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

[JimBowie1958]

Slavery was hotly debated from day one. It was a primary catalyst to the civil war.

And we eventually reached a consensus on it, did we not? That is my point.

Never said I enjoy endless fighting, why do you put words into people's mouths.

I did not say that, read it again.

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.

A 'consensus' does not require mathematical unity, dude.

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.

Consensus is where people meet in the middle to get things done. It does not require the agreement from the outer fringes.

You can either participate in the consensus or remain on the fringe for whatever reason. That is your choice.

 

[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.

------------------------------------------------------- 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 .

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.

Maybe having a candidate that isn’t a carnival barker would help.

Perhaps we should better focus on the media actually telling us when a candidate is only interested in the job because he thinks it would be a cool gig, pointing out a candidate that only focuses on exacerbating the hateful extremes, and has some wisdom beyond a HS education about social studies. Yes, I’m talking about Donald Trump.

There is a famous video where JFK was being interviewed by Huntley and Brinkley



I know you won’t watch it (or I’d be surprised if you did) but if you did, what you’d probably say is that there is press advocacy in action. What I would say is that what you’re seeing is a responsible journalism team realizing that these are important matters and wish to assist the President in clarifying his answers so that the message that is in the next day’s papers and consumed by the masses and the adversaries is clearly what he wants to transmit.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I must have missed it…when was anyone fawning over Cuba…or Venezuela?

Relevant examples of such fawning please.

 

[Iceweasel]

Slavery was hotly debated from day one. It was a primary catalyst to the civil war.

And we eventually reached a consensus on it, did we not? That is my point.

Now you are chopping up the posts. What for? Your point is that after 600,000 men died in battle we reached a consensus? No. One side won. The other side lost. We did what the winners wanted.

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.

A dickhead would say something like that. You are here arguing criticizing people that argue. How pspecial is that?

A 'consensus' does not require mathematical unity, dude.

I responded to your example of communism and the cold war. No consensus was reached, criticisms abound to this day. I said nothing about numbers. Dude.

Consensus is where people meet in the middle to get things done. It does not require the agreement from the outer fringes.

You can either participate in the consensus or remain on the fringe for whatever reason. That is your choice.

What consensus? You can live in fantasy land or not. Your choice. There was no consensus on gay marriage for example. Every state was forced into it. That's how you define "getting things done"? No, we didn't compromise and just let half of the gay marriages go through. It was done by judicial decree. Like obamacare. Where was the consensus there? They rammed it down out fucking throats and told us to suck on it. You have an odd way of defining consensus.

 

[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.

I must have missed it…when was anyone fawning over Cuba…or Venezuela?

Relevant examples of such fawning please.

Libs did/do it every day. Examples abound here, you could look around but I'm not going to try to drag your head out of you ass.

 

[pismoe]

calling names eh , we had carnival barkers and an old piggish big government lefty running [since we are calling names] . Carnival barker beat out the old lefty pig . There is never any coming together , I prefer this type of warfare that we just went through . Hope that it happens again in 2020 and in upcoming local and state elections in 2018 Candy !!

 

[candycorn]

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.

I must have missed it…when was anyone fawning over Cuba…or Venezuela?

Relevant examples of such fawning please.

Libs did/do it every day. Examples abound here, you could look around but I'm not going to try to drag your head out of you ass.

So you have no examples. Thanks for the concession. Again, we’re in the CDZ…watch your language.

 

[pismoe]

media should

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

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.

Maybe having a candidate that isn’t a carnival barker would help.

Perhaps we should better focus on the media actually telling us when a candidate is only interested in the job because he thinks it would be a cool gig, pointing out a candidate that only focuses on exacerbating the hateful extremes, and has some wisdom beyond a HS education about social studies. Yes, I’m talking about Donald Trump.

There is a famous video where JFK was being interviewed by Huntley and Brinkley



I know you won’t watch it (or I’d be surprised if you did) but if you did, what you’d probably say is that there is press advocacy in action. What I would say is that what you’re seeing is a responsible journalism team realizing that these are important matters and wish to assist the President in clarifying his answers so that the message that is in the next day’s papers and consumed by the masses and the adversaries is clearly what he wants to transmit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIAS Job is simply report the who , what , where and when facts . The WHY is up to the reader to figure out with research and careful analysis Candy . I think that I just described the job of the legitimate 'fourth estate' Candy .

 

[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.

I must have missed it…when was anyone fawning over Cuba…or Venezuela?

Relevant examples of such fawning please.

Libs did/do it every day. Examples abound here, you could look around but I'm not going to try to drag your head out of you ass.

So you have no examples. Thanks for the concession. Again, we’re in the CDZ…watch your language.

I said the examples are all over, you can deny deny deny deny deny all you want. My "language" was to illustrate thatI have no stake in your mentality. No one can force you to see the obvious.

For example: You can deny brick walls exist. I can show you a brick wall. You can still deny it. I could press your face against the brick wall. You could still deny it. I could roll your face around on it and let you feel the texture. And you could still deny it. You maybe maybe would admit something is there but it can't be a brick wall because brick walls don't exist.

 

[Mac1958]

Just for the record, the thread (which I'd think could stay relatively civil since we're in the CDZ here) is not about one "side" of the political spectrum somehow beating the other into submission. Nor is it about some kind of permanent Kumbaya relationship between the partisans on each "side".

It's about whether our political divisions have become so deep and so intractable that even something as horrific as another large, successful terrorist attack would not be enough for us to set our differences aside for even a little while before deteriorating back to the standard partisan finger-pointing.

What I'm seeing here so far leads me to believe that my question is pretty reasonable.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Death.......taxes........ hyper-partisans indulging in nothing but banal finger pointing in a thread about America's divide.

Moths and flames, people, moths and flames.

 

[martybegan]

Just for the record, the thread (which I'd think could stay relatively civil since we're in the CDZ here) is not about one "side" of the political spectrum somehow beating the other into submission. Nor is it about some kind of permanent Kumbaya relationship between the partisans on each "side".

It's about whether our political divisions have become so deep and so intractable that even something as horrific as another large, successful terrorist attack would not be enough for us to set our differences aside for even a little while before deteriorating back to the standard partisan finger-pointing.

What I'm seeing here so far leads me to believe that my question is pretty reasonable.
.

This is a simplification, but to me the current divide is between people who want government to run things at the highest level possible, and for that level to run as many things as possible, vs. people who want government to run as little as possible and at the most local level possible.

There cannot be much compromise between these two positions, and that's why we are in the situation we are in now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Slavery was hotly debated from day one. It was a primary catalyst to the civil war.

And we eventually reached a consensus on it, did we not? That is my point.

... Your point is that after 600,000 men died in battle we reached a consensus? No. One side won. The other side lost. We did what the winners wanted.

And consensus WAS REACHED. Unless you can find someone who supports the return of slavery you have to concede the matter, dude, regardless of how that consensus was reached.

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.

A dickhead would say something like that. You are here arguing criticizing people that argue. How pspecial is that?

I said "understandable IF you are making profit from it...."

That is not a slam on you, it is an abstraction for contrast.

You really are determined to pick a fight, arent you? roflmao

A 'consensus' does not require mathematical unity, dude.

I responded to your example of communism and the cold war. No consensus was reached, criticisms abound to this day. I said nothing about numbers. Dude.

Yes, consensus was reach by the vst majority of society that communism was evil and had to be opposed and we spent countless dollars and lives doing so.

Now you are beginning to sound like an ideological moron. Cut it out. I dont need to waste time with people stuck on stupidity.

Consensus is where people meet in the middle to get things done. It does not require the agreement from the outer fringes.
You can either participate in the consensus or remain on the fringe for whatever reason. That is your choice.

What consensus? You can live in fantasy land or not. Your choice.

Lol, you are so adorable for a stubborn mule.

There was no consensus on gay marriage for example. Every state was forced into it. That's how you define "getting things done"? No, we didn't compromise and just let half of the gay marriages go through. It was done by judicial decree. Like obamacare. Where was the consensus there? They rammed it down out fucking throats and told us to suck on it. You have an odd way of defining consensus.

Consensus is a workable majority representing anywhere from a Super Majority to 100% unity, the latter of which NEVER happens.

I have never seen a group of people have complete 100% unity on decisions unless it was a very basic issue or there was some bullying person in charge of the group.

Even SCOTUS opinions rarely have 100% unity and yet they do manage to reach a consensus strong enough to get the job done.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just for the record, the thread (which I'd think could stay relatively civil since we're in the CDZ here) is not about one "side" of the political spectrum somehow beating the other into submission. Nor is it about some kind of permanent Kumbaya relationship between the partisans on each "side".

It's about whether our political divisions have become so deep and so intractable that even something as horrific as another large, successful terrorist attack would not be enough for us to set our differences aside for even a little while before deteriorating back to the standard partisan finger-pointing.

What I'm seeing here so far leads me to believe that my question is pretty reasonable.
.

We have the classic Bell Curve in discussions where most are in the middle but the shouting extremes dominate the dynamic.

Adjust the dynamic to not reward ass holes screaming over everyone else and we return to a stable process of decision making.

Proverbs 22:10 Drive out the mocker, and out goes strife; quarrels and insults are ended.

 

[Iceweasel]

Slavery was hotly debated from day one. It was a primary catalyst to the civil war.

And we eventually reached a consensus on it, did we not? That is my point.

... Your point is that after 600,000 men died in battle we reached a consensus? No. One side won. The other side lost. We did what the winners wanted.

And consensus WAS REACHED. Unless you can find someone who supports the return of slavery you have to concede the matter, dude, regardless of how that consensus was reached.

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.

A dickhead would say something like that. You are here arguing criticizing people that argue. How pspecial is that?

I said "understandable IF you are making profit from it...."

That is not a slam on you, it is an abstraction for contrast.

You really are determined to pick a fight, arent you? roflmao

A 'consensus' does not require mathematical unity, dude.

I responded to your example of communism and the cold war. No consensus was reached, criticisms abound to this day. I said nothing about numbers. Dude.

Yes, consensus was reach by the vst majority of society that communism was evil and had to be opposed and we spent countless dollars and lives doing so.

Now you are beginning to sound like an ideological moron. Cut it out. I dont need to waste time with people stuck on stupidity.

Consensus is where people meet in the middle to get things done. It does not require the agreement from the outer fringes.
You can either participate in the consensus or remain on the fringe for whatever reason. That is your choice.

What consensus? You can live in fantasy land or not. Your choice.

Lol, you are so adorable for a stubborn mule.

There was no consensus on gay marriage for example. Every state was forced into it. That's how you define "getting things done"? No, we didn't compromise and just let half of the gay marriages go through. It was done by judicial decree. Like obamacare. Where was the consensus there? They rammed it down out fucking throats and told us to suck on it. You have an odd way of defining consensus.

Consensus is a workable majority representing anywhere from a Super Majority to 100% unity, the latter of which NEVER happens.

I have never seen a group of people have complete 100% unity on decisions unless it was a very basic issue or there was some bullying person in charge of the group.

Even SCOTUS opinions rarely have 100% unity and yet they do manage to reach a consensus strong enough to get the job done.

That makes no sense. 600,000 died in war and you claim a consensus was reached. That's not logical. The north won, that's what happened, they didn't reach a consensus with the south.

No, we didn't reach a consensus on communism, when was it even up for a vote? The party in power calls the shots. That's how it works. There was no consensus on obamacare. The left forced it on us. 100% unity? Who said that, you are obfuscating. I'm not interested in moderating my views to make liberals happy. They don't either.

They do not compromise and I'm not sure why you believe someone on the right should in order to meet with your approval. I'm not the one worked up over the divide. A divide that has always existed.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We have the classic Bell Curve in discussions where most are in the middle but the shouting extremes dominate the dynamic.

.

Which is a process much amplified over the internet, where discussion groups like these bring out the zealots by very nature.

I keep having to remind myself that none of the people I actually know in real life are anywhere CLOSE to the extremity I see here on a daily basis.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That makes no sense. 600,000 died in war and you claim a consensus was reached. That's not logical. The north won, that's what happened, they didn't reach a consensus with the south.

They did after the war, like I said.

No, we didn't reach a consensus on communism, when was it even up for a vote? The party in power calls the shots. That's how it works. There was no consensus on obamacare. The left forced it on us. 100% unity? Who said that, you are obfuscating. I'm not interested in moderating my views to make liberals happy. They don't either.

Compromise and reaching consensus do not require moderation of anything.

They do not compromise and I'm not sure why you believe someone on the right should in order to meet with your approval. I'm not the one worked up over the divide. A divide that has always existed.

No, the hostility and polarity have NOT always existed and it has been getting worse each year, and it is obvious to anyone older than 40.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet no one looks at him and says Christians or Whites are evil.

Because the moron child is not backed by a large international movement to politicize a religion. No glossy Jihadist magazines, no organizations PRAISING HIM and claiming responsibility for his actions. Wasn't coached on how to kill. Do you really need other people to explain the basics to you?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think we've had lots of periods in our past which have been worse than it is now. the Civil War, for instance.

The only reason why our checkbooks are at risk right now is because your side elected a Nazi with a bad hairpeice that even your leadership knew was unsuited for the job.

Everyone knows this is a bad idea, everyone is going along with it.

When the only worse period you can cite is a general bloody Civil war. You probably lost your defense right there.

And blaming the past 8 years of malaise and uncertainty on a FUTURE president, would be one of those "precedents" of insanity that I wrote about. That's absurd..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

See now you just did it. Because a radio entertainer from the OTHER side did it -- it's now just PEACHY for your side to do it.. There is no PENALTY for bad behavior anymore if BOTH sides do it. Where does that lead? You party animals are taking my country right down the crapper.