What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What Will It Take For A Candidate To "Unite" The Country? Do We Even Want That? (1 Viewer)

To answer Joe's question, I think it will take a centrist, charismatic candidate that has a big legislative win in their first term such as a groundbreaking education or healthcare reform bill.   That description obviously eliminates almost all of the 2020 nominees unfortunately.   Of the 2020 hopefuls Mayor Pete is probably the closest IMO but he is far from centrist based on policy proposals and rhetoric so doubtful he could pull it off.  

I think it's 5 more years of of a divided nation unfortunately.  

My top 4 candidates that could pull this off in 2024...

1) Nikki Haley

2) Mayor Pete

3) Mitt Romney

4) Joe Kennedy

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.

I can understand how a newspaper or TV network would benefit from division. 

But how is that tied to what a candidate is doing? I'm talking about winning elections, not selling ads. Are you saying they're connected?
Click to expand...
Campaign finance article from 1995

Because why wouldn’t I be reading a 20 year old article at 2:30 am? This is just 2 years after spending rules changed. The money involved has ballooned out of control, and it is being proven that being divisive can motivate some donors. They opened the floodgates, and all this money is pouring in from everywhere. 

 
What would it take?  A fundamental shift in American electoral politics where a viable and attractive third party candidate emerged.  
The American two party system doesn’t work anymore.  In the era of social media and the unfortunate confirmation bias that it facilitates (if not promotes), civilized and principled discourse has no place at the table.  
It is about winning, and “winning” in 2019 American politics is defined by the other side losing.  In the legislative, executive and judicial branches.  
And that will be true so long as the choice is binary.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
dkp993 said:
The only time I’ve felt the country united in my adult life time (44yrs old) was post 9/11.  That unity was extremely palpable, you could literally feel it in the air.  Despite the epic tragedy in the days and weeks after I was so proud to be an American because of how everyone I encountered reacted.  I’ll never forget that feeling.  
Click to expand...
I understand. I remember the feeling too. I do wonder though if it would be the same way today if it happened. 

But that's why I was clear to ask if a candidate could unite us. I know we all hope it doesn't take a tragedy to unite us. 
Click to expand...
A tragedy would unite the US, for a little while. Probably less time than GWB got between 9/11 and invading Iraq.

Gr00vus said:
Uniting the country isn't a one person job. A President can set a tone, but they can't make it happen by themselves. Thus I think the more significant portion of your query is whether we want to be united or not, and really, before that, what do we think it means to be united? Because it's on each one of us to make that happen if that's what we want, a single individual can't do it for us (unless you want to go full authoritarian, which is a pass I still don't think we've come to yet).
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

Biff84 said:
Partisan media drives a large portion of the electorate and they wouldn’t have it any other way. They’ve driven the divide so far that a good portion of both sides wouldn’t even consider a candidate from the other side. With that comes the rejection of anyone who is anything but partisan dismissed with terms like RINO. That’s a fairly significant hurdle for any unifying candidate to get over to win an election.

The media has a lot to do with it but a lot of other factors do as well including special interest money and the need to stand out in a large primary field.

The better chance for unity might be the result of everyone uniting against a candidate. Someone so bad that everyone is looking something different. I thought that might be something we’re looking at now but the continued support of Trump makes me believe that we’re past that point as well.
Click to expand...
And this. Partisan media (certainly exemplified on the right by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, on the left, Mother Jones? CNN? (I don't know as much about as I haven't followed this closely since I left the US, but I am sure there are left echo chambers as well)) has spent 25+ years vilifying the other side.

Undoing that kind of information war is, IMHO, a generational task. And I unfortunately don't think it can be accomplished by anyone currently in the cards. Even if there was a non gay Pete or a young Biden, or another incarnation of Obama (hard to see anyone on the right currently even attempting to unify, really) they come up against abortion (an issue that is binary for most it seems), health care (Socialism!1!!!), conservative vs progressive Supreme Court judges (after the Garland fiasco and the Kavanaugh debacle). 

Where is the common ground to be found?

 
TripItUp said:
To answer Joe's question, I think it will take a centrist, charismatic candidate that has a big legislative win in their first term such as a groundbreaking education or healthcare reform bill.   
Click to expand...
I tend to think it's someone more centrist too. But I also understand the people that push back there saying they want someone more toward the side they favor. 

 
Not sure we have ever been "united" and that's not a bad thing.

There have always been left and right

Minority majority

Pro choice / pro life 

And on and on.  It's part of what makes us great.  We will always disagree about something.  

I think, for the most part, we all fall under the collective love for America.  What it represents, what it means to us and our families.  9/11 was painful, but clear example of that.  When our collective love gets hurt, we stand as one.   

 
And I'll throw this out there.....IMO, a "centrist" candidate only works if the two sides are for the country over their side.  It works in no other situation.

 
The Commish said:
And I'll throw this out there.....IMO, a "centrist" candidate only works if the two sides are for the country over their side.  It works in no other situation.
Click to expand...
I"m not trying to be cute, but are you saying the focus needs to be on putting America First? 

I think in general you're right in as it was said earlier, we need to agree on some basics. But how we get there is trouble sometimes.

I know good hearted people who think the way to "security" is a gun in their home. And others who think the way to "security" is the opposite. 

That's where it feels like we get stuck. 

I don't know anyone who'd say their way isn't for the "good of the country". It's the fact the "other" side disagrees that way is actually for the "good of the country". 

Not sure how to handle that. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I"m not trying to be cute, but are you saying the focus needs to be on putting America First? 

I think in general you're right in as it was said earlier, we need to agree on some basics. But how we get there is trouble sometimes.

I know good hearted people who think the way to "security" is a gun in their home. And others who think the way to "security" is the opposite. 

That's where it feels like we get stuck. 

I don't know anyone who'd say their way isn't for the "good of the country". It's the fact the "other" side disagrees that way is actually for the "good of the country". 

Not sure how to handle that. 
Click to expand...
I'm saying a centrist candidate only works if we can agree that compromise is the way to go.  If one of the groups is of the "ok, let's compromise" and the other group is of the "screw that, give me everything I want" opinions a person in the center isn't going to be all that fruitful. 

I'm saying it has to be demanded by us the people that they behave correctly.  We need to hold them accountable for their actions.  But to even be in a position to do that, this "team" stuff has to go...and it starts with us.  This is a trickle up solution.  I can't think of another country in the world where their "leader" would not be met with protests in the streets for behaving the way our "leader" has.  We the people, have allowed the politicians control over our national narrative.  We've been easily distracted with the antics of the "sides" and that's exactly what they want.  We are focused on each other and not them.  They have it made.  

How we break this cycle is an interesting question, but I don't think it's all that complicated really.....at least in theory.  We focus on the things we agree on as individuals.  To a man, we have discussions on the things we agree on.  We build relationships on the things we agree on.  When we build relationships, we collect good will from each other.  We collect trust from each other.  We collect integrity from each other.  The only way to discuss the things we disagree on is if we have good relationships based on those things.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80 said:
Not sure we have ever been "united" and that's not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Three times in modern history: 

1. Pearl Harbor. 

2. Assassination of JFK

3. 9/11

This is why I say we don’t need to be united- it comes at way too high a price. What most people, I believe, would like is simply a return to greater civility. And perhaps we should be pursuing goals that a strong majority can agree upon. 

Take infrastructure for example. For the last 20 years the politicians in Washington have known that spending money on repairing this nation’s highways, water systems, bridges, etc is vastly popular with the American public, Republicans and Democrats alike. Plus they know it’s an urgent matter. Yet they can’t get it done. That’s obscene. 

 
timschochet said:
Three times in modern history: 

1. Pearl Harbor. 

2. Assassination of JFK

3. 9/11

This is why I say we don’t need to be united- it comes at way too high a price. What most people, I believe, would like is simply a return to greater civility. And perhaps we should be pursuing goals that a strong majority can agree upon. 

Take infrastructure for example. For the last 20 years the politicians in Washington have known that spending money on repairing this nation’s highways, water systems, bridges, etc is vastly popular with the American public, Republicans and Democrats alike. Plus they know it’s an urgent matter. Yet they can’t get it done. That’s obscene. 
Click to expand...
Good events and I agree.  And it is obscene but anytime the talk involves money, which it does many times, then it's going to be contentious.  People want to protect theirs.  It's human nature. 

 
timschochet said:
Three times in modern history: 

1. Pearl Harbor. 

2. Assassination of JFK

3. 9/11

This is why I say we don’t need to be united- it comes at way too high a price. What most people, I believe, would like is simply a return to greater civility. And perhaps we should be pursuing goals that a strong majority can agree upon. 
Click to expand...
So when someone like Mayor Buttigieg talks passionately about "Uniting", what do you think of that? Is it even possible? Or even needed in what you're saying above?

 
Joe Bryant said:
Interesting. Thanks. That's helpful.
Click to expand...
Now that I think about it, seems that’s about the time politics turned more to attack ads than debating issues. An ad in the 80s would show a grandkid running through the yard to a candidates open arms, him carving a turkey and clapping at a baseball game. Sometime in the 90’s attack ads got so bad that some candidates needed to distance themselves, thus the “I approve this message” tag line. Maybe I’m wrong, I was a teenager in the 90s.

 
The Commish said:
I'm saying a centrist candidate only works if we can agree that compromise is the way to go.  If one of the groups is of the "ok, let's compromise" and the other group is of the "screw that, give me everything I want" opinions a person in the center isn't going to be all that fruitful. 

I'm saying it has to be demanded by us the people that they behave correctly.  We need to hold them accountable for their actions.  But to even be in a position to do that, this "team" stuff has to go...and it starts with us.  This is a trickle up solution.  I can't think of another country in the world where their "leader" would not be met with protests in the streets for behaving the way our "leader" has.  We the people, have allowed the politicians control over our national narrative.  We've been easily distracted with the antics of the "sides" and that's exactly what they want.  We are focused on each other and not them.  They have it made.  

How we break this cycle is an interesting question, but I don't think it's all that complicated really.....at least in theory.  We focus on the things we agree on as individuals.  To a man, we have discussions on the things we agree on.  We build relationships on the things we agree on.  When we build relationships, we collect good will from each other.  We collect trust from each other.  We collect integrity from each other.  The only way to discuss the things we disagree on is if we have good relationships based on those things.  
Click to expand...
Thanks. I agree compromise and putting value on the "other", even when we strongly disagree is the key. That's essentially what I'm trying to do with the forum. 

What'll be interesting in your theoretical (and our actual) situation here is how many will buy in. The tendency is strong to go the opposite and feel the "other" side has a stench and no value and as something to be disgusted by.

We'll see. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
So when someone like Mayor Buttigieg talks passionately about "Uniting", what do you think of that? Is it even possible? Or even needed in what you're saying above?
Click to expand...
Im not sure its fully possible.  And its not always a bad thing as others have said.

Are we ever going to unite around abortion policy?  I don't think we will.  Similar with gun control...we may reach a small compromise, but some on one side will always feel it wasn't enough while others feel it was too much.

I think you have to take little bits of unity here and there.  Can there be a better compromise on taxation?  I think so.  On healthcare?  Again, yes.  You may have more fringe disagreement with those, but I don't think it would be as bad as the first two examples.

Education, healthcare, infrastructure.  All things I think people can unite around as being good for the country.  There may be disagreements on how to get there...but I think the right leader can get us to the proper end point.  But its also going to take more than one leader.  Congress also has to get out of the win = the other side loses mentality.  And that will be a tougher effort than making this board better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
So when someone like Mayor Buttigieg talks passionately about "Uniting", what do you think of that? Is it even possible? Or even needed in what you're saying above?
Click to expand...
I think it’s rhetoric designed to make people feel good. And there’s nothing wrong with that. People want to feel good, especially after the divisive rhetoric of Donald Trump. I believe that the sunny, positive messages of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are much more in tune, long term, with the American psyche, and Mayor Pete is trying to channel some of that. Nothing wrong with it. 

But as a practical matter we can’t be united unless there’s a catastrophe. And who wants a catastrophe? So it’s not realistic. 

 
1. Eliminate big private donations/super PACs/reverse Citizens United. This is BY FAR AND AWAY the largest driver of political division. 
 

2. I’m sorry. The ‘both sides!!!!’ people will roast me for this, but Fox News is a propagandist outlet for the GOP. MSNBC is highly partisan but not nearly as intentionally misleading and spinny as Fox. It’s like literally watching an alternate universe. 
 

3. To piggyback off #2 - stop with the false equivocation. Both sides arent equally bad at the same time in the same magnitude.
 

4. Impossible but, we need to re-educate the population on the basics of civics, the constitution and basics of logic and argumentation. Our political bickering is less coherent than my grade school kids’ arguments.  

 
mr roboto said:
1. Eliminate big private donations/super PACs/reverse Citizens United. This is BY FAR AND AWAY the largest driver of political division. 
Click to expand...
I agree with your overall post but wanted to single out this thought the most. Our unwieldy and undemocratic election systems, among the worst in the First World, are to blame for much of the divisiveness in this country. And voters are starting to notice. New York City voting in ranked choice voting by 45 points yesterday was a huge step for the fledgling reform movement.

 
I don't hold any fancy pants degrees like a lot of my favorite posters here but there's one particular trait I have that I hope I share the next POTUS.   That is the ability to understand people.  I don't care what gender you are, how smart or dumb you are, what color you are, what political party you are, I have always tried my best to understand.   That doesn't mean I necessarily agree, but I try to understand your beliefs, your desires, your dreams, your heartache. The need to be understood is a human psychological need that, IMO, is up there with sex.  Politics has been divide and conquer and it needs to stop.  We need a POTUS for all Americans. 

In case this post comes across as a brag, this "gift" is every bit a curse as it is a blessing. 

 
Biff84 said:
FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC have a much higher viewership than CSPAN. Boring doesn’t sell ads, partisanship and non-stop breaking news does.
Click to expand...
Stories of division sell right now. 

A black wrestler getting his haircut turns into a national story. Politicians chime in, organizations release statements, lawyers, press conferences, etc.

Two young girls get run over by a guy that blew a red light and then fled the scene and painted the car and tried to get rid of it, and nothing. Oh and yeah its an area where people blow red lights and drive like crazy people all the time. 

Now if police officers cracked down in the area and started issuing all sorts of tickets, that would probably make the national news and get politicians tweeting.

 
I don't think this is complicated. Find a candidate who asks you to support America and its values, not him or her. We unite over common values. And by values I don't mean policy proposals.

In fact initiatives like healthcare have been divisive. This thing where one side has to win is corrosive. There's a whole other side to everything no matter what we do and yet consensus is treated very harshly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Sociological may be a more apt term than psychological.  Maybe not. 
Click to expand...
I think there will be both Psychological and Sociological studies completed.  Consider all the terms that have been thrown about within this very forum over the last 3-4 years.  There have been talks of pathological liars, sociopath tendencies, racism, classism, pacifists, and extremists.  There can be a huge study simply on Nature vs Nurture within the Political Division.  Why do you vote the way you do? Is there consistency over the years? How does your voting change as you get older?  You're young and want to take on the world, so maybe you vote with more democrat tendencies.  After working for 20-30 years, you've accumulated some wealth and now lean more towards the republican attitude.  Do republicans have more psychotic tendencies than democrats? Are democrats more extremist in values than republicans? Does your place of residence within the country correlate with your general psychological well-being? Are people in Kansas more apt to worry about their community than those in LA? Are people in the Silicon Valley more worried about their bank accounts than they are the coal miners of Kentucky?

I think the last election cycle alone has opened up a lot of conversations about psychological and sociological tendencies and how they differ by community, political perspective, and media influence.

 
Peak said:
You're young and want to take on the world, so maybe you vote with more democrat tendencies.  After working for 20-30 years, you've accumulated some wealth and now lean more towards the republican attitude. 
Click to expand...
Interesting.  I had the opposite tract - young and naive - voted Republican.

Older and wiser (and also wealthier) - I vote democratic.

I don't think is really all that complicated.  I think the rural-urban divide - and the life experiences that shape those in each area do more to influence views than anything else.

 
mr roboto said:
1. Eliminate big private donations/super PACs/reverse Citizens United. This is BY FAR AND AWAY the largest driver of political division. 
 
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree but it’s not going to happen. So far as I can see there are only two possible ways to make it happen: a majority of liberals on the Supreme Court, or a new constitutional amendment. 

In order to get a majority of liberals on the SC you need long term Democratic presidents. OK that’s not impossible. But then you also need at least 2 of the existing 5 conservatives to retire, and good luck with that- they’re all relatively young. Right now it’s the liberal judges who are likely to go first, starting with Ginsburg, so Democrats will be lucky just to hold serve. Reversing the court might take decades. (There’s been some talk of packing the court bit that will never fly, just forget about it.) 

a constitutional amendment, if anything, is even more unlikely, given the lengthy procedures it takes to pass. I haven’t seen one in my lifetime and frankly I don’t expect to. IMO, short of some unforeseen emergency we will never again have another amendment. That part of our political history is dead. 

So I think we need to stop complaining about Citizens United. You’re chasing windmills. It’s done. Like Obamacare, it’s not going anywhere. We need to find other solutions. 

 
I don't think it is possible for any candidate to unite people in the next 30 years. It does not matter how centrist they are, if they are a Democrat the right wing media will paint them as the most liberal ever and a communist and a threat to the USA, and if they are a Republican they will lose in the primary due to talk radio and extreme websites pushing and influencing the base. Hilary Clinton is a centrist, Barack Obama is a centrist, John Kerry is a centrist. Where were the droves of people begging for a centrist when it was time to vote for them? At this point centrist might as well be a code word for embarrassed Republican, because it is always "Where are the centrists? No not those ones, just ones that vote straight ticket R". 

 
Back to the topic- it’s been asserted that our lack of campaign finance reform is the biggest reason for the divisiveness in this country. I disagree. I say it is talk radio. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think is really all that complicated.  I think the rural-urban divide - and the life experiences that shape those in each area do more to influence views than anything else.
Click to expand...
I think there's truth there.

It's maybe fitting but I still believe one of the best explanations of the divide and how Trump won we've talked about here came from Cracked.com. It's an ugly website with a zillion ads and the language won't pass our filter. But it describes the situation I believe more accurately than anything I've seen in a while. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Interesting.  I had the opposite tract - young and naive - voted Republican.

Older and wiser (and also wealthier) - I vote democratic.

I don't think is really all that complicated.  I think the rural-urban divide - and the life experiences that shape those in each area do more to influence views than anything else.
Click to expand...
Different views make for an interesting study. 

I'd also consider family infuence into the equation.  Consider you've always been raised a certain way.  Your family are mainstays within a small country town.  They don't go to the "big city" often, but when they do they view it almost as another world.  How would the one rebellious teenager who struggles to get out of the family life and moves to the "big city" see their viewpoints change?  What about his family who stayed behind?  Multiple viewpoints based on situations (life experiences) and family (community) that build who we are as a person and our belief system.  Could be pretty interesting if someone was willing to do that legwork/research.

 
Peak said:
Different views make for an interesting study. 

I'd also consider family infuence into the equation.  Consider you've always been raised a certain way.  Your family are mainstays within a small country town.  They don't go to the "big city" often, but when they do they view it almost as another world.  How would the one rebellious teenager who struggles to get out of the family life and moves to the "big city" see their viewpoints change?  What about his family who stayed behind?  Multiple viewpoints based on situations (life experiences) and family (community) that build who we are as a person and our belief system.  Could be pretty interesting if someone was willing to do that legwork/research.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in your take on the article above. It's hitting right what you're talking about. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think there's truth there.

It's maybe fitting but I still believe one of the best explanations of the divide and how Trump won we've talked about here came from Cracked.com. It's an ugly website with a zillion ads and the language won't pass our filter. But it describes the situation I believe more accurately than anything I've seen in a while. 
Click to expand...
I think that is a part of it - but not all. 

Urban = humanity.  I think people who live in urban areas see and care about issues that affect humanity (not humankind - but think more about the social services aspect needed to support a vast population.)  You live in the city, you see a more diverse population.  You see more people. period.  You are more aware of their daily struggles.  I think there is an expectation to help others you see.

Rural = isolation.  People who live in rural areas tend to be more self-sufficient - live off the land, if you will.  There is an expectation that you, alone, are responsible for your well-being.  This shapes their views.  They are also more likely to see mostly people who look like them - and as a result they don't see or experience much discrimination.

So - when you are talking about "progressive" ideas like education, for example - the Urban citizen sees a need for higher education to survive in the city, and values that accordingly.  Rural citizen, says I learn everything I need by getting up at dawn, and putting in a day's work - whether that is literally on a farm, or in any number of hands-on jobs outside of a cozy office space.  They don't care about "book learning" and don't want their tax dollars paying for someone else's book learning.

One of the things that fascinates me about Pete - is his understanding of this divide, and how he incorporates it into some of his ideas.  Two that dovetail nicely are climate change and his call to service.  I think climate change is real, and we must start addressing it and planning for the consequences yesterday.  Where Pete takes a step further is talking about how those plans can include farmers, and people who live in rural communities.  And he boils it down to issues that matter in those communities - flooding for example.  Then you add in his service plans that include things like work toward mitigating flooding in rural areas - and you start to see how a divisive topic like climate change can start to bring people together around common goals.

 
timschochet said:
Three times in modern history: 

1. Pearl Harbor. 

2. Assassination of JFK

3. 9/11

This is why I say we don’t need to be united- it comes at way too high a price. What most people, I believe, would like is simply a return to greater civility. And perhaps we should be pursuing goals that a strong majority can agree upon. 

Take infrastructure for example. For the last 20 years the politicians in Washington have known that spending money on repairing this nation’s highways, water systems, bridges, etc is vastly popular with the American public, Republicans and Democrats alike. Plus they know it’s an urgent matter. Yet they can’t get it done. That’s obscene. 
Click to expand...
You've yet to pay the full price of being divided today, IMHO. 

 
msommer said:
You've yet to pay the full price of being divided today, IMHO. 
Click to expand...
That's another way to look at the issue.

Maybe we've never really been united (outside of tragedy) and never will be.

But look at it from the other side. 

How do folks feel about how divided we are now compared to the last 50 years. (Obviously we had a war over division a while back)

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'd be interested in your take on the article above. It's hitting right what you're talking about. 
Click to expand...
Pretty insightful and engaging article.  I think he makes some really good points in that it's been urban vs rural for a long time now.  I think on top of that is the media influence that helps to push this point still, and it's more than movies and entertainment.  I think it is important to consider "the other side" when talking about politics, or even life in general.  The idea the author had to make two articles from opposing sides of the fence is a great concept.  It forces the reader to consider the opposing side and where they come from.  I find it interesting to understand why people do what they do - what makes you, you?  Many arguments persist in the nature vs nurture concept.  Is it due to genetics or were you influenced somewhere down the line?  Are you a sheep and following the latest trends, or are you willing to walk against them and do your own thing (which was also a trend not too long ago).

I think there are a lot of influences that go into defining who we are, and there is not one set ideology.  The way of religion is starting to fade in some aspect, or you could say it is growing more than ever in America.  The Eastern Religions are now making their way into American society, which makes some feel that Christianity is disintegrating in some instances.  It's growth and change, an ever new shape this country is taking, and I think that is what is making people uncomfortable.  So they look toward media outlets and power figures to help calm them and tell them how to live, how to survive.  Movies and TV give them an outlet to consider other possibilities outside of their own lives.  

I think in 20, 50, even 100 years from now, there will be classes devoted to trying to understand human life and how to manage change using this election cycle as a reference.  I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here.  Too many variables and differing opinions, but maybe seeking those out will help us understand each other better.

 
Joe Bryant said:
That's another way to look at the issue.

Maybe we've never really been united (outside of tragedy) and never will be.

But look at it from the other side. 

How do folks feel about how divided we are now compared to the last 50 years. (Obviously we had a war over division a while back)
Click to expand...
Just like bombings of abortion clinics were a thing, I believe domestic terrorism (defined widely, as in everything from shooting up a pizza parlor to free someone from a non existing basement, through more or less organized riots as far right and far left clash, through people shooting up schools, bars, what not because of real or perceived slights, through shooting up the local Walmart because open carry or invasion/infestation, to Oklahoma City style events) is going feature heavily until a) , unless resources are applied at federal, state and local level to combat same and b) society as  a whole start looking at how to deprogram the radicalized and the radicalizers (if that is even possible at present).

It's grim, and I don't think that the US is alone in this, but with your (on a world scale) lax gun laws mass violent escalation (in terms of incidents, not organization) is far, far likelier than elsewhere. It won't escalate to anything remotely looking til another civil war, though. For that to happen you'd need some lever to even out the power disparity between government and governed - and don't know what that could be

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think we may have had a thread on this before but I was thinking about it again today.

@Sinn Fein posted the new Buttigieg ad in the Buttigieg thread.

It's inspiring and hopeful and talks about he's ready to "Pick up the pieces of our divided nation and lead us toward real action"

"Ready to gather up an American majority hungry for change and that is done with division.

"We will fight when we must fight. But I will never let us get so wrapped up in fighting that we start to think fighting is the point. The point is an America defined not by exclusion but by belonging."

At the same time, he draws applause asking the people to imagine waking up to the first day in America where Donald Trump is defeated. 

I'm a peacemaker at heart. It's how I'm wired. I hate it when people I know and care about aren't getting along. I don't like it when strangers aren't getting along.

So I'm an easy sell for "uniting". But I wonder how much of it's really possible. 

And I wonder how much of it we really even want?

Or is it really just uniting the Democrats where anything the Republicans feel pain with is a good thing? 

I mean on the other side, I don't think Donald Trump makes any illusions of "uniting the country". 

I just wonder if it's even possible? And even if we want it?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think the people want to be unified, but there are powerful monied interests that profit from division - commercially and politically.  

I want the kind of relationships we can have in a healthy family.  Folks who disagree, but don't despise each other.

Imagine how hard it is in families where there is a lot of money, and a lot of financial imbalance, to keep things civil.  That's basically how it is in America, only to a much larger extent where other interests actually further profit from turning family member against family member.

So much of this goes down to power and money, and what incentives are in play in society to accumulate both.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think we may have had a thread on this before but I was thinking about it again today.

@Sinn Fein posted the new Buttigieg ad in the Buttigieg thread.

It's inspiring and hopeful and talks about he's ready to "Pick up the pieces of our divided nation and lead us toward real action"

"Ready to gather up an American majority hungry for change and that is done with division.

"We will fight when we must fight. But I will never let us get so wrapped up in fighting that we start to think fighting is the point. The point is an America defined not by exclusion but by belonging."

At the same time, he draws applause asking the people to imagine waking up to the first day in America where Donald Trump is defeated. 

I'm a peacemaker at heart. It's how I'm wired. I hate it when people I know and care about aren't getting along. I don't like it when strangers aren't getting along.

So I'm an easy sell for "uniting". But I wonder how much of it's really possible. 

And I wonder how much of it we really even want?

Or is it really just uniting the Democrats where anything the Republicans feel pain with is a good thing? 

I mean on the other side, I don't think Donald Trump makes any illusions of "uniting the country". 

I just wonder if it's even possible? And even if we want it?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Impossible until facts are treated as facts and lies are treated as lies. 

 
I don't think there will be much, if any quarter given to ANY future Democratic candidate from the Conservative media.  They'll demonize, attack and just grind down everyone. Because the ire they spew is such a money maker.....they'll never let up,

I think that Democrats and their media machine could be lulled into a bit of a cease fire with the right Republican candidate.

 
Joe Bryant said:
That's another way to look at the issue.

Maybe we've never really been united (outside of tragedy) and never will be.

But look at it from the other side. 

How do folks feel about how divided we are now compared to the last 50 years. (Obviously we had a war over division a while back)
Click to expand...
For decades spanning the last half of the last century, Greatest, Silent and Boomer gens comfortably reigned in U.S. politics and the ideological opposition was rarely a significant factor. Some big sociological changes occurred mostly because conservatives could sell it to other conservatives, not as a result of "liberal" agitation for them. But those three aforementioned generations are exiting the stage now and newly arriving generations are dragging the country's middle leftward. A group that has never been seriously challenged suddenly finds its influence and political power waning, a situation that has been known throughout history to lead to great strife.

tl;dr: Lefties didn't have the numbers to make the country seriously divided 50 years ago and then along came Ron Reagan to seal the deal for the Moral Conservative Majority. But if you're under 40 now, you never really knew a Ronald Reagan without dementia. He's not much of an influence to a big part of the country.

 
roadkill1292 said:
For decades spanning the last half of the last century, Greatest, Silent and Boomer gens comfortably reigned in U.S. politics and the ideological opposition was rarely a significant factor. Some big sociological changes occurred mostly because conservatives could sell it to other conservatives, not as a result of "liberal" agitation for them. But those three aforementioned generations are exiting the stage now and newly arriving generations are dragging the country's middle leftward. A group that has never been seriously challenged suddenly finds its influence and political power waning, a situation that has been known throughout history to lead to great strife.

tl;dr: Lefties didn't have the numbers to make the country seriously divided 50 years ago and then along came Ron Reagan to seal the deal for the Moral Conservative Majority. But if you're under 40 now, you never really knew a Ronald Reagan without dementia. He's not much of an influence to a big part of the country.
Click to expand...
My favorite Ronald Reagan clip...

https://youtu.be/uJDhS4oUm0M

 
Joe Bryant said:
That's another way to look at the issue.

Maybe we've never really been united (outside of tragedy) and never will be.

But look at it from the other side. 

How do folks feel about how divided we are now compared to the last 50 years. (Obviously we had a war over division a while back)
Click to expand...
We were more divided during the Vietnam War. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. I don't doubt he's serious. I just wonder if it can be done, and maybe more importantly for Buttigieg, if it's the right strategy. 

I wonder if the other angle of just trying to unite your side and win and then you can rub the other side's nose in it isn't the more effective way. I personally hate that style. But I just wonder if it has a better chance of succeeding. 
Click to expand...
It’s the only strategy for Buttigieg.  If that wasn’t his hook, he would be completely out of the running right now. 

 
If Pete had Warren’s policy chops or Harris’s Senate experience or Bernie’s experience and consistent record he’d be crushing the field by double digits. As it is, all he has is “I’m a really smart guy who wants to help everyone and bring this country together again” and he’s legitimately positioning himself to make a run at the nomination.  That’s why I think it’s mainstream. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Opportunity - The gift our country gives to all
2 3 4
Replies
160
Views
3K
Da Guru
Da Guru
timschochet
What should we do about illegal immigration?
5 6 7
Replies
304
Views
7K
Sand
Sand
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top