How do we heal the political divisions in America?

I agree with that statement completely

 

You had the worst run in Democrat history -

corrupted to the gills Obama and Hillary -

how you gonna get votes - AGITATE


​

To Me it's

Bill Mahers version politically correctness means he believes he should be able to be racist, and as offensive as you want on public airwaves, and not be fired.


He said the n - word and didn't get fired. Maher hates Muslims, didn't get fired. Michael Savage is racist never got fired.


Maher doesn't care about free speech, though.




...
​

 

I don't pretend to know what solution can be applied to all this political division. It is obvious that Trump is a political/social divider and should at least try to use his office to unite, not divide people like he always does.

 

Alas, in this I want to be wrong.

 

Wow. I have expressed no such assumptions. At no point did I say or imply that both sides share common ground, nor did I say or imply that both sides can live under the rule of the other side. In fact, I havent the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Did you accidentally hit reply to the wrong post?

 

You were the one that started throwing out insults rather than responding to the material. This is a denial response and also says you are not concerned about seriousness of the Establishment propaganda machine.

Not responding to any of the numerous examples given and repeating your premise " MSM is not propaganda" - as if this makes your claim true is 1) fallacy and 2) not rational.

Then you turn around and blame me for your faults.

It is those that ignore (as you are doing) the ways in which Gov't is subverting individual liberty and the Constitution that are on their knees begging to give up their individual liberty.

What's worse is that you demonize those that do care and point out specific examples of how the Gov't is stepping outside its legitimate authority.

If you don't care about liberty and freedom of the press - fine -but calling others "chicken little" with no justification is way out of bounds.

 

There you go again. Sad.

 

I know it is sad that you demonize others who protest when the Gov't steps outside the bounds of its legitimate authority and tramples on individual liberty.

What is even sadder is that when called out you refused to take responsibility for your own actions.

 

The false assumption here is that Red establishment ( and the right in general by continuously voting these people into power) does not want to expand Gov't and has some respect for individual liberty and limited Gov't power.

Actions speak louder than words. Since and including Reagan - Red has increased Gov't spending even more than blue and this continues under Trump.

Individual liberty ? What USA have you been living in. Red establishment hates individual liberty and limited Gov't power.

 

More fabrication. Truly sad. The fact remains you can't quote me where I've demonized "who protest when the Gov't steps outside the bounds of its legitimate authority and tramples on individual liberty" because I've never done so. All I've done is disagree with your conspiracy theories. If you can quote me doing as you said, please do so.

 

"Fiscal responsibility: If we spend it, we pay for it. And the higher the federal deficit, the higher go personal income taxes on the upper incomes of the top 5%. Want to see an end to federal deficit spending? Try that. Rich Republicans and Democrats would hate that idea. But middle America would be fine with it."

The exceedingly complex to the 33rd power tax code exists to shield the very rich.

Bend it, shake it in an iron box with 50g force any way you want to, if it is not thrown whole into the paper recycler and begun over with something rational and common sense that can't be circumvented by lawyers, it will not work.

Also pay just once a year so that it hits home how badly the average person is being gored. Make it painful to match the reality.

 

I protested the Gov't stepping out of bounds - you then called me "chicken little"- giving no justification for this claim by even addressing what I was protesting never mind refuting it.

Now you demonize me again "conspiracy theories" (again without a shred of evidence to back up this claim) in the same post where you deny demonizing me.

Holy Carp you are full of BS today.

 

When you can quote me demonizing those "who protest when the Gov't steps outside the bounds of its legitimate authority and tramples on individual liberty", please let me know.

 

In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens.

For saying this you claimed I was "chicken little" and engaging in conspiracy.

If you do not think this is a problem - Fine - but at least come up with some rational as to why you do not think this is a problem rather than engaging in ad hom fallacy and falsehoods.

If you think it is your "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual liberty that is fine. If you don't realize that propaganda and false narrative enabled this - that is not my fault.

What is on you is demonizing me for speaking the truth - "Chicken Little" "conspiracy" like some kid calling names in the playground - just throwing out insults without even addressing the points made - and then you turn around and deny your own actions.

 

Translation: I have no quote of you demonizing those"who protest when the Gov't steps outside the bounds of its legitimate authority and tramples on individual liberty".

Yes, I know. You fabricated the accusation because I disagreed with your conspiracy theory then you became abusive when I disagreed with you attempt to instill panic about "the MSM".

 

I did quote you .. calling someone a "chicken little" or inferring that they are "conspiracy theorists" is demonization/ Ad Hom fallacy - by definition.

You did so in a post where I was protesting the Gov't stepping outside the bounds of its legitimate authority and trampling on individual liberty.

And you have done this numerous times in this thread and others.

Kind of pathetic when you deny your own actions.

 

ALL of these are close enough for each of the parties to embrace if there were any threat of a party trying to pretend it was in the middle.

I agree there is a middle. I don't agree that there is room for a PARTY of the middle.

Think what would be necessary for a third party to capture enough congressmen to be considered a legitimate and lasting force.

It's far more likely (imho) that one of the parties will move some distance from its radicals. ALL the policies you have listed here are within what the left wing has advocated now or in the recent past - with the possible exception of health care, where your suggestion is less than what we know can be provided for less money.

 

What’s pathetic are people who fabricate accusations then can’t back them up with a quote. Sad.

Meanwhile, this is more proof of why we can’t heal political divisions in today’s climate: too many extremists attacking anyone disagrees with them.

 

No, I read your post and responding accordingly.

Your post asserts that there are shades of gray, the situation is not black and white. For there to be "shades of gray" then by definition there must be common ground. There is not common ground, the situation is in fact one of black and white. "progressives" and conservatives have polar opposite objectives and ideologies, one wants a greatly expanded central government and the other believes the govt is already too large and must be reduced significantly. The 2 cannot coexist.

 

Your entire argument is flawed. Its not Republican and Democrat, because there are too many Republicans who are professional politicians and want big govt - that's why there is the "civil war' in the gop between the establishment professional career pols and the grass roots. Its not R vs D, its the people vs the State.

 

Wow....No.

The term "shades of gray" does NOT denote common ground in any manner, shape, or form. Rather it denotes a situation that is not clear, and is subject to differing, yet legitimately fact based interpretations. I believe that I gave a simple illustration in the post of mine to which you first responded. One side can say that the economy is great because the stock market is up and unemployment is low. The other side can say that the economy is bad because wages are down and the labor force participation is low. Both sides are saying legitimate and correct facts, and both sides can legitimately claim that they have the facts on their side while spouting polar opposite views. How is it possible that they can both be spouting legitimate facts yet both have completely different explanations of the same economy?...Gray area. It is not black, and it is not white. It is gray because both opinions are based on legitimate facts and the overall answer is contained in how every individual prioritizes what is most important to them. The answer is subject to interpretation, and both sides try their best to spin that their interpretation is the one that is correct. Gray area also does not imply that both sides are necessarily equally sincere. Its often very disingenuous how one side tries to spin with true facts while clinging to any irrelevancy to try to justify their view. They are doing so nonetheless, and they are hiding behind the gray area to push a bogus notion. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that because I said nearly everything in politics is gray area, that therefore I mean that both sides are equally good or that both sides have merit etc. That is not what gray area means, nor is it what I am implying.

The term shades of gray has no bearing on whether or not conservatives and progressives have polar opposite objectives. It has no bearing on whether or not the 2 parties can coexist. You are arguing against points that I never made. You are without question, confused. I cannot say it and explain it any more plainly than that.

 

By that logic, every Republican before Trump was a RINO, especially Reagan.


`

 

I have quoted you numerous times. You were the one that was attacking on the basis of a point you disagreed with. Your disagreement consisted of nothing but insults and demonization. You attacked the messenger rather than the message.

Now you are complaining because I called you out for doing this. Of course I disagree with such fallacious nonsense. Ad Hom is not an argument for anything.

 

Incorrect. You cherry-picked a couple words without the link back to the original quote then fabricated a false story about it. Obviously the reason why you don't want people to click back to the original statement is because you don't want them to see the true context of the post since it would make you look like a lia....well, you know.

 

I agree that the leadership of the GOP is one thing - and the views of the people are another. The problem is that the "grass roots" continues to vote - and re-elect Establishment wonks.

Saying that one shares responsibility (especially in the case of re-election) to some degree for those who one has voted is not flawed.

I agree that it is the people vs the State .. 100% People need to stop voting Red or Blue on the basis that the person has a Red or Blue cap. People need to stop voting for people who will not uphold the main principle on which this nation was founded = "individual liberty is above the legitimate authority of Gov't"

They need to stop voting for liberty "only for things they agree with". This is not respect for individual liberty.