What is pulling America Apart?

[JustOneWay]

Maybe the group you hung out with but the guys I worked with at white sands who my age didn't see politics like that. You might be a little older than me but dude take a chill pill. I didn't listen to talk radio because I was too busy coaching sports. I'm going off my memory of the people I interacted with. I don't speak for you so quit being defensive. I can't even mention Hillary without you blowing a gasket.

The group I hung out with? I love the way you try to paint me as some political junkie with nothing better to do than listen to the radio while you were too busy 'coaching sports' in the 90's to pay attention to what is going on in the country. I was able to raise a family, work, coach my kids sporting interests at the time, tend to a home and pay attention to what was going on in the country. I multi-tasked.

"Going after Saddam over WMD and in reality it was the petrol dollar and terrorism birthed because of it. Hillary did the same in Lybia. Both are to blame."

You told us (the internet) that Hillary Clinton did the same thing in Lybia (sic) as a full fledged invasion of Iraq, and she is to blame. You gave no context nor specifics in concluding that 'Hillary' is to blame. I did not 'blow a gasket', I pushed back on your misleading and inaccurate judgement on Clinton, and you failed to explain your words. I can understand why you would double down and attempt to make me look bad instead of explaining you comments, because most people do the same thing..

 

[JustOneWay]

I remember Newt merely taking Bill Clinton's campaign promises (3 strikes, balanced budget, etc) ,and making them into legislation for him to sign. Then Clinton, being the expert politician he was, took credit for the success, and was re elected.
Perhaps that needs to happen more often.

You forgot to mention the impeachment which divided the country.

 

[Laodicean60]

The group I hung out with? I love the way you try to paint me as some political junkie with nothing better to do than listen to the radio while you were too busy 'coaching sports' in the 90's to pay attention to what is going on in the country. I was able to raise a family, work, coach my kids sporting interests at the time, tend to a home and pay attention to what was going on in the country. I multi-tasked.

"Going after Saddam over WMD and in reality it was the petrol dollar and terrorism birthed because of it. Hillary did the same in Lybia. Both are to blame."

You told us (the internet) that Hillary Clinton did the same thing in Lybia (sic) as a full fledged invasion of Iraq, and she is to blame. You gave no context nor specifics in concluding that 'Hillary' is to blame. I did not 'blow a gasket', I pushed back on your misleading and inaccurate judgement on Clinton, and you failed to explain your words. I can understand why you would double down and attempt to make me look bad instead of explaining you comments, because most people do the same thing..

Dude this is the last conversation I'm having with you. I give people MY thoughts and MY experiences. I was asked when I thought things changed and if you differ in opinion just give your explanation instead of attacking people's experience. RDkirk said things changed at Newt, and I clicked informative.

Your Replies:
"Yes we were. I listened to Limbaugh, Savage and all the other right-wing radio talking heads every day, and they polarized the country through radio waves, and all of them were out to get Clinton." (that's why I said group. I didn't try to paint anything, you read that way because of your emotions)

"Hillary did what in Libya? You speak as if she was a President or something. You believe Hillary was telling Obama what to do?" (This is not constructive dude. From the financial people I watched they said Saddam and Gaddafi both wanted or threatened to trade oil in their own currency).

Be Blessed OUT

 

[JustOneWay]

Dude this is the last conversation I'm having with you. I give people MY thoughts and MY experiences. I was asked when I thought things changed and if you differ in opinion just give your explanation instead of attacking people's experience. RDkirk said things changed at Newt, and I clicked informative.

Your Replies:
"Yes we were. I listened to Limbaugh, Savage and all the other right-wing radio talking heads every day, and they polarized the country through radio waves, and all of them were out to get Clinton." (that's why I said group. I didn't try to paint anything, you read that way because of your emotions)

"Hillary did what in Libya? You speak as if she was a President or something. You believe Hillary was telling Obama what to do?" (This is not constructive dude. From the financial people I watched they said Saddam and Gaddafi both wanted or threatened to trade oil in their own currency).

Be Blessed OUT

You have made it personal instead of simply defending your comments. Perhaps political and current event discussions are not your thing....

 

[mark46]

But he made permanent negative changes in reducing the ability of Republicans and Democrats to come to compromises in Congress.

Please list the "permanent" changes.

I have a much different view. The Republican Party is indeed in crisis. And perhaps Newt was part of starting this crisis. The big HOWEVER is that the situation can end whenever enough Republican leaders want it to end.

The situation almost changed in 2016 when Rubio was running for president. I recall him standing on stage here is SC with Haley and Scott. Christie embarrassed Rubio in a NY (or was in NH) debate and Trump won the SC primary. It was that close. If Rubio has been the candidate, the situation today would be much different. There would have been 4-8 years of Rubio leadership instead of Trump's leadership. Let's be clear, I don't like Rubio or his policies. That isn't the issue. Rubio had no interest in tearing down the system, ditto for Haley and for Scott.

The situation could have changed in the weeks after January 6th. McConnell, McCarthy and many others spoke out against Trump and his actions. If they had followed through, Trump wouldn't be a candidate now, and the party would be heading in a new direction.

And let's be clear, much legislation was passed in the first two years of the Biden administration, much legislation that required 10 or more Republican votes in the Senate. The issue for me is about respect for democracy and its institutions.

Even in the last year, there has been cooperation in the Senate. The current spending limits were negotiated. These limits form the basis of continuing negotiation on individual appropriation bills. With all the craziness in the House, the Democrats still have not needed to force a vote by procedures that allow them to do so. They would probably support this speaker if there is a push to vacate. Some negotiated spending bills will pass, a major step forward. Next year, McConnell will again lead the Senate and Jeffries will be speaker. Laws will be passed. This is a tough time politically for now, but a divided government is a reflection of a divided country. We Smericans differ in many things, especially with regard to immigration and border security.

The open issue is Trump. I think that we should be clear. If Trump weren't running, Biden would have announced his upcoming retirement long ago, and we would be in the midst of an open choice in both parties, with the leadership of both parties defending democracy. The Republicans may b snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democrats have yet to have their fight with their left. Arguably, if the Republicans pulled together under someone other than Trump, they could lead for 8-12 years, as they did when Reagan was elected.

 

[RDKirk]

Please list the "permanent" changes.

Gingrich broke the concept of the honorable opponent and the ability to agree from time to time without being considered a traitor.

I have a much different view. The Republican Party is indeed in crisis. And perhaps Newt was part of starting this crisis. The big HOWEVER is that the situation can end whenever enough Republican leaders want it to end.

The situation almost changed in 2016 when Rubio was running for president. I recall him standing on stage here is SC with Haley and Scott. Christie embarrassed Rubio in a NY (or was in NH) debate and Trump won the SC primary. It was that close. If Rubio has been the candidate, the situation today would be much different. There would have been 4-8 years of Rubio leadership instead of Trump's leadership. Let's be clear, I don't like Rubio or his policies. That isn't the issue. Rubio had no interest in tearing down the system, ditto for Haley and for Scott.

The situation could have changed in the weeks after January 6th. McConnell, McCarthy and many others spoke out against Trump and his actions. If they had followed through, Trump wouldn't be a candidate now, and the party would be heading in a new direction.

And let's be clear, much legislation was passed in the first two years of the Biden administration, much legislation that required 10 or more Republican votes in the Senate. The issue for me is about respect for democracy and its institutions.

Even in the last year, there has been cooperation in the Senate. The current spending limits were negotiated. These limits form the basis of continuing negotiation on individual appropriation bills. With all the craziness in the House, the Democrats still have not needed to force a vote by procedures that allow them to do so. They would probably support this speaker if there is a push to vacate. Some negotiated spending bills will pass, a major step forward. Next year, McConnell will again lead the Senate and Jeffries will be speaker. Laws will be passed. This is a tough time politically for now, but a divided government is a reflection of a divided country. We Smericans differ in many things, especially with regard to immigration and border security.

The open issue is Trump. I think that we should be clear. If Trump weren't running, Biden would have announced his upcoming retirement long ago, and we would be in the midst of an open choice in both parties, with the leadership of both parties defending democracy. The Republicans may b snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democrats have yet to have their fight with their left. Arguably, if the Republicans pulled together under someone other than Trump, they could lead for 8-12 years, as they did when Reagan was elected.

And I agree with all of that.

 

[wing2000]

Part of the problem in US elections is that several groups believe that they have God on their side. They believe that that theirs is the only correct interpretation of God's Will, and that they have every right to impose that interpretation on the everyone through state actions (under their control, of course).

Well, for the better part of my lifetime I have observed "ministers" teaching a civil religion that bestows special status on the USA. Telling people their citizen status makes them special in the eyes of God is a good business plan, but is rotten theology.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Trump just called the left "vermin" and the "threat from within". He is the single biggest catalyst for evil this country has seen in a long time.

View attachment 339174

That sort of dehumanizing is important in any totalitarian regime. The real trouble is that many Americans want it.

 

[RDKirk]

That sort of dehumanizing is important in any totalitarian regime. The real trouble is that many Americans want it.

Totalitarianism in our modern times has, however, come from two different directions.

I see classical fascism in the extreme of right-wing Trumpism (I see a whole lot of 1930s Germany in there), but I also see Marxism in the extremes of left-wing identity politics (I see a whole lot of 1960s China in there).

 

[RoBo1988]

The direction of this thread, and many others like it , is: "it's the other side's fault" when it really should be time for some introspection.

As the old hymn goes: "It's not my brother not my sister but it's me O Lord/ Standing in the need of prayer"

 

[rturner76]

He or any other candidate can have no effect upon people other than what they give to themselves. People get stirred up over the stupidest things and it is their own fault.

While I do agree that any candidate can influence popular opinion consider this:

Has "any other candidate" praised the works of Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin among other dictators who do not allow free elections? Has "any other candidate" who has claimed a desire to eliminate parts of the Constitution? No candidate in history has challenged the rights contained in that sacred document though some would add rights to it, none would presume to take away the rights that the founding fathers fought a war to obtain. He seems to take up the mantle of things that are anti-democratic. I always thought the Republican Party was pro-democracy and pro-individual freedom. Why are so many freedom-loving people voting for someone who wants to be a dictator and is currently fighting Federal charges for undermining our freedom to vote or at least the results of our votes?

I'll tell you why.....Racist, sexist, and homophobic people are coming out of the closet and want a leader who is willing to reintroduce Jim Crow, make women stay at home and have babies, and turn LGBTQ++ people back into criminals. He is not out to protect our rights as citizens of the United States but by shredding parts of the constitution he doesn't like, he would be literally taking away our rights as citizens and supporting LESS freedom of individuals to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Please justify this....I need a good laugh.

If you are not a Donald Trump supporter, I apologize for the presumption. I am really putting this question to anyone who supports his right to rule us.

 

[rturner76]

The direction of this thread, and many others like it , is: "it's the other side's fault" when it really should be time for some introspection.

As the old hymn goes: "It's not my brother not my sister but it's me O Lord/ Standing in the need of prayer"

I agree however we can tell who wants to restrict our rights and who wants to protect them based on how they present their plan for the future of the nation.

 

[timothyu]

If you are not a Donald Trump supporter, I apologize for the presumption

Apology accepted

 

[timothyu]

I agree however we can tell who wants to restrict our rights and who wants to protect them based on how they present their plan for the future of the nation.

You mean Build Back Better?

 

[Hazelelponi]

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....

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?

 

[rturner76]

You mean Build Back Better?

As long as "better" doesn't take our rights away......See The Patriot Act..... No more need for due process, lawyers, or a limit on how long one can be held in custody without charges. Many would say this act makes America safer but many have suffered and received cruel an unusual punishment and had their families and businesses destroyed, then were released with no charges. That wasn't a Trump thing and even Democrats helped it get through but is that really better? I say we should build a better future as long as we don't trample on people's rights.

 

[rambot]

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.

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.

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.

I'd argue that feeling has been experienced by many Americans since 2016

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?

Thank you for this post. I really appreciate it.

What's absolutely wild was that I was parked waiting for some dinner reading your post when the food came and I didn't finish reading it a few hrs ago....my thought was that "the internet is thr new tower of babel"...and I think I'd agree with that. When I came back I saw your babel reference....neat.
So you can take some comfort that we're on the same wavelength with that.

 

[timothyu]

As long as "better" doesn't take our rights away.

But that is the purpose unfortunately. It belongs to Corporatism, the new global government. That slogan used by your Prez, our PM and many other nations and corporations is the slogan of the WEF, an unelected body that calls the shots for most of the nations, simply because they want to be apart of the economic union controlled by Corporatism.

People's rights are a thing of the past. They gave up acting responsibly to pursue their rights and now both are going going gone. Patriot acts, censorship, mandates, digital monitoring and surveillance, was all claimed to be for our benefit. If so why have things continually gotten worse?

 

[Ana the Ist]

While I do agree that any candidate can influence popular opinion consider this:

Has "any other candidate" praised the works of Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin among other dictators who do not allow free elections? Has "any other candidate" who has claimed a desire to eliminate parts of the Constitution? No candidate in history has challenged the rights contained in that sacred document though some would add rights to it, none would presume to take away the rights that the founding fathers fought a war to obtain. He seems to take up the mantle of things that are anti-democratic. I always thought the Republican Party was pro-democracy and pro-individual freedom. Why are so many freedom-loving people voting for someone who wants to be a dictator and is currently fighting Federal charges for undermining our freedom to vote or at least the results of our votes?

I'll tell you why.....Racist, sexist, and homophobic people are coming out of the closet and want a leader who is willing to reintroduce Jim Crow, make women stay at home and have babies, and turn LGBTQ++ people back into criminals. He is not out to protect our rights as citizens of the United States but by shredding parts of the constitution he doesn't like, he would be literally taking away our rights as citizens and supporting LESS freedom of individuals to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Please justify this....I need a good laugh.

If you are not a Donald Trump supporter, I apologize for the presumption. I am really putting this question to anyone who supports his right to rule us.

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But he made permanent negative changes in reducing the ability of Republicans and Democrats to come to compromises in Congress.

You know, you aren't wrong about the stupidity of the "no compromise" position both parties have adopted....I'm just not sure why you associate it Gingrich.

To be 100% clear, you may be entirely correct in associating it with Gingrich, I've just never heard that before so I'm curious why you think it's related to Gingrich.

I was thinking about the stupidity of this sort of "ideological purity" that both sides pretend to have (and they don't, they compromise the principles they run on all the time so you'd think compromising with each other wouldn't be so difficult).

The best recent example I can think of was the ousting of McCarthy as speaker. The Democrats in office were staring down 2 solid years of getting absolutely nothing on their agenda done....and it was the perfect opportunity to change that. The "Freedom Caucus" headed ostensibly by Gaetz had basically tried to bully McCarthy into pushing their agenda....and he didn't want to....and the Democrats could have easily offered to keep him in place for some small concessions, small agenda items that they now have zero hope of accomplishing for the rest of Biden's term. All they had to do was offer him some votes for a few compromises and they could have spent the rest of this year and the next getting some agenda items done.

They're literally too stubborn to be seen working with establishment Republicans though....so instead of voting against the Freedom Caucus....they voted with them. I don't know if they thought this would weaken the Republicans in the eyes of the public, but it really didn't. They had a rare opportunity to get some things done for their constituents and salvage some of this administration’s record....and they blew it.