Is America too divided?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Two comments:
  1. In the past there was a common body of facts everyone agreed on. Today, no one agrees on the facts themselves. You can’t argue rationally with someone who thinks white is black or up is down.
    An example (I’ve posted this before, with no takers…has NO ONE taken Econ 101?) Trump’s trade advisor Navarro went on PBS a few months ago and explained why imports are bad, using the basic formula for GDP: GDP = C + I + G +X -M (C = consumption; I = Investment; G = Gov. spending; X = Exports; M = imports). His explanation was that increasing M, imports, creates a larger negative on the right side of the equation, thus reducing the left side (GDP). He presented it as a fact. The REAL facts are that it is 100% nonsense. Any Trumpers out there know why? (You probably learn this in the fist week of econ 101).
  2. The conservatives are contradictory. On the one hand, they oppose a “nanny state” that tells you how much soda you can drink in one glass or that you have to have your children vaccinated or that tells you not to smoke or that you have to wear seat belts. All issues of ‘personal freedom.’ On the other hand, they WANT the gov. to tell you what bathroom to use, what gender of people you can fall in love with, whether or not you can control your own body, and how far you can go in criticizing the president. So which is it? Personal freedom or no personal freedom? Or do you pick and choose depending on what suits your personal preferences?
Or another example of wanting things both ways. On the one hand, conservatives think the Constitution should be interpreted as written–the way a person in 1789 would interpret it. On the other hand, they don’t want the census to count “persons” (as the Constitution specifies), they want to count only “citizens”. Sorry, you can’t pick and choose–either you stand for strict interpretation or you don’t. You can’t go back and forth depending on the issue.
 
I hate to agree with you. But the old saying that “there are far more things that unite us than divide us” no longer seems accurate in this country. Probably why experts in Canada are urging they at least prepare for the possibility the US could decend into civil disruption or worse.

I mean I come on here and am pleasant enough with you all because I value seeing what your opinions are on matters as an insight into what I’d term the conservative viewpoint (because orthodox Catholicism as expressed on CA does seem to be decidedly conservative in general) and we are all Christians. But honestly, I don’t agree with most of the prevailing general opinions expressed on CA on almost every matter that comes up on this site. Be it religious, political, social, economic, environmental, etc…, or if we’re being honest even what it means to be Christian.
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
I hate to agree with you. But the old saying that “there are far more things that unite us than divide us” no longer seems accurate in this country. Probably why experts in Canada are urging they at least prepare for the possibility the US could decend into civil disruption or worse.
Click to expand...
I think our divisions are now deeper than what used to unite us. And hate speech, from anyone, here on CAF, in the government at any level, on social media, etc., only fans the flames of hate and division, and it empowers those who would act on hate.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. The Left has moved way to the Left. JFK would be called a Nazi today.
 
Last edited:
JHC said:
Not at all. The Left has moved way to the Left. JFK would be called a Nazi today.
Click to expand...
That’s what happens when the US moves too far right. The swing is too far to the left. I have my doubts that the Democrats will take back control of the House (I think it’s about 50-50), but I think 2020 will see a major swing to the left, with another even bigger left swing in 2024. It’s like a correction in the stock market, only the US voters never seem to get it right. Either too far right or too far left.
 
Here’s a fun game courtesy of our arch-enemies to the North, Canada. A major Canadian paper summarized the position of the main 4 parties (Liberals, New Democrats, Conservatives, Greens) on the major issues in a recent federal election. Here are their positions on poverty, for example:

1 The x instituted a taxable $100-a-month child-care cheque to parents for each child under 6. The x have also allowed income-splitting for pensioners. The x raised the tax rate of the lowest income tax bracket, and later reduced it back to 15 per cent.

2 Under what it calls its 30-50 plan, the x party says it would, within five years, reduce the number of Canadians living below the poverty line by at least 30 per cent and cut in half the number of children living in poverty.

3 The x vows to end poverty by 2020. Their most expensive proposal is a new $17.4 billion child-benefit plan that would pay low-income families up to $416 a month per child. The party’s strategy also calls for a pan-Canadian housing policy, an indexed $10-an-hour federal minimum wage; a national early learning and child-care program; fixing EI; and exposing price gouging and hidden fees.

4 The x Party favours a guaranteed livable income to ensure all Canadians receive a payment set above the poverty line in each region. The party points to statistics that show 4.9 million people live in poverty and says investments to improve their quality of life will pay off in the form of reduced health care costs and lower crime rates.

Now here’s the fun part: can you match each party with its position on poverty? The odds are–unless you’re an actively involved Canadian–you can’t. And THAT’S the difference between the US and Canada. In Canada, they all agree on what the facts are; on what the problems are; they all agree the problems need to be addressed; but they disagree on the technical details of how to do it.
 
Last edited:
Not going to get into it here, but honestly don’t know how you can dispute that the Neo-Fascist right hasn’t increased of late.
 
JHC said:
Not at all. The Left has moved way to the Left. JFK would be called a Nazi today.
Click to expand...
Try reading John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience,” 2007. Keep in mind that not only was Dean Nixon’s White House counsel, he was a solid conservative. He was even the roommate of Barry Goldwater’s son at college.

“Dean finds their [modern conservatives] policies and mind- set to be fundamentally authoritarian, and as such, a danger to democracy… Dean presents an alarming record of abuses of power. His trenchant analysis of how conservatism has lost its bearings serves as a chilling warning and a stirring inspiration to safeguard constitutional principles.”

Good ol’ Barry Goldwater wouldn’t recognize those who call themselves “conservatives” today.
 
How has the right moved more right? Compare each party’s platforms from now to 20 years go and tell me who has done all the moving.
 
Last edited:
ewohdrol said:
Most of the civilised world simply do not understand the insistent argument for gun rights.
Click to expand...
This really is not a factor in how I make my decisions. It’s great that your country has a low rate of violence (if, indeed that is true…I haven’t done and don’t intend to do the research). However, the fact that a country, in a geographically different part of the globe, with a different mix of population, a different history, a different political atmosphere and multiple other significant differences has solved an issue in a certain way is not grounds to copy them. It’s like saying we should raise our kids like some guy two towns over because his kids grew up to be doctors. It completely ignores a very complex and specific set of circumstances.
DENNYINMI said:
come again??
Click to expand...
So, you believe that citizens shouldn’t have recourse to government over reach? Or you believe that guns won’t solve it? Or you believe we should simply trust that politicians and government leaders will have our best interests at heart?
Erikaspirit16 said:
back and forth depending on the issue.
Click to expand...
The issue of a political party contradicting itself goes both ways. Liberals have just as many examples of cognitive dissonance as conservatives.
ConstantLearner said:
That’s what happens when the US moves too far right. The swing is too far to the left.
Click to expand...
And the reverse is true as well. We seem to be a nation of extremes with less and less people who can see the point on both sides as opposed to just thinking that those who think differently should be silenced or eradicated.
 
therese1998 said:
And the reverse is true as well. We seem to be a nation of extremes with less and less people who can see the point on both sides as opposed to just thinking that those who think differently should be silenced or eradicated.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.
 
therese1998 said:
This really is not a factor in how I make my decisions. It’s great that your country has a low rate of violence (if, indeed that is true…I haven’t done and don’t intend to do the research). However, the fact that a country, in a geographically different part of the globe, with a different mix of population, a different history, a different political atmosphere and multiple other significant differences has solved an issue in a certain way is not grounds to copy them. It’s like saying we should raise our kids like some guy two towns over because his kids grew up to be doctors. It completely ignores a very complex and specific set of circumstances.
Click to expand...
With all due respect I strongly disagree. I think it is imperative that as humans we look at cultures that do have working policies and take what is relevant in order to possibly improve results. Clearly gun control is not working in the US. The mortality result is astronomically high.

How can someone understand there are other options if they do not look at the alternatives?

“Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it”. Surely you know what more guns added into the community is going to result in.
 
JHC said:
Compare each party’s platforms from now to 20 years go and tell me who has done all the moving.
Click to expand...
The deficit used to be the top issue for conservatives…now that Trump has added about $3 trillion to the deficit (and climbing at an increasing rate…) you don’t hear a peep about the deficit or the national debt. Not a peep. Interesting…principles? Can they be bought? Looks like it.
 
therese1998 said:
So, you believe that citizens shouldn’t have recourse to government over reach? Or you believe that guns won’t solve it? Or you believe we should simply trust that politicians and government leaders will have our best interests at heart?
Click to expand...
No, but I don’t believe your guns wouldn’t stand a chance against a tomahawk missile if you know what I mean.
 
JHC said:
Compare each party’s platforms from now to 20 years go and tell me who has done all the moving.
Click to expand...
Interesting for you to say that. Before the 2016 election I went back and read the Democrats’ 1976 platform–40 years before, not just 20 years. It was almost identical to their 2016 platform. Same issues. That’s one reason I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Hillary–if you can’t solve something in 40 years (almost 2 generations!!!) I think you have a problem.

To put it in context, would the Democratic platform of 1936 be identical to the 1976 (again, 40 years) platform? And of course the answer is no–they solved most of the issues of 1936. It would be absurd to think that in 1976 they would be fighting the same battles. And yet in 2016 they were fighting the battles of 1976. That isn’t about their principles, it’s about success in solving the issues.
 
Last edited:
That is true when both sides are fairly close together, but the way things are today both sides are so incredibly far apart in how they view just about every area of life that compromise is not possible.
 
Last edited:
Homerun14 said:
That is true when both sides are fairly close together, but the way things are today both sides are so incredibly far apart in how they view just about every area of life that compromise is not possible.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. You are right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top