Where do you think all this division and hatred in America is leading?

[Ray From Cleveland]

The liberal side can do what they want, but I think the conservative side would keep most of the Constitution as it is with the exception of removing some of the amendments. We would keep the amendment process though in case we had to change it.

This country evolved over its 200+ years. I'd say the founding fathers were pretty liberal for their day but looking back I'd judge them as conservatives by today's standards. What makes you think that if you start conservative you'll stay conservative? Or that the definition of conservative won't change. Are we going to have to keep spliting the country periodically?

Being conservative is more than political, it's actually more nature.

Yes, when I was young, had long hair, smoked pot, living with my parents, a lead guitarist in a rock band, I would now consider myself a liberal back then. But as I got older and wiser, I realized my natural state was conservative; I just didn't have the terms down yet.

I didn't identify with either party because I never followed politics before, and I didn't even know what I was. Then one day when we were celebrating a holiday at my sisters house, my father and I (once again) began talking about politics. My then brother-in-law was helping bring the meal to the table, and as he did, in laughter he said "You must be a huge Rush fan!" Rush? WTF is Rush? Rush is one of my favorite bands...... but....

Some time afterwards, Democrats did something to piss me off. I forget what it was now, I believe raising cigarette taxes or something, so remembering what my brother-in-law said at dinner, I decided to find this Rush and see what it's all about.

He was right. It was like somebody was reading my mind and broadcasting it on the radio. Haven't turned him off since, and even started to listen to other conservative radio and television.

So some things will never change. I'm pushing 60 years old now and I can't ever see going back to thinking like a teenager again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The resistance has been lawful and legal, Fueri. If the Far Right and Alt Right rise up, they will be smashed down by the LEO, the military, and mainstream America.

 

[Mac1958]

it would seem then, from the reaction of the left to Trump winning, that nobody accepts the electoral process when it goes against them.

That's just a function of the tribal nature of the country right now.
.

 

[WheelieAddict]

it would seem then, from the reaction of the left to Trump winning, that nobody accepts the electoral process when it goes against them.

That's just a function of the tribal nature of the country right now.
.

This country goes to 11.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you did, you'd be a conservative.

I’m pretry liberal on social issues and pretty conservative on fiscal issues. I think both parties suck. I also think a good balance between conservatives and liberals is healthy and necessary. We shouldn’t be at war with each other

What’s your point?

Point is how can you not be at war with people like this? The Democrats consider Republicans a bigger enemy than Muslim terrorists. It's not just Hil-liar either. Many Democrats feel that way.

You lose me when you try and define millions of people by the words and actions of a few. It is a lazy way of debating. Take issue with people specifically. I had plenty of problems with Hillary, but I just laugh when people think that dissing hillary is dissing me because of some liberal views that we may share.

Hil-liar is more than just one person, she was the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. Did you play the video? Did you hear the round of applauds after she said that???? It's much more than a few people.

 

[Fueri]

The resistance has been lawful and legal, Fueri. If the Far Right and Alt Right rise up, they will be smashed down by the LEO, the military, and mainstream America.

you're making an assumption that a similar action from the right would be illegal in some way.

I'm more concerned that nobody accepts the results of an election. it's not a particularly good precedent, whether you see it as lawful and legal or not.

fact is not all of it has been legal. people have been arrested. protests have gotten violent. and it's only going to get worse in the future if people continue to make excuses for "their side"



elections happen. one side wins. don't like it, that's pretty much tough nuts until the next time. sure you can protest, but the line ends where the law says it does or those "protesters" are criminals and should be treated accordingly.

unlawful, violent protests are not an acceptable part of our political process, during the elections or after it. that should be clearly understood and accepted by everyone. turning a blind eye only exacerbates the problem. and that is where I have a problem. it was OK to protest Trump, sometimes violently, during the election. It's been OK afterwards also among some segments of the population.

it isn't. like him or hate him or somewhere in between, he won. that sort of violent protest shouldn't be tolerated by any of us just because one thinks Trump is a cad- and certainly not recognized as a legitimate form of 'protest' within our system.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Straight to civil war.

We've reached a point where Democrat Congresswomen call for the assassination of Trump and Anti-fa atheists attack white church parishioners.

Calling liberal pukes what they are: They either inspire others to mass murder or aspire to it, the best of the left accomplish both (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pot, etc).

 

[alang1216]

The liberal side can do what they want, but I think the conservative side would keep most of the Constitution as it is with the exception of removing some of the amendments. We would keep the amendment process though in case we had to change it.

This country evolved over its 200+ years. I'd say the founding fathers were pretty liberal for their day but looking back I'd judge them as conservatives by today's standards. What makes you think that if you start conservative you'll stay conservative? Or that the definition of conservative won't change. Are we going to have to keep spliting the country periodically?

Being conservative is more than political, it's actually more nature.

Yes, when I was young, had long hair, smoked pot, living with my parents, a lead guitarist in a rock band, I would now consider myself a liberal back then. But as I got older and wiser, I realized my natural state was conservative; I just didn't have the terms down yet.

I didn't identify with either party because I never followed politics before, and I didn't even know what I was. Then one day when we were celebrating a holiday at my sisters house, my father and I (once again) began talking about politics. My then brother-in-law was helping bring the meal to the table, and as he did, in laughter he said "You must be a huge Rush fan!" Rush? WTF is Rush? Rush is one of my favorite bands...... but....

Some time afterwards, Democrats did something to piss me off. I forget what it was now, I believe raising cigarette taxes or something, so remembering what my brother-in-law said at dinner, I decided to find this Rush and see what it's all about.

He was right. It was like somebody was reading my mind and broadcasting it on the radio. Haven't turned him off since, and even started to listen to other conservative radio and television.

So some things will never change. I'm pushing 60 years old now and I can't ever see going back to thinking like a teenager again.

I can't say I'm surprised by the Rush connection. He has done his best to divide the country into two camps: 'good' and liberal. In fact he is dangerous to the Union as he takes advantage of 'low information' listeners. You sound like you qualify.

Listening to Rush is fine, I do it when I can, but you also need other sources: CNN, NPR, NY Times, Wash Post, etc. If you only get your news from Rush and Fox you will always remain that same 'low information' listener.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m pretry liberal on social issues and pretty conservative on fiscal issues. I think both parties suck. I also think a good balance between conservatives and liberals is healthy and necessary. We shouldn’t be at war with each other

What’s your point?

Point is how can you not be at war with people like this? The Democrats consider Republicans a bigger enemy than Muslim terrorists. It's not just Hil-liar either. Many Democrats feel that way.

You lose me when you try and define millions of people by the words and actions of a few. It is a lazy way of debating. Take issue with people specifically. I had plenty of problems with Hillary, but I just laugh when people think that dissing hillary is dissing me because of some liberal views that we may share.

Hil-liar is more than just one person, she was the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. Did you play the video? Did you hear the round of applauds after she said that???? It's much more than a few people.

I still stand by the point that if you can't engage with each person for what they say and continuously lump them into a single candidate or a group of supporters, then you are making a lazy argument. The Left does it for Trump supporters and the Right does it to Liberals and Progressives. It is counterproductive... gets us nowhere.

 

[Mac1958]

...turning a blind eye only exacerbates the problem. and that is where I have a problem. it was OK to protest Trump, sometimes violently, during the election. It's been OK afterwards also among some segments of the population.

Zealots can always come up with justification for violence, and they will always have allies who enable them by running interference for them. As we've been seeing. They don't say they support the violence, but they're happy to spin for it.

This only gets worse, unless and until the zealots and their enablers are somehow culturally marginalized. They're the problem, not the solution.
.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
`
`
Woody Allen
`​

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What’s your point?

Point is how can you not be at war with people like this? The Democrats consider Republicans a bigger enemy than Muslim terrorists. It's not just Hil-liar either. Many Democrats feel that way.

You lose me when you try and define millions of people by the words and actions of a few. It is a lazy way of debating. Take issue with people specifically. I had plenty of problems with Hillary, but I just laugh when people think that dissing hillary is dissing me because of some liberal views that we may share.

Hil-liar is more than just one person, she was the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. Did you play the video? Did you hear the round of applauds after she said that???? It's much more than a few people.

I still stand by the point that if you can't engage with each person for what they say and continuously lump them into a single candidate or a group of supporters, then you are making a lazy argument. The Left does it for Trump supporters and the Right does it to Liberals and Progressives. It is counterproductive... gets us nowhere.

It gets us everywhere because you need to know how your adversary thinks and stands.

If I listen to a Democrat, I see an American with a different political view than mine. If a Democrat listens to me, he sees his mortal enemy speaking.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The liberal side can do what they want, but I think the conservative side would keep most of the Constitution as it is with the exception of removing some of the amendments. We would keep the amendment process though in case we had to change it.

This country evolved over its 200+ years. I'd say the founding fathers were pretty liberal for their day but looking back I'd judge them as conservatives by today's standards. What makes you think that if you start conservative you'll stay conservative? Or that the definition of conservative won't change. Are we going to have to keep spliting the country periodically?

Being conservative is more than political, it's actually more nature.

Yes, when I was young, had long hair, smoked pot, living with my parents, a lead guitarist in a rock band, I would now consider myself a liberal back then. But as I got older and wiser, I realized my natural state was conservative; I just didn't have the terms down yet.

I didn't identify with either party because I never followed politics before, and I didn't even know what I was. Then one day when we were celebrating a holiday at my sisters house, my father and I (once again) began talking about politics. My then brother-in-law was helping bring the meal to the table, and as he did, in laughter he said "You must be a huge Rush fan!" Rush? WTF is Rush? Rush is one of my favorite bands...... but....

Some time afterwards, Democrats did something to piss me off. I forget what it was now, I believe raising cigarette taxes or something, so remembering what my brother-in-law said at dinner, I decided to find this Rush and see what it's all about.

He was right. It was like somebody was reading my mind and broadcasting it on the radio. Haven't turned him off since, and even started to listen to other conservative radio and television.

So some things will never change. I'm pushing 60 years old now and I can't ever see going back to thinking like a teenager again.

I can't say I'm surprised by the Rush connection. He has done his best to divide the country into two camps: 'good' and liberal. In fact he is dangerous to the Union as he takes advantage of 'low information' listeners. You sound like you qualify.

Listening to Rush is fine, I do it when I can, but you also need other sources: CNN, NPR, NY Times, Wash Post, etc. If you only get your news from Rush and Fox you will always remain that same 'low information' listener.

Oh please, like those who listen to Rush (or any other right-wing talk show host) do that only. No, we read the news, we watch the videos, we are not confined to getting our news from FaceBook like so many liberals do.

Nobody divides the country more than Democrats:

Black vs White
Christian vs Atheists
Rich vs poor
Gay vs straight
Gender vs Gender option
Smoker vs non-smoker
Gun haters vs gun nutters
Men vs women
Worker vs Evil business owners.

Democrats have this country divided so much it's almost hard to pinpoint each division. Rush didn't invent War on Women--Democrats did.

 

[Dim Bulb]

We all get wrapped up in the here and now. Today's stunning headlines that feed the flames.

But it might do some good to reflect on where this is all heading as that is what ultimately matters.

Will Americans simply "get over" their differences and find a way to live together in peace?
Will Conservatives eventually simply die off leaving the nation to modern day Leftists?
Will the exposure of corruption on one side sink that side to the point of irrelevance?
Will a Civil War erupt?
Or will we just become a disjointed nation of simmering hatred and anger for one another and this will go on for a very long time, eroding the fabric of our nation and tearing it down. China has already or is soon to overtake the US as the worlds largest economy. Yet we are too busy calling the President an Orange Clown or creating mean spirited video memes to see the bigger picture.

Maybe we can look to other countries and to history for some answers? Except that the Left is hell bent on erasing ours.

So let's look at another country torn apart by similar difficulties. Venezuela.
Leftist Venezuelans eventually won (for now) the fight by fighting harder and by using a mantra of by any means necessary. I see what's happening in America today as frighteningly similar.

We may be one election cycle away from dramatic changes. One person who grabs power (as just happened in China AND the Philippines by the way) and steers this nation into an entirely different direction.
And it's never towards freedom for the people in these situations.

Let's not fool ourselves and say it could "never" happen. It was once said we'd never have a black President and that China could never rival the USA economically or militarily.

I don’t know, but what am I doing in this hand basket?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We have seen firsthand the fruits of the hyper hate we're living through in the last few months. Shooting after shooting. Protesters being hit by cars. Colleges shutting down free speech.

Why anyone needs to ask where it leads is beyond me. Open your damn eyes

 

[alang1216]

The liberal side can do what they want, but I think the conservative side would keep most of the Constitution as it is with the exception of removing some of the amendments. We would keep the amendment process though in case we had to change it.

This country evolved over its 200+ years. I'd say the founding fathers were pretty liberal for their day but looking back I'd judge them as conservatives by today's standards. What makes you think that if you start conservative you'll stay conservative? Or that the definition of conservative won't change. Are we going to have to keep spliting the country periodically?

Being conservative is more than political, it's actually more nature.

Yes, when I was young, had long hair, smoked pot, living with my parents, a lead guitarist in a rock band, I would now consider myself a liberal back then. But as I got older and wiser, I realized my natural state was conservative; I just didn't have the terms down yet.

I didn't identify with either party because I never followed politics before, and I didn't even know what I was. Then one day when we were celebrating a holiday at my sisters house, my father and I (once again) began talking about politics. My then brother-in-law was helping bring the meal to the table, and as he did, in laughter he said "You must be a huge Rush fan!" Rush? WTF is Rush? Rush is one of my favorite bands...... but....

Some time afterwards, Democrats did something to piss me off. I forget what it was now, I believe raising cigarette taxes or something, so remembering what my brother-in-law said at dinner, I decided to find this Rush and see what it's all about.

He was right. It was like somebody was reading my mind and broadcasting it on the radio. Haven't turned him off since, and even started to listen to other conservative radio and television.

So some things will never change. I'm pushing 60 years old now and I can't ever see going back to thinking like a teenager again.

I can't say I'm surprised by the Rush connection. He has done his best to divide the country into two camps: 'good' and liberal. In fact he is dangerous to the Union as he takes advantage of 'low information' listeners. You sound like you qualify.

Listening to Rush is fine, I do it when I can, but you also need other sources: CNN, NPR, NY Times, Wash Post, etc. If you only get your news from Rush and Fox you will always remain that same 'low information' listener.

Oh please, like those who listen to Rush (or any other right-wing talk show host) do that only. No, we read the news, we watch the videos, we are not confined to getting our news from FaceBook like so many liberals do.

Nobody divides the country more than Democrats:

Black vs White
Christian vs Atheists
Rich vs poor
Gay vs straight
Gender vs Gender option
Smoker vs non-smoker
Gun haters vs gun nutters
Men vs women
Worker vs Evil business owners.

Democrats have this country divided so much it's almost hard to pinpoint each division. Rush didn't invent War on Women--Democrats did.

I think there is enough divisiveness to go around. Enacting anti-Sharia laws when there is no chance that Sharia is even a threat. Continuously tweaking anti-abortion laws to make them more restrictive. Trying to have Intelligent Design taught in science classes. Plenty of others but you get the idea, no one side is innocent.

 

[Slade3200]

What’s your point?

Point is how can you not be at war with people like this? The Democrats consider Republicans a bigger enemy than Muslim terrorists. It's not just Hil-liar either. Many Democrats feel that way.

You lose me when you try and define millions of people by the words and actions of a few. It is a lazy way of debating. Take issue with people specifically. I had plenty of problems with Hillary, but I just laugh when people think that dissing hillary is dissing me because of some liberal views that we may share.

Hil-liar is more than just one person, she was the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. Did you play the video? Did you hear the round of applauds after she said that???? It's much more than a few people.

I still stand by the point that if you can't engage with each person for what they say and continuously lump them into a single candidate or a group of supporters, then you are making a lazy argument. The Left does it for Trump supporters and the Right does it to Liberals and Progressives. It is counterproductive... gets us nowhere.

It gets us everywhere because you need to know how your adversary thinks and stands.

If I listen to a Democrat, I see an American with a different political view than mine. If a Democrat listens to me, he sees his mortal enemy speaking.

I think many from the Right see a mortal enemy when they see a Democrat as well, it goes both ways. I listen to conservative talk radio and people like Rush, and Levin and Hannity have turned the word "Liberalism" into an end of the world scenario. The rhetoric is dishonest and out of control.

It is beyond, knowing how your adversary thinks and stands. I think that term "adversary" is counter productive. We are all citizens of the same country and believe it or not, most of us share common goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We might have different ideas on how to get there, but I think the commonalities get lost when people talk like we are at war with each other and then it all becomes about the war.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The liberal side can do what they want, but I think the conservative side would keep most of the Constitution as it is with the exception of removing some of the amendments. We would keep the amendment process though in case we had to change it.

This country evolved over its 200+ years. I'd say the founding fathers were pretty liberal for their day but looking back I'd judge them as conservatives by today's standards. What makes you think that if you start conservative you'll stay conservative? Or that the definition of conservative won't change. Are we going to have to keep spliting the country periodically?

Being conservative is more than political, it's actually more nature.

Yes, when I was young, had long hair, smoked pot, living with my parents, a lead guitarist in a rock band, I would now consider myself a liberal back then. But as I got older and wiser, I realized my natural state was conservative; I just didn't have the terms down yet.

I didn't identify with either party because I never followed politics before, and I didn't even know what I was. Then one day when we were celebrating a holiday at my sisters house, my father and I (once again) began talking about politics. My then brother-in-law was helping bring the meal to the table, and as he did, in laughter he said "You must be a huge Rush fan!" Rush? WTF is Rush? Rush is one of my favorite bands...... but....

Some time afterwards, Democrats did something to piss me off. I forget what it was now, I believe raising cigarette taxes or something, so remembering what my brother-in-law said at dinner, I decided to find this Rush and see what it's all about.

He was right. It was like somebody was reading my mind and broadcasting it on the radio. Haven't turned him off since, and even started to listen to other conservative radio and television.

So some things will never change. I'm pushing 60 years old now and I can't ever see going back to thinking like a teenager again.

I can't say I'm surprised by the Rush connection. He has done his best to divide the country into two camps: 'good' and liberal. In fact he is dangerous to the Union as he takes advantage of 'low information' listeners. You sound like you qualify.

Listening to Rush is fine, I do it when I can, but you also need other sources: CNN, NPR, NY Times, Wash Post, etc. If you only get your news from Rush and Fox you will always remain that same 'low information' listener.

Oh please, like those who listen to Rush (or any other right-wing talk show host) do that only. No, we read the news, we watch the videos, we are not confined to getting our news from FaceBook like so many liberals do.

Nobody divides the country more than Democrats:

Black vs White
Christian vs Atheists
Rich vs poor
Gay vs straight
Gender vs Gender option
Smoker vs non-smoker
Gun haters vs gun nutters
Men vs women
Worker vs Evil business owners.

Democrats have this country divided so much it's almost hard to pinpoint each division. Rush didn't invent War on Women--Democrats did.

I think there is enough divisiveness to go around. Enacting anti-Sharia laws when there is no chance that Sharia is even a threat. Continuously tweaking anti-abortion laws to make them more restrictive. Trying to have Intelligent Design taught in science classes. Plenty of others but you get the idea, no one side is innocent.

I thought you wanted to discuss divisiveness and not issues. Those are issues. Divisiveness is the Basket of Deplorables.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Point is how can you not be at war with people like this? The Democrats consider Republicans a bigger enemy than Muslim terrorists. It's not just Hil-liar either. Many Democrats feel that way.

You lose me when you try and define millions of people by the words and actions of a few. It is a lazy way of debating. Take issue with people specifically. I had plenty of problems with Hillary, but I just laugh when people think that dissing hillary is dissing me because of some liberal views that we may share.

Hil-liar is more than just one person, she was the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. Did you play the video? Did you hear the round of applauds after she said that???? It's much more than a few people.

I still stand by the point that if you can't engage with each person for what they say and continuously lump them into a single candidate or a group of supporters, then you are making a lazy argument. The Left does it for Trump supporters and the Right does it to Liberals and Progressives. It is counterproductive... gets us nowhere.

It gets us everywhere because you need to know how your adversary thinks and stands.

If I listen to a Democrat, I see an American with a different political view than mine. If a Democrat listens to me, he sees his mortal enemy speaking.

I think many from the Right see a mortal enemy when they see a Democrat as well, it goes both ways. I listen to conservative talk radio and people like Rush, and Levin and Hannity have turned the word "Liberalism" into an end of the world scenario. The rhetoric is dishonest and out of control.

It is beyond, knowing how your adversary thinks and stands. I think that term "adversary" is counter productive. We are all citizens of the same country and believe it or not, most of us share common goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We might have different ideas on how to get there, but I think the commonalities get lost when people talk like we are at war with each other and then it all becomes about the war.

Adversary is counter productive but "enemy" which got Hillary a round of cheers is not?

We do not share the same goals. We on the right do not share the goals of calling guys--girls simply because they put on a dress and allow them into our daughters dressing room. We do not share the goal of disarming the public. We do not share the goal of removing religion out of society. We do not share the goal of more government dependency. We do not share the goal of sissifying our schools, military, football and yes, even our boy scouts.

We on the right believe in the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The left believes in controlled life, selective liberty, and the guarantee of happiness by the government.

 

[Slade3200]

You lose me when you try and define millions of people by the words and actions of a few. It is a lazy way of debating. Take issue with people specifically. I had plenty of problems with Hillary, but I just laugh when people think that dissing hillary is dissing me because of some liberal views that we may share.

Hil-liar is more than just one person, she was the presidential candidate for the Democrat party. Did you play the video? Did you hear the round of applauds after she said that???? It's much more than a few people.

I still stand by the point that if you can't engage with each person for what they say and continuously lump them into a single candidate or a group of supporters, then you are making a lazy argument. The Left does it for Trump supporters and the Right does it to Liberals and Progressives. It is counterproductive... gets us nowhere.

It gets us everywhere because you need to know how your adversary thinks and stands.

If I listen to a Democrat, I see an American with a different political view than mine. If a Democrat listens to me, he sees his mortal enemy speaking.

I think many from the Right see a mortal enemy when they see a Democrat as well, it goes both ways. I listen to conservative talk radio and people like Rush, and Levin and Hannity have turned the word "Liberalism" into an end of the world scenario. The rhetoric is dishonest and out of control.

It is beyond, knowing how your adversary thinks and stands. I think that term "adversary" is counter productive. We are all citizens of the same country and believe it or not, most of us share common goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We might have different ideas on how to get there, but I think the commonalities get lost when people talk like we are at war with each other and then it all becomes about the war.

Adversary is counter productive but "enemy" which got Hillary a round of cheers is not?

We do not share the same goals. We on the right do not share the goals of calling guys--girls simply because they put on a dress and allow them into our daughters dressing room. We do not share the goal of disarming the public. We do not share the goal of removing religion out of society. We do not share the goal of more government dependency. We do not share the goal of sissifying our schools, military, football and yes, even our boy scouts.

We on the right believe in the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The left believes in controlled life, selective liberty, and the guarantee of happiness by the government.

enemy absolutely is divisive too and Hillary ran a divisive campaign. She and Trump fed off each other. Not our finest moment