We'd all be happier if California left the union and took most of the blue cities with it, partition would solve most of America's problems overnight. But until you people get off of your ass and make big on your promises to leave the country, you've gotta respect the democratic process and fall in line.Unless you enjoy keeping everyone in a state of permanent agitation that pleases nobody.
Why is it a bad thing to have someone in my country who I can point to as an enemy? Why am I obliged to associate (let alone cooperate) with the people I consider my enemies?
Lmao aren't you like really big into globalization? Asking for divide is pretty fucking hypocritical.
Yes and no.
i say GOOD
He hates Trump so much for scapegoating groups of people and telling them they need to get out, yet what is he doing right now? He's scapegoating everyone he doesn't agree with as "his enemy" and telling us we need to divide this country based on views. That is absolutely impossible and will only hinder this country more.
"First they came for the socialists..."Painting them as your enemy will lead you down a familiar path that has failed numerous times in human history.
But you, and others, act like the country isn't already deeply divided based on views - or that it will ever really heal. America is pretty much two very different nations between the liberal urban coasts and cities, and the rural regions everywhere else. That is how it is, and barring any shift (As in more urban areas), how it will be for the next century.
Then I'll be "they."
The problem is the divide was never really strong enough to cause this much strife. We all kind of agreed that mostly died out in the twentieth century, not thinking it would come back, and we thought that way up until as close as the end of 2015, we all thought Trump wouldn't even accept his party's nomination IF he won.
As long as we focus on simple identity politics and not give all of us a common goal outside of that, it's going to remain this way.
And what would you propose is the common goal for 300 million Americans?
Space. It worked for Kennedy. Quote from: Icy on November 28, 2016, 10:10:16 AMAnd what would you propose is the common goal for 300 million Americans?
Yes, because the late 1950's and 1960's were certainly a time of peace for Americans.Certainly no widespread, nationwide protests on important issues.None at all
That's only because you were in a dick measuring contest with Russia and wanted to one up their first man in orbit. In any other circumstance the moon would not have been anywhere near as much a priority on people's minds.
All of that took a back seat until after his death. Quote from: Icy on November 28, 2016, 10:18:37 AMYes, because the late 1950's and 1960's were certainly a time of peace for Americans.Certainly no widespread, nationwide protests on important issues.None at all
What the hell are you talking about?
I never said that we didn't have major issues during that time, but they weren't focused on until Johnson and Nixon were in office. Quote from: Icy on November 28, 2016, 10:44:50 AMWhat the hell are you talking about?
Tell me again how they weren't focused on or prominent because of "OMG SPACE"
Because they were grouped up with the entire movement which is mostly remembered from Johnson's administration. I'm not saying Kennedy didn't have a major place in these events, but under his leadership it was on the back burner while he was dealing with the Soviets, the primary trigger for his Space Race. Quote from: Icy on November 28, 2016, 10:50:58 AMTell me again how they weren't focused on or prominent because of "OMG SPACE"
The only part of the movement that is "mostly remembered" from Johnson's administration is the legislation he got passed in Congress. The movement is more aligned with Eisenhower and Kennedy, because that's when the brunt of the force occurred. Even so, that isn't the point. You said "Space!" would be a unifier today, as it was under Kennedy. Yet even then, it wasn't a unifying force - namely for many Americans who were fighting for basic civil rights. The only real times that America has ever been "united with a common cause" was after Pearl Harbor and 9/11, and that didn't exactly lead to outstanding results.
Don't you think if Kennedy had the issue on the forefront, the freedom rider* situation wouldn't have needed to happen? The whole point was that the federal government was doing jack shit to help enforce the law. I totally originally typed "Writers" because of that shitty movie. Quote from: Icy on November 28, 2016, 11:04:05 AMThe only part of the movement that is "mostly remembered" from Johnson's administration is the legislation he got passed in Congress. The movement is more aligned with Eisenhower and Kennedy, because that's when the brunt of the force occurred. Even so, that isn't the point. You said "Space!" would be a unifier today, as it was under Kennedy. Yet even then, it wasn't a unifying force - namely for many Americans who were fighting for basic civil rights. The only real times that America has ever been "united with a common cause" was after Pearl Harbor and 9/11, and that didn't exactly lead to outstanding results.
How do you figure?
Give me one reason why I should want "unification"
