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.
Did you mean this double negative, or did you mean to write 'We are a country that is NOT united...'? I ask because it changes the meaning a lot, obviously.
By the way, I disagree that the USA is not politically and culturally united. Having lived abroad for more than a decade, I can tell you that the country is very culturally and politically united. This does not mean everyone is democrat (or that everyone is republican), but most everybody agrees on the political ideals of the country. My view is that you're looking too superficially at the differences: Underneath the 'skin', the USA is as united as any country I've been to, sometimes more.
Unintended double negative - thanks for pointing out.
We certainly don't agree on political ideals. Half the country believes in self-reliance, the other half believes in everyone being in it together. Half the country wants the government to stay out of their hair, the other half wants the government to solve problems. Half the country believes in traditional values, the other half believes in progressive values.
Liberals hate what conservatives believe and vice versa. I'll grant you that the majority of the population is probably more interested in reality TV than politics, but of the people engaged in politics, the two ideologies are irreconcilable.
We are divided - that's the whole point. Two halves of the country hate each other and want nothing to do with the other half, let alone work with them. It's been that way since W (possibly Clinton) and its only going to get worse.
actually that is a false statement when one looks at the map, it is easy to say that we are a country of red states and blue states, but when you look at actual votes within those states, every state is purple. That means we are less divided that one would thing....now I do think Congress is extremely divided and hopefully the curbing of filibusters that should happen this January will curb that and force both sides to start working together again.
Quote:
I doubt it. If Texas went, so would the rest of the South and much of the West. The military is disproportionately comprised of southerners, so most of them would join up in the south. That would leave a US comprised of effeminate blue-staters trying to occupy the south.
That is a big if, and I am not sure it is an if one would want to risk, besides those Southerners wouldn't get to take the military weapons with them which would still be in control of the Union and many troops would have to make the choice of if they wish to join a secession or stay with the Union that they have professed their loyalty to when they joined the military.
Also, after the Civil War the North basically occupied the South for a while and I am sure there are a few people here who think the North is still occupying the South.
Unintended double negative - thanks for pointing out.
We certainly don't agree on political ideals. Half the country believes in self-reliance, the other half believes in everyone being in it together. Half the country wants the government to stay out of their hair, the other half wants the government to solve problems. Half the country believes in traditional values, the other half believes in progressive values.
Liberals hate what conservatives believe and vice versa. I'll grant you that the majority of the population is probably more interested in reality TV than politics, but of the people engaged in politics, the two ideologies are irreconcilable.
Actually I only disagree with some conservative beliefs, I hate what the far-right believes because I think it is toxic for our country and would much rather work work moderate conservatives that have a better understanding of our country, people like Jon Huntsman make more sense for conservatives that guys like Santorum.
Actually I only disagree with some conservative beliefs, I hate what the far-right believes because I think it is toxic for our country and would much rather work work moderate conservatives that have a better understanding of our country, people like Jon Huntsman make more sense for conservatives that guys like Santorum.
We're in agreement there, though that might be the only point of agreement we share. The extreme social conservatives like Santorum are the biggest drag on the Republican party.
Unintended double negative - thanks for pointing out.
We certainly don't agree on political ideals. Half the country believes in self-reliance, the other half believes in everyone being in it together. Half the country wants the government to stay out of their hair, the other half wants the government to solve problems. Half the country believes in traditional values, the other half believes in progressive values.
Liberals hate what conservatives believe and vice versa. I'll grant you that the majority of the population is probably more interested in reality TV than politics, but of the people engaged in politics, the two ideologies are irreconcilable.
But that's what I mean. Your examples, which has some truth, are superficial. Cutting deeper, there are very few Americans who would like a completely different political system. What you're referring to is how the system works (the "role" of the government). Now, if half the country wanted a monarchy and the other half wanted a republic, for example, then there would be a true base difference and would probably separate (or fight about it).
The elites want you to believe that all governments are permanent and hence, you, the citizen, have no alternatives. But take a look back at any map of Europe 25 years ago, 50 years ago and then each previous century and you'll see the actual situation is far different.
Fear a succession of what?
In any case, you guys are really starting to bore us all with this nonsense. Either leave or put a sock in it. No one is begging you to stay.
But that's what I mean. Your examples, which has some truth, are superficial. Cutting deeper, there are very few Americans who would like a completely different political system. What you're referring to is how the system works (the "role" of the government). Now, if half the country wanted a monarchy and the other half wanted a republic, for example, then there would be a true base difference and would probably separate (or fight about it).
Role of government seems like a pretty fundamental issue to me. I don't see how the parties can come to any sort of consensus when one side thinks the government is there to care for people and manage the economy while the other side wants government to provide only the most basic services. How do you reconcile that with the continued increase of political resentment in the long-term? That's not even taking into account very personal cultural and social issues that the two sides eviscerate on regularly.
The thing about experiments is that sometimes they fail and you have to try again a different way.
What I don't get is why the liberals are so hell bent on keeping the US together as it is. Liberals think of red-staters as unevolved neaderthals, so why the hell wouldn't you want to get rid of them?
We're not. Liberals have said time and time again that you can all leave. This liberal in particular will help erect the fence to keep you from coming back.
What we're tired of is the conservatives talking it to death. Do it, or shut up. But stop boring us to death about it. Just leave.
You seem to be forgetting that the last time you left, it wasn't a liberal that put the insurrection down. That is, unless you wanna call Lincoln a liberal.
Role of government seems like a pretty fundamental issue to me. I don't see how the parties can come to any sort of consensus when one side thinks the government is there to care for people and manage the economy while the other side wants government to provide only the most basic services. How do you reconcile that with the continued increase of political resentment in the long-term? That's not even taking into account very personal cultural and social issues that the two sides eviscerate on regularly.
It's called compromise, and it has worked -- more or less -- for over 230 years. Of course, now that most of our politicians (and most of their constituents) think and act like petulant children, compromise has become a dirty word.
It's called compromise, and it has worked -- more or less -- for over 230 years. Of course, now that most of our politicians (and most of their constituents) think and act like petulant children, compromise has become a dirty word.
I agree with you on that. The problem is, on both sides, being willing to compromise is viewed as weakness. The Republicans are now (after getting shellacked on election day) willing to compromise on revenue, but as soon as Democrats got a whiff of that, the talk is now of decoupling spending cuts from revenue increases or punting talks on spending cuts to next year. Of course, punting spending cuts to next year means they won't happen.
What needs to occur is a good-faith effort on both sides and a recognition that to truly solve our fiscal problems, revenue increases and spending cuts will be necessary. But whenever one side shows an inclination to compromise, the other side digs in deeper.
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.
