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.
Considering you said you wish death on the president over ACA, I don't think it will ever get better.
I stated that I would be momentarily pleased if it occurred - which is in subtle but very important ways different from actively wishing something, and not really "over" anything at this point just it would be my likely emotional reaction - to demonstrate that as someone on the American right who is furious with the guy I'm relatively qualified to speak on the subject and more likely (although certainly not guaranteed) to be right when trying to diagnose what is going on there, why, and how and whether it will resolve.
But hey at this point I don't really think you made this thread because you wanted to know or to understand it, but rather because you seem to be angry about the anger. If you actually do want that to go away, you're likely to get your wish several years down the line expect it or not. If what you really want is for everyone to put a smile on and happily get behind the policies you prefer, you're going to be just as disappointed as your post predicts.
My memory may be short because I'm relatively young (late twenties), but the only times I can remember politics being more partisan than post ACA were for a very short while after the supreme court ruling on Bush/Gore, and around the Iraq war - where the divide wasn't nearly so clean. If something has been building for decades it must have taken the 90's and 00's off.
Anyway, America has been less divided than now in the past, and more divided than now in the past. Would you seriously argue that the divides now are worse than they were around desegregation and Vietnam, to pick out two post-war examples? Periods of strong partisan splits in this country generally have had an underlying policy basis -- one political group does something that another absolutely hates and then often goes about it in a way that makes things even worse (in terms of triggering anger on the other side of the issue). This is actually cause for reassurance on partisanship in the long term -- the current atmosphere will dissipate either when the irritant causing it is gone/changed, or after the passage of enough time that the future current state feels like the way things have always been (not that attempts to change things will end, but the anger driving the political divide will drain out).
Of course, one of the parties could in the interim do something new to make people who support the other absolutely flip (for example, it's not implausible the Republicans could completely refuse to play ball on any compromises when the SSDI trust fund runs out, and unless my read on the Democrats is wrong the response wouldn't be pretty. Obama could try to legalize all the illegal immigrants by executive order, etc.), so nothing is guaranteed, but if they don't the partisanship will eventually go away.
You should not have posted that previously. It WAS disturbing. As a young person, I am going to cut you some slack. It is easy to get too passionate. Chill out.
I think the big difference lately is the erosion of the political middle. That is occurring on both sides, but on the right it is dramatic. The whole RINO thing is fueled by a large group of conservatives who think there is only one way to think about politics. That is ridiculous. People that can respect and work with someone of another point of view, and do not see all political battles in black and white terms, are the ones who actually do great things. Usually when smart people disagree and negotiate the outcome is more thought out and better. As a scientist, I rarely get anything published without getting slapped around by peer reviewers. That is good. It sharpens and tightens my ideas. The current political culture seems to be that any achievement by the other side has to be prevented, demonized, or discredited to keep power. The only problem with that thinking is that it prevents doing anything good for the people. With more moderates we could bring left, right, center left, center right, and truly centrist ideas to bear on our problems. As it stands, partisans will pitch a fit if any other ideas go anywhere. It is dysfunctional, to put it mildly.
I stated that I would be momentarily pleased if it occurred - which is in subtle but very important ways different from actively wishing something, and not really "over" anything at this point just it would be my likely emotional reaction - to demonstrate that as someone on the American right who is furious with the guy I'm relatively qualified to speak on the subject and more likely (although certainly not guaranteed) to be right when trying to diagnose what is going on there, why, and how and whether it will resolve.
Nope, that's not what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
As someone who leans Republican and would smile if I read in the morning paper that Obama had caught a bullet, respect for the Presidency be ****ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
But hey at this point I don't really think you made this thread because you wanted to know or to understand it, but rather because you seem to be angry about the anger. If you actually do want that to go away, you're likely to get your wish several years down the line expect it or not. If what you really want is for everyone to put a smile on and happily get behind the policies you prefer, you're going to be just as disappointed as your post predicts.
I'm not angry about the anger. I'm resigned to it. I do not think it will get better and I think that is a reality we should all face. I don't expect everyone to put on a smiling face because we have reached a point where half the country will always be angry. And with each election, the winners crow and the losers simmer (do you remember 2012?) but the heat level rises. At some point, from one side or the other, the pressure will be too much.
This is totally untrue. The people who hate Obama are the same people who impeached Clinton, and shut down the government TWICE. The degree of hate has been building for decades. Obama is just the latest recipient from right wing lunacy and hypocrisy.
Diversion: It only looks like Republicans shut down the government because that's what Dems kept saying. It's really the Democrats who forced the shutdown. You need to analyze what actually happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
This is not a sporting event, in which "fans" of the winning team gloat and goad the losing fans. This is the nation voting.
When policies of the party in power deliver-
1. lower incomes
2. more unemployed citizens
3. more citizens living in poverty
4. more citizens on foodstamps
5. higher energy costs
- what did you expect?
People care about being employed, earning enough to have a good living, and being able to provide for thier families. BS issues, like global warming, gay marriage, and "war on women" are a joke when the average person is experiencing a lower standard of living and has dimmer prospects for thier children.
WAKE UP
That really is the essence of it. If someone has difficulty providing for self and family, the rest fades in importance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
When Republicans passed a bill that requires a doctor to read a script to woman before performing an abortion, I immediately thought of "A Handmaid's Tale". When you say for better or worse, that definitely sounds worse.
How is this different than the requirement for a doctor to explain fully the nature of any procedure so that the patient is fully informed? Would you deny disclosure of information that is relevant?
There has always been political,division . The difference now is it goes to personal attacks when one side disagrees with the other. When it goes to a personal level the divide widens
It does strike me as strange than someone can insult another on television without it being slander. I disagree with the President on many issues but would never stoop to calling him a traitor,etc.etc.
The [dance step censored as being derogatory] Is Up
- - -
The country may be divided into halves, but the dichotomy is not the haves versus the have nots.
- - -
The country is divided by ignorance, into the “Takers” versus the “Makers.” The recipient class has been able to outvote the donor class for some time, and the consequences of that have become evident.
Ironically, all that “taking” is done with the consent of the “Taken.” Based on the Declaration of Independence (1776), American governments are instituted with just two jobs:
1) secure (endowed) rights, and
2) govern those who consent.
{Caveat - consent waives job #1}
Restating, the abuses of servant government are rooted in the consent of the people, who unknowingly surrendered their endowments in exchange for inferior privileges of “civil rights” and “political rights.”
So before you leap to the conclusion that the country is divided, ideologically, be aware that consent, however it was gained, is the foundation.
Of course, it would be wise to investigate how and when you gave consent to be so governed, and whether or not to withdraw that consent.
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.
