MSNBC's Tiffany Cross urges liberals to 'pick up a weapon and get involved' in 'war' for democracy

A one part.. like the CCP in China? How's that working out for the folks who don't like living in shackles there?

 

Pretty sure we could defeat democrat's by just mis gendering them as well.

 

Conversely, how is tribal conflict working out here? Overall, I think regardless of what political system is chosen, the best governments can give respect to both majority and minority groups and more importantly on the individual level, the individual must not be led to care for the government.

Democrats(particularly Obama made it famous) to claim that we're sitting at our tables figuring out the bills. I agree with him on that sentiment. I believe that(rightly) consumes most of our focus, and as a result we can't be reasonably asked to make political decisions. That is the parliament's job, and it is failing at that job.

I believe that in a one party state, parliament would succeed at what it is now failing at. It's impervious however, which party takes that mantle obviously.

 

The vast difference is that we do this for fun....

 

They tell us everyday they need guns to defend against tyranny. Same thing

 

So, perhaps unity of purpose is something that we can agree on. We used to call that being patriotic. One of the observations that I would make, however, is the idea that government is a function of the people, not the owner of the people. Monolithic partyism hasn't ever worked. What we see today that you describe as tribalism seems more a conflict between the maintenance of the original idea of individual freedom and liberty being attacked from democrats who would replace that with dependency on their plantation state.

I would remind that the plantation doesn't have party affiliation, just obedience. Is that what you think leads to tranquility? i don't.

 

Do you suppose there is a difference between being able to defend yourself, and actively fomenting for armed insurrection?

 

The proverbial kettle calling the pot black.

 

Politics, quite stunningly is actually more and more psychological. From the dawn of human civilization we have yearned for the he-man(or the she-woman as it later developed in the centuries of Western thinking.). Simply, life is too complicated for 'everyone' to have a say. And when everyone does have a say, the conflict arises because we want to be right, we 'know' we're right and we want to live according to our own principles.

As you correctly stated, unity of purpose. America, did historically use patriotism for this rallying cry. The idea that it didn't matter what faith you professed to, but that you had freedom to profess it.(As long as it doesn't break any actual laws.) Likewise, if you are an animal lover you can domestically own a pet within the relative animal laws, or choose not to do so. It was this freedom that was our unity of purpose and broke us free from the need of a he-man/she-woman as a guiding principle.

But now, that very freedom is being contested. The 'definition' of what it means to be an American is challenged as the democracy has declined and eroded(mostly economically) over a 40 year period. Now that the definition is challenged, the unity of purpose is broken and the question becomes: Can we restore that? It would require 'progressives' to cease the social justice crusade that genie however is sadly out of the bottle. AOC would never give up her revolution, neither she nor her allies could conceive that possibility.

The entire movement was meant to dismantle the hold that the religious right had on party politics, and while that succeeded it came at too great a cost.
(In part, because it went from that to arguing that the country was racist and thus its entire foundation. This makes unity practically impossible.)

But this isn't the only fault line in American Politics, it's just the more easily exploited. There are new(not new, but new to be talked about) fault lines to emerge. The agricultural South/Mid-west and then there's the coastal Pacific and Mid-Atlantic states(largely towns/urban cities.) Both of these have different economic requirements, requiring different governmental needs that progressives in the city(aka: Liberals) don't tolerate any more than they tolerated it a century ago leading to the civil war conflict.

I'll note a disclaimer: I was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania so therefore I am a native Northerner. However, I don't share the same arrogance with which progressives have come to view the world. Instead, I recognize that without our agricultural friends, we would very well starve(and are starving.). And i don't think the solution to the unity of purpose comes from our current political system.

That's what led me down the rabbit hole, that's what brought me to my third position. That's why I'm a Fascist-Technocrat. Not because the government "owns the people", but it owns the land on which the people walk(from a financial/governing obligation standpoint) and like any gardener, it should tend to the garden with care. Our federal government has instead lit the lighters, burned the garden and then handed all of us some lighters to light it up some more.

 

An interesting analogy, the happy garden. Meaning, kept. Who wants to be kept though? That is the point. We are individuals with self determination not plants that produce. Government doesn't actually "own" anything. It simply keeps things in trust. It doesn't have to basic ability to induce the kinds of actions AN is espousing simply because our constitution doesn't allow it. Freedom and liberty are the results of hard work, and effort. We really don't need government trying to step in to replace that ethos. These are basic truths on which this nation functions. We don't have need or require tending.

 

Defense of democracy, in our time realized!

 

Acosta: Trump failed. The Mussolini of Mar-a-Lago can't seize our elections
CNN's Jim Acosta looks into what would have happened if former President Donald Trump had gotten away with the attempted coup on January 6, 2021.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...on-coup-january-6-gingrich-acosta-dip-vpx.cnn

 

In other words a one party fascist state. I mean how much conflict will Germans actually see in Nazi Germany, by the time the one party has total control over society and its institutions. That turned out great. Good idea there Nationalist. Now I see why you have that moniker!

 

Spin

 

Tucker wants to see us throw our support behind Russia and sell Ukraine down the drain???

 

Racoons, skunks and rabbits have always had the potential to carry rabies..

 

American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
Really? Does the dates "April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783" ring a bell

Funny huh? Not really!

 

Acosta? Seriously?

 

That war was essentially to declare independence and untie your tax obligations.
Your democracy at that point also didn't include all residents affected by the controls your government brought in. IIR you had to own a certain amount of land and women were excluded from voting.

Voting After the American Revolution

Following the American Revolution, the new country transitioned from a period of being under British rule to developing its own government. After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the country adopted the United States Constitution in 1787. Article 1 of the Constitution empowers state legislatures to oversee federal elections. Suffrage, or the right to vote, was granted exclusively to white, land-owning men.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/voting-rights-throughout-history/7

Hardly a democracy.

 

American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

I guess sometimes people have to protect themselves, their government from those that wish to destroy it

 

This is not about me Pixie.. As an American I just found this claim a bit odd?

And please don't insult me or my educational background.. American revolutionary history is really not that hard to understand..

 

Trump calls the liberal media "Enemy of the People"
the liberal media goes and its viewers "OMG they he is going to get someone killed"
the liberal media says 'pick up a weapon and get involved' in 'war' for democracy
its viewers go nothing to see here move along

 

If I can explore that a bit more...

democracy is the electoral system wherein you are allowed to have your own opinion without being attacked for them. Those whose opinions are held by the majority get to govern.

Which is precisely why the capitol riot was NOT democracy. It was an attempted coup.

 

You may well have found it odd because your history teacher didn't properly explain it to you.
It is how history is taught, with all its biases and covert jingoism, that I criticise, not you.
I went through th same system and it took me a while to see the Revolution for what it was...and it was not to establish democracy, although that is what was established..

Give me liberty or give me death is not about democracy. It is about independence from the legal jurisdiction of England.
Independence and democracy are not th e same thing.

 

Ya ya ya! Your attempt to trivialize a particular tool was easily squelched and now you are simply deflecting to America's educational system.

The irony is simply delicious I must admit