Are the Democrats serious when they say Bernie, Biden, Liz, Amy, Micheal, can unite the country?

[Michael Cole]

I’m not sure which is worst. Calling the Trump supporters deplorable or calling the Dems supporters stupid (as you appear to be doing here). People of different political persuasions vote their conscience, sincerely believing their particular candidate will be the best for them and the nation. We can disagree with each other as to what that is and who can best achieve it but to suggest disagreeing makes the other person or persons deplorable or stupid only puts fuel to the fire of division.

If someone sincerely believes in white supremacy, that person is deplorable. If someone sincerely believes all the lies told by "his" guy, that person is stupid.

Kinda looks like Trump supporters have the deploable/stupid market cornered.

 

[ecofarm]

I’m not sure which is worst. Calling the Trump supporters deplorable

Hillary?

"Gross generalization... roughly half... racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe and other bigots... a basket of deplorables."

You cannot remove the definition of deplorable from her sentence.

Now, grossly generalize is 50%. Two steps away, one for grossly, let's say her claim is 10% of Trump supporters are bigots of some sort. I think a Trumper should take that number and run.

You've been convinced to be offended by that term. Let's be honest, claiming only 10% is doing Trumpers a favor.

 

[Common Sense 1]

YOu have zero credibility. No right winger has any talking about democrats being divisive. It's a complete lie, a projection of what republicans have done for decades now, and shows you really have no argument and these stupid posts are just meant to project and troll

There is no coming together with right wing scum that supports Trump. They are the Taliban, they are the minority, and the plan is to shove them back under their rocks.

We can work with the rational conservatives that don't support Trump. But the ignorant, racist, selfish, greedy hypocrites that support Trump can GFTS. WE don't negotiate with terrorists

What a bizarre and oh so silly post! You are going to push people back under the rocks? Sure you are.
When the president gets reelected in 2020 stop by and say hello! :2wave::doh

 

[Common Sense 1]

People voting for Trump don't have a conscience. Voting to discriminate against gays, lock kids in cages, build a stupid wall, giving away the entire country to the rich, and making the poor suffer even more is deplorable position.

This isn't a case of "just their opinion". Taliban and Al Qaeda would fit the same description, following their conscience, and they are deplorable as well

This isn't like past years of Republican president,who democrat may have hated, but at least they still acted presidential and so in those cases, yeah, its just opinion would fit. Trump is a POS, the people that support him have proven to be hateful, racist, selfish idiots who are complete hypocrites.

And they are hated for their words, their actions, their blind hatred, their hypocrisy, not just politics. That's what many conservatives do. They hate liberals for just being liberals, because they are brainwashed with a bunch of fake things about liberals that are no where close to true and they hate that.

Liberals hate conservative because of all the hateful , harmful things they do to others, selfishness, their blatant hypocrisy, and complete lack of empathy

Says the guy who wants to put people under rocks? :lamo

 

[Fletch]

YOu have zero credibility. No right winger has any talking about democrats being divisive. It's a complete lie, a projection of what republicans have done for decades now, and shows you really have no argument and these stupid posts are just meant to project and troll

There is no coming together with right wing scum that supports Trump. They are the Taliban, they are the minority, and the plan is to shove them back under their rocks.

We can work with the rational conservatives that don't support Trump. But the ignorant, racist, selfish, greedy hypocrites that support Trump can GFTS. WE don't negotiate with terrorists

:lamo The poster-boy for divisive, hateful rhetorical rants has spoken. Do you even read what you write? I mean, I wouldnt blame you if you didnt, but damn dude, get some self awareness.

 

[Perotista]

If that's the case then we're well on our way to official banana republic status. Once gang violence becomes consistent in this regard, we'll know for sure.

One of our biggest problems is that any legislation or proposal from one party is automatically rejected by the other party. No thought as to the merit of the proposal or whether it might help the country, just who proposed it. Political Party has become more important than good government or even the country as a whole.

Perhaps the good news is both major parties are shrinking. Independents have grown 30% in 2006 up to 40% plus of the electorate today if one believes Gallup and Pew Research. Seems at least some Americans are getting tired of all this political party first nonsense. But for all the rest who remain party firsters, violence is probably right around the corner. We already had isolated incidences of that. Driving elected officials from restaurants, harassing them on the streets, even some receiving death threats. Demonstrations and protest over losing an election against the winner Just a matter of time. Things done by party loyalist that would have never happened 10-20 years ago over a vote in congress or just being of the other party.

Many Republicans refused to accept the fact Obama won in 2008. More than triple that amount of Democrats refuse to accept the fact Trump won in 2016. Makes me wonder about this year.

 

[Overitall]

If someone sincerely believes in white supremacy, that person is deplorable. If someone sincerely believes all the lies told by "his" guy, that person is stupid.

Kinda looks like Trump supporters have the deploable/stupid market cornered.

I’ve never been very good at responding to strawmen.

 

[beancounter]

After so much divisiveness from the democrats attacking Trump and Trump voters and supporters, do democrats really think one of their terrible candidates can unite the country?
I don't see it. The social and political differences seem to be so enormous that how is a democrat going to make republicans happy? The democrats have screamed all type of accusations against democrats for voting and supporting Trump and now one of their candidates who have policies totally opposite of the republicans and I don't see that changing.

As we've seen with the election of Trump, uniting the country doesn't matter. Only getting enough electoral votes to win matters.

 

[ataraxia]

After so much divisiveness from the democrats attacking Trump and Trump voters and supporters, do democrats really think one of their terrible candidates can unite the country?
I don't see it. The social and political differences seem to be so enormous that how is a democrat going to make republicans happy? The democrats have screamed all type of accusations against democrats for voting and supporting Trump and now one of their candidates who have policies totally opposite of the republicans and I don't see that changing.

Can you picture any politicians with a D after their name ever being able to unite the country? They can say and have the same exact things as Trump (“I have a beautiful healthcare plan that will cover everybody”, “I will punish/work with Russia/N. Korea/Iran”, I will raise/lower the deficit”, etc)... and they will face passionate opposition.

Because for Republicans this is not about positions on issues anymore. This is about cultural identity, even if vaguely defined.

 

[Michael Cole]

I’ve never been very good at responding to strawmen.

What strawman?

If you're going to mention sincerity, you must accept the fact that not everyone's sincere views are socially acceptable. I know of no white supremacists who are anti Trump. And while the anti Trump crowd can display their own brand of stupidity, believing everything Donald Trump says is insanity, regardless of how righteous they sincerely believe him to be.

 

[RetiredUSN]

From what I am seeing, people are not interested in uniting the country.

Democrats and Republicans are way too divided on almost every issue.

 

[Overitall]

What strawman?

If you're going to mention sincerity, you must accept the fact that not everyone's sincere views are socially acceptable. I know of no white supremacists who are anti Trump. And while the anti Trump crowd can display their own brand of stupidity, believing everything Donald Trump says is insanity, regardless of how righteous they sincerely believe him to be.

I spoke not of white supremacists or believing someone’s lies.

 

[Michael Cole]

I spoke not of white supremacists or believing someone’s lies.

Never said you did. You emphasized sincerity. That's what I'm addressing.

 

[Overitall]

Never said you did. You emphasized sincerity. That's what I'm addressing.

Then it was your choice to focus on a small sector of the voting populace. Not mine.

 

[ataraxia]

From what I am seeing, people are not interested in uniting the country.

Democrats and Republicans are way too divided on almost every issue.

Not really. It is not about the issues anymore. It has become a type of tribalism- for both sides, but particularly for Republicans.

If a Democrat says they have beautiful healthcare that will cover everybody, they will be hated by Republicans. But if a Republican says that, They think it’s great. If a democrat increases the deficit, it is evil. But if a Republican does it, it’s OK. If a Democrat works with Russians, he is a traitor. But if a Republican does it, it’s OK. I can go on and on.

If it was just about the issues, it would be easier. Policies and ideologies can be discussed, negotiated, compromised on, etc.... Facts, rationality, reason can be brought to bear. But issues of cultural identity are far more intractable and difficult to address.

 

[Michael Cole]

Then it was your choice to focus on a small sector of the voting populace. Not mine.

How large the sectors are is debatable, but those were examples. Here's what you wrote:

People of different political persuasions vote their conscience, sincerely believing their particular candidate will be the best for them and the nation.

I have no argument that this occurs; most people believe they are right. What I'm saying is that sincerity of belief does not shield one from those beliefs. I have an ex who sincerely believes socialism means all the blacks will go on welfare. She also thinks Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and the last show I heard on AM radio in her truck was how the United States was founded on white supremacy. She's a blind Trump supporter, and a deplorable, and an ex. She is 100% sincere in her opinions.

That's all I'm saying. If you don't want to be associated with deplorables, break the association. Talking about "sincerity" almost sounds like a persecution complex.

 

[ElChupacabra]

One of our biggest problems is that any legislation or proposal from one party is automatically rejected by the other party. No thought as to the merit of the proposal or whether it might help the country, just who proposed it. Political Party has become more important than good government or even the country as a whole.

Indeed. That's one area which has gotten considerably worse in the time I've followed politics.

Perhaps the good news is both major parties are shrinking. Independents have grown 30% in 2006 up to 40% plus of the electorate today if one believes Gallup and Pew Research. Seems at least some Americans are getting tired of all this political party first nonsense. But for all the rest who remain party firsters, violence is probably right around the corner. We already had isolated incidences of that. Driving elected officials from restaurants, harassing them on the streets, even some receiving death threats. Demonstrations and protest over losing an election against the winner Just a matter of time. Things done by party loyalist that would have never happened 10-20 years ago over a vote in congress or just being of the other party.

Many Republicans refused to accept the fact Obama won in 2008. More than triple that amount of Democrats refuse to accept the fact Trump won in 2016. Makes me wonder about this year.

I'm curious on how the rise of independents will impact the election. I suspect people who make the switch aren't going to deviate wildly from their original political leanings, and it's going to be more about who the most viable candidate is going to be. I don't think we're at a point where there's enough momentum for independents to put a third party candidate into office. I do like the idea, but there will need to be a sea change at the congressional level as well; lest we be stuck with a lame duck president stymied by both of the established parties. The founding fathers were worried about political parties, and I think now it's clear why.

 

[Overitall]

How large the sectors are is debatable, but those were examples. Here's what you wrote:

People of different political persuasions vote their conscience, sincerely believing their particular candidate will be the best for them and the nation.

I have no argument that this occurs; most people believe they are right. What I'm saying is that sincerity of belief does not shield one from those beliefs. I have an ex who sincerely believes socialism means all the blacks will go on welfare. She also thinks Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and the last show I heard on AM radio in her truck was how the United States was founded on white supremacy. She's a blind Trump supporter, and a deplorable, and an ex. She is 100% sincere in her opinions.

That's all I'm saying. If you don't want to be associated with deplorables, break the association. Talking about "sincerity" almost sounds like a persecution complex.

By "political persuasion" I was speaking of party affiliations, not individual beliefs. The sincere belief pertains to which candidate of any party would best serve their interest and the nation. If you noticed I didn't single out one particular party at being at fault for divisiveness while you seem to be doing just that.

"Sincerity of belief does not shield . . . ." Never said it did. But to fault the whole group on the beliefs of small groups isn't very reasonable, imo. Not every Trump supporter is a white supremacist. If you want to call them that are deplorable I won't argue with you.

 

[Michael Cole]

By "political persuasion" I was speaking of party affiliations, not individual beliefs. The sincere belief pertains to which candidate of any party would best serve their interest and the nation. If you noticed I didn't single out one particular party at being at fault for divisiveness while you seem to be doing just that.

"Sincerity of belief does not shield . . . ." Never said it did. But to fault the whole group on the beliefs of small groups isn't very reasonable, imo. Not every Trump supporter is a white supremacist. If you want to call them that are deplorable I won't argue with you.

You mentioned deplorables, which is why I singled it out. I'm trying to understand what difference party affiliation makes; maybe I missed something. And I'm not faulting the whole group, though that would be fairly basic to do. I think your point would have been better made without the word "sincerely."

 

[Overitall]

You mentioned deplorables, which is why I singled it out. I'm trying to understand what difference party affiliation makes; maybe I missed something. And I'm not faulting the whole group, though that would be fairly basic to do. I think your point would have been better made without the word "sincerely."

Hmm. Maybe. Can't imagine anyone voting for someone insincerely.

 

[Michael Cole]

Hmm. Maybe. Can't imagine anyone voting for someone insincerely.

Yes, I get it. I believe you also get my point. It's been fun. Good convo.

 

[Perotista]

Indeed. That's one area which has gotten considerably worse in the time I've followed politics.



I'm curious on how the rise of independents will impact the election. I suspect people who make the switch aren't going to deviate wildly from their original political leanings, and it's going to be more about who the most viable candidate is going to be. I don't think we're at a point where there's enough momentum for independents to put a third party candidate into office. I do like the idea, but there will need to be a sea change at the congressional level as well; lest we be stuck with a lame duck president stymied by both of the established parties. The founding fathers were worried about political parties, and I think now it's clear why.

I agree. One can divide independents into independents lean Republican, independents lean Democratic and pure or true independents with no leans. History has shown on average those who identify or associate themselves with either major party vote for their party's candidate 90% of the time regardless of who that candidate is. Also those independents who lean toward one or the other party, their historical average is 75% of the time. A slight difference, but one that can make a huge difference. True or pure independents with no leans only make up 10-15% of those who say their independents.

 

[ecofarm]

Hmm. Maybe. Can't imagine anyone voting for someone insincerely.

Lesser of two evils.

 

[Overitall]

Lesser of two evils.

Acceptable.

 

[ecofarm]

Acceptable.

Kinda.