US Irrepairably Divided

Maybe we should let the far righters have a few states and form their own nation.

Then we sit back and watch as they all starve because they are too lazy to pick the fruit that the Mexicans they kicked out used to pick for them.

 

"Lazy" is not a word generally associated with righties.

 

We gave them Kansas, what more do they want?

 

Tea Party is not Libertarian. But Tea Party is far right. That doesn't make it the only right though. Conservatives, center of right, minarchists are all on the right. Now as for you agreeing with me or not, that doesn't matter. It is a moderate approach with conservative elements in it. The SCOTUS ruled that corporations can opt out of things they consider to go against their religious values. That is align with social conservativism and the argument can be made for Libertarianism as well. They may not like it, but it does give more freedom to corporations. An employee doesn't like it? The free market guides everyone. The model itself is not left wing. First off, it's a marketplace. This means that this approach is not at all similar to the Socialist model where everyone has coverage. The US does not have universal coverage, there are still millions of people out there who don't have healthcare.

Thus we get to what actually, what does far right mean? To that, we shall go to the opposite end of the spectrum, to communism and the fall of the USSR. They might have been far left, but that doesn't mean they're unreasonable. Communists ended communism, even though there were extreme elements that wanted to keep the system. Extremes might call themselves far left or far right, but that doesn't indicate their willingness to change. People operate on a liberal-conservative scale. Liberals want to change the system, while conservatives don't. This has nothing to do with political ideology, just a person's willingness to change the system. So that's why when you say the right will not stand for an issue, they might not, but that doesn't mean they're any less liberal or conservative.

Which should then indicate the actual power of the Tea Party. No way would he gotten as far as he did if the Tea Party had as much influence as it appears. Those extreme elements, loud, but harmless.

And? That doesn't mean much. It's not a left or right issue, it's about what it should look like. Both sides want a pathway to legal citizenship, just how is different. Amnesty is just a talking point that doesn't describe anything.

Libertarians and Anarchists both want a decrease in the role of the government. The ultimate goals might vary, but they want the same thing, so they'll fight together on it. They might one day want to get rid of their alliances, but it's not just about one or two sides. It's about every player on the board. Politics is not a fight between two parties, it's about everyone getting a say.

Funny as some of the greatest supporters of Gay Marriage have been on the right. One of the reasons why Gay Marriage exists in New York is because of a Republican who voted in favor of the bill. The GOP and the Dems are not black and white. They have plenty of elements ripe for compromise, all it takes is seeing it.

 

Well if you kill jobs in America you kill consumers. One reason the rich are getting richer is because regular folks try to maintain their standard of living. If everyone became minimalists and stopped buying products they do not need then everyone would lose. The free market works when everyone is smart about it. Why did housing crash in 2008? The underlying reason is that people bought houses they could not afford. That is the bottom line. Now everyone is scared and angry because they won't be able to afford the same lifestyle as before.

 

This isn't 2008 anymore. News flash: Democrats took historic losses in the mid term elections. Why? Progressive liberals are much worse than the extreme right wingers.

 

LOL! It wasn't all about Vietnam. Besides wars end eventually anyway.

What exactly is the right going to do to make people kill anyone? Your post is quite delusional.

 

How did the libruls win? Nixon was in office when we left. LBJ and JFK escalated through the 1960's and stepped up the bombing.

Ever hear of environmental extremists committing violence?

 

I disagree. Thanks to the intrusive overreach of the govt, most working people ARE concerned and involved in politics. They don't want to be distracted from their family, jobs, and life, but they have been forced into devoting precious time to the machinations of the government. People now have to deal with housing issues, unemployment, debt, their health insurance. Even issues such as rulings on wetlands, floodplain designations, and in the coming days the obamacare impact on taxes, are intruding into peoples personal lives.

The "continuity" you mention has already been disrupted.

True, but that is so general that it does not provide a basis for working together. Dislike of the current state of government is not really common ground when the Right bases its dislike on the overreach of govt and the Left bases its dislike in the idea that govt doesn't do enough.

Again a limited example which does not have the weight to form a true basis for co-operation. Conservatives want the govt out of all speech, computers, telephones, etc. "progressives" want their personal privacy protected, but don't have a problem with larger issues such as "fairness doctrine" ideas to monitor and rein in talk radio and other media that is dominated by the Right.

Partly true, but the issues that propel people into a civil war are never "bullsh*t partisan shenanigans", but serious and personal infringements. And I'm not so sure that the "progressives" will not resort to violence in order to get their way. Conservatives lean towards the live-and-let-live philosophy, "progressives" lean towards the dictatorial philosophy.

 

A linear political scale is not correct but with that in mind....

By the "Right" I mean people who value the individual over society and believe the government should be very limited and have powers temporarily loaned to it by the people. Tea Party, Libertarian, classical Liberals, anarchists, are all on the "right".

By the "Left" I mean people who value society over the individual and see government as the force which regulates society. Communists, "progressives", dictators, war-lords are all on the "left".

True the Tea Party had limited power in 2012, but its power is obviously increasing as evidenced by the 2014 election. Any time a group challenges an entrenched behemoth, the challenger has a steep road to climb.

No, that's the Left perspective again. You confuse the GOP establishment with conservatives. The GOP establishment (Boehner, McConnell, etc) want a path to citizenship, the GOP base does not. Politically, "progressives" want the path to citizenship for illegals because they want to repeat the Reagan amnesty but greatly magnified - the result is a massive influx of voters for the "progressives". Amnesty or a path to citizenship might be the most disruptive issue in the GOP right now.

Everyone getting a "say" means everyone is respected, and one side does not trample over the other even when it has the opportunity. "progressives" have clearly failed in that regard.

And the idea that there are multiple parties in the US political system is naïve. There are 2 sides, the "progressive" side is represented by the Democrats and tacitly by the GOP leadership. The conservative side (more accurately the classical liberal side) is represented by some of the GOP politicians and a majority of the GOP base. All other parties align themselves accordingly.

Republican does not equal conservative. Romney is not a conservative but he is a Republican.

Many did support gay marriage and the equality issue until very recently. I passively supported the gay equality issues until last year. The Brendan Eich, Duck Dynasty, Christian baker & photographer & caterer, and other issues that have been in the news in the past year have shown the hand of the gay activists. The gay activists and the "progressives" who have piggybacked on the gay issue will split and go their separate ways.

 

Your inherent definitions are incorrect. Anarchists are on the left, even in your definition. They value society over the individual, and while not a government enforcing it, societal norms and rules enforce peace. Better words to use would be statist and nonstatist. Even then, that doesn't necessarily explain everything. While Communists have a dictatorship of the proletariat, that is for all intents and purposes just a democracy in a different way of putting it.

The 2014 election doesn't really show anything. The power of the Tea Party includes the other 36% of the population that voted. Not much of a tsunami, and if anything it would seem that the GOP is getting ready to leave the Tea Party behind.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/like-bush-many-republicans-are-moderate-on-immigration/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...gration_reform_the_republican_house_less.html

PF. Enough said.

You know how you just said that there are different ideologies even for your definitions? Do you really think that those go over smoothly? And no, the parties don't align themselves accordingly. There is plenty of leeway in both parties. Those parties though, they're too big for the individual person to be heard. That's why third parties want in, so those coalition governments can form and make compromise possible.

You're right. But it does say quite a bit about the power of the right in the Republican party.

I doubt it very much.

 

Anarchist - a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

The way I am using the terms, the extreme Right is no govt of any kind, the extreme Left is an all powerfull government.

So you are correct, a better set of terms is statist (what I have been labeling the extreme Left) and non-statist (my extreme Right).

That's the perspective (and possible wishful thinking) of the Left. Its pointless to argue the validity of the Tea Party in this OP, I live in "Tea Party Land" and see its actions every day, I don't think you do. The Tea Party is an ongoing venture, we will see what happens.

Again, I see the change in attitude every day, and in people who formerly supported the gay activists. Certain issues have support (such as equal tax treatment and gay civil unions - that's just simple equality) but moving forwards the gay activists are leaving behind actual "equality" issues and pushing a "progressive" agenda.

Much of the past few posts reflect the difference in our environments - we each live in very different places.

You, being on the Left, are less discontent with the current status and direction of the nation because its moving in a direction you want it to go. People you encounter in your life probably feel the same.

I, being on the Right, have a much, much higher level of discontent because it is my fundamental beliefs that are being displaced and attacked. As I wrote earlier, my attitude is the norm in this part of the country. Of all the people I know - family, friends, coworkers, etc - I know only 2 people who support "progressives" and they live in a different state (and I think one has changed his mind about "progressives").

 

The division of race in this country can be fixed if we quit listening to race baiter like Obama, Holder, and Sharpton.

 

Anarchists don't rebel against any authority, there are rules. Anarchists aren't for chaos. They have order through freedom.

Then use the terms. Otherwise people think you're refering to economic systems.

No it's not. It's going to die out by the 2020's.

The agenda for gay rights has always been "progressive". They've always wanted the government to change it's rules to include equal rights for homosexuals and banning things that are harmful to them. The cakes, that's part of gay marriage. Being able to actually marry someone isn't just about a piece of paper.

And probably different upbringings too if we look at it closer.

The left is peeved off, we're not getting anything we want because conservatives dominate the political landscape. Then when we look at civil rights abuses, no one on the left is happy with how things have turned out.

Perception of the truth is very often not the same thing as the truth. My generation grew up under a conservative landscape, where the right dominates talking points. We know no other way of political reform. Clinton had to run against welfare set up by FDR. That made impressions on us. We can see that 10 years later with Obama. Obama is not far left by any standard. If he was the ruler of another country, he would be considered on the right.

 

It's unlikely that anarchists will ever know freedom as long as they use the labeling from inside the box of partisan politics which is clueless and could not consider principals of natural law, constitutional intent or the kind of freedom anarchists think they describe from inside the box. Those labels do lead to chaos despite what they think.

What leads to peaceful anarchy is one thing. Knowledge with each person of the anarchy extending to all there is to know about human needs, with an unwillingness to place a want over a need,

 

Pretty much. So long as people want to say that anarchy means chaos, nonstatists are always going to have a hard time against statists. Or even how to get to a peaceful anarchy. It's a hard thing to do, even if we get there.

 

I have no problem with statists. If an anarchy is going to happen, it will come from the existing state. It will come because the people are so educated that they have no need for a state.

I've proposed that through Article V, done properly, the people could restore constitutional government, then see that government educates them. Then conduct Article V again and start shrinking government. Create more independence for the people as they are more educated. So on and so on, until government is simply a hollow entity that represents the past.

Perhaps keep that around, who knows? Anarchies can fail and despots can rise up. Then the people decide that a constitutional government is again better, so re in state it.

 

Probably not, doesn't seem to know Hollywood is in Ca.

 

We wanted this discord. We ask for it everyday. We got what we wanted.

 

It is very simple. You and those like you hate a whole bunch of different groups. You stated it, got called on it. But truth is, it's true and you won't own it.

 

People see it. You're so ingrained in hating groups you can't see it.

 

Only Christian whites?

Wow. That's not a world I want to live in.

But neither do I want to live in the other world either.

No thank you.

I want something better.

 

What do you mean we have it too good? The U.S. unemployment rate is at 5.9%, that doesn't sound like much but that's over one million people, how is that "too good"?

 

I vote Republican and I smoke a lot of weed.

 

Nonsense. All it means is that the media will spout any stupid notion to make money.
They expect the dim-witted to believe any ignorant crap that they peddle.
If you hate your fellow countrymen so much, maybe you'd be happier in another country where right-wing intolerance and selfishness is more popular.