How do we heal the political divisions in America?

Xanax in the water supply might work.

 

A good start would be eliminating the electoral college or as a second option having all states proportion electoral votes according to the popular vote.

Also we shoud haveva third party candidate in every Presidential debate and on the ballot.

Another option is having " none of the above " on every ballot and if " nonenof the above wins" all parties would have to put forth a new candidate and run the election again.

One term for each President might help as well.

 

Iran #1 state sponsor of terror or "Cuba one of the top state sponsors of terror" are examples of misrepresenting an irrefutable fact.

The "Islamist" thing is not an example of irrefutable falsehood. It is an example of the media purposely creating and maintaining divisions as per the claim of the OP.

You remember the huge thing over the use of the world "Islamic terrorism" "Islamic extremist" and so on. The problem with the use of this language is that it paints all of Islam with the same brush.

The term "Islamist" refer's to something specific. An Islamist has no respect for and hates individual liberty. They want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law-Sharia) or Jihad.

Not all Muslims are Islamist. Syria for example was a whole Muslim nation that was secular - (no Sharia). There is drinking of alcohol and dancing in bars. Women wear skirts and proper bathing suites and do not need permission from a man to be educated. Women drive cars. There is no stoning adulterers and killing apostates and gays. There are Christian Churches and Christian generals in Assad's army.

The Islamist's hate this. A secular nation (no Sharia) in the land of the infidel is one thing. In a Muslim nation in the Middle East is a cancer from within.

The whole "call to Jihad" in Syria was to eradicate this secular evil.

Regardless of what one thinks of Assad - the fact of the matter is that the people of Syria fighting for Assad were fighting for their freedom. The rebel opposition (mostly Al Qaeda, ISIS and other groups of the same Saudi inspired radical Salafi Islamist ideology) were fighting to turn Syria into a Strict Sharia Theocracy.

The proper term for these terrorists is "Islamist extremists".

There are 2 reasons why people were not educated. 1) is because we were supporting the Islamist side in the war in Syria

2) It gives the people a specific target - The principle on which this nation was founded is what ? "Individual liberty is ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't" and that this authority comes from "we the people/consent of the Governed" rather than Divine Right/God as was the case in the past.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basic principle on which this nation was founded. Riddle me that one. I can't figure it out but if it is not intentional ... then why ?

The media is not going to undo this intentional dumbing down of the citizens. They might start questioning the various authorities that govern this nation.

Discussing the meaning of the term "Islamist" is very difficult to do without discussing our founding principle - a principle that we as a nation have long since forgotten.

 

I never claimed that the media does not create and maintain divisions. What I said ( amongst other things) is that the media rarely misrepresents an irrefutable point of fact. I think that you have misunderstood my position. In no manner, shape, or form am I sticking up for the media. I despise how on balance the media is so unapologetically leftist, and I see Fox and the like as a necessary check on the previously unbridled power that the leftist media held. Personally, I wish there was a mainstream unbiased TV news source, but unfortunately there is not. I am not referring to the 80s when they pretended to be non biased but werent, I mean truly unbiased. I can say unequivocally that has not existed in my lifetime.

 

The difference between the uneducated and ignorant masses you are referring to - is that they uses labels without understanding their specific meaning and they do so outside of a specific example which then constitutes fallacious demonization.

But - you are talking to me - not them.

The US is not equal to Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany - and I would like to keep it that way.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at the "canaries in the coal mine - factors that led to these nasty regimes prior to full on totalitarianism" it is disturbing.

Shall we get into specifics ? Since I have given you numerous specifics previously - followed by you engaging in avoidance and denial tactics - I tell you what.

You list some of the factors that lead to totalitarianism - and we will see if we can find a few parallels.

 

But they do ! "Iran is the # 1 state sponsor of terror - Cuba is not far behind" "Russia used chemical weapon in Britain" and Assad in Douma.

The "White Helmets" - there was an entire documentary on this group painting them as the "good guys" fighting the evil Assad regime.

Whether it is the media stating this directly - or the Establishment speaking on CNN/MSNBC/Fox - it is the same thing.

Did you know that in 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens?
Did you realize that in 2013 Obama rescinded the law disallowing tax dollars going to terrorist groups - so he could arm and support terrorist groups.

Is this not news ? Apparently not.

During the 80's 90's during the conflicts in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala the lies were coming fast and furious. As bad as it was - it is nowhere near what it is today.

During the lead up to the Iraq war - those that spoke the obvious truth or conflicted with certain Establishment narratives were fired - Donahue and Maher are two examples. Donahue has never worked since.

I agree that the media will try to avoid stating a falsehood directly. The main tactics of the propaganda machine is to support the establishment narrative (false or otherwise) and not conflict with it. Don't ask the obvious questions or point out obvious fallacy and falsehoods. The sin of omission.

We no longer have "news" anymore. Some gal/dude sitting there reading the news - stating what happened and giving both sides. Instead we get 24 hours of editorial/opinion. #1 rule of journalism school "thou shalt not editorialize".

The CNN slogan "most trusted source in news" is a big fat lie. What "news" by definition they are no longer a news network.

 

Probably the only way to heal the division would require a major world war where americans did not have the luxury of being petty, ideological driven little *********s.

 

I am not interested in turning this into a long, drawn out conversation. I dont get the impression that you and I are even really all that far apart in our thinking. We both view the media as purposefully misleading.

OK...I will bite on this one. Whom are YOU claiming is the number one state sponsor of terrorism? (FWIW....I dont recall seeing anyone mentioning Cuba in this context). I am sure that there are a number of ways to interpret this statement depending on how YOU define terrorism, and as such I am sure that you will name someone else. Whomever you name however, is that REALLY an irrefutable point of fact or is it merely contained in the gray area that is afforded by virtue of how YOU or anyone decides to define terrorism which is a term that has countless meanings depending upon whom you ask and where you refer. I cant think of a term that has been more politicized and had its meaning changed more in the last 30 years than the term terrorism.

 

I find it pretty hard to disagree.

 

I fear that you may be right. It does look like that's where all this is headed.

 

Either you don't understand what I said or it isn't important to you and your purpose. So again, let's think about this:

I said "We now have two conflicting "news" perspectives generating two conflicting political outlooks: one for the right and one for the rest of us.

(I said it that way for a reason provided by the right. I didn't say "one for the right and one for the left" because in deference to the right, they normally refer to "MSM" as "liberal" and the enemy of sorts and they don't seem to see any "middle of the road" or balanced news sources to exist.)...

Now let's examine it. Do you know what "deference" means? If not, look it up first, but I think you know what it means. In consideration of everything the right has posted on this forum about "MSM", I accepted their position as theirs, which is consistently that while they believe Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, The Heritage Foundation (oops, they aren't a news service), Newsmax, and other known right wing "news" sources, they identify "MSM" as "liberal" and "corrupt liars" and reject them all in one sweep. What remains? Nothing that I know of. To the right, it's either those dozen sources or it's "MSM". They reject ABC news, CBS news, Reuters, and certainly NBC news and everything "the rest of us" accept. This is my observation of the clear statements of the right. Maybe I'm wrong but no one on the right has stepped forward to identify any news sources that they accept that isn't a right wing source. So my statement above simply characterizes what I see right here on this forum with the seeming agreement of the right. So what's your beef?

 

I would add a couple other observations.

Very often prople or “sides” seem to think there is only one solution or perspective. Therefore anyone who has a different solution or perspective must be WRONG

Next, people often attribute hyperbolically nefarious motives to those who disagree. So not only are you wrong, you are intentionally trying to destroy the country, or are part of an evil plot

Next, people overrate their common sense beliefs. If something seems to be common sense, it therefore MUST be true. It is only common sense that the earth is flat, or that gold is the only REAL money, or that the budget must be balanced, or that there must be a creator,

Finally, people tend to think others are wrong simply because they cannot glibly defend their position

 

Or we should have some sort of ranked voting system like "instant run-off voting". But yes, I agree it's time to eliminate the electoral college. People object that the less populated and more rural states of the midwest would get the worst end of the deal every time then. But I say that's not true because the Constitution sets out what the federal government can do and what it can affect, and everything else (which is plenty) is to be left to the states. So those midwest states should be no differently affected by the federal government than anyone else is, and the state should then address the residents' concerns.

 

I agree with your assertions regarding limited government and personal freedom and privacy being eroded. However the so called conservatives and the judges they appoint have consistently ruled to grant more power to police agencies and other public officials to restrict our freedoms and invade our privacy. Now, comically, they are whining about police abuse and search warrants and such because one of their rich white a$$hole boys and the pack of crooks he is surrounded by are getting investigated. Lol

The Federal grand jury system is as one sided and unfair as it gets and phony conservative judges have always ruled to keep it intact. We have armies of thieves roaming our highways dressed as highway patrolmen shaking down motorists by illegally pulling people over, conning their way into people's cars and stealing money and other items of value from them, then lying on their reports to justify it. Then, even if no crime has been alleged, much less proven, our citizens have the burden of proof to prove where the money gold or whatever else the police stole from them.

I believe in limited government and personal freedom and privacy, but neither of the two major parties really support either. Especially Republicans who have driven and supported these draconian laws from their inception. That's why I have always supported guys like Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul.

 

You have defined the problem, and I don't see an argument with what you said. So now, how can these things be addressed? How can we reverse it all?

 

My point stands. You made a declaration then backpedaled a bit, twirled around and now you are again driving a wedge by broad brushing anyone to the right of you as RWNJs.

 

While vigilance is a necessary tool to maintaining liberty, running around like Chicken Little everytime a canary peeps isn't conducive to maintaining liberty.

However, since we live in a free country, and, yes, I'd like to keep it that way, you are free to crap your pants and scream every time a canary peeps in the coal mine.

 

Ah! So now it's the position of a rightie that I should not mention the right. How convenient that would be. But you apparently can't honestly consider and discuss what I said, which is that I tried to recognize and honestly represent the position of the right with that quoted statement. You would rather fight, which IS the problem. So in essence, to the concerns relating to the growing divisions of this country, you reply "F-U". Go ahead and correct me that it is actually "F-Y".

 

LOL. Thank you for making my point and clarifying that you are part of the reason why there is a division. Since I'm to the right of your position, you declare I am a "rightie" even though I've made it clear many times I'm politically moderate.

 

Are you being facetious with this post?

 

A big part of the solution is to stop pretending that our feces dont stink

Another part is to stop being sucked in to juvinile food fights

Also, go out of your way to look for the hidden truth in what others say

Ultimately we cannot change others behaviour, only our own. In my experience treating others with more respect than they seem to deserve is a good place to start

 

Ardy you nail it!

 

As long as left wing media finds a receptive audience with its message of hatred, intolerance, and disinformation, there is little hope of Americans uniting for a common purpose.

 

Yep -- when "issues" with Cuba come up you will often have some neocon pundit claiming the rational for sanctions on Cuba is because there are some big state sponsor of terror. Quite the head shaker.

Saudi Arabia is by far and away the #1 state sponsor of terrorist groups. Taliban, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and numerous others all over the world "ALL" share the same Saudi inspired Salafi Islamist extremist ideology.

Saud has been exporting this ideology and supporting these groups for decades - and it is not like this is some big secret. There is no shortage of reporting on this well known fact.

Heck - Joe Biden - answering questions after a talk at Harvard said:

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

more details can be found here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

Tons and tons of sophisticated modern military hardware such as manpads ( shoulder launched surface to air missiles) artillery, anti tank missiles (TOW's) were given to the terrorists.

The rockets fired by Hamas are made by Hamas and are little more than fancy fireworks. If Iran was arming Hamas the way El Saud was arming Al Qaeda/ISIS ... Israel would have some serious casualties.

The fact of the matter is that Hamas is not being armed with anything remotely comparable to the weapons given to Al Qaeda/ISIS.

The other problem is the assumption that Hamas are "terrorists" comparable to Al Qaeda/ISIS. This is a false narrative. Hamas is on one side of a local blood feud and Israel is on the other. Both sides have committed acts of Terror with Israel being by far and away the winner in terms of number of acts of terror.

Claiming the Houthi's are terrorists is like claiming the Kurds fighting ISIS in Syria are terrorists. The Houthi's fight against the Islamist's - they fight against Al Qaeda in Yemen. The Saudi backed fighters in Yemen are - or fight along side Al Qaeda. That is because Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia share the same Saudi inspired extremist Salafi ideology. If we were to have to pick a side in the war in Yemen it should be the Houthi's who we side with.

It is not some coincidence that Bin Ladin - and all but 2 of the 911 Terrorists were Saudi. Bin Laden was married to the daughter of the Saudi Royal family for goodness sake.

The plague of Islamist extremism in Europe. These are not Iranians. They are not Shia Muslims. No - their ideology is the Saudi inspired Sunni Salafi extremist Islamist ideology.

If there was a groups of Westboro baptist fundamentalists doing terrorist acts all over the world - how would this be reported?

Would their actions be called "Christian extremism" and left at that ? At minimum they would be called "Christian fundamentalist extremists" ... that would at least separate them somewhat from Christians as a whole, but this would not go far enough.

Pains would be taken to identify the root source of the ideology to separate these people - even from fundamentalist Christians never mind all Christians.

Our media does not even go as far as calling these people "Islamist's" never mind identifying the root ideology. The only difference here is that the Church of Saud is a whole lot bigger than Westboro.

The House of Saud is the "Caliphate" .. the spiritual head of Sunni Islam - the place where alcohol and dancing and "western music - and music in general if it is not sanctioned by the state" is forbidden. The place where adulterers are stoned and gays put to death. The place where apostasy is punishable by death and Christian Churches - and Christianity in general is forbidden. Where women are treated as property and forced marriages are the rule. Where women must have permission from a man even to be educated. Where they must wear a Halloween costume if they venture outside. Where a man is allowed - and even encouraged to beat his wife. Where children are taught - as part of the curriculum - to hate Christians, Jews -and even Muslims who do not share the extremist Saudi ideology.

Saudi Arabia is a "big brother" totalitarian dictatorship - worse than Hitlers Germany (sans the killing of the Jews) in many ways. There are sharia police on every corner monitoring behavior - like under the third Reich but far less freedoms.

 

Well thanks - and I am glad you are comfortable on your knees begging to give up essential liberty over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm walking.

I do agree that this is a free country and while I disagree with your decision to change the motto "Give me liberty or give me death" to "It is my patriotic duty to give up my liberty" - I recognize your right to hold that opinion.

Perhaps you are right and it is foolish of me to fret over these things. I should probably be more like you and join the raging masses cowering in fear.