Why are we so divided?

[Aries]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

I think Roe v Wade has little to do with our separation. That's because the majority of americans understand it is a woman's right to her body and it is their right to mind their own business.
In my mind our separation issues have to do with an identity crisis. Who are we? What are our values? Welcome to America's mid-life crisis.

It has tons to do with Roe, which is why we are still fighting over it 4 decades later. Most Americans can tolerate some abortion rights, but most of them don't want to hear about it past the 1st trimester or so, maybe the 2nd. Most also don't want public funds paying for it, and most certainly do not want minors to be able to get one without the parents even being notified about it. Right now Abortion Rights people have gone so far off the deep end with regards to zero restrictions ever, on anything, that a lot of people on the fence are starting to get tired of it.

like 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. So much for your zero restrictions.
GOP try to impose brutal laws that are so extreme, the left pushes towards the opposite extreme.
Federal judge blocks Texas law requiring funeral rites for aborted or miscarried fetuses


If the GOP was able to accept the fact decades ago, that they do not own rights to women's bodies- there would be no more fighting. Seems the repubs just can't let that one go. Having total control of the female body is an important part of their master plan.

Then why do groups like NARAL fight for zero restrictions, up to the point of birth? Why do they continue to press for public funding of elective abortions? Why do they fight parental notification laws?

And your debasement into "control women's bodies, fuh fuh fuh" shows you have no actual debating skills, and resort to tired talking points to attempt to make your "point".

The fact that there are also many pro-life WOMEN gives lie to your implied "its the men doing" it mantra.

The simple issue is abortion rights are not found in the Constitution, which makes it a State legislature issue. Roe is in the top 5 of worst SC decisions ever, up there with Dredd Scott, Plessey, Kelo, and Obergfell.

Anti Abortion is about control of the womb. Period. Most anti-choicers insist their stance is religious in motivation and morally superior than the path science assures us of. But as soon as the babies are born the same anti-choices turn around and cut off lunches to poor kids, upward bound programs, and food stamps. Immediately discrediting your "we care for children" stance. They complain about all the mouths to feed, but want poor women to be reproducing uncontrollably. They call single women with kids irresponsible, yet want to strip her of all of her contraception choices. The GOP wants masses of children born, with no net programs in place to help stabilize families. It's almost like they want the population of the poor workers to keep multiplying for cheap labor.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

So we could end partisan division if only we would:
Make abortion illegal and dangerous again.
Denied civil rights to immigrants.

Forbade same sex marriage and continued to oppress homosexuals as demented Fermin.

And polluted all we could to maximize profit at the expense of our ecology.

Great! In order to end partisan division all we have to do is acquiesce to all the lunatic demands of the RWNJs.

You forgot to mention that every citizen no matter if they are sane of convicted criminals should be armed to the teeth at all times.

If you progressives didn't have hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum, you probably wouldn't ever have an actual argument....

Consider the premise of the original argument. All that's needed for political unity is acquiescence to the Right. Absurdist at its face.

All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!

 

[danielpalos]

This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).

Education that pushes agendas that are anti-American and sympathetic to communism that are no longer interested in the means, but rather the ends. All actions are justified, even if clearly unAmerican and undemocratic.

Add all of this with a contentious election and a person who promised to do the heavy lifting and difficult work of putting America back on track and you have entitled vs realists. It is very difficult to deal with entitlements once people get comfortable with them. They are often self defeating and soul sapping, not to mention violate the opportunities for the next generation due to debt, but this is a tough concept to sell. Far worse in Canada I assure you.

Why do you believe it is soul sapping? In the US, we merely need to simplify our social safety net to make it more efficient.

Means tested welfare should be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

Unemployment compensation that actually conforms to our federal Doctrine of employment at will, could cover the rest, presumably, potential labor market participants.

Solving simple poverty and improving the efficiency of our economy, should enable us to lower our taxes. It should not be, soul sapping.

 

[martybegan]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

So we could end partisan division if only we would:
Make abortion illegal and dangerous again.
Denied civil rights to immigrants.

Forbade same sex marriage and continued to oppress homosexuals as demented Fermin.

And polluted all we could to maximize profit at the expense of our ecology.

Great! In order to end partisan division all we have to do is acquiesce to all the lunatic demands of the RWNJs.

You forgot to mention that every citizen no matter if they are sane of convicted criminals should be armed to the teeth at all times.

If you progressives didn't have hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum, you probably wouldn't ever have an actual argument....

Consider the premise of the original argument. All that's needed for political unity is acquiescence to the Right. Absurdist at its face.

All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?

Is this a defense of state's rights or a refusal of the full faith and credit clause? If you're legally married in Nevada by an Elvis impersonator, aren't you also legally married in Utah, or Delaware?

Its a defense of the separation of powers in general, but not a refusal of full faith and credit. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe you cannot force States to issue SSM licenses if they do not want to, however you can force them to recognize out of State SSM's under full faith and credit, much like they have to now if the license doesn't meet in state age requirements, or first/second cousin marriage restrictions.

 

[martybegan]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

I think Roe v Wade has little to do with our separation. That's because the majority of americans understand it is a woman's right to her body and it is their right to mind their own business.
In my mind our separation issues have to do with an identity crisis. Who are we? What are our values? Welcome to America's mid-life crisis.

It has tons to do with Roe, which is why we are still fighting over it 4 decades later. Most Americans can tolerate some abortion rights, but most of them don't want to hear about it past the 1st trimester or so, maybe the 2nd. Most also don't want public funds paying for it, and most certainly do not want minors to be able to get one without the parents even being notified about it. Right now Abortion Rights people have gone so far off the deep end with regards to zero restrictions ever, on anything, that a lot of people on the fence are starting to get tired of it.

like 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. So much for your zero restrictions.
GOP try to impose brutal laws that are so extreme, the left pushes towards the opposite extreme.
Federal judge blocks Texas law requiring funeral rites for aborted or miscarried fetuses


If the GOP was able to accept the fact decades ago, that they do not own rights to women's bodies- there would be no more fighting. Seems the repubs just can't let that one go. Having total control of the female body is an important part of their master plan.

Then why do groups like NARAL fight for zero restrictions, up to the point of birth? Why do they continue to press for public funding of elective abortions? Why do they fight parental notification laws?

And your debasement into "control women's bodies, fuh fuh fuh" shows you have no actual debating skills, and resort to tired talking points to attempt to make your "point".

The fact that there are also many pro-life WOMEN gives lie to your implied "its the men doing" it mantra.

The simple issue is abortion rights are not found in the Constitution, which makes it a State legislature issue. Roe is in the top 5 of worst SC decisions ever, up there with Dredd Scott, Plessey, Kelo, and Obergfell.

Anti Abortion is about control of the womb. Period. Most anti-choicers insist their stance is religious in motivation and morally superior than the path science assures us of. But as soon as the babies are born the same anti-choices turn around and cut off lunches to poor kids, upward bound programs, and food stamps. Immediately discrediting your "we care for children" stance. They complain about all the mouths to feed, but want poor women to be reproducing uncontrollably. They call single women with kids irresponsible, yet want to strip her of all of her contraception choices. The GOP wants masses of children born, with no net programs in place to help stabilize families. It's almost like they want the population of the poor workers to keep multiplying for cheap labor.

More standard talking points. have you ever had an original thought? There is not a connection between wanting to protect unborn life and wanting to use government to fix all the ills of society. How do you know the same people who are pro-life are not working with charities to help the people you are talking about?

And considering birth control has been available for a long time, and the fight to eliminate is IS one of those fights that is pretty much over, that talking point is losing its merit.

One can have people helped without having to turn it over to the government, more importantly turning it over to the federal government.

 

[Nosmo King]

So we could end partisan division if only we would:
Make abortion illegal and dangerous again.
Denied civil rights to immigrants.

Forbade same sex marriage and continued to oppress homosexuals as demented Fermin.

And polluted all we could to maximize profit at the expense of our ecology.

Great! In order to end partisan division all we have to do is acquiesce to all the lunatic demands of the RWNJs.

You forgot to mention that every citizen no matter if they are sane of convicted criminals should be armed to the teeth at all times.

If you progressives didn't have hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum, you probably wouldn't ever have an actual argument....

Consider the premise of the original argument. All that's needed for political unity is acquiescence to the Right. Absurdist at its face.

All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?

Is this a defense of state's rights or a refusal of the full faith and credit clause? If you're legally married in Nevada by an Elvis impersonator, aren't you also legally married in Utah, or Delaware?

Its a defense of the separation of powers in general, but not a refusal of full faith and credit. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe you cannot force States to issue SSM licenses if they do not want to, however you can force them to recognize out of State SSM's under full faith and credit, much like they have to now if the license doesn't meet in state age requirements, or first/second cousin marriage restrictions.

What is the rationale behind recognizing same sex marriages from other states but refusing to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples within that state? If the marriage is valid, why deny a license?

 

[martybegan]

If you progressives didn't have hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum, you probably wouldn't ever have an actual argument....

Consider the premise of the original argument. All that's needed for political unity is acquiescence to the Right. Absurdist at its face.

All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?

Is this a defense of state's rights or a refusal of the full faith and credit clause? If you're legally married in Nevada by an Elvis impersonator, aren't you also legally married in Utah, or Delaware?

Its a defense of the separation of powers in general, but not a refusal of full faith and credit. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe you cannot force States to issue SSM licenses if they do not want to, however you can force them to recognize out of State SSM's under full faith and credit, much like they have to now if the license doesn't meet in state age requirements, or first/second cousin marriage restrictions.

What is the rationale behind recognizing same sex marriages from other states but refusing to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples within that state? If the marriage is valid, why deny a license?

because the State's voters don't want to issue them, and there is nothing in the federal constitution forcing them to do so. There is however, language in the constitution that forces them to give full faith and credit to ones issued from another State.

This is what we used to call a compromise, something both sides have forgotten, along with the whole concept of federalism.

 

[Nosmo King]

Consider the premise of the original argument. All that's needed for political unity is acquiescence to the Right. Absurdist at its face.

All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?

Is this a defense of state's rights or a refusal of the full faith and credit clause? If you're legally married in Nevada by an Elvis impersonator, aren't you also legally married in Utah, or Delaware?

Its a defense of the separation of powers in general, but not a refusal of full faith and credit. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe you cannot force States to issue SSM licenses if they do not want to, however you can force them to recognize out of State SSM's under full faith and credit, much like they have to now if the license doesn't meet in state age requirements, or first/second cousin marriage restrictions.

What is the rationale behind recognizing same sex marriages from other states but refusing to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples within that state? If the marriage is valid, why deny a license?

because the State's voters don't want to issue them, and there is nothing in the federal constitution forcing them to do so. There is however, language in the constitution that forces them to give full faith and credit to ones issued from another State.

This is what we used to call a compromise, something both sides have forgotten, along with the whole concept of federalism.

The effect of this compromise is to force same sex couples to marry out of state in order to enjoy the same rights and benefits of married couples who were issued a license within that state. Are there any other circumstances where such restrictions are valid and legal? Should one citizen be forced to comply with such regulations while other citizens aren't? Do American citizens enjoy equal protection under the law or is that a privilege restricted by others on a personal whim?

 

[martybegan]

All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?

Is this a defense of state's rights or a refusal of the full faith and credit clause? If you're legally married in Nevada by an Elvis impersonator, aren't you also legally married in Utah, or Delaware?

Its a defense of the separation of powers in general, but not a refusal of full faith and credit. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe you cannot force States to issue SSM licenses if they do not want to, however you can force them to recognize out of State SSM's under full faith and credit, much like they have to now if the license doesn't meet in state age requirements, or first/second cousin marriage restrictions.

What is the rationale behind recognizing same sex marriages from other states but refusing to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples within that state? If the marriage is valid, why deny a license?

because the State's voters don't want to issue them, and there is nothing in the federal constitution forcing them to do so. There is however, language in the constitution that forces them to give full faith and credit to ones issued from another State.

This is what we used to call a compromise, something both sides have forgotten, along with the whole concept of federalism.

The effect of this compromise is to force same sex couples to marry out of state in order to enjoy the same rights and benefits of married couples who were issued a license within that state. Are there any other circumstances where such restrictions are valid and legal? Should one citizen be forced to comply with such regulations while other citizens aren't? Do American citizens enjoy equal protection under the law or is that a privilege restricted by others on a personal whim?

if you want to marry your first cousin in some States, you have to go to another State. If you want to marry someone below a certain age in some States, without parental consent, you have to go to another State.

It all hinges on your definition of "equal". You think SSM is equal to OSM, and in a way I do to. however I don't see it being equal enough to trigger equal protection under the law, and allowing federal force to make a State issue a license that hasn't been modified by legislative action.

 

[Iceweasel]

At the present time we have a mass of people that think blocking traffic is a constitutional right as free speech. It took a while but leftist propaganda has set in and the modern generation acts out of what they been trained to think. They even believe gender is a state of mind now. The mission has been successful, they are ripe for anything that comes from headquarters.

 

[DGS49]

AGAIN, LET'S GET BACK ON POINT:

This thread is not about abortion or gay rights or the death penalty. It is about WHY WE ARE SO DIVIDED.

We have always had disagreements, but today's level of anger and vituperation are - let's say - unusual.

And the reason for MUCH of the anger is not the issues themselves, but rather the method that the Left has chosen to have its program implemented. They have eschewed the Constitution and the normal historical methods, to wit, electing congresspersons who will introduce laws (or in extreme cases Constitutional Amendments) that will crystallize those policies in law, in favor of having the Federal Courts infected with Leftist jurists who are willing to ignore and subvert the Constitution and laws in order to get their program implemented.

So on the Right, we win the arguments, win the elections, and elect our like-minded representatives, only to have the laws that they pass thwarted in the judiciary.

On issue after issue, the Left has lost the "arguments." They have conspicuously failed to elect majorities in most of the states or in the Congress - majorities that would have implemented "single-payer," provided for "free college," guaranteed various rights for various non-mainstream, picked-on constituencies (including illegal immigrants). But in spite of this, they are "winning" in real life because they have taken over the courts, and stuffed them with like-minded anti-Constitutionalists who say, in effect, "fuck the laws and the Constitution, I'm going to do what I WANT!"

This is why "we" are pissed. Which is the point of my thread.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

The Right's sacred cow, the Constitution, set all that up. So quit preaching that it has been misused by your Preppy Progressive fraternity brothers. For one thing, if it could so easily be abused it was a defectively weak Constitution anyway. Just like a coward making himself a victim for bullies, that's his own fault.

But it was designed to suppress the will of the people anyway.

 

[task0778]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

The Right's sacred cow, the Constitution, set all that up. So quit preaching that it has been misused by your Preppy Progressive fraternity brothers. For one thing, if it could so easily be abused it was a defectively weak Constitution anyway. Just like a coward making himself a victim for bullies, that's his own fault.

But it was designed to suppress the will of the people anyway.

To the contrary, the Constitution was designed to ensure the will of the people against an oppressive gov't. But any gov't is still controlled and managed by human beings, who as we all know are somewhat imperfect. Sage, you wanta offer a workable alternative for governance and the rule of law? Far as I can tell, what we have is as good as it gets; our problems stem not from the Constitution but how we have interpreted and applied it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yins are missing the point.

We have CONSTITUTIONAL WAYS of implementing a policy agenda. If you want to legalize abortion, go to your congressperson and if you have sufficient popular support, a law can be passed (or a Constitutional Amendment), and you will get your way. You do NOT get it done by anti-constitutional justices on the Supreme Court.

If you want to eliminate the death penalty, you will have to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to do so. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY CONDONES THE DEATH PENALTY, so it is a big deal. You do NOT have Leftist judges effectively eliminate the DP by making it horrifically difficult to implement.

If you want to sanction gay marriage, YOU GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND GET THEM TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. You do NOT go to some Leftist judge and have him "decree" that gay marriage is a "right," as the Massachusetts SC did several years ago when Mitt Romney was governor.

If you want to implement major policy changes to FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING, you elect like-minded congresspersons and pass an appropriate law. You do NOT have bureaucrats do it on their own.

Now do you understand?

THE LEFT HAS NOT HAD SUFFICIENT POPULAR SUPPORT ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES TO HAVE THEIR AGENDA IMPLEMENTED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER! So they do it through outlaw judges on the courts or outlaw bureaucrats.

and on issue after issue, they continue the pattern of using extra-constitutional means of getting their agenda forward. ONLY LAST WEEK a federal appeals court, in effect, passed a law that classifies sexual preference in the same category as RACE - something that the Left has NEVER HAD THE VOTES TO DO in Congress or any state legislature.

Whether you like this or not, it is illegal and unconstitutional.

The Pulpit Is for Bullies

The enemies of democracy are on the Right (who preach that we live in a "republic," which means supremacy of the 1% minority and their mooching heirs) and on the Left (the rest of the Birth-Class Supremacists, their twin brothers who preach that the majority owes reparations to unfit minorities).

Under self-determination, the Constitution would have been only a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation and national referendums. All the anti-majority decisions you state were purposely imposed in order to trick us into voting for the Right's economic elitism instead of taking over the voting ourselves.

 

[task0778]

AGAIN, LET'S GET BACK ON POINT:

This thread is not about abortion or gay rights or the death penalty. It is about WHY WE ARE SO DIVIDED.

We have always had disagreements, but today's level of anger and vituperation are - let's say - unusual.

And the reason for MUCH of the anger is not the issues themselves, but rather the method that the Left has chosen to have its program implemented. They have eschewed the Constitution and the normal historical methods, to wit, electing congresspersons who will introduce laws (or in extreme cases Constitutional Amendments) that will crystallize those policies in law, in favor of having the Federal Courts infected with Leftist jurists who are willing to ignore and subvert the Constitution and laws in order to get their program implemented.

So on the Right, we win the arguments, win the elections, and elect our like-minded representatives, only to have the laws that they pass thwarted in the judiciary.

On issue after issue, the Left has lost the "arguments." They have conspicuously failed to elect majorities in most of the states or in the Congress - majorities that would have implemented "single-payer," provided for "free college," guaranteed various rights for various non-mainstream, picked-on constituencies (including illegal immigrants). But in spite of this, they are "winning" in real life because they have taken over the courts, and stuffed them with like-minded anti-Constitutionalists who say, in effect, "fuck the laws and the Constitution, I'm going to do what I WANT!"

This is why "we" are pissed. Which is the point of my thread.

Yins are missing the point.

We have CONSTITUTIONAL WAYS of implementing a policy agenda. If you want to legalize abortion, go to your congressperson and if you have sufficient popular support, a law can be passed (or a Constitutional Amendment), and you will get your way. You do NOT get it done by anti-constitutional justices on the Supreme Court.

If you want to eliminate the death penalty, you will have to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to do so. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY CONDONES THE DEATH PENALTY, so it is a big deal. You do NOT have Leftist judges effectively eliminate the DP by making it horrifically difficult to implement.

If you want to sanction gay marriage, YOU GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND GET THEM TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. You do NOT go to some Leftist judge and have him "decree" that gay marriage is a "right," as the Massachusetts SC did several years ago when Mitt Romney was governor.

If you want to implement major policy changes to FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING, you elect like-minded congresspersons and pass an appropriate law. You do NOT have bureaucrats do it on their own.

Now do you understand?

THE LEFT HAS NOT HAD SUFFICIENT POPULAR SUPPORT ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES TO HAVE THEIR AGENDA IMPLEMENTED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER! So they do it through outlaw judges on the courts or outlaw bureaucrats.

and on issue after issue, they continue the pattern of using extra-constitutional means of getting their agenda forward. ONLY LAST WEEK a federal appeals court, in effect, passed a law that classifies sexual preference in the same category as RACE - something that the Left has NEVER HAD THE VOTES TO DO in Congress or any state legislature.

Whether you like this or not, it is illegal and unconstitutional.

The Pulpit Is for Bullies

The enemies of democracy are on the Right (who preach that we live in a "republic," which means supremacy of the 1% minority and their mooching heirs) and on the Left (the rest of the Birth-Class Supremacists, their twin brothers who preach that the majority owes reparations to unfit minorities).

Under self-determination, the Constitution would have been only a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation and national referendums. All the anti-majority decisions you state were purposely imposed in order to trick us into voting for the Right's economic elitism instead of taking over the voting ourselves.

First of all most of us on the Right have no interest in supporting the supremacy of the 1%, that is unadulterated nonsense. Nor do I believe most people on the Left are birth class supremacists/elitists, whatever that really means. The 2 groups have different approaches to the problems we face as a society today, and probably there's a little bit right and wrong in the positions that each side is taking. True, as a conservative I don't like the methods that some on the Left are employing, but I also suspect that there are many on the Left who don't support the violence and limiting of free speech either. Unfortunately we don't seem to have the will to cut the crap and talk about the mounting problems that we face today that will only grow worse in time. How terrible will it be to pass the burdens of debt and so many other unresolved issues onto future generations.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).

Education that pushes agendas that are anti-American and sympathetic to communism that are no longer interested in the means, but rather the ends. All actions are justified, even if clearly unAmerican and undemocratic.

Add all of this with a contentious election and a person who promised to do the heavy lifting and difficult work of putting America back on track and you have entitled vs realists. It is very difficult to deal with entitlements once people get comfortable with them. They are often self defeating and soul sapping, not to mention violate the opportunities for the next generation due to debt, but this is a tough concept to sell. Far worse in Canada I assure you.

Worse in Canada? No offense, but I find that hard to believe.

Oh it's worse alright.
I visit Canada pretty regularly in Kamloops and on the Okanagan in Summerland.
My relatives are constantly complaining about the leftist.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This nation is divided as it is because one side wants to live in a modern European style country while the other wants to play cowboy.

 

[DGS49]

Matthew you are close to being right. But MY point is that, if the Left really wants to live in a Leftist country like, say, France, they have some hurdles to overcome. They have to modify the Constitution to permit a national health care program, to allow cradle-to-grave welfare, "free" universities, and so on. But the American Left knows that it can not accomplish those things by constitutional means, despite a couple generations now of Leftist indoctrination of our children in government schools.

Which is why defeating Hillary Clinton was the greatest political accomplishment of the past 40 years. There is nothing DJT can do that would be as destructive to our country as another Clinton presidency. We dodged a giant fucking bullet in November, despite the biggest conspiracy in history to destroy the American system of government.

 

[task0778]

Matthew ain't that close to being right, he left out the part where everybody who lives in those modern European style countries has to pay a heavy tax burden, to include a VAT that mostly ranges between 20 - 25%, and in addition to that EVERYBODY pays taxes on every dollar. None of this stuff where almost half do not pay federal income tax like here in the USA; tell you what, how about the democrats float that idea around and see what most people think.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people. The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade. In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures. And some of them were working on the issue. Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite. So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings. And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat. The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty. A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched. But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"? Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution. But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals? Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures. U.S Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here? The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat. The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant." Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation. When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on. The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,

we are divided for 2 reason:

1) the Constitution was not clear enough that liberalism was to be illegal in America

2) not enough Americans understand the cancer of liberalism enough to oppose it