This Country Needs to Split

So far to the right? The left has been calling for 'revolution', 'resistance', etc for 50 years. But that's ok because their 'social justice warriors'? Why don't we give you exactly what you (think you) want, and let conservatives/republicans live like they want? I'm starting to think the left just wants to impose their crap on others

 

Turn off the news, judge the actions, not the tweets.

 

Americans aren’t up for a violent war. So we have no choice. We’re stuck with each other.

 

There here radicals rioting but I did not see Librrals such as Pelosi or Warren rioting. I would not called the guy who killed 22 people in El Paso a liberal. I would not call the guy who ran over and killed that woman in Charlottesville a liberal. I would not call the Nazi or the White Supremacists who chanted " blood and soil" and Jews will not replace us" liberals". I would not call the guy who killed people in the Pittsburgh Synogogue a Liberal. I also would not call them conservatives. I would call them crazy arsed Scum turds.

You see Liberals do have some whacky ideas sometimes but your mass killers are not. often Liberals.

There were people who did riot especially after unfortunate police shootings of Afro -Americans. How do you know if they are Liberals?
They could be non polical. What proof is there of Liberalism?

 

If you do not have anything intelligent to say why are you posting?

 

Finland is much further to the left than the US.

I have been on the left, it is not unknown to me personally.

 

I tend to agree with this.

 

Exactly like this for every Democratic run city.

5 killed, 43 wounded in Chicago weekend shootings
An 8-year-old girl was shot in Humboldt Park, and a 16-year-old boy was killed in a shooting in Little Village.

 

As far as Trump goes, I'm judging it all.

He is unfit to be president, and he has single-handedly made a mockery and a laughingstock out of America.

 

Sure, ok.

 

Obviously you never bothered to read the document.

 

This is, unfortunately, all too true.

Nowadays, if your people are all concentrated in one geographical area, with almost everyone living in this area being of the same 'tribe', and especially if it has good natural boundaries like rivers and mountains, you've got a good chance at being able to cut loose from the mother county, unless the size disparity is very great and the dominant tribe running the mother country has its heart set on keeping you: Kashmir and Tibet will not get their independence for a long time if ever, but East Timor managed to do it (with the help of Australia) losing only about 1400 people killed in the process. For a while it looked like the very able and ruthless Tamil Tigers would be able to partition Sri Lanka, drawing in all its Tamils into the North and driving out or killing all the Sinhalese there, and they would have succeeded if their fellow Hindus from India had intervened on their side. Maybe they'll have more success next time.

Having a Big Brother like Australia to help your tribe is a huge advantage: Turks and Greeks co existed on Cyprus for centuries, in a roughly 20/80 ratio, but when the rightwing Greek nationalists got too ambitious and it looked like Cyprus would be annexed to Greece, the Turkish Army came in and pushed the Greek population into a large enclave (killing some in the process of course), and now Cyprus is geographically divided into Greeks and Turks.

When the Communist Party of the Soviet Union decided to drink the kool-aid, most of their constituent republics just cut loose -- suddenly we had the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, the 'stans'... Some of these countries had substantial Russian minorities, but the new nations' leaders were civilized enough and/or frightened of Russia enough, to treat their Russian minority decently. (Of course the nationalist virus never goes away so there were and are always people in these countries who would like to drive the Russians out, or worse.) Where there was some ethnic mixing, as in Armenia and Azerbaijan, you got (and get) tribal killing, as you did when Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke off from Georgia.

The overwhelming general rule around the world is that where significant numbers of different tribal groups (ethnic, religious) overlap on the same territory in the same state, the blood is going to flow sooner or later. "Diversity means high body counts".

America is an exception, of course.

 

This is a very interesting dispute -- what's the relationship between ideas, and material interests? A crude 'idealist' approach ignores the material interests of the actors in history -- people do things out of allegiance to their religion, or liberty, or national independence. A crude 'materialist' approach sees everyone driven by immediate economic interests, thinly disguised with a bit of rhetoric.

Here's some background to the Charles Beard quote above, taken from Wiki:

[SOURCE]

 

Nah, the left wing extremists do not make up a majority. They are just the loudest. Moderates are leaving the democrat party in droves.

 

Well, they can meet 'never Trump' conservatives in the middle, but I don't think there's enough of both to make a new party just out of themselves. And if there were, what would its program be? I can't see large numbers of Democrats going to the Republicans, or the other way around, unless one or both parties undergoes some deep political transformation, which would probably involve a split. This might happen ... we live in interesting times.

The real significance of Trump is that he has opened up a gulf between the Republican base, and the Republican donor class. On the Democratic side, people who initially looked like modernized New Dealers -- even Bernie Sanders -- are being pulled -- I hesitate to say 'to the Left', maybe 'into outer space' would be more accurate.

I wouldn't put any money on how things will develop. Ukraine elected a TV comedian as President. We elected ... well, anyway, we elected an unconventional non-politician as President.

In the meantime, we must begin to prepare for the worst.

 

I find the exact opposite. Conservatives want to prevent same sex couples from getting married. Why? What's it to them? Conservatives do not want women to have autonomy and privacy concerning their own bodies. Why? What's it to them?

There are more examples of how the right tries to dictate how all Americans live their lives. What "crap" has anyone on the left tried to impose on you?

 

You mean like banning abortions and banning gay marriage? Both sides have things they want to impose on others so let's not pretend it's one sided. I say, as long as it's not hurting anyone else or breaking the law, let people do whatever the f**k they want. Want to own a gun..have at it. Want to smoke weed...have at it. Want to gamble...have at it. Want to marry someone of the same same...have at it. Both sides need to mind their own business and let people live their lives without trying to force their hangups onto others.

 

I agree with this. People should do whatever they want, which means less government.

Most conservatives couldn't really care less if two gay people want to get be together. My opposition of it were two things. One, once you change the definition of marriage, it opens the door to other changes. Now, we were told that all gay people want is to be able to get married. But most of us knew that was bullshit, and it was just a stepping stone. Cause before the first couple could say 'I do', they went straight into the trans bathroom/locker room debate. Then came the 92 genders. Then gay and trans stuff was being taught to 5 year olds in school. Now college professors are being reprimanded for using 'he' and 'she'. Next up is normalizing pedophilia.

The second reason I opposed it was, the government has no business whatsoever in any type of marriage. It's a religious ceremony. By legalizing gay marriage (not some type of civil union, but 'marriage'), the left then began to use government as a weapon against people that didn't share those beliefs. Trying to force churches into performing ceremonies, forcing bakeries to make cakes, etc. Anything that gives the government more power over the people, I"m against. And all of this to accomodate a very small percentage of people.

Abortion has and will always be an issue, because there really isn't a definitive answer. Personally I"m pro-choice, in certain situation (rape, incest, etc). But women's 'rights' should not be any greater than men's rights. Meaning, if a woman wants an abortion, but the man doesn't, she gets to have the abortion cause it's 'her body'. But if the man wants the abortion and the woman wants to have the baby, the man has no say, but still has to support that child for 18 years? That's just one of the abortion arguments.

 

Except that gays wanting to legally marry was an issue long before trans bathroom issue.

 

Except that the trans crap coincidentally didn't become a thing until directly after gay marriage was legalized....

 

And what does gay marriage have to do with a transgender wanting to use a certain bathroom?

 

Are you out of your mind? Just off the top of my head:

Restricting gun rights
Obamacare
Sanctuary cities
Higher taxes
LBGQTXYZ insanity

 

I already explained it. Want me to type slower?

 

No you didn't. You were flat out wrong connecting the two.

 

Guess it was all a big coincidence that once gay marriage was legalized, the trans movement moved full steam ahead. And again, now they can use the government as a weapon against people that don't buy into their mental illness.