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

[Overitall]

Kinda.

Well, you could just sit it out. Don’t make a choice.

 

[Moderate Right]

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.

They have never been interested in uniting the country. Hillary ran on a campaign theme of "Stronger Together" and then turned right around and called millions of Americans deplorables.

 

[ecofarm]

Well, you could just sit it out. Don’t make a choice.

I mean my example is only kinda acceptable and it was gracious of you to concede the point. The nuance deserves more detail but that example can serve to move the discussion forward.

 

[ataraxia]

They have never been interested in uniting the country. Hillary ran on a campaign theme of "Stronger Together" and then turned right around and called millions of Americans deplorables.

There is nothing hypocritical about being intolerant of intolerance.

 

[Jack Hays]

There is nothing hypocritical about being intolerant of intolerance.

In theory, true, but in practice it's usually just a tactic to defame opponents. That was certainly the case with Hillary.

 

[Moderate Right]

There is nothing hypocritical about being intolerant of intolerance.

LOL. Intolerance is intolerance. It's really that simple.

 

[ataraxia]

LOL. Intolerance is intolerance. It's really that simple.

No not at all. Would you be tolerant of someone who goes around spitting in people's face?

 

[ataraxia]

LOL. Intolerance is intolerance. It's really that simple.

I see you are not trying to refute the intolerance of your side. You just want us to tolerate it. Interesting.

 

[Moderate Right]

No not at all. Would you be tolerant of someone who goes around spitting in people's face?

No. I would be intolerant, because that would be intolerant, which would make me intolerant. I'm just saying, you can't claim to be tolerant when you are intolerant. That's hypocrisy.

 

[Moderate Right]

I see you are not trying to refute the intolerance of your side. You just want us to tolerate it. Interesting.

If you are going to proudly proclaim that you are tolerant of others then you can't go around being intolerant of others. Own up to your intolerance. Don't claim you are tolerant of others when you aren't.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

But you admit that Hillary did not claim only ten percent, so she still has to take the (deserved) heat for a gross generalization.

Not that I'm sorry she said it, since it's one of several remarks that put her character on display. She apparently failed to learn from the mistake, since in recent months she came up with that amazing high-schoolish putdown, "Nobody likes Bernie Sanders."

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

On a side issue, certain supremacists have become more "anti Trump" on issues like recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the more recent kerfluffle with Iran.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Some voters may feel that the accusation of a false association with white supremacists is the cross one must bear for not having a real association with soclalists.

 

[Michael Cole]

Some voters may feel that the accusation of a false association with white supremacists is the cross one must bear for not having a real association with soclalists.

It is voters who make the association. Nothing false about it. It is up to leaders to denounce groups of voters like white supremacists. Lacking such denunciation, many other voters will see this as reciprocal support. If that amounts to a false accusation, well, we're back to the leaders again. It's really simple to reject whatever antics a hateful group throws your way.

 

[dcaraz]

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.

I applaud your concern regarding our divided nature. But in your view it is only the Democrats who have sowed divisiveness. And you claim it is only Democrats who have screamed accusations.
If you assume that Republicans have done nothing to increase our divisions, it will be impossible for our divisions to heal--regardless who wins the 2020 election.

I suggest that America is torn over class inequities and the argument over how to move forward as a society. Folks who are angry exist in both parties.
Take for example Republican talk of taking away key social benefits from the majority because they aren't "entitled" to these benefits.
Do you think this position might bring us closer together? Or would it generate further anger? I am not a socialist, however, after having worked for more than 45 years,
and paying into our federal retirement programs, I will be among the tens of millions of Americans who take to the ramparts to defend
our worker social programs. Under Trump the GOP tax giveaway enriched America's wealthiest and allowed our most profitable corporate giants to pay lower taxes than middle class folks.
Was this fair? Or are we no longer a nation of fairness? How can we justify mammoth increases to our military spending while considering cuts to the social programs most
Americans rely on in their old age? What kind of society does that?

Answer: A society that cares only to maintain the security and improve the control of the most powerful and wealthy at the expense of the majority. THAT is NOT democracy!
The reality of class warfare has given rise to American populism--on both the Right and the Left.
We are seeing two divergent forms of populism: Trumpism which is driven by lies and deception and divisiveness vs. the anti-wealth, anti-corporate sentiment tapped by Bernie Sanders.
It's just a matter of time before the majority of voters support attacking America's most onerous "entitlement" programs--the tax code and investing laws designed to benefit
the wealthiest in our society. Our current tax structure assures wealthier folks enjoy generation of lower-taxed dividends, sheltered investment growth, ability to pass on gifts to enrich
their offspring, while they generally ignore the plight of the average W-2 wage earner.

If the top 1% keep pushing the majority down through unbridled greed so that they must grovel for the crumbs left by those who own everything we will lose our democracy.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is voters who make the association. Nothing false about it. It is up to leaders to denounce groups of voters like white supremacists. Lacking such denunciation, many other voters will see this as reciprocal support. If that amounts to a false accusation, well, we're back to the leaders again. It's really simple to reject whatever antics a hateful group throws your way.

No, political propaganda machines on both sides of the political divide make the association, and voters either agree or disagree based on their own preferences.

Trump's political allies *may* have signaled to white supremacists during the campaign. Whether Trump was personally responsible for their actions is a matter of opinion.

Following Charlottesville, Trump unequivocally denounced Nazis and white supremacists. This is an undeniable fact. However, the propaganda machine for the opposing side chose to interpret his "both sides" remark as a covert signal to the supremacists. Whether the media are responsible for falsifying the news is also a matter of opinion.