Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody is better at identity politics than Conservatives.
The people that want to take back "our" country.
The use of the "Southern Strategy" to get the support of Southern Conservatives by blocking civil rights efforts and appealing to the racism of Southern White Americans.
Good Lord! Where do I start? Wallace was a democrat. It was the democratic party that led the south during the war between the states, the early progressives were all complete racists and outside teddy roosevelt were democrats for boot, think president wilson here. This is your good liberal feminist icon margaret sanger.
again you are not logical. And you use a straw man to avoid a true discussion.
You have not named a topic for discussion where group A and Group B find a logical middle.
there is not a logical middle until you address what the issue is and then address that issue to the constitution
Your logic is a fallacy
The logical middle is your rights end where mine begin. In a boundary dispute of individuals the one inflicting the choices upon others is the culpable party. Gays do exist in free society. They are citizens. They deserve equal protection under the law as any other citizen. If there would be any hetero citizen so fearful of eyeball exposure to homosexuals it behooves them to create a gated community apart from open society to shield their eyes. Otherwise we're compelled to respect the rights of others as we expect them to respect our rights. The common ground, the standard of common decency we uphold together, is where you need to consider your arguments better. If you can focus on the concerns of 'gay exposure' a little better, others would be less quick to dismiss those concerns. I do not accept lewd and lascivious behavior in public. Nothing about my god given rights or free will should be construed as a right to abuse others by divine consent. The middle ground is simply stated the right to be left alone if I do no harm to you. I see no injury coming from gays inflicted upon others in legislature or in open society. If the rest of us fail to see what harm you believe they bring to you, that's what you need to explain.
This is just one issue. There is a middle ground in all these wedge issues drummed up but people are not in the business of being truthful or hearing out all sides fairly. They are preying on one another and it needs to quit. That is not anyones right, and neither is the right to lie truly meant to be protected under free speech rights. I did not put my life on the line to serve my country to indulge peoples lies/ right to abuse others. Speak your truth, but do it respectfully please.
I think of this time as being a continuity of the 60's. The issues are, essentially, the same. Right now I'm wondering if these issues will be exacerbated or eased by what, I believe, could be severe economic problems that seem to be coming.
Good point. We have our wars, especially. Somehow seeing people in the streets demanding that one end made me feel good. We have so many bemoaning that we're still in Afghanastan and Iraq but the only thing endangered are their pocketbooks (if they notice). Back then it could be your kids. There is a reason why NOBODY wants to even utter the word "draft" on either side. It would ignite all that bemoaning to more.
I'm sure the economy is going to hit people very very hard. Its going to make things much worse. Even now, there is much anger directed that way. Anyone shop for food and have a limited income? So what is this about there being "NO" inflation. I'm not out buying big ticket items. I'm buying dinner. Dinner has gone up considerably and it does make me angry that the powers that be don't care. Any of them.
One thing which struck me listening to music from the 60's is that we today are far poorer in spirit than then too. We faced seeing people die on the news and we were acclimated to the violence which erupted around us. But, we still *dreamed*. Who is dreaming now? Who is seeing a rainbow at the end of the nightmare? I think the looming threat of our economy crashing and burning and at least changing irrevocably so we can't go home is driving much of it. The other is the growing creep of a deeply instituted culture of control and the restrictions. It existed before, but its getting a lot lot worse. We did believe we could change it then. I'm not so sure we can now.
Maybe that is the source of the fear. If there doesn't look like a way out you cling to whatever you can as hard as you can.
I do not agree with either of you. The democratic party has been far too successful with their identity politics political strategy. Our american liberals/leftists embarked on an ill advised path with the multiculturalism idea. As an american of traditional america I see no way back. I feel we are hopelessly divided. Perhaps with proper leadership we could find a way to coexist for awhile but we lack even that. I vote for a divorce.......and borders. Good fences make good neighbors.
I disagree. I think that when the nation is flat on its back and on the brink of civil unrest, they will come to their senses and the concept of liberalism will be dead forever. No one wants anarchy (except the left wing Sol Illinsky types who think that will spawn a communist America).
I do not think that the majority of Americans will wake up until these unpleasant economic realities kick them square in the teeth.
Socialism/Liberalism has always, and will always be destined for failure. It has never worked anywhere. After our very expensive and painful lesson, we will return and be strong again- probably not dominating, but not the shell we are heading to.
I think the escalation started in 2000 with the election of Bush, followed by the war in Iraq, the endless economic recession and the election of Obama as president, which pushed everything in the opposite direction. Such polarization did not exists during Bush 41, or Clinton's years.
I disagree. Polarization started happening years prior within the GOP as it meant to break away from racism and sexism that was killing them even if they couldn't see it. Even if they did it for all the wrong reasons (shamed, social acceptance). If they lied their way to get there it only poisoned their own well. It's the nameless things that got lost when they tried to rid themselves of supremacy they're trying to recapture. The splinter groups are trying to drag them back down into false bravado & heavy handed patriarchal ideology.
I've said it before but I stand by my assertion this is a male identity crisis. We won't be past this until they stop seeing themselves as a king to worship, viewing womankind as competitors in a zero sum game where everyone loses, or viewing them as a socially managed beast of burden servicing mankind. Until that day social conservatives (although well meaning & I share many of their sensibilities) cannot help but revert backwards to their last known place of security; Authoritarian. That's why they were so blindly obedient during Bush administration- he knew their weak spots & exploited unmercifully; family loyalty, God & Country. I was guilty of sitting quietly too. They want Dad, and if democrats could swallow their own pride about Obama, deep down they wish he'd step up and be Dad too. Olberman and Maddow have been between the lines saying step up dad. Ultra liberal protesters are walking around with Lincoln posters. Isn't that enough proof?
Much as I see presidential timber in Hillary, her abilities aren't what is most needful at this time in our history. America needs it's dad. How to get past the brood of GOP pit vipers... every ounce of grief/ rage white males choked down for years is pointed at Obama. I do not envy him. Hillary wasn't out of line/ playing mind games bringing up the subject of assassination. White male rage is not mythology. Try better to understand them hard as it is to listen.
Sadly, people will argue over legal definitions and "criteria" in the name of "fact". That's my point. Sorry if you missed it.
Good grief, can you see how badly mangled a constituency becomes when the laws as they are written become a foreign language to the masses and require an interpreter we call a lawyer? A little nuts for the everyday man, don't you think? Imagine a day we're all compelled to speak in legalese? Sounds like a great political cartoon in the making. Another cartoon would be an entire population in everyday life, at the dinner table, in their church, on a date, on camping trips selling everyone else something 24/7.
There are times I read the book of revelations and swear the beast is legislative body. Poor democrats trying to force credit cards to have a plain vanilla straight forward terms not designed to baffle with BS. It can't be done because they have no clue how to make an honest living? That appears to be the case.
The poster put winter's bone as an example of ozark culture. I have been there and I have seen the movie. It is fairly close to accurate. It portrays a bunch of poor, ignorant rednecks whose primary source of income in manufacturing meth. Not my culture.
Something you fail to see if you're a city dweller is that footloose fancy free permissive society has very much harmed softer spoken cultures in USA. WV is one of those cultures. It's second nature to me to tolerate those vastly different than myself having been raised in NY & world traveled but it's not as auto pilot for others. Those meth trailers aren't anything they welcome and most feel their hands tied behind their back by the law to do something about the scourge.
Their primary source of income indeed. They'd rather not have that economy but if it's that or send your kids to city life elsewhere?
The founders had envisioned a weak federal government with much if not most of the power left to the state and local level where they knew democracy worked best. We are hell and gone from that vision.
Our founders could not comprehend the technological breakthroughs we've generated or the sheer degree of nightmare we could dump on our neighboring states via toxic waste. The right to bear arms could never foresee a nuclear capacity, anthrax, or imagine aircraft dispatched across whole oceans/ continents with swiftness. We had pea shooters then, some of which wouldn't fire if it were too humid out. The advancement of our civilization far exceeds our maturity to manage it I fear. IE we're too big for our britches and long past time to grow up how we manage our own problems.
Sorry, but you're wrong, marx was wrong. Collectivism doesn't represent the future. It doesn't represent civilization. It never did. It always represented a step backward. I'm not willing to give up thousands of years of western values and the importance of individual liberty for the yoke of despotism. No thank you.
Collectivism is the internet. All you have to do is pull the plug. You don't get to decide that a highway system is uneccessary if it clearly serves the majority. Whether you realize it or not you've been deriving benefits of those systems and protections all along. Amish are ultra right pacifists paying taxes in part for a military they cannot in conscience volunteer for but concede that without military protection pacifism has a very short shelf life in the jungle. They prefer not to be economically involved and sensibilities are incompatible with free society. Your money & whatever you're selling has little meaning to their daily existence. They're recession & drama queen politics proof. They feel none of our worries and don't jump out windows over NASDAQ tanking. Self sufficiency proportional to the degree you're willing to let go of modern convenience & materialist trappings. If it's ok with you it reduces your lifespan by 30yrs it's your choice and I won't stand in your way. I suspect we're on that road collectively to one degree or another.
Advances in medicine are another example of how even though you didn't directly work for it you get benefit. I don't agree with marxism either save for in discreet parcels and clearly defined limits. Our military system is a communist design if you'll look objectively. That doesn't mean once out of service your full freedoms aren't restored. Federal gov't reigned in-- yes indeed. Start with forieign policy (we can't be world cop) and work backwards from there until we achieve the right balance. We're too far strung out every which way and need to tighten ship.
Right and Left are demonized and what passes for our leaders appear to either have no clue what to do or driven by their ideology.
No one truly wants to see starving people in the streets (one extreme) and no one wants to see a socialist state (other extreme). No one wants to destroy the middle class. But it seems policies are doing the above depending on who is in office although the middle class gets knocked about no matter what.
Does anyone truly want to sacrifice a bit of their current lifestyle to save the country? (I literally mean save, not trying to be dramatic)
Time for a new party? Possible? Other options?
Are the problems so deep that it is impossible to fix without causing hardship to major elements across income levels?
Are there any historical parallels?
What is driving our political polarization is free money. Half of all Americans pay federal income tax. The rest benefit to one degree or another by those taxes which others pay or by deficits passed along to future tax payers who are now too young to vote. The free money is what prevents a sensible solution to our spending problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
social psych birdseye view
