America, America

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   Have the extreme factions of liberalism & conservatism taken over America?   Why have some Americans succumbed to liberal or conservative extremism?   What happened to classical liberalism & conservatism?   Are most Americans centrist or moderate in outlook?  What about Americans who are an amalgamation of both liberal & conservative values?  Have the more extreme aspects liberalism & conservatism been created by the Baby Boomer generation?  Your thoughts?

   replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   I think we need to have a competition.
   We need to split up the country into Dems and Reps.
   Or Liberals and Patriots.
   Something like that.
   Then see which side is happier, safer, more successful.
   Or just have a choice of which type of govt. people want and live in that territory.
   Something like that.
   Then, well figure things out.
   The proof will be in the pudding.
   Or we will live happily ever after with each to his own.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      No. America should not be divided. The Dems can easily pick a quary with the Reps and engineer a civil war. It is the Liberal and other minorties that will suffer.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   Well, the liberals, as you call us, just elected someone who wants to work across the aisle.  In a meeting with the opposite party on Covid stimulus, Republicans came out gushing praise.
   
   Conservatives nominated a candidate who spent the last four years attacking our own government from within, including our intelligence services, media, and pretty much put people into cabinet posts who had been lobbying against those departments prior to being confirmed to lead them.  In a meeting with Democrats on infrastructure, he threw a hissy fit and the meeting ended in minutes and no infrastructure got done in the rest of his term.
   
   And one party just attempted a violent overthrow of Congress, ending centuries of tradition in there being a peaceful transfer of power.  I think we'll be skipping calling that party a party of patriots for the foreseeable future.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Conservatives nominated a candidate who spent the last four years attacking our own government from within"
      
      That's rather comical considering that Trump was the only president to have his campaign headquarters wiretapped, the only president to suffer through years of witch hunting for collusion with Putin, the only president to be impeached and acquitted as quickly as political opponents lost control of the proceeding, the only president to be impeached twice and twice found innocent of charges.  The only president to have MSM turn against him and run a 4 year program of almost total negativity against him, the only president to be attacked as a racist for taking quite reasonable steps to limit terrorism.
      
      Just who is "attacking" who here?  Methinks you have it quite backwards.
      
      But one party DID attempt to overthrow our Constitution in an attempt to prevent the people from electing a powerful political opponent.  Thank goodness; I would hate to think that one party could not only wiretap, promote false charges, impeach at will or do anything else to sidestep the will of the people in choosing a leader. 
      
      Whether I like that leader or not is irrelevant; (s)he is the choice of the people.  Whether I think (s)he will harm the country or do good is irrelevant; it is the choice of the people.  But the Democrat party; the Democrat party has tried for 4 years to ignore our Constitutional right to elect whom we wish, setting it aside at their whim, just as they did when their primary "elected" Clinton.  It is a very good thing, not evil, that their plans did not succeed, however much you, I or anyone else might dislike Donald Trump, for he was but a pawn in the shenanigans of the Democrat party.
      
      The deplorable, despicable actions of Democrats the last 4 years have convinced me to never vote Democrat again.  If Republicans should choose Trump once more I may vote third party, I may not vote at all, but I very highly doubt that I will ever again vote for a Democrat president.  The entire party, as far as I can tell, is interested ONLY in the power of the party and could not care less for the country or for me.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         No,wilderness, no.                                                     A vote that is not cast is a dis-service to the state/nation. Use your voting power to make it count, and make it promote a change.                                        As a conservative, you seems to like Trump. Now that he had been acquaint again, he'll be back on the presidential ticket. Many Americans are thinking on that line. So the move by the Democratics to have him impeach and thrown out of the political schene.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Normally I would agree, and in all the years I have only voted for other than one of the two major parties once.
            
            But the Democrat party has convinced me that there is simply no chance that the interests of the country are paramount to them, OR that the interests of growing party power is NOT of paramount importance.  Given that, and that voting a third party (or independent) is the same as not voting at all, I'm left with a problem.  I suppose I can rationalize that a third party vote is making a statement, but realistically that's all it is; a statement that no one will ever hear.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Okay, you're not the exemption.                                                               A 70-years old American lady is credit to have had a record of not voting once in her life time. And I think they were many beside her.

               replyreport
      2. 77

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         'That's rather comical considering that Trump was the only president to have his campaign headquarters wiretapped, the only president to suffer through years of witch hunting for collusion with Putin, the only president to be impeached and acquitted as quickly as political opponents lost control of the proceeding, the only president to be impeached twice and twice found innocent of charges.  The only president to have MSM turn against him and run a 4 year program of almost total negativity against him, the only president to be attacked as a racist for taking quite reasonable steps to limit terrorism.'
         
         Please go ahead and cite a source for his headquarters being wiretapped.  Oh, and the surveillance done on Paul Manafort did confirm that he colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election. 
         
         In both trials, numerous Republicans confirmed that they thought he was guilty but determined it was in THEIR best interest to convict.  That's far from making a claim of innocence to the charges in either case.
         
         MSM turn against him?  The guy levels a Hitler-esque propaganda campaign against the media and expects them to be friendly?
         
         And when you call it a Muslim ban, you welcome invitations for racism.  Why not call it a ban on locations with high rates of terror?  That was realistically the goal, and one that could have been supported.  Instead, he sowed animus toward all members of an entire religion.
         
         As for you not voting for a Democrat, we won't miss your vote.  People who cannot tell fact from fiction and defend the actions taken leading up to January 6 are, in my view, traitors to our democracy.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "And when you call it a Muslim ban, you welcome invitations for racism.  Why not call it a ban on locations with high rates of terror?"
            
            As far as I can recall the only people that called it a "muslim ban" were those that didn't want it done; Trump never called it that.  So animus was indeed sowed, but not by Trump but by Democrats opposing anything Trump did.  That was kind of the point.
            
            I will accept the label of Traitor if you wish to apply it because I find that Democrats do not have the best interests of the country in mind.  But a traitor to democracy because I find that Democrats did their level best to cancel the will of the people in their choice for President?  That's out of line even for you.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               "I want to ban all Muslims from entering the United States..."
               And you also have Rudy telling the press that Trump called it a Muslim ban.
               https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-35036567
               
               We've been over you inventing a motive for Democrats choosing to impeach.  If Donald Trump were to run again, that would actually help Democrats remain in power.  The case, which even people like Mitch McConnell agree was proven, shows that Donald J. Trump is unfit to hold public office.
               
               So do I call you Santa Traitor or Traitor Claus.  It's so hard to keep track of your nicknames now,
               
               Did you figure out phones can view social media accounts yet with these things called Apps yet?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  As usual your "evidence" says nothing at all similar to your claim.  Read it again, copy and past the section that says Trump called it a "Muslim ban".

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, I guess Trump saying he wanted to ban all Muslims is not a Muslim ban in your mind.  Not similar at all.  The things you try and deny are comical.

                     replyreport
4. 86

   Sharlee01posted 3 years ago

   Simply --- Do you recall why he put the travel ban in place? Do you remember what problems we were having with Terrorists (Muslim inspired attacks)?
   It seems you might be overlooking why the ban was necessary.  He never said he wanted to ban all Muslims. He stipulated seven countries that support terrorism. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen All to this day that continues to support terrorism. Check out actually what was going on in the country in regard to Islamic terrorism. This link shows all that was considered terror attacks. Check the Bush, Obama, Trump years. As you might realize Islamic terrorism was progressively getting worse. Under Trump, it started to decline.
   
   http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Look at the link to the video I supplied up above.  He clearly stated he wanted to ban all Muslims.  Here, I'll spoon feed you:
      https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-35036567
      
      His ban eventually settled on the seven countries, which exempts Saudi Arabia who had a major hand in 9/11, but has financial ties to the Trump family.  I haven't looked into the the incidents of Islamic terror to know about your claim that it has declined.  Not sure I have the time to validate or debunk it.

      replyreport