heading as a society in developing
stages and steps toward democratic self-government.

What I would like to see happen is a third party president. Unfortunately, our two major parties convince their supporters that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the opposition. Thus they vote for people they feel are incompetent because they can't stand the idea of voting third party and contributing to the election of the opposition.

 

[badger2]

Post #1: yes, the coercion of coalitions foster unity of belief, which can be defined as theogonic reproduction. It can also be defined as propaganda. It is theological, and began at least as early as when hominids came out of Africa. (Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)

 

[emilynghiem]

What I would like to see happen is a third party president. Unfortunately, our two major parties convince their supporters that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the opposition. Thus they vote for people they feel are incompetent because they can't stand the idea of voting third party and contributing to the election of the opposition.

Thanks Flopper To combat this exclusive monopoly, what do you think of this strategy to undercut it:
Promote a public resolution or even a Constitutional lawsuit charging that the practice of parties imposing their platforms by majority rule on the rest of the nation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1. Because it abuses Govt processes to VIOLATE the First Amendment against Govt abused to either ESTABLISH or PROHIBIT beliefs, where political beliefs and religions are RECOGNIZED as a form of religion or creed. And
2. Citizens of other parties and beliefs demand IMMEDIATE corrections and/or restitution
for policies that DISCRIMINATE BY CREED.

For example: the ACA legislation and costs to taxpayers can be PROVEN to have violated
both the Constitutional beliefs of Conservatives and Libertarian party members (and others espousing similar beliefs that such legislation was unconstitutional without an Amendment ratified by States) AND prohibited the investment of public resources into universal care by direct associations (by forcing taxpayers to fund corporate insurance and interests instead which did not represent the beliefs or interests of taxpayers affected)

Because THIS instance can be PROVEN to have violated rights and beliefs of multiple parties,
the citizens bringing this complaint petition and demand of Congress responsible for ACA passage to REIMBURSE the costs to taxpayers, so those taxes and/or credits can be applied to setting up democratically managed health care that RESPECTS and PROTECTS the Constitutional rights and beliefs of all citizens regardless of their creeds.

3. By setting up corrections and reform for this ONE CASE ALONE, the structures created can then be applies to solving other political problems where people of ALL PARTIES can participate equally in the democratic process to ADVISE Government Officials at ALL LEVELS of government to prevent further or continuing infringement, including Discrimination by Creed by excluding other parties.

NOTE: Proportional representation by district or party can be set up in multiple ways that operate concurrently:
* by State by county precinct
* by Party by precincts,
* by national representation by Electoral College reps and councils organized proportionally by parties and taxpayers per District.

Do you think more parties can unite around forcing corrections to ACA so ALL taxpayers are reimbursed for government resources spent on this unconstitutional legislation. Where ALL parties can demand proportional reimbursement to their members affected where the resources and/or credits can be invested in setting up democratized health care associations, which would also set up local representation and administration by county district or by party precinct to manage this correctional reform for taxpayers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Pretty much correct.

The good news (if you want to call it that) is that the angry white men are dying off faster than ever thanks to the high fat/low fiber lifestyles of most in the South. With them, the bigotry, hatred, and (the worst part) the intellectual dishonesty and oneupmanship is dying off as well. So that is indeed good news. Not that people are dying but the basic bottom line result.

I knew we could count on you or some idiot like you to rush in here and present yourselves as Exhibit A of what the OP was talking about, while being too obtuse to even recognize it.

 

[bripat9643]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

Ummm ... well, there's my kid. He's Gen Y, even more opinionated than I am, and he's not alone.

You think I hate republicans and Trump ? My children make me look soft

I'm sorry to learn that your children are even bigger dumb assholes than you. Life will be hard for them.

 

[bripat9643]

Keep in mind that although we have sets of beliefs that we label as being conservative or liberal, people we identify as conservative or liberal do not necessary accept all beliefs association with that ideology. Studies have show that both liberals and conservatives strongly support only 25% to 30% of the key points in that ideology. 40% to 50% of the ideology is supported but not considered a major concern. The remaining points in the ideology is of little personal interest.

For this reason Flopper, I'd say it's best to take each issue one by one,
and just mediate between the different groups, parties and beliefs.

Just because people flip one way on one issue shouldn't dictate representation on another issue.

We can organize representation loosely by party. to start, but then on each issue, let
people represent their own views and make sure we include and cover each other.

After all points, objections and issues tied to each matter are spelled out,
then all sides can coordinate policies and solutions based on that input.

So it doesn't have to mean a blanket label across the board.
We should address each issue that involves beliefs, and work out all points pertaining
to arrive at policy decisions that include, address and resolve all grievances and objections people have
so their beliefs and interests are represented equally in solutions.

In regard to the constitution, in any discussion, the first issue that has to be addressed is how do you interpret the constitution?

Just the fact that people interpret it differently, is enough.
It isn't necessary to spell it all out and agree on everything, like a labeled denomination.
But just to respect where people have their different beliefs. That's good enough.

If we just let people represent themselves, they can answer yes and no for what
they agree with or not. It doesn't have to be perfectly defined, because it can change in the process,
and like you pointed out, people may not be uniform across the board but have mixed beliefs.

Again, I'd also take each Constitutional principle, article and issue separately.

At any point that people diverge in their beliefs, allow both sets of variations to co-exist equally.
And work out solutions that don't rely on putting one over the other.

Either they CONSENT to a solution, or they don't, or they come up with a better alternative.
That process of coming to consensual solutions is the real goal.
If we end up spelling out the specific beliefs and differences along the way, that's helpful but not necessary.

Also, each conflict addressed may lead to different solutions by different groups or regions.

The same solutions that works for one school or district, may not represent what works for another.

It's funny, that I was just talking with a friend about how to set up a process to handle political beliefs.
And he also brought up how do we DEFINE what is a belief.
And I said if we sat around arguing how to define it, we'd go in circles dissection and deconstructing the terms.
NO. I said we should just APPLY the process to issues we KNOW and AGREE involve conflicting beliefs,
and go for it, go ahead and address these and work out solutions. Not theorize and argue how to word and define it.

I think we can agree these type of issues involve beliefs that people cannot be forced to change by govt:
1. Right to health care as necessary through federal govt or separate from govt as a civil liberty reserved to people or States
2. Marriage, same sex or LGBT orientation/identity, and terms of benefits
3. Abortion, right to life, where the woman's right to due process and the right to life of the unborn should both be equally protected to prevent infringement (similar to gun rights and voting rights, where legislation should not deprive law abiding citizens of rights
because of attempts to regulate against criminal abuses)
4. Citizenship, immigration, birth rights, rights of taxpayers
5. Death penalty, restorative justice and criminal issues of rehab and restitution
So mediation is necessary to craft policies, reforms and solutions that "work around"
the conflicting beliefs instead of violating one set or another by compromising for "political expedience" or other compelling pressures

If we can work toward what we can agree on and set aside the rest for another day, then we have taken the first step toward making goverment work for the people. But how do you do that in a political environment that is so polarized? For example, there is no argument in congress or across the nation that we need a major overhaul of our infrastructure. Our bridges are literally falling down. Our highways are so inadequate that we are approaching gridlock in many of our major cities. Both parties have promised to overhaul our infrastructure for years. The problem of course is that the minority party is not willing to allow the majority party to shape the legislation and take credit.

We need republican liberals and democrat conservatives that can form coalitions in congress to get things done. We are so polarized that progress only occurs when one party controls government which is less than a third of time. When the other party gains control of government, the primary goal becomes to undue what the opposition accomplished. Just as republicans have tried to reverse everything the Obama administration accomplished, democrats will try to reverse everything Trump has done when they get control of goverment.

Flopper What I do when I get stuck with one or more friends, butting heads and getting "el nowhere"
we turn to other people we trust to "get us out of our own heads." We ask other friends "well NOW WHAT do we do"
"this person is melting down and we can't even talk. WTF????"

With parties, we have overlooked the input and objections of major influences
in the Green party, Libertarian, and Constitutionalists. By reaching out to tap talent, insights and leadership
from these other groups, we create opening and avenues for new discussions and angles on the "same old deadlocks"

I just found out through a Constitution party group that was "butting heads"
one of the leaders in ANOTHER STATE is actually for life imprisonments instead of the death penalty.

This means a whole new opportunity to bring in a new ally where the right/life liberal/conservative blocs
in Texas cancel each other out. I've been arguing as a Constitutionalist to SEPARATE FUNDING.
Well now I can make that argument, and either get somewhere, or expose the conflict at a BROADER LEVEL nationally.

These people may still keep butting heads, but what if someone else GETS IT. Then THEY start interjecting
and we might break the deadlock.

That's where I think this is heading Flopper
Notice even Ms. AOC was borrowing material from the Greens,
and Al Gore and other "Global Awarmists" took the green message and twisted it beyond recognition for their elitist political agenda.

Since around 2009-2012, heads of the REAL progressives and libertarians, including Ralph Nader and Ron Paul,
started calling for alliances and partnership between third party movement. And have been meeting and hosting conferences.

When is THAT bubble they are building going to burst in public?
I'd been working on forming alliances with people across different parties, to compile and include the BEST solutions
and ideas from ALL sources I could find.

It's just a matter of time before the barriers break that these major parties have been enforcing through media
projections of agenda back and forth. If half the nation supports one agenda while the other contests it, and vice versa,
then CLEARLY those are NOT the positions that represent ALL AMERICA. It's going to take a MIX of all these,
so it's other parties and programs that have put together solutions that don't DEPEND on taking "one side or the other"
that are going to work and sustain in an environment where we have BOTH hard left and hard right stances going on.

The solutions are going to be built and work AROUND these factions, but can't depend on any one of them dominating
and excluding the others. So these solutions naturally arise from the grassroots up.

Given our democratic media, where everyone has freedom of speech and access to free press,
these solutions are going to rise to the top, as people give up "butting heads" on the one-way bullying that isn't changing the other person's mind. When we turn to our other colleagues and ask "what would you do, how do you solve this crap" that's when we will start getting and hearing answers from other sources that have had to work it out without depending on party leadership or positions.

Democratic Self-Government: Are we heading there or not even close?

^ Here Flopper I just posted a separate link or thread to a list I made of some of these "solutions from third parties" which I shared with someone else calling for anarchy and self-government. It was too long, and also includes the original anarchist links, so I broke this up into separate posts on a separate thread, and linked it back here.

But THAT'S where I believe we are heading as a society in developing
stages and steps toward democratic self-government.

What I would like to see happen is a third party president. Unfortunately, our two major parties convince their supporters that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the opposition. Thus they vote for people they feel are incompetent because they can't stand the idea of voting third party and contributing to the election of the opposition.

Yeah, that's what all you Trump hating morons need to do: vote for a third party.

 

[deanrd]

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

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.

In politics there is practically never a time when the two sides unite however, that does not mean the two sides can never cooperate. At this point in time, it appears cooperation is impossible but that will change as it always does.

Political idealists are always talking about the need for fundamental changes that will forever change the course of America. However, as long as there is a two party system, the course of this country will move to left and right as control in Washington changes.

Unfortunately not all Americans are good people.

How do you compromise with Republicans? That only some black people should be allowed to vote or some gays should be killed or only some Muslims should be banned?

The biggest reason this country is in the mess that it’s in is because Democrats keep trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans.

These people are racist. They don’t have the best interest of the country at heart. The only way to compromise with Republicans is to defeat them at the ballot box.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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.

In politics there is practically never a time when the two sides unite however, that does not mean the two sides can never cooperate. At this point in time, it appears cooperation is impossible but that will change as it always does.

Political idealists are always talking about the need for fundamental changes that will forever change the course of America. However, as long as there is a two party system, the course of this country will move to left and right as control in Washington changes.

Unfortunately not all Americans are good people.

How do you compromise with Republicans? That only some black people should be allowed to vote or some gays should be killed or only some Muslims should be banned?

The biggest reason this country is in the mess that it’s in is because Democrats keep trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans.

These people are racist. They don’t have the best interest of the country at heart. The only way to compromise with Republicans is to defeat them at the ballot box.

You're a great case in point. Everything you post is a complete fucking lie.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Basically true but over-dramatic.

Jeez...everyone goes through phases, even countries.

And look around America - nationalism and extremism are on the rise in most of the West (especially Europe).

And there are set, logical reasons for it. Human DNA didn't suddenly just go all wonky.

And there are set, logical reasons why it will almost certainly (though not 100% certainly), eventually will pass. And humanity might even end up better for it in the end.

My major concern is how much 'damage' will there be before western humanity comes out the other side?

I just wish people would spend more time analyzing the reasons (which, again, should be relatively obvious to most, IMO - free market destruction/wealth inequality acceleration via government/central bank wealth protection/market domination in almost every major economic power and post-9/11, Western MASSIVE/cowardly overreaction to terrorism) with an open mind and less time over-dramatizing everything.

Okay, America/Europe are having problems right well. Well duh...this started years ago. Now, how to fix/mitigate the problems...not just endlessly describing them.

Whatever the solution, I am sure any proposal will be some for of government force. Few EVER consider a non-government solution. It's usually a quick decision for everyone to call on government to get out guns and force everyone to comply.

To government:

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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

Pretty much correct.

The good news (if you want to call it that) is that the angry white men are dying off faster than ever thanks to the high fat/low fiber lifestyles of most in the South. With them, the bigotry, hatred, and (the worst part) the intellectual dishonesty and oneupmanship is dying off as well. So that is indeed good news. Not that people are dying but the basic bottom line result.

You say "correct' and then you add fuel to the fire? You throw in a gratuitous insult about the South, why again?
Angry White men are not the problem..angry idiots who will not let go of their agendas are the problem. Progressives who will not compromise...one-trick pony politicians who fuel their specialized constituencies at the expense of common sense and honest compromise. Identity politics on both sides of the aisle.

Oh yeah..and social media trolls who think that their transparent rhetoric and adherence to party talking points passes for intelligence.
Those are our problems.

 

[B. Kidd]

The division just got wider today. I knew we could count on the unhinged Dems for it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

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.

In politics there is practically never a time when the two sides unite however, that does not mean the two sides can never cooperate. At this point in time, it appears cooperation is impossible but that will change as it always does.

Political idealists are always talking about the need for fundamental changes that will forever change the course of America. However, as long as there is a two party system, the course of this country will move to left and right as control in Washington changes.

Unfortunately not all Americans are good people.

How do you compromise with Republicans? That only some black people should be allowed to vote or some gays should be killed or only some Muslims should be banned?

The biggest reason this country is in the mess that it’s in is because Democrats keep trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans.

These people are racist. They don’t have the best interest of the country at heart. The only way to compromise with Republicans is to defeat them at the ballot box.

How can ANY of us have a productive conversation when you and your ilk post (and believe) this dishonest bullshit?

There is no way forward with this type of disingenuous dumbfuckary. We may as well get out the guns and start shooting each other.

.

 

[B. Kidd]

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

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.

In politics there is practically never a time when the two sides unite however, that does not mean the two sides can never cooperate. At this point in time, it appears cooperation is impossible but that will change as it always does.

Political idealists are always talking about the need for fundamental changes that will forever change the course of America. However, as long as there is a two party system, the course of this country will move to left and right as control in Washington changes.

Unfortunately not all Americans are good people.

How do you compromise with Republicans? That only some black people should be allowed to vote or some gays should be killed or only some Muslims should be banned?

The biggest reason this country is in the mess that it’s in is because Democrats keep trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans.

These people are racist. They don’t have the best interest of the country at heart. The only way to compromise with Republicans is to defeat them at the ballot box.

How can ANY of us have a productive conversation when you and your ilk post (and believe) this dishonest bullshit?

There is no way forward with this type of disingenuous dumbfuckary. We may as well get out the guns and start shooting each other.

.

Even tho' I hope not, we'll get there soon enough.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You and Slade are both delusional in that you both think you can change the cultural divide in our country.

At least they are willing to do something other than fling poop.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What I would like to see happen is a third party president.

For the love of God (who does not exist) YES!!!

 

[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

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.

In politics there is practically never a time when the two sides unite however, that does not mean the two sides can never cooperate. At this point in time, it appears cooperation is impossible but that will change as it always does.

Political idealists are always talking about the need for fundamental changes that will forever change the course of America. However, as long as there is a two party system, the course of this country will move to left and right as control in Washington changes.

Unfortunately not all Americans are good people.

How do you compromise with Republicans? That only some black people should be allowed to vote or some gays should be killed or only some Muslims should be banned?

The biggest reason this country is in the mess that it’s in is because Democrats keep trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans.

These people are racist. They don’t have the best interest of the country at heart. The only way to compromise with Republicans is to defeat them at the ballot box.

Dear deanrd

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

Pretty much correct.

The good news (if you want to call it that) is that the angry white men are dying off faster than ever thanks to the high fat/low fiber lifestyles of most in the South. With them, the bigotry, hatred, and (the worst part) the intellectual dishonesty and oneupmanship is dying off as well. So that is indeed good news. Not that people are dying but the basic bottom line result.

Dear candycorn

Then who is left to blame next
after cutting off this target scapegoat
DOESN'T solve internal problems
of bigoted "oneupmanship" and dishonesty WITHIN your own ranks?

 

[edward37]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

Ummm ... well, there's my kid. He's Gen Y, even more opinionated than I am, and he's not alone.

You think I hate republicans and Trump ? My children make me look soft

I'm sorry to learn that your children are even bigger dumb assholes than you. Life w So fuk you you republican AHill be hard for them.

Yes one has a Masters and the other at 31 is making 175 k with a raise soon

 

[emilynghiem]

What I would like to see happen is a third party president.

For the love of God (who does not exist) YES!!!

Dear Flopper and Bootney Lee Farnsworth, if you are both serious, let's consult with the heads of the Constitution Parties that have been pushing for a different approach. I believe through the Constitutional process, we could then reach out and provide better means of representation for other "third parties" left out of the current paradigm, including green progressives left out of Democratic party demagoguery and Libertarian and Constitutionalists left out of the parties on the right.

I posted arguments trying to outline points to propose a campaign for a Constitutional complaint, petition or lawsuit on the grounds that the current system of party's pushing their beliefs and platforms through govt is VIOLATING equal constitutional rights, beliefs and protections of people of other beliefs and creeds, especially rights of taxpayers to representation in the TERMS of costs and funding.

This is causing Discrimination by Creed and Taxation without Representation.

Would posting such a petition online and distributing it publicly help open the door to STOPPING political parties from abusing Govt to push their biased agenda arguing these constitute political beliefs, religions or creeds?

How do we word this to put out a call to people of all parties to denounce and refuse to go along with any further unconstitutional suppression and abuse of taxpayers with equal rights to defend our beliefs and representation, and participation in democratic process?

 

[candycorn]

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

Pretty much correct.

The good news (if you want to call it that) is that the angry white men are dying off faster than ever thanks to the high fat/low fiber lifestyles of most in the South. With them, the bigotry, hatred, and (the worst part) the intellectual dishonesty and oneupmanship is dying off as well. So that is indeed good news. Not that people are dying but the basic bottom line result.

You say "correct' and then you add fuel to the fire? You throw in a gratuitous insult about the South, why again?
Angry White men are not the problem..angry idiots who will not let go of their agendas are the problem. Progressives who will not compromise...one-trick pony politicians who fuel their specialized constituencies at the expense of common sense and honest compromise. Identity politics on both sides of the aisle.

Oh yeah..and social media trolls who think that their transparent rhetoric and adherence to party talking points passes for intelligence.
Those are our problems.

Angry white men are dying off. This will make the world better for everyone.