What is pulling America Apart?

[Hazelelponi]

I only really had this one comment.
What if, instead of being a liar, I am just wrong.
My life got a lot better when I stopped presuming any kind of malicious intent on chat forums and just presumed people were wrong.
It doesn't mean they actually were but when I could think that, I didn't think they were a liar or intellectually difficult or any other negative connotation that spoke to some kinda character flaw.

Just to be clear - I don't believe you are "lying"

By this I mean I don't think you're saying anything that you don't believe to be true.

Same on my side, I don't believe I say things that are likewise untrue, though I may make mistakes occasionally or read something askew - that I also give to you that you're not different to myself.

This is the point I was making. . (Sorry if I was unclear)

When we, with honest intent, read something and our take on that something, even though we read the same thing, is so wildly different that it appears to our eyes as lies being told about the content itself, there is a break in communication that is as deep as a foreign language barrier without a common language.

and I don't know how that happened when we speak the same physical language - but something more major is going on, we are having a breakdown at the communication level somehow.

When I first noticed it I thought it was simple misunderstanding's of the content, then I decided the misunderstandings might be intentional, then I decided people were liars ..

But now I'm convinced none of that is true - I think we're having a language barrier somewhere, somehow, across all of society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me tell you what I see, just for fun..

A good example of what I see as pulling us apart is what I imagine to be your last thread. And this is why I left the thread without comment.

You and I can read the EXACT same set of words arranged in EXACTLY the same way in the same language and claim it says two completely different things.

Everything you claimed about the very words you quoted were, in my mind, literally just lying about what you just quoted. I can't even get around the boldfaced lie of your claim - it was that bad according to how I read the same words.

When we can rectify THAT? Is when we will be able to heal as a nation.

Right now, we can't even read the same thing and reach the same conclusions about the meaning of the words we just read - to that extreme of a degree.

And if we can't? Where does it leave us?

I think it's spiritual and that's plain honest... And in my mind the only way to rectify that is through and in Christ, there's no other way to save us..

Which right now in my mind means, barring a miracle, we will not heal and it will hurt us as a nation, perhaps even detrimentally..

You can't have a cohesive nation when you cannot understand one another - remember Babel?

Not to be that guy....but wasn't the mistake mankind made with Babel the idea that they would pierce the firmament and basically illegally immigrate into heaven?

The view of the universe back then was that the earth was at the center, these celestial bodies circled it....and they weren't that far away. Beyond them was an egg shell like layer, or goldfish bowl type exterior called the firmament. Stars were thought to be these really small things that would all fall to the earth during the apocalypse in revelations. The tower of Babel was getting so high that God was upset that mankind would reach the firmament, break through it, and start strolling around heaven (which lay beyond the firmament) even though they weren't worthy.

So God smashed the tower and left everyone unable to communicate with each other to collaborate like that ever again.

I think it's either the Uzbeks or Moldovans who got it the worst....as there's maybe a dozen syllables in one of their languages and it sounds just awful.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Not to be that guy....but wasn't the mistake mankind made with Babel the idea that they would pierce the firmament and basically illegally immigrate into heaven?

The view of the universe back then was that the earth was at the center, these celestial bodies circled it....and they weren't that far away. Beyond them was an egg shell like layer, or goldfish bowl type exterior called the firmament. Stars were thought to be these really small things that would all fall to the earth during the apocalypse in revelations. The tower of Babel was getting so high that God was upset that mankind would reach the firmament, break through it, and start strolling around heaven (which lay beyond the firmament) even though they weren't worthy.

So God smashed the tower and left everyone unable to communicate with each other to collaborate like that ever again.

I think it's either the Uzbeks or Moldovans who got it the worst....as there's maybe a dozen syllables in one of their languages and it sounds just awful.

I was using the example of Babel to highlight that once language itself was confused, they went off with the people groups who spoke their own language and separated from the rest.

In effect this is what is occuring now inside the US. We are dividing ourselves into distinct groups of people who understand one another because we appear at the moment to be unable to do the mental gymnastics it takes to get to the conclusions of those outside our respective groups.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was using the example of Babel to highlight that once language itself was confused, they went off with the people groups who spoke their own language and separated from the rest.

In effect this is what is occuring now inside the US. We are dividing ourselves into distinct groups of people who understand one another.

It's the direction the left adopted heavily when they abandoned their old position of "championing the working class, engaging in big tent policies and robust debate" that encouraged a lot of people with diverse ideas and priorities to come together to promote a large array of public institutions that were seen as the primary function of government.

They traded that for "identity politics" which resulted from a combination of factors at play towards the end of the second Obama term...

1. The Democratic Party was broke. Disillusionment of the working class was fully set in as Obama was largely seen as a continuation of corporate and special interests being considered first over the US population.
2. Lack of candidates. Hillary Clinton ran almost unopposed...as if the left had literally no one to offer, and she was viewed as a Wall Street crony and political elitist.
3. The Obama voter demographics. A new pseudo civil rights movement seemed to be activating the youth of the US politically and BLM seemed to be popular so this idea that cobbling together enough youth and minority voters would create a voting base that didn't rely on middle class white workers as much as it did minority groups and their "activist" movements.

This of course led to a lot of racist language towards whites...which tends to be alienating....and as a political strategy, it stunk, because these voters had the highest turnouts. Instead of voting for the elitist who essentially ignored them except when blaming them for everything....they flipped in large numbers to Trump and much of the minority support expected to turn up because Hillary was a woman decided not to turn up.

Instead of entirely recognizing the failure of this shift and trying something else....the left doubled down hard. It promoted a lot of controversy, digged up as much minority grievances (real or imagined) as possible, and supported these bogus activist movements with an extra heaping of fear mongering. It almost failed, but covid certainly helped them and a promise to return to bipartisanship and compromise won back a lot of the white middle class they lost. You may have noticed that despite insisting that white supremacy is the existential problem they claimed it was under Trump....the left is largely quiet about blaming everything on white men now....and that's largely because they now realize that Obama was a one off, and they don't really have any candidates that appeal to minorities like he did.

Now, some will claim that the right has always engaged in identity politics and while that's sort of true after the Reagan era....it's not quite the same. The only identity that the right associated itself with was Christians...and it wasn't a prerequisite for being conservative. Sure, they had political positions that were morally based on Christian beliefs like abortion...but they still engaged in robust debate and believed in solving political differences with discussion and compromise. Sure, a conservative might tell me that opposing abortion was morally right....and that supporting it was evil....but it wasn't a deal breaker for being conservative. Even better, conservatives would generally accept that I might be indifferent on the issue and be more concerned with something else like education....and I wouldn't be labelled "part of the problem" or "on the wrong side of history" or "an oppressor/complicit with the status quo". I certainly was never told that my opinion had no merit or value because I was an atheist and didn't believe as Christians did.

If you're thinking of how that diverges from the identity politics of the left...it's a huge difference. Not only do they moralize every political issue, I'm now considered "part of the problem" if I fail to agree with whatever stance the left takes. There is no debate to be had, particularly because I'm a straight white male who is both to blame for all of society's problems....but because of the bigotry towards straight white men on the left, my opinions on any issues are worthless because I've never earned anything and all I've done or accomplished was easy to do because I'm a straight white man. The only place for me on the left is what they call an "ally"....which is a dogwhistle for "servant". I'm supposed to parrot the opinions of the morally superior women and minorities that demonize me, and "do the work" of fixing all of society's problems (which again, are somehow my fault) and I shouldn't even question the fact that the morality of the left is internally inconsistent and ever shifting without any foundation which to base it upon. It's largely based upon the elevation of victims (those who claim oppression regardless of evidence).

This new left has toned down its hatred of straight white men considerably since the last election....as they are now more careful to not alienate too many of us from voting....that however, creates a secondary problem of needing a new enemy, a new scapegoat to blame, as the left doesn't actually hold any common set of principles or values anymore. Without an external enemy to focus on....it becomes a lot of infighting over who should be prioritized first. The new enemy appeared to be "Christian nationalists" for awhile....but that simply hasn't caught on like the white supremacist patriarchy did....and the left is still deeply in trouble.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's the direction the left adopted heavily when they abandoned their old position of "championing the working class, engaging in big tent policies and robust debate" that encouraged a lot of people with diverse ideas and priorities to come together to promote a large array of public institutions that were seen as the primary function of government.

They traded that for "identity politics" which resulted from a combination of factors at play towards the end of the second Obama term...

1. The Democratic Party was broke. Disillusionment of the working class was fully set in as Obama was largely seen as a continuation of corporate and special interests being considered first over the US population.
2. Lack of candidates. Hillary Clinton ran almost unopposed...as if the left had literally no one to offer, and she was viewed as a Wall Street crony and political elitist.
3. The Obama voter demographics. A new pseudo civil rights movement seemed to be activating the youth of the US politically and BLM seemed to be popular so this idea that cobbling together enough youth and minority voters would create a voting base that didn't rely on middle class white workers as much as it did minority groups and their "activist" movements.

This of course led to a lot of racist language towards whites...which tends to be alienating....and as a political strategy, it stunk, because these voters had the highest turnouts. Instead of voting for the elitist who essentially ignored them except when blaming them for everything....they flipped in large numbers to Trump and much of the minority support expected to turn up because Hillary was a woman decided not to turn up.

Instead of entirely recognizing the failure of this shift and trying something else....the left doubled down hard. It promoted a lot of controversy, digged up as much minority grievances (real or imagined) as possible, and supported these bogus activist movements with an extra heaping of fear mongering. It almost failed, but covid certainly helped them and a promise to return to bipartisanship and compromise won back a lot of the white middle class they lost. You may have noticed that despite insisting that white supremacy is the existential problem they claimed it was under Trump....the left is largely quiet about blaming everything on white men now....and that's largely because they now realize that Obama was a one off, and they don't really have any candidates that appeal to minorities like he did.

Now, some will claim that the right has always engaged in identity politics and while that's sort of true after the Reagan era....it's not quite the same. The only identity that the right associated itself with was Christians...and it wasn't a prerequisite for being conservative. Sure, they had political positions that were morally based on Christian beliefs like abortion...but they still engaged in robust debate and believed in solving political differences with discussion and compromise. Sure, a conservative might tell me that opposing abortion was morally right....and that supporting it was evil....but it wasn't a deal breaker for being conservative. Even better, conservatives would generally accept that I might be indifferent on the issue and be more concerned with something else like education....and I wouldn't be labelled "part of the problem" or "on the wrong side of history" or "an oppressor/complicit with the status quo". I certainly was never told that my opinion had no merit or value because I was an atheist and didn't believe as Christians did.

If you're thinking of how that diverges from the identity politics of the left...it's a huge difference. Not only do they moralize every political issue, I'm now considered "part of the problem" if I fail to agree with whatever stance the left takes. There is no debate to be had, particularly because I'm a straight white male who is both to blame for all of society's problems....but because of the bigotry towards straight white men on the left, my opinions on any issues are worthless because I've never earned anything and all I've done or accomplished was easy to do because I'm a straight white man. The only place for me on the left is what they call an "ally"....which is a dogwhistle for "servant". I'm supposed to parrot the opinions of the morally superior women and minorities that demonize me, and "do the work" of fixing all of society's problems (which again, are somehow my fault) and I shouldn't even question the fact that the morality of the left is internally inconsistent and ever shifting without any foundation which to base it upon. It's largely based upon the elevation of victims (those who claim oppression regardless of evidence).

This new left has toned down its hatred of straight white men considerably since the last election....as they are now more careful to not alienate too many of us from voting....that however, creates a secondary problem of needing a new enemy, a new scapegoat to blame, as the left doesn't actually hold any common set of principles or values anymore. Without an external enemy to focus on....it becomes a lot of infighting over who should be prioritized first. The new enemy appeared to be "Christian nationalists" for awhile....but that simply hasn't caught on like the white supremacist patriarchy did....and the left is still deeply in trouble.

Yes, I absolutely see this ..

The left has one goal yes? An end game so to speak and it doesn't matter how that end is accomplished because only the end result matters.

While at the same time, this leaves the right unable to work with anyone on the left for positive public policy because our goals are diametrically opposed, the other side doesn't have an end game of accomplishing positive public policy that we can come together on, in all our human faultiness, they are after a complete system overhaul...

Is this what you also see? (Sanity check ✔️ hahaha)

But what makes them believe their own nonsense? Because I think they do...

Or .. shoe on the other foot, what makes me believe mine?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I absolutely see this ..

The left has one goal yes? An end game so to speak and it doesn't matter how that end is accomplished because only the end result matters.

Well if I had to guess the end goal....it would be grabbing power and changing the political process so significantly they never lose it.

While at the same time, this leaves the right unable to work with anyone on the left for positive public policy because our goals are diametrically opposed,

Well if you moralize every political issue, and you're in a 2 party system, your basic claim is that your political opponents are immoral in regards to every issue.

the other side doesn't have an end game of accomplishing positive public policy that we can come together on, in all our human faultiness, they are after a complete system overhaul...

Indeed.

Is this what you also see? (Sanity check ✔️ hahaha)

But what makes them believe their own nonsense? Because I think they do...

Or .. shoe on the other foot, what makes me believe mine?

Well....there's several reasons why that are possible.

1. They don't believe it, but will pretend for the sake of gaining power.
2. They fail to critically examine any position, and so remain ignorant of inconsistencies.
3. By oversimplifying all political issues to moral issues....complex problems and solutions can be avoided entirely.
4. The emotional satisfaction of a high horse position without any actual effort.
5. Cowardice. Loss of peer group, ostracization, potential job loss for having the wrong opinion are all real possibilities since they believe in extra-judicial mob justice.

Hopefully you believe yours because of genuine self examination and critical thinking. You can find out if this is true by trying to consider which political views you hold that your peers disagree with, yet you aren't afraid of expressing those views to your peers, reprisal or not.

The term NPC (a gamer term referring to non player characters that have pre-scripted dialogue and responses) was popularized as a description of the modern political left because you could so often know their answers to questions before you even asked. This makes them all seem like the same generic person with the same views....devoid of individuality.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You can find out if this is true by trying to consider which political views you hold that your peers disagree with, yet you aren't afraid of expressing those views to your peers, reprisal or not.

Thank you for the time. Excellent thoughts, thank you.

 

[timothyu]

A two party system does not help the situation. There is definitely a three party system growing which the two partiers fear as they think it will weaken them, as it should. My question is why do not the independents get organized instead of being so independent as independents and have their own media 'gatherings' as a group to show there is a three party system. Living in a three party system has done nothing but enhance life here in Canada as the third party is the closest to representation of the people we have. It has never come out on top in elections but always has had power in that any of the other two who do not have a majority government have no choice but to align with the third party in order to remain in power. It is a win win for the people because no matter which of the main two parties is in power, the third option usually has control which has benefitted the people greatly at the expense of the power mongers who pretend to represent the people. You thought a monarchy was bad, but a two party system both owned by the same money is no better.

 

[rturner76]

I recall before his first term...the fear mongering ranged from starting nuclear war to "Jim Crow 2.0" and none of the many predictions happened.

Right, we now have a system of checks and balances that won't allow a President to pass whatever they want. I believe "The Don" by wanting to take out parts of the constitution and praising the work of dictatorships all over the world intends to eliminate some of those checks and balances. With a majority Republican Party, and a majority of said party bowing down to whatever rhetoric he spews, we can now see where there is a possibility of him getting what he wants in terms of eliminating the sections of the Constitution that he doesn't like.

That is the document that the USA's laws and rights are based on. Taking out parts is taking out rights because the said document is what guarantees the rights of the citizen. What I meant to convey was it's odd that the party that fights the most for the rights of individuals would approve of limiting the current rights that the citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[rambot]

Yes, I absolutely see this ..

The left has one goal yes? An end game so to speak and it doesn't matter how that end is accomplished because only the end result matters.

While at the same time, this leaves the right unable to work with anyone on the left for positive public policy because our goals are diametrically opposed, the other side doesn't have an end game of accomplishing positive public policy that we can come together on, in all our human faultiness, they are after a complete system overhaul...

Is this what you also see? (Sanity check ✔️ hahaha)

But what makes them believe their own nonsense? Because I think they do...

Or .. shoe on the other foot, what makes me believe mine?

I'm unsure of what the other side of this conversation is.

But it's not reasonable to say "we have a problem NOW that we didn't have before and it is due to the other side". Fundamentally, our argument (because we both agree) is the two sides are not communicating well. That is a relational problem. BOTH SIDES bear responsibility in relationship problems.

As I said, this poor communication between groups REALLY ramped up after 2016 when things that were just demonstrably (and factually untrue...like, simple pictures discredit it) were somehow legitimized or at BEST, disregarded as "you just don't understand what he's saying".


I'd also argue that the leaders of the political right wing in America are flaggelating and chaotic so you're welcome to blame the left, but it's your leaders that are eating each other and fighting about what your side actually even holds as true.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, I absolutely see this ..

The left has one goal yes? An end game so to speak and it doesn't matter how that end is accomplished because only the end result matters.

While at the same time, this leaves the right unable to work with anyone on the left for positive public policy because our goals are diametrically opposed, the other side doesn't have an end game of accomplishing positive public policy that we can come together on, in all our human faultiness, they are after a complete system overhaul...

Is this what you also see? (Sanity check ✔️ hahaha)

But what makes them believe their own nonsense? Because I think they do...

Or .. shoe on the other foot, what makes me believe mine?

For what it's worth, the problem that causes division are the subjective psycholinguistics in our minds and the propaganda, that more often than not, ends in a contradiction of reasoning (hypocritical judgment).

For example, "What makes them believe their own nonsense?" ... This is a question containing a premise that has already concluded that whatever "them" believe is "nonsense". And guess who "them" is?... "The left", a vague reference to whoever is not "The right".

You then wisely consider the shoe on the other foot, but to no avail because again the psycholinguistics in the question are self-defeating: "What makes me believe mine (my nonsense)?"... For example, does this "nonsense" on "the right" include the inference that "the left" believes their own "nonsense"? Such subjective language can never make sense in a left/right dichotomy because it ends in a contradiction.

Objective psycholinguistics would articulate that what makes sense on the left would not necessarily make sense on the right and visa versa, as a matter of circumstance.

 

[AlexB23]

I stopped myself from posting this opinion in another thread because I'm curious about what Americans in America think is pulling America apart.

I am 1000% convinced that the left and the right do NOT agree on what that is. As I'm outside of it, I have my own opinions on both groups. But from SPECIFICALLY where you sit, what do you think is causing the slow melting of America's standing.


My thoughts?

Right
Mass migration
DQSH/LGBTQ issues
CRT
Economic crisis (which isn't actually an ECONOMIC crisis...it's a distribution of wealth crisis as the rich get richer and the middle and poor get left behind....still)

Left
Greed/Corporate exploitation
Racism
The removal of rights for certain classes of people
Republican degradation of national institutions.



But really, what do you guys think.

https://aztownhall.org/resources/Documents/Bridging Divides to Build Community/Stuck in the Middle - The Extremes Pulling America Apart Summary.pdf
That's a link to a boring pdf that indicates that it is the extremism that's tearing America apart. Seems boring and, frankly, the "Extreme left" in America? I'm curious who that would include....

Here is my take. Corporate lobbying on both sides of the political divide (from greed), climate change*, Trumpism, Hollywood, fascists and the far right + far left are tearing the US apart. This all stems from human sin. Right now, Europe is getting torn apart by Russia's dictator and the war, the Middle East is getting torn apart by war (by Hamas, US oil interests and crooked politicians), and Asia is getting torn apart by dictatorships, racism and greed, just look at what is happening in China to the Uyghurs.

*On the bright side, human induced emissions from fossil fuels are expected to peak this year or soon after, and then decline after 2023-2025 due to a large scale investment in affordable green energy. So, climate change is not as big of an issue as it was just a few years ago, but we should try to remain diligent and good stewards of the Earth. That doesn't mean buy into Musk's overpriced electric cars, it just means wearing second-hand clothing more often, recycling, washing clothes on cold or cool, driving less, getting an economy car or small SUV when your current one breaks down (Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, VW Golf, Chevy Malibu, a hybrid or a Japanese SUV such as a Subaru), keeping your tires inflated, running the home air conditioner at 77-78°F (25°C), running the home heat at 65°F (18°C) and carpooling with trustworthy people/using public transport. Plus, that saves money.

Emissions could peak this year: Analysis: Global CO2 emissions could peak as soon as 2023, IEA data reveals - Carbon Brief

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right, we now have a system of checks and balances that won't allow a President to pass whatever they want.

Right.

I believe "The Don" by wanting to take out parts of the constitution and praising the work of dictatorships all over the world intends to eliminate some of those checks and balances.

You understand he can't actually do that though...right?

A President can't just rewrite or remove an amendment. You understand they don't have any real ability to do that, right?

With a majority Republican Party, and a majority of said party bowing down to whatever rhetoric he spews, we can now see where there is a possibility of him getting what he wants in terms of eliminating the sections of the Constitution that he doesn't like.

Ok...maybe you don't understand how that actually works...

What part of the Constitution are you afraid he'll change?

That is the document that the USA's laws and rights are based n. Taking out parts is taking out rights because the said document is what guarantees the rights of the citizen. What I meant to convey was it's odd that the party that fights the most for the rights of individuals would approve of limiting the current rights that the citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution.

I don't hear any talk on the right of eliminating Constitutional rights....so I'm genuinely curious about what sort of rights you think Trump would try to remove?

 

[childeye 2]

Not to be that guy....but wasn't the mistake mankind made with Babel the idea that they would pierce the firmament and basically illegally immigrate into heaven?

That is a common misinterpretation, but no.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name,... lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

So God smashed the tower and left everyone unable to communicate with each other to collaborate like that ever again.

Scripture doesn't say the tower was destroyed.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

 

[RDKirk]

A two party system does not help the situation. There is definitely a three party system growing which the two partiers fear as they think it will weaken them, as it should. My question is why do not the independents get organized instead of being so independent as independents and have their own media 'gatherings' as a group to show there is a three party system. Living in a three party system has done nothing but enhance life here in Canada as the third party is the closest to representation of the people we have. It has never come out on top in elections but always has had power in that any of the other two who do not have a majority government have no choice but to align with the third party in order to remain in power. It is a win win for the people because no matter which of the main two parties is in power, the third option usually has control which has benefitted the people greatly at the expense of the power mongers who pretend to represent the people. You thought a monarchy was bad, but a two party system both owned by the same money is no better.

Canada has a parliamentary legislative system that makes a division of power more viable over the long term. The "winner-take-all" system of the US tends both to encourage political partisanship (which the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid) and yet also tends always to winnow out the third party.

 

[RDKirk]

Right, we now have a system of checks and balances that won't allow a President to pass whatever they want. I believe "The Don" by wanting to take out parts of the constitution and praising the work of dictatorships all over the world intends to eliminate some of those checks and balances. With a majority Republican Party, and a majority of said party bowing down to whatever rhetoric he spews, we can now see where there is a possibility of him getting what he wants in terms of eliminating the sections of the Constitution that he doesn't like.

That is the document that the USA's laws and rights are based on. Taking out parts is taking out rights because the said document is what guarantees the rights of the citizen. What I meant to convey was it's odd that the party that fights the most for the rights of individuals would approve of limiting the current rights that the citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution.

He doesn't have to touch the Constitution if the Congress and the Supreme Court is guaranteed to operate in his favor. Then has only to cripple the permanent Executive Bureacracy so that the career government employees cannot follow their usual practice of maintaining a homeostasis from president to president.

 

[timothyu]

The "winner-take-all" system of the US

You know it's funny that phrase just now immediately took me back to the gunslinger days where guys couldn't go to town on any given day without a brawl or shootout. We still see the attitude today in all aspects of the society. It does seem rather unique to the nation. I know the winner take all attitude goes back to the garden of Eden, but what made it the default setting within the nation seemingly free of any neutralizing force. Did the free enterprise system come as a result or was it "winner take all" in action, the face of man's fascination with self-interest?? I don't think the original idea of freedom from monarchy or dictatorship was meant to have this affect, but when man is given free rein it always becomes inmates running the asylum as a result of man's inability to control self and we end up with a system that puts others last.. All these little gods are incapable of handling their knowledge of self.

 

[RDKirk]

You know it's funny that phrase just now immediately took me back to the gunslinger days where guys couldn't go to town on any given day without a brawl or shootout. We still see the attitude today in all aspects of the society. It does seem rather unique to the nation. I know the winner take all attitude goes back to the garden of Eden, but what made it the default setting within the nation seemingly free of any neutralizing force. Did the free enterprise system come as a result or was it "winner take all" in action, the face of man's fascination with self-interest?? I don't think the original idea of freedom from monarchy or dictatorship was meant to have this affect, but when man is given free rein it always becomes inmates running the asylum as a result of man's inability to control self and we end up with a system that puts others last.. All these little gods are incapable of handling their knowledge of self.

Well, another factor is that every colony of the US (except, arguably, Rhode Island, which was different for several reasons) was organized specifically as a for-profit entity, in some cases actual corporations, that were supposed to be profitable to people back in Britain. Unlike virtually anywhere else that humans have come to dwell, "free enterprise" mercantilism was the specific guiding principle of the founding of the US.

 

[timothyu]

in some cases actual corporations, that were supposed to be profitable to people back in Britain.

So as I often say, Corporatism was alive and well back then and only had to go another 250+ years to become global by way of national and represent the true power of that Tempter in the desert, who worked through human flesh. Our self destruction complete, ironically by building a global empire to rival the Kingdom of God. The US is another step along the way in using self interest to build this borderless entity . The power of self we were never to have learned as a species.

 

[rturner76]

You understand he can't actually do that though...right?

A President can't just rewrite or remove an amendment. You understand they don't have any real ability to do that, right?

I know that but a president, house, and Congress can sidestep certain rights like the Patriot Act does. Meaning, no right to due process if one is SUSPECTED of having ties to terrorist activities or terrorists. One can be held in GITMO for any length of time without being convicted of a crime, having access to a lawyer, or having a judge and jury convict you of a crime. The NSA can download one's personal data on their computer, record and/or transcribe one's phone calls, texts, or emails without a warrant. Our government (Republicans AND Democrats) approved that bill and it passed with no challenge from the Federal courts. Those government activities violate the rights laid out in the Constitution.

So, a president by themselves can't do it but with the support of the House and Congress, they have.

Ok...maybe you don't understand how that actually works...

What part of the Constitution are you afraid he'll change

That I don't know. I have just read that he would like to alter it. The Hill says:

In a back-and-forth during the first 2024 GOP presidential debate between candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie, the latter brought up previous comments from former President Trump stating he wanted to terminate portions of the Constitution to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

As a nation, we shouldn't allow this but with enough support theoretically, he can do it. However, if his goal is a dictatorship which he has cited as praiseworthy concerning the dictators of North Korea, Russia, and Turkey for example:

“Well, first of all, let me say that I think that Kim Jong Un, or Chairman Kim, as some people say, is looking to create a nation that has great strength economically. I think he’s very much – I talk to him a lot about it, and he’s very much into the fact that – he believes, like I do, that North Korea has tremendous economic potential like perhaps few other developing nations anywhere in the world.” (May 27, 2019)

* “Kim Jong Un has been, really, somebody that I’ve gotten to know very well and respect, and hopefully – and I really believe that, over a period of time, a lot of tremendous things will happen.” (April 11, 2019)

Trump’s comments to Putin – “you don’t have this problem in Russia” – seem to overlook the violence with which Russia deals with reporters who don’t write what the government wants. And this is far from the only time that Trump has praised the power (and methods of retaining that power) of rogue dictators and authoritarian rulers. FAR from it.

Putin’s government has a long history of cracking down on journalists who aren’t willing to toe Putin’s preferred line on, well, everything. Investigative journalist Ivan Golunov was arrested last month on drug charges – which he insists were made up – after a series of reports detailing corruption within Russian government. (An ambulance doctor who examined Golunov said that the reporter had a concussion, bruising and possible broken ribs.) Last April, investigative reporter Maxim Borodin died after falling from his fifth story apartment. (Russian officials did not pursue a criminal inquiry of Borodin’s death.)

“President Erdogan. He’s tough, but I get along with him. And maybe that’s a bad thing, but I think it’s a really good thing.” (June 29, 2019)

“Well, thank you very much. It’s my honor to be with a friend of mine, somebody I’ve become very close to, in many respects, and he’s doing a very good job: the President of Turkey.” (June 29, 2019)

“Thank you very much. It’s a great honor and privilege – because he’s become a friend of mine – to introduce President Erdogan of Turkey. He’s running a very difficult part of the world. He’s involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he’s getting very high marks.” (September 21, 2017)

“And I like President Xi a lot. I consider him a friend, and – but I like him a lot. I’ve gotten to know him very well. He’s a strong gentleman, right? Anybody that – he’s a strong guy, tough guy.” (June 30, 2019)

“President Xi, who is a strong man, I call him King, he said, ‘But I am not King, I am president.’ I said, ‘No, you’re president for life and therefore, you’re King.’ He said, ‘Huh. Huh.’ He liked that.” (April 2, 2019)

CNN

Do you agree with Trump's statements? Do you see where he may be off base in what kind of government policies he supports? Do YOU support the policies of dictatorship, assassination of members of the free press, or the slave labor camps that Kim Jon Un provides?

Do these policies go against what the Constitution protects us from? I think so. Does Trump want to eliminate some od the rights that the Constitution protects? I think so. I don't think that the Constitution protects a lifelong leadership of the country. I don't think the Constitution protects slave labor, nor do I think the Constitution protects the assassination of free journalists. So why would you seem to defend the man who praises leaders who eliminate the rights of their citizens?

I don't hear any talk on the right of eliminating Constitutional rights....so I'm genuinely curious about what sort of rights you think Trump would try to remove?

You likely don't hear anything said by someone who supports free elections instead of lifelong dictatorships so that statement makes perfect sense.