The left and the right can't get along, so what if we just split up?

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

Hmm... I'd love to see a liberal proposal!! Then we can play a game choosing in between, lol!

 

[Never3ndr]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

I honestly think that most people, if left to their own devices, would actually be neutral or moderate.

The issue, in my opinion, comes to information control and feeling the need to belong to a group and believe in all the ideals of that group. On information control, there are increasingly biased news sources (on both sides of the fence) that, not only provide biased views on events, but can actually present misleading or just plain false information to support the world view they are looking to build. This makes it so that individuals that only view media sources on their side of the fence, literally cannot understand the opposing side and will come to think that they are lying since they aren't even working off of the same "factual" world view. On belonging to a group, I think that most people actually wouldn't agree with all the viewpoints on either side if left alone. However, many people are brow beaten, hoodwinked, or peer pressured into seeing things the same way as their political party. This forced conformity not only builds unison in the party, but it also builds an "us vs. them" mentality. This is because, if a person in your party is attacked, you are likely to hold the exact same opinion as them and, thus, be offended by the attack. Additionally, the opposing side is likely to be polarized with the exact opposite view from you (rather than some middle ground) due to how the political parties are polarizing.

Honestly, I think that most Americans are good, decent individuals in their own right. I think that the ones that have caused this great divide are people that send polarizing messages or seek to control information (discrediting any source that doesn't agree with their world view). Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

I honestly think that most people, if left to their own devices, would actually be neutral or moderate.

The issue, in my opinion, comes to information control and feeling the need to belong to a group and believe in all the ideals of that group. On information control, there are increasingly biased news sources (on both sides of the fence) that, not only provide biased views on events, but can actually present misleading or just plain false information to support the world view they are looking to build. This makes it so that individuals that only view media sources on their side of the fence, literally cannot understand the opposing side and will come to think that they are lying since they aren't even working off of the same "factual" world view. On belonging to a group, I think that most people actually wouldn't agree with all the viewpoints on either side if left alone. However, many people are brow beaten, hoodwinked, or peer pressured into seeing things the same way as their political party. This forced conformity not only builds unison in the party, but it also builds an "us vs. them" mentality. This is because, if a person in your party is attacked, you are likely to hold the exact same opinion as them and, thus, be offended by the attack. Additionally, the opposing side is likely to be polarized with the exact opposite view from you (rather than some middle ground) due to how the political parties are polarizing.

Honestly, I think that most Americans are good, decent individuals in their own right. I think that the ones that have caused this great divide are people that send polarizing messages or seek to control information (discrediting any source that doesn't agree with their world view). Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

Well-put and incisive observation in the first two paragraphs.
However, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is the one who breaks the forced conformity, which started a political storm and an amazing election.

 

[Never3ndr]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

I honestly think that most people, if left to their own devices, would actually be neutral or moderate.

The issue, in my opinion, comes to information control and feeling the need to belong to a group and believe in all the ideals of that group. On information control, there are increasingly biased news sources (on both sides of the fence) that, not only provide biased views on events, but can actually present misleading or just plain false information to support the world view they are looking to build. This makes it so that individuals that only view media sources on their side of the fence, literally cannot understand the opposing side and will come to think that they are lying since they aren't even working off of the same "factual" world view. On belonging to a group, I think that most people actually wouldn't agree with all the viewpoints on either side if left alone. However, many people are brow beaten, hoodwinked, or peer pressured into seeing things the same way as their political party. This forced conformity not only builds unison in the party, but it also builds an "us vs. them" mentality. This is because, if a person in your party is attacked, you are likely to hold the exact same opinion as them and, thus, be offended by the attack. Additionally, the opposing side is likely to be polarized with the exact opposite view from you (rather than some middle ground) due to how the political parties are polarizing.

Honestly, I think that most Americans are good, decent individuals in their own right. I think that the ones that have caused this great divide are people that send polarizing messages or seek to control information (discrediting any source that doesn't agree with their world view). Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

Well-put and incisive observation in the first two paragraphs.
However, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is the one who breaks the forced conformity, which started a political storm and an amazing election.

If you follow him, try to watch his rallies in an unbiased manner. At least from the 3 or 4 I've seen, his propaganda machine / information control is pretty impressive. He discredits anybody who published negative material against him by discrediting the agency. Very rarely will he actually address a point in earnest. If you interact with his supporters you actually see this attitude believed in and emulated. Everybody who has tried to talk to a Trump supporter about a negative story is usually met with something like "that's just biased MSM coverage". You rarely get a point-based, factual counter argument. You just get discredit and only believe in positive / reinforcing media stories. Likewise, he's a polarizing figure. He never meets anybody at a middle ground. He really solidifies his position and forces himself and his followers into an us vs. them mentality.

Again, and this is only my opinion, this is the truly cancerous type of actions that we, as Americans, need to root out of our culture. We are a diverse nation, with a plethora of opinions, I am not denying that. However, being diverse is actually the opposite of being lumped into the two extremes that we tend to find ourselves in. We all have a mix of opinions that lay on the right, left and middle of the political spectrum (given the hypothetical that we all had the same, unbiased information and not some skewed, fictional view). Rather than seeking to make America great again, we should actually realize that America is already great. We need to make America whole again.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

I honestly think that most people, if left to their own devices, would actually be neutral or moderate.

The issue, in my opinion, comes to information control and feeling the need to belong to a group and believe in all the ideals of that group. On information control, there are increasingly biased news sources (on both sides of the fence) that, not only provide biased views on events, but can actually present misleading or just plain false information to support the world view they are looking to build. This makes it so that individuals that only view media sources on their side of the fence, literally cannot understand the opposing side and will come to think that they are lying since they aren't even working off of the same "factual" world view. On belonging to a group, I think that most people actually wouldn't agree with all the viewpoints on either side if left alone. However, many people are brow beaten, hoodwinked, or peer pressured into seeing things the same way as their political party. This forced conformity not only builds unison in the party, but it also builds an "us vs. them" mentality. This is because, if a person in your party is attacked, you are likely to hold the exact same opinion as them and, thus, be offended by the attack. Additionally, the opposing side is likely to be polarized with the exact opposite view from you (rather than some middle ground) due to how the political parties are polarizing.

Honestly, I think that most Americans are good, decent individuals in their own right. I think that the ones that have caused this great divide are people that send polarizing messages or seek to control information (discrediting any source that doesn't agree with their world view). Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

Well-put and incisive observation in the first two paragraphs.
However, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is the one who breaks the forced conformity, which started a political storm and an amazing election.

If you follow him, try to watch his rallies in an unbiased manner. At least from the 3 or 4 I've seen, his propaganda machine / information control is pretty impressive. He discredits anybody who published negative material against him by discrediting the agency. Very rarely will he actually address a point in earnest. If you interact with his supporters you actually see this attitude believed in and emulated. Everybody who has tried to talk to a Trump supporter about a negative story is usually met with something like "that's just biased MSM coverage". You rarely get a point-based, factual counter argument. You just get discredit and only believe in positive / reinforcing media stories. Likewise, he's a polarizing figure. He never meets anybody at a middle ground. He really solidifies his position and forces himself and his followers into an us vs. them mentality.

Again, and this is only my opinion, this is the truly cancerous type of actions that we, as Americans, need to root out of our culture. We are a diverse nation, with a plethora of opinions, I am not denying that. However, being diverse is actually the opposite of being lumped into the two extremes that we tend to find ourselves in. We all have a mix of opinions that lay on the right, left and middle of the political spectrum (given the hypothetical that we all had the same, unbiased information and not some skewed, fictional view). Rather than seeking to make America great again, we should actually realize that America is already great. We need to make America whole again.

This is probably gonna take some time. I am a Trump supporter, and let's try to have a "fact-based" conversation on the candidates in the election! This could be a good chance for us to understand each other better! Certainly we don't agree on a lot of issues, so which one would you like to start with? I was wondering if they have an online chatting function on the board...

 

[Never3ndr]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

I honestly think that most people, if left to their own devices, would actually be neutral or moderate.

The issue, in my opinion, comes to information control and feeling the need to belong to a group and believe in all the ideals of that group. On information control, there are increasingly biased news sources (on both sides of the fence) that, not only provide biased views on events, but can actually present misleading or just plain false information to support the world view they are looking to build. This makes it so that individuals that only view media sources on their side of the fence, literally cannot understand the opposing side and will come to think that they are lying since they aren't even working off of the same "factual" world view. On belonging to a group, I think that most people actually wouldn't agree with all the viewpoints on either side if left alone. However, many people are brow beaten, hoodwinked, or peer pressured into seeing things the same way as their political party. This forced conformity not only builds unison in the party, but it also builds an "us vs. them" mentality. This is because, if a person in your party is attacked, you are likely to hold the exact same opinion as them and, thus, be offended by the attack. Additionally, the opposing side is likely to be polarized with the exact opposite view from you (rather than some middle ground) due to how the political parties are polarizing.

Honestly, I think that most Americans are good, decent individuals in their own right. I think that the ones that have caused this great divide are people that send polarizing messages or seek to control information (discrediting any source that doesn't agree with their world view). Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

Well-put and incisive observation in the first two paragraphs.
However, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is the one who breaks the forced conformity, which started a political storm and an amazing election.

If you follow him, try to watch his rallies in an unbiased manner. At least from the 3 or 4 I've seen, his propaganda machine / information control is pretty impressive. He discredits anybody who published negative material against him by discrediting the agency. Very rarely will he actually address a point in earnest. If you interact with his supporters you actually see this attitude believed in and emulated. Everybody who has tried to talk to a Trump supporter about a negative story is usually met with something like "that's just biased MSM coverage". You rarely get a point-based, factual counter argument. You just get discredit and only believe in positive / reinforcing media stories. Likewise, he's a polarizing figure. He never meets anybody at a middle ground. He really solidifies his position and forces himself and his followers into an us vs. them mentality.

Again, and this is only my opinion, this is the truly cancerous type of actions that we, as Americans, need to root out of our culture. We are a diverse nation, with a plethora of opinions, I am not denying that. However, being diverse is actually the opposite of being lumped into the two extremes that we tend to find ourselves in. We all have a mix of opinions that lay on the right, left and middle of the political spectrum (given the hypothetical that we all had the same, unbiased information and not some skewed, fictional view). Rather than seeking to make America great again, we should actually realize that America is already great. We need to make America whole again.

This is probably gonna take some time. I am a Trump supporter, and let's try to have a "fact-based" conversation on the candidates in the election! This could be a good chance for us to understand each other better! Certainly we don't agree on a lot of issues, so which one would you like to start with? I was wondering if they have an online chatting function on the board...

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of any of the candidates in this election cycle, I don't agree 100% with any of the candidates (which, as I've indicated, should actually be the case if people all had a more grounded view free of partisan pressures). I've actually followed Trump the closest however, as he is the candidate that I disagree with the most and, in my opinion, is the candidate poised as being the most likely to be elected president.

 

[Agit8r]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

You DO realize that the main reasons that so many don't pay taxes are the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (GOP legislation) and the two Bush Tax Cuts, right?

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

I honestly think that most people, if left to their own devices, would actually be neutral or moderate.

The issue, in my opinion, comes to information control and feeling the need to belong to a group and believe in all the ideals of that group. On information control, there are increasingly biased news sources (on both sides of the fence) that, not only provide biased views on events, but can actually present misleading or just plain false information to support the world view they are looking to build. This makes it so that individuals that only view media sources on their side of the fence, literally cannot understand the opposing side and will come to think that they are lying since they aren't even working off of the same "factual" world view. On belonging to a group, I think that most people actually wouldn't agree with all the viewpoints on either side if left alone. However, many people are brow beaten, hoodwinked, or peer pressured into seeing things the same way as their political party. This forced conformity not only builds unison in the party, but it also builds an "us vs. them" mentality. This is because, if a person in your party is attacked, you are likely to hold the exact same opinion as them and, thus, be offended by the attack. Additionally, the opposing side is likely to be polarized with the exact opposite view from you (rather than some middle ground) due to how the political parties are polarizing.

Honestly, I think that most Americans are good, decent individuals in their own right. I think that the ones that have caused this great divide are people that send polarizing messages or seek to control information (discrediting any source that doesn't agree with their world view). Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

Well-put and incisive observation in the first two paragraphs.
However, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is the one who breaks the forced conformity, which started a political storm and an amazing election.

If you follow him, try to watch his rallies in an unbiased manner. At least from the 3 or 4 I've seen, his propaganda machine / information control is pretty impressive. He discredits anybody who published negative material against him by discrediting the agency. Very rarely will he actually address a point in earnest. If you interact with his supporters you actually see this attitude believed in and emulated. Everybody who has tried to talk to a Trump supporter about a negative story is usually met with something like "that's just biased MSM coverage". You rarely get a point-based, factual counter argument. You just get discredit and only believe in positive / reinforcing media stories. Likewise, he's a polarizing figure. He never meets anybody at a middle ground. He really solidifies his position and forces himself and his followers into an us vs. them mentality.

Again, and this is only my opinion, this is the truly cancerous type of actions that we, as Americans, need to root out of our culture. We are a diverse nation, with a plethora of opinions, I am not denying that. However, being diverse is actually the opposite of being lumped into the two extremes that we tend to find ourselves in. We all have a mix of opinions that lay on the right, left and middle of the political spectrum (given the hypothetical that we all had the same, unbiased information and not some skewed, fictional view). Rather than seeking to make America great again, we should actually realize that America is already great. We need to make America whole again.

This is probably gonna take some time. I am a Trump supporter, and let's try to have a "fact-based" conversation on the candidates in the election! This could be a good chance for us to understand each other better! Certainly we don't agree on a lot of issues, so which one would you like to start with? I was wondering if they have an online chatting function on the board...

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of any of the candidates in this election cycle, I don't agree 100% with any of the candidates (which, as I've indicated, should actually be the case if people all had a more grounded view free of partisan pressures). I've actually followed Trump the closest however, as he is the candidate that I disagree with the most and, in my opinion, is the candidate poised as being the most likely to be elected president.

I don't agree 100% with Trump either, but generally, I agree with him on most of the issues.
And like you said, I believe he has a good chance of becoming our next president.

 

[elektra]

There are two extremists groups. the Democrats and the Moderates. Both believe Conservatives must go.

 

[elektra]

Trump, like him or dislike him, is actually one of the leading sources of these two issues in our modern age. I can only hope that we, as Americans, can do away with these evil individuals and seek to look to more moderate, or reasonable people to both believe in and lead us. Here, I'd insert a random Sam Harris plug, but this is a political forum not a philosophical one.

I would have to say, that your assertion that we must do away with "evil individuals", is the view of an Extremist. Thank GOD we will never have to worry about Sam Harris and his devoted, "followers".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

Hmm... I'd love to see a liberal proposal!! Then we can play a game choosing in between, lol!

They have no proposals, that's why I posted the topic. See how not one is able to tell us what would be so great about the liberal side?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It wouldn't work! when the libs screwed up their side they would just sneak over to our side and screw it up.

I agree 100%. That's why I said we would have to build a big wall to keep them out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

More politics of division from republicans, more fear and contempt for diversity, dissent, and individual liberty from the right.

Sad.

Sad? It's the Democrats who consider Republicans their mortal enemy. You know......a bigger threat than the terrorists themselves?

 

[Mac1958]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

Just remember that the hard Left and the hard Right still represent a minority of the overall populace. At least for now.

A majority of Americans still understand the best answers usually involve a bit from both sides, and just roll their eyes at the wingers.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is that the left divides this country into groups, and then decides which side they want to favor and which side they wish to chastise.

Ray... you are accusing left for what the right has been doing for years...chastising the gays, the poor, women.

Nope, that's only MSM and liberal blogs telling you that. If you disagree with one policy the left has on any of those subjects, they call you the stereotypical racist, sexist, homophobe....

This is how the left believes they can get their way all the time; try to make Republicans feel guilty about having a different opinion than theirs. They've been doing it for decades.

But as we both know, when it comes to liberalism, nobody is allowed to have a different opinion. You either agree with everything they say or you are the enemy. This is why they are trying like hell to shut down Trump rallies. They don't want him to speak. It doesn't fit their version of what America should be like. In the liberal version of America, only those who march in lockstep are allowed to have their message heard.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

Just remember that the hard Left and the hard Right still represent a minority of the overall populace. At least for now.

A majority of Americans still understand the best answers usually involve a bit from both sides, and just roll their eyes at the wingers.
.

If that were true, we would be under a President McCain or Romney administration today.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL......I endorse the idea...........

The Mental Case States / The Non-Mental Case States.




Not so nutty at all........we're heading to choosing up sides anyway so...........

 

[Mac1958]

Just thought I would throw this out there to break away from the hundreds of posts about the election and candidates:

As time progresses, it seems the left and right drift more and more apart. So my question is, if we just decided to divide the country in half (conservative on one side, liberals on the other, and anybody in between would have to choose a side) would you approve of it and if so, what would be the advantage to your side over the other?

As a conservative, on our side, I would like to see much less government regulation so as to attract more businesses. On our side, everybody would pay income tax regardless of income. Our social programs would be only for those who could absolutely not work, and prison would be a hellhole where most of the time prisoners spent would be in solitary confinement as to deter crime. People who use deadly force would not be held liable to the subject or family, and illegal immigrants would be immediately deported or jailed. Our death penalty would be carried out within six months after conviction (all appeals exhausted) and would be made public for all of society to witness.

So to the liberals, what would your side be like with huge taxation against the rich, an unarmed society, drugs run freely, and so many environmental regulations that nobody could possibly open up a business for profit?

Just remember that the hard Left and the hard Right still represent a minority of the overall populace. At least for now.

A majority of Americans still understand the best answers usually involve a bit from both sides, and just roll their eyes at the wingers.
.

If that were true, we would be under a President McCain or Romney administration today.

Nothing was going to stop an Obama victory over McCain, especially with Palin on the ticket. Obama was a phenomenon.

A decent candidate could have beaten Obama in 2012, but between Romneycare, "severe conservative", the "47%" comments, and the fact that so many Republicans pouted and stayed home, Romney was not going to win.

A calm, sane, pragmatic candidate could beat Hillary in 2016, but those are not currently qualities that attract the "base".
.

 

[initforme]

The growing division is healthy for the country. It ensures survival. If a country is run by only one political spectrum, it is guaranteed to fail. So to counter your premise, since the left side would be a mess imagine
1) water and air that compare to linfen China. And you know that companies would be eager to pollute as much as possible because it saves them a mrasely Buck. I don't trust them to follow rules.
2). Everyone is working...for $2 an hour and no benefits.
3). Nobody can afford houses or apartments or a place to live....so a new ghetto is created.
4). Businesses can't find an educated worker. They have to recruit northerners.


See. This is fat right utopia. Great.