CDZ America's Political Divide - What if.......?

[WinterBorn]

I do not want to compromise with leftists. I want to defeat them, bury them and stomp on them every time they rear their ugly totalitarian faces. I would go to war over it quite literally.

Has it occured to you to "offer a palatable alternative"?

Because honestly, you can scream, Socialism is bad all day, but it's not like Capitalism has been a big treat for most of us. Certainly not for the 40% of the population that has less than 1% of the wealth. Not for the next 20% who have less than 5% of the wealth.

Since I doubt you are rich, I suspect that you wouldn't understand what you are going to war for.

I'm not sure why you think in terms of % of wealth. I agree that wages need to increase, to keep up with costs and inflation. But measuring the difference between % of wealth for the different socio-economic levels is pure propaganda.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not sure why you think in terms of % of wealth. I agree that wages need to increase, to keep up with costs and inflation. But measuring the difference between % of wealth for the different socio-economic levels is pure propaganda.

Because I think that is overall the problem. when you have too much wealth accumulated in too few hands, it never, ever ends well.

France 1787
Russia 1917
Cuba 1959
Iran 1979

USA 2018?

 

[candycorn]

Well, first whenever we have a terrorist attack and the details are not known, we have to first wait to characterize the attack. If the shooter is of a certain color or religion, to conservatives, he’s disturbed. See Dylan Root. If the shooter is of another color or religion, he’s a thug. See Christopher Dorner for that example. If the shooter is of a specific color or religion, they are actually called terrorists. See San Bernadino for that example.

Dont really think so sister. Dylan Roof is a ruthless homicidal maniac. A genuine human work of failure.

The divisions are front and center because it’s good copy. The nation is as solid as a rock.

Not even close. The political system and discourse has degraded into a pissing match about who did what First or more egregiously. Whatever the scandal, it's NO LONGER WRONG or unethical. It's a matter of which side did MORE of it. The partisan are talking PAST each other. Trying to WIN at any cost. Rather than standing on principles.. It's more of a primitive tribal showdown on the Savannah, then the precious deliberative process that it should be.

In older history, people were ENTERTAINED by political poo-slinging and scandals, but not PERSONALLY invested in the outcomes. It was just part of campaigns and legislation. TODAY -- the 2 arthritic brand name parties have PERFECTED whipping up the partisans into frenzies.

You don't see this from the inside. But the growing MAJORITY, the indies and 3rd parties can see it clearly. This nation is INCAPABLE of proper governance because of the constant and escalating partisan feuding. And it becomes RLife issues when the pendulum is swinging so wildly, that your checkbook and your job are not a sure thing at all.

Disagree on so many levels.

I’m not sure who was “entertained” by the words “the Jew deal” that was often used to describe FDR’s New Deal programs. I’m not sure who was “entertained” when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut”. I’m am sure that most of Donald Trump’s appeal was that he was entertaining to those who voted for him.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well, first whenever we have a terrorist attack and the details are not known, we have to first wait to characterize the attack. If the shooter is of a certain color or religion, to conservatives, he’s disturbed. See Dylan Root. If the shooter is of another color or religion, he’s a thug. See Christopher Dorner for that example. If the shooter is of a specific color or religion, they are actually called terrorists. See San Bernadino for that example.

Dont really think so sister. Dylan Roof is a ruthless homicidal maniac. A genuine human work of failure.

The divisions are front and center because it’s good copy. The nation is as solid as a rock.

Not even close. The political system and discourse has degraded into a pissing match about who did what First or more egregiously. Whatever the scandal, it's NO LONGER WRONG or unethical. It's a matter of which side did MORE of it. The partisan are talking PAST each other. Trying to WIN at any cost. Rather than standing on principles.. It's more of a primitive tribal showdown on the Savannah, then the precious deliberative process that it should be.

In older history, people were ENTERTAINED by political poo-slinging and scandals, but not PERSONALLY invested in the outcomes. It was just part of campaigns and legislation. TODAY -- the 2 arthritic brand name parties have PERFECTED whipping up the partisans into frenzies.

You don't see this from the inside. But the growing MAJORITY, the indies and 3rd parties can see it clearly. This nation is INCAPABLE of proper governance because of the constant and escalating partisan feuding. And it becomes RLife issues when the pendulum is swinging so wildly, that your checkbook and your job are not a sure thing at all.

Disagree on so many levels.

I’m not sure who was “entertained” by the words “the Jew deal” that was often used to describe FDR’s New Deal programs. I’m not sure who was “entertained” when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut”. I’m am sure that most of Donald Trump’s appeal was that he was entertaining to those who voted for him.

Or there was no way they would ever vote for a corrupt, sickly old hag

 

[martybegan]

There really is no common ground politically. I do not understand the fantasy of bring the sides together. We ALWAYS been divided. As early as breaking from England. 1/3rd wanted to go, 1/3rd stay and the rest weren't sure. Divided over slavery. Even had this thing called The Civil War.

The left is steadily moving further towards the left. Very few if any conservatives exist in the Democratic Party anymore. A socialist might have won had they been honest.

I do not want to compromise with leftists. I want to defeat them, bury them and stomp on them every time they rear their ugly totalitarian faces. I would go to war over it quite literally.

The solution is and always has been federalism, but the left currently desires to impose it's view on the entire country, regardless of local will and desire.

 

[candycorn]

Well, first whenever we have a terrorist attack and the details are not known, we have to first wait to characterize the attack. If the shooter is of a certain color or religion, to conservatives, he’s disturbed. See Dylan Root. If the shooter is of another color or religion, he’s a thug. See Christopher Dorner for that example. If the shooter is of a specific color or religion, they are actually called terrorists. See San Bernadino for that example.

Dont really think so sister. Dylan Roof is a ruthless homicidal maniac. A genuine human work of failure.

The divisions are front and center because it’s good copy. The nation is as solid as a rock.

Not even close. The political system and discourse has degraded into a pissing match about who did what First or more egregiously. Whatever the scandal, it's NO LONGER WRONG or unethical. It's a matter of which side did MORE of it. The partisan are talking PAST each other. Trying to WIN at any cost. Rather than standing on principles.. It's more of a primitive tribal showdown on the Savannah, then the precious deliberative process that it should be.

In older history, people were ENTERTAINED by political poo-slinging and scandals, but not PERSONALLY invested in the outcomes. It was just part of campaigns and legislation. TODAY -- the 2 arthritic brand name parties have PERFECTED whipping up the partisans into frenzies.

You don't see this from the inside. But the growing MAJORITY, the indies and 3rd parties can see it clearly. This nation is INCAPABLE of proper governance because of the constant and escalating partisan feuding. And it becomes RLife issues when the pendulum is swinging so wildly, that your checkbook and your job are not a sure thing at all.

All I have is anecdotal evidence, but what has me concerned is that this behavior has spread far beyond politics and punditry, where it has been destructive enough.

This behavior has spread into our culture, our society at large, even pop culture. Singers refusing to sing, restaurants refusing to serve, friendships ruined over differences in political opinion, families literally breaking up, stories of people literally murdering others in political arguments, the list goes on and on.

The old saying "everyone is screaming and no one is listening" has never applied more, not even close, and that can't possibly bode well.
.

I would imagine that if you were to scour the news papers from 1948 or 1848 or 1798, you’d find animosity between supporters of Candidate A vs. Candidate B. The larger number of broadcast platforms makes it possible today that such molehills can become mountains.

 

[Iceweasel]

There really is no common ground politically. I do not understand the fantasy of bring the sides together. We ALWAYS been divided. As early as breaking from England. 1/3rd wanted to go, 1/3rd stay and the rest weren't sure. Divided over slavery. Even had this thing called The Civil War.

The left is steadily moving further towards the left. Very few if any conservatives exist in the Democratic Party anymore. A socialist might have won had they been honest.

I do not want to compromise with leftists. I want to defeat them, bury them and stomp on them every time they rear their ugly totalitarian faces. I would go to war over it quite literally.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- so you see and say your thinking quite clearly , no namby pamby from you and i am glad to see it IceWeasel !!

I prefer honesty to fake compromise. The thing is the left doesn't believe in compromise either. They only mention it if they loose power, otherwise it's all their way or the highway.

 

[pismoe]

Well, first whenever we have a terrorist attack and the details are not known, we have to first wait to characterize the attack. If the shooter is of a certain color or religion, to conservatives, he’s disturbed. See Dylan Root. If the shooter is of another color or religion, he’s a thug. See Christopher Dorner for that example. If the shooter is of a specific color or religion, they are actually called terrorists. See San Bernadino for that example.

Dont really think so sister. Dylan Roof is a ruthless homicidal maniac. A genuine human work of failure.

The divisions are front and center because it’s good copy. The nation is as solid as a rock.

Not even close. The political system and discourse has degraded into a pissing match about who did what First or more egregiously. Whatever the scandal, it's NO LONGER WRONG or unethical. It's a matter of which side did MORE of it. The partisan are talking PAST each other. Trying to WIN at any cost. Rather than standing on principles.. It's more of a primitive tribal showdown on the Savannah, then the precious deliberative process that it should be.

In older history, people were ENTERTAINED by political poo-slinging and scandals, but not PERSONALLY invested in the outcomes. It was just part of campaigns and legislation. TODAY -- the 2 arthritic brand name parties have PERFECTED whipping up the partisans into frenzies.

You don't see this from the inside. But the growing MAJORITY, the indies and 3rd parties can see it clearly. This nation is INCAPABLE of proper governance because of the constant and escalating partisan feuding. And it becomes RLife issues when the pendulum is swinging so wildly, that your checkbook and your job are not a sure thing at all.

Disagree on so many levels.

I’m not sure who was “entertained” by the words “the Jew deal” that was often used to describe FDR’s New Deal programs. I’m not sure who was “entertained” when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut”. I’m am sure that most of Donald Trump’s appeal was that he was entertaining to those who voted for him.

-------------------------------------------------------- accurate description of 'fluke' never bothered me. Trump , i voted for him based on his words concerning USA military , supreme court , fed judges , immigration , guns , borders , sovereignty etc , etc . Plus hey , a choice between Trump or the old lady illary . Contest was over when she was rolled out in the late 60s Candy !!

 

[candycorn]

Well, first whenever we have a terrorist attack and the details are not known, we have to first wait to characterize the attack. If the shooter is of a certain color or religion, to conservatives, he’s disturbed. See Dylan Root. If the shooter is of another color or religion, he’s a thug. See Christopher Dorner for that example. If the shooter is of a specific color or religion, they are actually called terrorists. See San Bernadino for that example.

Dont really think so sister. Dylan Roof is a ruthless homicidal maniac. A genuine human work of failure.

The divisions are front and center because it’s good copy. The nation is as solid as a rock.

Not even close. The political system and discourse has degraded into a pissing match about who did what First or more egregiously. Whatever the scandal, it's NO LONGER WRONG or unethical. It's a matter of which side did MORE of it. The partisan are talking PAST each other. Trying to WIN at any cost. Rather than standing on principles.. It's more of a primitive tribal showdown on the Savannah, then the precious deliberative process that it should be.

In older history, people were ENTERTAINED by political poo-slinging and scandals, but not PERSONALLY invested in the outcomes. It was just part of campaigns and legislation. TODAY -- the 2 arthritic brand name parties have PERFECTED whipping up the partisans into frenzies.

You don't see this from the inside. But the growing MAJORITY, the indies and 3rd parties can see it clearly. This nation is INCAPABLE of proper governance because of the constant and escalating partisan feuding. And it becomes RLife issues when the pendulum is swinging so wildly, that your checkbook and your job are not a sure thing at all.

Disagree on so many levels.

I’m not sure who was “entertained” by the words “the Jew deal” that was often used to describe FDR’s New Deal programs. I’m not sure who was “entertained” when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut”. I’m am sure that most of Donald Trump’s appeal was that he was entertaining to those who voted for him.

-------------------------------------------------------- accurate description of 'fluke' never bothered me. Trump , i voted for him based on his words concerning USA military , supreme court , fed judges , immigration , guns , borders , sovereignty etc , etc . Plus hey , a choice between Trump or the old lady illary . Contest was over when she was rolled out in the late 60s Candy !!

Harkens back to the comment I made early on in this thread about mis-informed/mal-informed voters…. Trump is actually older than HRC.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our only hope is aliens attacking.

Great point.

But even THEN...


.

They are attacking....from Mexico mostly.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Okay, so back to my question: Would a major terrorist attack "bring us together as Americans", as many people assume, or are we just too far gone for that?
.

We have to entice/provoke the major media into not treating politics as another form of entertainment and start treating issues of statesmanship seriously, purging the national discussion of the hateful extremes and returning a common ground of axioms, definitions and collective wisdom so we can talk to each other with clearly understood meaning once again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There really is no common ground politically. I do not understand the fantasy of bring the sides together. We ALWAYS been divided. As early as breaking from England. 1/3rd wanted to go, 1/3rd stay and the rest weren't sure. Divided over slavery. Even had this thing called The Civil War.

The left is steadily moving further towards the left. Very few if any conservatives exist in the Democratic Party anymore. A socialist might have won had they been honest.

I do not want to compromise with leftists. I want to defeat them, bury them and stomp on them every time they rear their ugly totalitarian faces. I would go to war over it quite literally.

Bringing both sides together is not fantasy since we were at one time together, so it is not only possible but plausible and needful to do.

And the Law of Winners Degeneration (that I made up) states that "When there is no where else to go but down, even the best winners do eventually go down."

That means that when we have only one decent party and the other party a collection of ass holes, traitors and idiots, depending on which party you belong to, EVENTUALLY THE ASS HOLES WILL RULE.

Lets clean this stuff up and form a national consensus again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pearl Harbor united America and gave FDR a blank cheque. He used it to attack Germany.

Dude, Germany declared war on us, not the other way around.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not sure why you think in terms of % of wealth. I agree that wages need to increase, to keep up with costs and inflation.

People need more than that, Winter.

They need to make enough to save for :
1) kids college

2) to save for their retirement

3) to feel confident enough about their future to spend more of their disposable income NOW and drive the economy upwards.

 

[Iceweasel]

There really is no common ground politically. I do not understand the fantasy of bring the sides together. We ALWAYS been divided. As early as breaking from England. 1/3rd wanted to go, 1/3rd stay and the rest weren't sure. Divided over slavery. Even had this thing called The Civil War.

The left is steadily moving further towards the left. Very few if any conservatives exist in the Democratic Party anymore. A socialist might have won had they been honest.

I do not want to compromise with leftists. I want to defeat them, bury them and stomp on them every time they rear their ugly totalitarian faces. I would go to war over it quite literally.

Bringing both sides together is not fantasy since we were at one time together, so it is not only possible but plausible and needful to do.

And the Law of Winners Degeneration (that I made up) states that "When there is no where else to go but down, even the best winners do eventually go down."

That means that when we have only one decent party and the other party a collection of ass holes, traitors and idiots, depending on which party you belong to, EVENTUALLY THE ASS HOLES WILL RULE.

Lets clean this stuff up and form a national consensus again.

No, we were never together, except maybe during the war. Name a time when we had a national consensus. Plus the left has gone so far to the left a socialist could have won. That's not the right dividing the country. It's failure to run along behind in the interests of a mythological consensus.

 

[pismoe]

Well, first whenever we have a terrorist attack and the details are not known, we have to first wait to characterize the attack. If the shooter is of a certain color or religion, to conservatives, he’s disturbed. See Dylan Root. If the shooter is of another color or religion, he’s a thug. See Christopher Dorner for that example. If the shooter is of a specific color or religion, they are actually called terrorists. See San Bernadino for that example.

Dont really think so sister. Dylan Roof is a ruthless homicidal maniac. A genuine human work of failure.

The divisions are front and center because it’s good copy. The nation is as solid as a rock.

Not even close. The political system and discourse has degraded into a pissing match about who did what First or more egregiously. Whatever the scandal, it's NO LONGER WRONG or unethical. It's a matter of which side did MORE of it. The partisan are talking PAST each other. Trying to WIN at any cost. Rather than standing on principles.. It's more of a primitive tribal showdown on the Savannah, then the precious deliberative process that it should be.

In older history, people were ENTERTAINED by political poo-slinging and scandals, but not PERSONALLY invested in the outcomes. It was just part of campaigns and legislation. TODAY -- the 2 arthritic brand name parties have PERFECTED whipping up the partisans into frenzies.

You don't see this from the inside. But the growing MAJORITY, the indies and 3rd parties can see it clearly. This nation is INCAPABLE of proper governance because of the constant and escalating partisan feuding. And it becomes RLife issues when the pendulum is swinging so wildly, that your checkbook and your job are not a sure thing at all.

Disagree on so many levels.

I’m not sure who was “entertained” by the words “the Jew deal” that was often used to describe FDR’s New Deal programs. I’m not sure who was “entertained” when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut”. I’m am sure that most of Donald Trump’s appeal was that he was entertaining to those who voted for him.

-------------------------------------------------------- accurate description of 'fluke' never bothered me. Trump , i voted for him based on his words concerning USA military , supreme court , fed judges , immigration , guns , borders , sovereignty etc , etc . Plus hey , a choice between Trump or the old lady illary . Contest was over when she was rolled out in the late 60s Candy !!

Harkens back to the comment I made early on in this thread about mis-informed/mal-informed voters…. Trump is actually older than HRC.

------------------------------------------------------- nothing to do with age , see video plus ponder on , can 'illary' wrassle anyone but the muslim lady named 'huma' and that wrassling being on a soft and forgiving , stain guarded plush surface [bed] Candy ?? And as comparison --- --- and compare the staged wrestling video to actual video of 'illary' being held up by aides as she waits for a ride in her security transport or ambulance Candy .

 

[JimBowie1958]

Name a time when we had a national consensus.

Those within our nation at the time of the debates had consensus on many things, from ending slavery to stopping communism to defeating the Axis.

That you enjoy the endless fighting is understandable if you are making profit from it financially, emotionally or just for the sake of your world view staying stable and the comfort that must bring you.

But there are obviously many issues we have had consensus on, or nothing would ever have been solved/fixed. But we did do such things on a regular basis up until the major media decided to make news industry a form of entertainment and started hyping verbal pugilism among political discussions instead of sober and serious statesmanship.

There is plenty of evidence that shows we used to have a lot of "cross over" among the parties and ideological divides that has disappeared in the past three decades.

 

[pismoe]

Okay, so back to my question: Would a major terrorist attack "bring us together as Americans", as many people assume, or are we just too far gone for that?
.

We have to entice/provoke the major media into not treating politics as another form of entertainment and start treating issues of statesmanship seriously, purging the national discussion of the hateful extremes and returning a common ground of axioms, definitions and collective wisdom so we can talk to each other with clearly understood meaning once again.

----------------------- big problem is that we are different creatures , I don't know how to talk to anyone that wants a smidgeon of gun control or a smidgeon of abortion outside of REAL medical necessity for abortion JIM !!

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know how to talk to anyone that wants a smidgeon of gun control or a smidgeon of abortion outside of REAL medical necessity for abortion JIM !!

Well, on gun control the best response is "Come and take my guns, dude" and on abortion "What if your mother thought so too when she had you?"

If they long for their own death that much, then they are certifiable idiots and beyond reaching with reason.

 

[Iceweasel]

Name a time when we had a national consensus.

Those within our nation at the time of the debates had consensus on many things, from ending slavery to stopping communism to defeating the Axis.

That you enjoy the endless fighting is understandable if you are making profit from it financially, emotionally or just for the sake of your world view staying stable and the comfort that must bring you.

But there are obviously many issues we have had consensus on, or nothing would ever have been solved/fixed. But we did do such things on a regular basis up until the major media decided to make news industry a form of entertainment and started hyping verbal pugilism among political discussions instead of sober and serious statesmanship.

There is plenty of evidence that shows we used to have a lot of "cross over" among the parties and ideological divides that has disappeared in the past three decades.

Slavery was hotly debated from day one. It was a primary catalyst to the civil war. Never said I enjoy endless fighting, why do you put words into people's mouths.

Communism and the cold war didn't exactly unite us either, many did and still do criticize Reagan for his actions, money spent on military. The left seems to have a love affair with it, fawning all over Cuba, Venezuela until the shit hit the fan.

There probably was more unity during Reagan's day but he's vilified even today. I'm not sure how that the right's doing. Examples abound that the left cannot be reasoned with. They don't get their way, they take to the streets. They protest, march, block traffic, etc. The right is at fault for not compromising? It's a myth. There never was a consensus and I do not feel in the least bit responsible for not going along with things I don't like or think harmful to the country.