COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

political division in america

Veroe

Veroe

Maestro/Truthseeker
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Posts
62,546
Hello I am new to this forum. Before the election in 2016 I didn't pay much attention to politics, but since then I've been awakened and more engaged in learning more about politics in general.

I want to talk about how divided American politics are, and get your opinions on the subject.

It seems to me the situation is like the trenches in World War I. You have the right in their trench and the left in theirs and no one seems willing to risk crossing no-man's-land between them.

I want to ask how do you feel about the situation? Is there any issue advocated by the opposite side you could support? Is there any politician within the opposite party from the one you generally identify with you could see yourself voting for?
 
There's no national election for a while. Why should I conclude who I'd vote for a even in a congressional election until next year at this time?

I know who I'll voting for in the Virginia governor/lieutenant governor race this November. The two Republicans have aligned with Trump, so I'm certainly not voting for them. I won't vote for anyone identifying themselves with Trump--for anything.

And on another aspect of your question, one of my senators, Mark Warner, has demonstrated willingness to work in a bipartisan manner for years, so I'll continue to vote for him and approve of his bipartisan efforts in the face of very few other folks in Congress--and particularly the Republicans--to make that effort.
 
sr71plt said:
There's no national election for a while. Why should I conclude who I'd vote for a even in a congressional election until next year at this time?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. There aren't any elections on the national level any time soon. However like you I hope people try and keep an open mind when it does come time to vote again.
 
I like to think that sitting and watching until there's actually an election rather than trying to pin issues and candidates down earlier is keeping an open mind.
 
Yeah. one thing I don't like is the tendency for people to counterproductively talk at people on the other side rather than listen and consider their opinions. Most political debates, which is why I've tried to avoid them most of my life, always boils down to talking point versus talking point which quickly devolves into personal attacks.

I don't think this is what our founding fathers would want their grand experiment of America.
 
I started noticing US politics around 1964. Can't say I understand much. :)
Veroe said:
It seems to me the situation is like the trenches in World War I. You have the right in their trench and the left in theirs and no one seems willing to risk crossing no-man's-land between them.
Click to expand...
Primary elections force extremism. Moderate candidates are purged by the purists / party faithful who turn out to vote. Dums seem willing to negotiate some issues but compromise is fatal for Gups.

How to escape the death spiral? SCOTUS decisions firmly killing gerrymandering and disenfranchisement would be a good start. Right.

Who do I vote for? I'm neither Gup nor Dum. I notice candidate party affiliations when applicable but I'm more taken by their words and deeds. My rural county is mostly run by GOBs (Good Ol' Boyz) who ain't much on the Dum side so it's slim pickens here. And segregated socializing - (R) and (D) folks don't mingle much, only at store checkouts.

Yes, there's a no-man's-land in USA, a great divide. I see no easy mending.
 
Hypoxia said:
How to escape the death spiral? SCOTUS decisions firmly killing gerrymandering and disenfranchisement would be a good start. Right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and scrap the Electoral College system as obsolete now--with majority popular vote winners losing in two recent elections--a significant negation of the popular vote in the most recent presidential election. States shouldn't be that significant in national elections anymore. The U.S. is a mobile nation; people aren't restricted to states; they can move anywhere they want.

The gerrymander problem is pronounced in a state like Virginia. Everything voted statewide on popular vote is being won by one party, but nearly all of the districted (gerrymandered districted) seats are won by the other party--the party that gerrymandered the districts when they gained power in the legislature.
 
1(worker) / 3(bums or illegals)=pay more taxes

Works every time.
 
Gerrymandering and lack of a critical review of political rhetoric in our Press are two of the things that irritate me most. But how to draw the districts? Do you dilute the Urban masses by slicing the metros up and giving them a section of rural flyover as part of the districts, or do you separate rural and urban population in different districts?

California put in place a nonpartisan commission to draw our districts, rather than leaving it up to the party in power to do so. Over the last decade Republicans have carved out safe districts for themselves, if the Demos suddenly gain the advantage in 2020 will they carve up the districts to suit themselves?

Without a critical review of the political discourse in the main stream click bait press, it is impossible to have a civil discussion of policy and objectives. Particularly when Religion and bigotry is so prevalent, polluting the arguments of both/all sides.

There are too many loose wingnuts and not enough lock washers.
 
Veroe said:
It seems to me the situation is like the trenches in World War I. You have the right in their trench and the left in theirs and no one seems willing to risk crossing no-man's-land between them. I want to ask how do you feel about the situation?
Click to expand...

That's because the in-between isn't working as well as everyone hoped and everyone is back to picking one functioning thing or the other.

It's not the right vs. left really either imo seeing as both parties are some kind of hybrid shit storm of neo-socialism/crony-capitalism and control freak. Neither is very far left or right overall, they pick their L. vs R. on the subject.

For example...when it comes to fossil fuel energy.

(D)'s get very lefty, they want government control over it and stick a gun to everyones head to force them into progress!!

The (R)'s get very liberal/capitalist about it. All about that freedom!!!

Now go to abortion and suddenly (D)'s are libertarian radicals bordering anarchist, no regulation!! no government!! Hands off!!! And the "right" wing small government party suddenly has no problem with uber government all up in the citizens bidnizz ....making Leninist commies proud!


And back and forth and back and forth. The only ideological consistency really either has is that they are more interested in defending their money than doing what's right or even in the spirit or tradition of the USA.


Veroe said:
Is there any issue advocated by the opposite side you could support?
Click to expand...

Very few, but environmental protection is on the list.

Real environmental protection too, not "were going to tax you a few thousand extra for buying anything that's not a Prius!!" assholery from degenerate hateful scum.

Veroe said:
Is there any politician within the opposite party from the one you generally identify with you could see yourself voting for?
Click to expand...

If you speak of (D) v (R) I don't see really any difference between the two without going to specific topics.

If you're talking about ideologies...

I run along the classical Liberal/libertarian lines.

Can't get down with the hardcore iron fisted socialism/communism, I think the shit is absolute evil.....so no.

sr71plt said:
Yeah, and scrap the Electoral College system as obsolete now--
Click to expand...

It's not obsolete.....you're just being dishonest because it's cost the population bubbles their mob rule, which is EXACTLY what the EC is designed to temper.

JackLuis said:
California put in place a nonpartisan commission
Click to expand...

LMFAO....that's some funny shit right there :D
 
Last edited:
JackLuis said:
Gerrymandering and lack of a critical review of political rhetoric in our Press are two of the things that irritate me most. But how to draw the districts? Do you dilute the Urban masses by slicing the metros up and giving them a section of rural flyover as part of the districts, or do you separate rural and urban population in different districts?
Click to expand...

You sit out-of-state planners with no political connection to the state at all down with a list of voting districts to be allotted and the raw voter stats (number of voters by voting precinct with no regard of how they traditionally have voted). You don't let them look at historical voting patterns. They are charged to establish contiguous-area voting districts by as near-equal-voter numbers as possible. At no time are they permitted to see what historical voting patterns/affiliation have been. You then just don't react to all of the in-state yammering about the result--because it inevitably will be based in gaining voting strength advantage in some way or the other.
 
Last edited:
Hypoxia said:
I started noticing US politics around 1964. Can't say I understand much. :)

Primary elections force extremism. Moderate candidates are purged by the purists / party faithful who turn out to vote. Dums seem willing to negotiate some issues but compromise is fatal for Gups.

How to escape the death spiral? SCOTUS decisions firmly killing gerrymandering and disenfranchisement would be a good start. Right.

Who do I vote for? I'm neither Gup nor Dum. I notice candidate party affiliations when applicable but I'm more taken by their words and deeds. My rural county is mostly run by GOBs (Good Ol' Boyz) who ain't much on the Dum side so it's slim pickens here. And segregated socializing - (R) and (D) folks don't mingle much, only at store checkouts.

Yes, there's a no-man's-land in USA, a great divide. I see no easy mending.
Click to expand...




Nobody would accuse you of understanding the political process...Ironically you are an old white male who thinks he knows what is best for everyone else. When you say mend don't you mean everyone should come over to your side or just shut up and not vote. You just complain and do nothing more.
 
sr71plt said:
You sit out-of-state planners with no political connection to the state at all down with a list of voting districts to be allotted and the raw voter stats (number of voters by voting precinct with no regard of how they traditionally have voted). You don't let them look at historical voting patterns. They are charged to establish contiguous-area voting districts by as near-equal-voter numbers as possible. At no time are they permitted to see what historical voting patterns/affiliation have been. You then just don't react to all of the in-state yammering about the result--because it inevitably will be based in gaining voting strength advantage in some way or the other.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being reasonable! How are you going to get legislatures to do that?:rolleyes:
 
JackLuis said:
Now you're just being reasonable! How are you going to get legislatures to do that?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is giving it a push. I'm not going to do anything to get anyone to do anything in politics. You asked a question and I provided an answer.
 
JackLuis said:
Gerrymandering and lack of a critical review of political rhetoric in our Press are two of the things that irritate me most. But how to draw the districts? Do you dilute the Urban masses by slicing the metros up and giving them a section of rural flyover as part of the districts, or do you separate rural and urban population in different districts?

California put in place a nonpartisan commission to draw our districts, rather than leaving it up to the party in power to do so. Over the last decade Republicans have carved out safe districts for themselves, if the Demos suddenly gain the advantage in 2020 will they carve up the districts to suit themselves?

Without a critical review of the political discourse in the main stream click bait press, it is impossible to have a civil discussion of policy and objectives. Particularly when Religion and bigotry is so prevalent, polluting the arguments of both/all sides.

There are too many loose wingnuts and not enough lock washers.
Click to expand...

Re: gerrymandering - you change the system to one based on proportional representation.
 
sr71plt said:
The Supreme Court is giving it a push. I'm not going to do anything to get anyone to do anything in politics. You asked a question and I provided an answer.
Click to expand...

Only if Kennedy sides with the RBG's. If he flips over to the Roberts/Gorsuch side we're all fucked, again.
 
From the second half of the 1960's to the first half of the 1970's the United States was bitterly divided over the Civil Rights Movement, the War in Vietnam, and on how to respond to the rise in crime.

Currently the United States seems to be as polarized as it was back then, and yet I cannot think of any issue that is as divisive as the three I listed.

Back then new left radicals talked about a revolution, but that was not a serious possibility. Now sizable minorities in many states want their states to secede from the United States. The alt right wants a "white ethnostate" whee only whites would be allowed to live.

One factor that contributes to bitterness is the fact that real median income has declined since Bill Clinton office.

From the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to the recession of 1974 there was a fairly steady increase in per capita gross domestic produce (GDP) in 1996 dollars.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

That took some of the edge off of the bitterness, and made it seem as though the problems the United States faced had solutions.

Another factor that feeds polarization is the fact that the U.S. population is becoming more racially diverse. Diversity is not a source of strength but of social discord.
 
The current divisions go back to the Clinton Years.

That's when the R Party took a hard right turn, dug their heels in, and decided if they can't win elections, they're just going to stop governing or doing a damn thing for the country. Ever since then it's been Party above Country for the Rs. They will shut down the government, block any effort to get things done, and engage in complete warfare with the Ds and never ever work with them.

Supporting this has been the rise of Fox News and the whole entire Fake News industry sustaining the Right, and it's only gotten worse.

I don't see a single thing good about the R Party. The only thing to do is watch while it implodes out of its own incompetence, which is exactly what's happening. They set themselves up as the Party of No, and now that they don't have Clintons or Obama to rail against, they have NOTHING.


Veroe said:
Hello I am new to this forum. Before the election in 2016 I didn't pay much attention to politics, but since then I've been awakened and more engaged in learning more about politics in general.

I want to talk about how divided American politics are, and get your opinions on the subject.

It seems to me the situation is like the trenches in World War I. You have the right in their trench and the left in theirs and no one seems willing to risk crossing no-man's-land between them.

I want to ask how do you feel about the situation? Is there any issue advocated by the opposite side you could support? Is there any politician within the opposite party from the one you generally identify with you could see yourself voting for?
Click to expand...
 
Wow my little topic has gotten a lot of insightful replies and also some passionate replies as well.

Thank you all for your posts everyone.
 
Carnal_Flower said:
The current divisions go back to the Clinton Years.

That's when the R Party took a hard right turn, dug their heels in, and decided if they can't win elections, they're just going to stop governing or doing a damn thing for the country. Ever since then it's been Party above Country for the Rs. They will shut down the government, block any effort to get things done, and engage in complete warfare with the Ds and never ever work with them.
Click to expand...

Oh REALLY?
Ef1lU92.jpg
 
Yeah, really

Good example!

You really want to compare a legal and lawful challenge to a far right supreme court pick, argued in Congress, to Mitch McConnell refusing to even bring Merrick Garland to debate? Ha ha ha

Garland: perfect example of Rs cheating and shutting down the entire process to get their way vs. Dems working within the process. Not even close.


coachdb18 said:
Oh REALLY?
Ef1lU92.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Yeah, really

Good example!

You really want to compare a legal and lawful challenge to a far right supreme court pick, argued in Congress, to Mitch McConnell refusing to even bring Merrick Garland to debate? Ha ha ha

Garland: perfect example of Rs cheating and shutting down the entire process to get their way vs. Dems working within the process. Not even close.
Click to expand...


An article from 'The Atlantic'

Reasonable minds may argue over how different American law would be today if the Senate had confirmed Bork. The position ultimately was filled by Anthony Kennedy, who has been a diehard conservative in some areas (like economic policy and the First Amendment) and an unabashed liberal in others (like gay rights and restrictions on capital punishment). My best guess is that Bork would have been a conservative activist very much in the manner of Justice Antonin Scalia, a loud and consistent vote to roll back precedent not just to pre-Warren Court positions but to the Lochner-era*sensibilities of a century ago.


But no reasonable person today can contend that judicial nomination proceedings are more insightful and productive in the wake of the Bork hearing. Throughout the long history of court appointments, confirmations had rarely been detailed affairs. In 1962, for example, John F. Kennedy appointee Byron White was questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee for all of 11 minutes. In fact, it wasn't until 1925 that a Supreme Court nominee (Harlan Fiske Stone) even appeared before the committee and it was another 14 years before a second (Felix Frankfurter) did so.
So the Bork hearing didn't reverse a century of transparency in the process. But it certainly assured that no such transparency and candor would ever come again. The self-defeating lesson which official Washington took from the political savagery of the 1987 proceedings was that nominees were better off saying nothing publicly about their views of the law and were better off serving up empty platitudes when backed into a corner by their Judiciary Committee inquisitors. Sadly, you can draw a direct line from Bork's experience to John Roberts' patronizing "umpire" analogy during his 2005 confirmation hearing.
Even if Bork had never been "borked" (verb: to have one's nomination to high office be subject to zealous political attack), he would have been a colossal figure in the law. He was a former federal appeals court judge. He was a Yale law professor. He was a Justice Department official during the Nixon Administration; it was Bork who was left standing at Justice on the evening of October 20, 1973 following the "Saturday Night Massacre," which saw the firing of Archibald Cox and the resignation of Elliot Richardson. Most recently, he was a legal adviser to the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
Record number plunder their 401(k)s in Biden’s America
Replies
0
Views
25
SugarDaddy1
SugarDaddy1
Rightguide
Jack Smith's Prosecution Of Trump Political CNN
2 3
Replies
71
Views
809
schism666
schism666
B
'Obamacare' wars heat up in 2024 race as Biden and Trump clash over subsidies
Replies
2
Views
64
MajorRewrite
M
SugarDaddy1
Biden tells crowd he recently met with Mitterrand, former French president who died in 1996
Replies
1
Views
43
Bray123
B
BrendaD
Is there anyone interested in finding common ground? Instead of hating people because of their perceived political beliefs?
4 5 6
Replies
129
Views
1K
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Back
Top