Civil war

[FA_Q2]

Actually - it really started under Bush. Divisiveness is far older than that but the deep divisions began when Bush adopted the 'if you are with us then you are against us.' It was one of the deep travesties that Bush presided over and Obama is simply continuing that political trend.

That definitely is a major contributing factor, but even that is not the source, IMO. It was the first public expression of severe division. But the major divisiveness began before that, during the Clinton administration and the GOP politics of personal destruction, and the rise of Tom DeLay and Dick Armey to the helm of the party. By the time Bush came along, he was merely putting on a convenient front for the ugly underbelly.

Fair enough. Deep divisiveness (particularly in politics) is as old as social structures though. I think that Bush was a real tipping point though because there is a huge effect when the president adopts that as a core point against the political opposition. It really shut down proper discourse which really is the core of how the US system is supposed to work. Very few people know or have ever heard the names Tom DeLay and Dick Armey and they really did not have a lot of impact on the average citizen. Bush, OTOH, popularized the idea that political opposition was tantamount to being a terrorist (just look at the other posters knee jerk response when I point out Bush's favorite line) and it sent ripples throughout the common electorate. This has driven politics to the stand still that it is today.

Interestingly enough, I am one of those that does not mind gridlock at all - the less congress does in general the less they fuck things up. My issue is that congress is gridlocked in all the wrong places and for all the wrong reasons. We are still quick to war, quick to abandon the same out of expediency, quick to reduce freedom/increase the state but slow to actually address real problems. We are also gridlocked out of hate and rhetoric rather than principals and fact.

The lesson is that we must be mindful that we will eventually reap what we sow.

A lesson that very few seem to have learned...

 

[Missourian]

There no civil war coming. What side would the vast majority who dont vote and dont give a fuck gunna fight on? The purple side? Stop.

Agree 100%. This is just one of those kicks rabble rousers get on.

The politics of fear..."If you don't vote for my guy there might be a civil war". Ohhhh Nooooes.

It's stupid, and the OP should know better.

 

[Missourian]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

 

[Missourian]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

 

[Missourian]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

POTUS:Trump has dropped out of CPAC

Substantive conversation, then personal attack, last line.

 

[Missourian]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

Another...John Oliver Kicks Donald in the Nuts: Trump Supporters May Even Laugh

 

[Missourian]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

And another...Trump to remove protections from media.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

POTUS:Trump has dropped out of CPAC

Substantive conversation, then personal attack, last line.

After you imply I don't work or know anyone who does, I am free to unload

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

And another...Trump to remove protections from media.

After your dance recital around a yes or no question, you earned it

 

[Skylar]

Ive said for a while as we ramp up the rhetoric that we are pushing our nation towards civil war. I was mocked for saying that. I was even accused of wanting it because I was warning against it.

We are alot closer than you think. Be careful

Its not, and we aren't. As the 'civil war' narrative has the same problem it did last time: the 'war' part.

See, 'war' requires people fight, bleed, kill and die. And there's utterly insufficient numbers willing to do this to start anything remotely resembling a 'civil war'.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 67104

The primary architect of the divisive politics was Lee Atwater. You see above a quote he made when he got a terminal disease. The Democrats started hitting back around 1992, Gore screwed up in 2000, and they found another fighter in 2008.

Lee and company made it to where you can't appear weak; ever: and you constantly had to be on the attack. It often brings out the worst in people only because they spend 99% of their time being congenial to their kids, grandkids, donors, spouse, constituents, the waitress at the restaurant, the guy installing their cable, delivering pizza etc... When they have to put on the armor and do battle, it becomes this regrettable display that most in Washington would rather not engage in probably.

The big difference you're seeing with Mr. Trump is that he doesn't care how dirty he gets as long as he tarnishes you; his trash supporters are already in the gutter so they care little as well.

You'll note when you examine their rhetoric the thirst to inflict damage...regardless of the victims.

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

Another...John Oliver Kicks Donald in the Nuts: Trump Supporters May Even Laugh

Your response was out of sheer admitted ignorance.

 

[Missourian]

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

POTUS:Trump has dropped out of CPAC

Substantive conversation, then personal attack, last line.

After you imply I don't work or know anyone who does, I am free to unload

I wasn't implying you didn't work...I was asking if you knew any blue collar workers.

The working class (also labouring class and proletariat) are the people employed for wages, especially in manual-labour occupations and in skilled, industrial work.

Working class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

If you have a white collar salaried position, you are not working class.

​

 

[Missourian]

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

And another...Trump to remove protections from media.

After your dance recital around a yes or no question, you earned it

That's such B.S., if you don't like my answer, attack my answer. No excuse for a personal attack.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ive said for a while as we ramp up the rhetoric that we are pushing our nation towards civil war. I was mocked for saying that. I was even accused of wanting it because I was warning against it.

We are alot closer than you think. Be careful

Its not, and we aren't. As the 'civil war' narrative has the same problem it did last time: the 'war' part.

See, 'war' requires people fight, bleed, kill and die. And there's utterly insufficient numbers willing to do this to start anything remotely resembling a 'civil war'.

The NRA says, and lots of people mimic, that the guns won't be taken unless from their cold dead hands. Sounds like people willing.... or is it just bravado?

 

[Skylar]

Ive said for a while as we ramp up the rhetoric that we are pushing our nation towards civil war. I was mocked for saying that. I was even accused of wanting it because I was warning against it.

We are alot closer than you think. Be careful

Its not, and we aren't. As the 'civil war' narrative has the same problem it did last time: the 'war' part.

See, 'war' requires people fight, bleed, kill and die. And there's utterly insufficient numbers willing to do this to start anything remotely resembling a 'civil war'.

The NRA says, and lots of people mimic, that the guns won't be taken unless from their cold dead hands. Sounds like people willing.... or is it just bravado?

Taken by who? The NRA loves to paint these imaginary vignettes involving situations that are ludicrously unlikely. And to date, still haven't happened yet.

You might get a handful of the most unstable NRA nuts to start shooting cops in the 'name of revolution' based on a fantasy hypothetical. But the overwhelming, overwhelming majority have got shit to do. And imaginary stories aren't sufficient for them to interrupt their schedules. Let alone sacrifice their lives.

Its the same questions that stumps the 'civil war' narrative pretty much every time:

Who is going to fight it? Specifically. And why?

 

[Missourian]

Yet you are always the first to go on the offensive with name calling and personal attacks.

Heal thyself, Philosopher.

Factually incorrect.

Factually 100% correct. Until the last week, any interaction you and I have had, you were the first to make it personal, whether name calling or personal attack.

Nonsense

Another...John Oliver Kicks Donald in the Nuts: Trump Supporters May Even Laugh

Your response was out of sheer admitted ignorance.

Here is exactly what I said...

"Likely because I didn't bother to watch it. Is it full of liberal talking point falsehoods? Then why waste my time.

Let's try something a little more fact based...than, you know... a liberal comedian..."
​

No excuse there for name calling or personal attack...I stated my opinion.

And, it is exactly as I said. I'll give you a pass on the first one as a misunderstanding...but I could find three more just as easily.

So, just think about it. Seriously...attack what I say, attack my opinions. Hell, I certainly don't object to your conservative line of attack. It is a reasonable assertion. But if you truly believe what you said in you original post, give this some thought.

​

 

[xband]

Ive said for a while as we ramp up the rhetoric that we are pushing our nation towards civil war. I was mocked for saying that. I was even accused of wanting it because I was warning against it.

We are alot closer than you think. Be careful

I have lived under martial law in a foreign country and things were peaceful under martial law. Have you lived under martial law?

 

[Missourian]

Ive said for a while as we ramp up the rhetoric that we are pushing our nation towards civil war. I was mocked for saying that. I was even accused of wanting it because I was warning against it.

We are alot closer than you think. Be careful

Its not, and we aren't. As the 'civil war' narrative has the same problem it did last time: the 'war' part.

See, 'war' requires people fight, bleed, kill and die. And there's utterly insufficient numbers willing to do this to start anything remotely resembling a 'civil war'.

The NRA says, and lots of people mimic, that the guns won't be taken unless from their cold dead hands. Sounds like people willing.... or is it just bravado?

Taken by who? The NRA loves to paint these imaginary vignettes involving situations that are ludicrously unlikely. And to date, still haven't happened yet.

You might get a handful of the most unstable NRA nuts to start shooting cops in the 'name of revolution' based on a fantasy hypothetical. But the overwhelming, overwhelming majority have got shit to do. And imaginary stories aren't sufficient for them to interrupt their schedules. Let alone sacrifice their lives.

Its the same questions that stumps the 'civil war' narrative pretty much every time:

Who is going to fight it? Specifically. And why?

You may be too young to remember, but the serious threat of revolution in America came not from the right, but from the left.