CSNbbs

Full Version: What happens after November 2020?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I've been thinking about the level of discord and discontent in this country. It appears to me that no matter who wins the 2020 election, we are going to end up with roughly 50% of the country totally dissatisfied with the result. Are we going to come apart at the seams, or is some sort of reconciliation going to be possible?

For the record, no matter who wins, I'm not going to be particularly happy, because I don't have much trust and confidence in any of them.

But I wonder, what happens after 2020? Can we find enough common ground to stay together? I just don't see it, and I don't see anybody in a leadership role on either side making much of an effort to find it. And if we don't find it, then what happens?

We really need the blue dogs, IMO, but Obamacare killed them off.
(10-12-2019 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been thinking about the level of discord and discontent in this country. It appears to me that no matter who wins the 2020 election, we are going to end up with roughly 50% of the country totally dissatisfied with the result. Are we going to come apart at the seams, or is some sort of reconciliation going to be possible?

For the record, no matter who wins, I'm not going to be particularly happy, because I don't have much trust and confidence in any of them.

But I wonder, what happens after 2020? Can we find enough common ground to stay together? I just don't see it, and I don't see anybody in a leadership role on either side making much of an effort to find it. And if we don't find it, then what happens?

We really need the blue dogs, IMO, but Obamacare killed them off.

There were those who hated Reagan during his terms leading our nation, but it seldom, if ever approached the type of vitriol we are seeing today. Far as I can remember, the escalation in what you describe really began to ramp up during "W" Bush's Presidency. From the get-go, the left coalesced around the idea that not only did they disagree with Bush, but he was to be hated openly in a way not seen in the modern era, and that this new normal was now perfectly acceptable in the open in a way not seen before, including, and in many ways led by, the press corps. Respect was checked at the door, and it has gotten worse since then. When Obama became president, many on the right attacked him as well, but the economic turmoil and stagnant economy of those 8 years provided at least some cover for the escalated animosity. Most people I know disliked Obama because of what they considered his wrongheaded approach to dealing with the economic chaos and making things worse with policies that didn't appear to make sense while seemingly detached from the pain and hardship many Americans were experiencing as he famously golfed, laughed and partied at lavish White House affairs. Initially, upon Obama's election, many who had not voted for him at least recognized the significant opportunity the man had to show Americans that anything was truly possible in America and the country was not out to get them. Instead, 8 years of revenge combined and conspired with a terrible economy to make things worse all around.

With the election of President Trump, which was shocking to all, but taken personally by many on the left who had already pre-coronated their apparently anointed queen, the left wanted revenge and began to follow their current disassociated-from-reality path, leading directly to the current slate of candidates that are so far left of John Kennedy era Democrats that they are unrecognizable at times from America's traditional foreign enemies. I guess in many people's view, it does not help their anger that the economy has been doing so well under President trump and so many of their constituents are doing so much better than the previous eight years, yet are being coached in their obtusity (word or no?) towards the facts that America is stronger and stabler under president Trump than it had been.

I agree the escalated vitriol is not good, as more and more forget how things used to be: He's still the President, you still show a level of respect for the holder because it is supposed to be the office you honor no matter who holds it. That kind of thinking has lost its validity by so many openly in public is what is so different.

It does look like the cycle will repeat, and the better answer is for both parties to find calmer, gentler candidates who can appeal to more folks on the other side. That Trump took over a large portion of blue-collar voters was a blow to the Democrat's traditional view that they were those people's champions--yet the truth that the more socialistic Democratic policies and platforms (and its subsequent legislation) became, the more those formerly reliable Democratic voters were hurt directly has fallen on deaf ears in the Democratic Party of today. Instead, it must be Bush's, no now Trump's fault. If Democrats would remember they are and concentrate on being Americans first, instead of throwing America under the bus in favor of people who hate America, they'd have some more success. Until their policies stop trying to destroy our country, they will likely feel their only option to win is to focus on the personal hate instead of changing their destructive policy positions back to more Kennedy-era styles.

The Republican party is far from perfect, but to many it's the only tent willing to grow more inclusive based more on a person's character and work ethic, and willingness to acknowledge the American dream, than the increasingly narrow Democratic tent striving for totalitarian perfection based on labeling and separation of people by categorization that has been and will escalate in being its own destruction. It's kind of amazing to hear some Democrats openly put forth ideas like 'the answer to their issues today is segregation', when their party used to fight for integration and equality.
If the President wins reelection the Democrats will keep doing the same thing for the next 4 years.

I don't see the Republicans being nearly so bad because they don't have that type of personality in their leadership. But there will be no quarter given when there are opportunities. And there is going to be a huge amount of resentment outside the Beltway if the Democrats sweep under the rug the abuses by the Obama administration. I wish Barr and Durham would start getting indictments out there.

The hope for reducing the vitrol is 1) Trump wins in 2020; and 2) a less abrasive Republican wins in 2024 and destroys a radical Democrat. McGovern's stomping pushed the Democrats back to the center, as did Dukakis losing what the Dems thought was a sure win.
The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.

Bill Clinton was a sleaze the likes of which we have never seen in the presidency. Is it irrational to dislike having a crooked rapist in the presidency? Whitewater WAS a bribe. Merrill Lynch was a bribe. Has anyone else done a young intern IN the Oval Office (JFK has never been accused of doing his affairs there). And Hillary is a Marie Antoinette who is more crooked than Bill. Yes, there is visceral hatred of the Clintons. But if you don't like Trump's coarseness, it was Bill who made it mainstream and his supporters who excused it, just like Weinstein's supporters justified him for years.
(10-12-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
Bill Clinton was a sleaze the likes of which we have never seen in the presidency. Is it irrational to dislike having a crooked rapist in the presidency? Whitewater WAS a bribe. Merrill Lynch was a bribe. Has anyone else done a young intern IN the Oval Office (JFK has never been accused of doing his affairs there). And Hillary is a Marie Antoinette who is more crooked than Bill. Yes, there is visceral hatred of the Clintons. But if you don't like Trump's coarseness, it was Bill who made it mainstream and his supporters who excused it, just like Weinstein's supporters justified him for years.

I don't mind Clinton's or Trump's coarseness. My tax dollars pay a president to do a job, and how he does that job is more important than personal characteristics. Clinton is the last president that was pragmatic enough that people could work with him.
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hateddisliked Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.

I don't remember too many outright hating Bill Clinton at the time, not like the level of W Bush, Obama and now Trump. Laughing at him, disliking him yes, but not like what people had against the others. People who disagreed/disliked Bill tolerated him. Now many did begin to hate his wyfe and decided they weren't with her. But Bubba was a foil at best.
(10-12-2019 10:50 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hateddisliked Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
I don't remember too many outright hating Bill Clinton at the time, not like the level of W Bush, Obama and now Trump. Laughing at him, disliking him yes, but not like what people had against the others. People who disagreed/disliked Bill tolerated him. Now many did begin to hate his wyfe and decided they weren't with her. But Bubba was a foil at best.

I do. Maybe it was more extreme in Texas than in Atlanta (you are in Atlanta area, right?).

I really thought Newt and Bill could have reprised the old LBJ, Ike, and Mr. Sam bourbon and branch sessions and run the country together, and we would have been far better for it (they could even have swapped phone numbers, although Newt's taste in affair partners seems far better than Bill's). But the hatred on both sides would not allow it.
(10-12-2019 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
Bill Clinton was a sleaze the likes of which we have never seen in the presidency. Is it irrational to dislike having a crooked rapist in the presidency? Whitewater WAS a bribe. Merrill Lynch was a bribe. Has anyone else done a young intern IN the Oval Office (JFK has never been accused of doing his affairs there). And Hillary is a Marie Antoinette who is more crooked than Bill. Yes, there is visceral hatred of the Clintons. But if you don't like Trump's coarseness, it was Bill who made it mainstream and his supporters who excused it, just like Weinstein's supporters justified him for years.

I don't mind Clinton's or Trump's coarseness. My tax dollars pay a president to do a job, and how he does that job is more important than personal characteristics. Clinton is the last president that was pragmatic enough that people could work with him.

Thats the way I remember Clinton. After his mid-term disaster where Republicans took control of the House, Clinton ended up sliding to the right enough to be a decent president.

While many point to Trumps coarseness---the reality is the left has been coarse all along. Wildly unfounded charges of racism lace every single election. Worse yet, the media plays into this same charge. For instance, you never hear the media carefully saying---"AOC's "unfounded and unproven" charges of racism were again in the news today.

So is Trump a coarse scary person who has no business being president---or is Trump the first one to show Republicans that fighting fire with fire works and is the only way to win in the course nasty mud slinging politcal environment that the left has created? The left was only able to do that because the right was too polite to fight back in kind. As past Republican candidates understood, fighting back in kind creates an even more divisive atmosphere---but Trump shows us it also works. Its a little shocking that it took all this time to figure out that playing with one hand tied behind your back is a losing strategy. If the left doesn't like Trump's combative style---they should take a look in the mirror. The Left's course attacks and unfounded unsupported charges of racism have gone unchecked for decades and has led to the nasty divisive political environment we have today.
(10-12-2019 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:50 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hateddisliked Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
I don't remember too many outright hating Bill Clinton at the time, not like the level of W Bush, Obama and now Trump. Laughing at him, disliking him yes, but not like what people had against the others. People who disagreed/disliked Bill tolerated him. Now many did begin to hate his wyfe and decided they weren't with her. But Bubba was a foil at best.

I do. Maybe it was more extreme in Texas than in Atlanta (you are in Atlanta area, right?).

I really thought Newt and Bill could have reprised the old LBJ, Ike, and Mr. Sam bourbon and branch sessions and run the country together, and we would have been far better for it (they could even have swapped phone numbers, although Newt's taste in affair partners seems far better than Bill's). But the hatred on both sides would not allow it.

...and you were in North Atlanta area (Huntsville, AL) right? 03-wink

I'm not meaning to say absolutely nobody hated him, but I can't remember one friend or acquaintance who showed the levels that we've since seen towards W, Obama and Trump.
If Warren wins, it depends on if her handlers use her to govern as a run of the mill neo-liberal, and all of this divisive talk is just pandering for votes, or if they really mean it and intend on destroying this country.
(10-12-2019 11:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]...and you were in North Atlanta area (Huntsville, AL) right? 03-wink
I'm not meaning to say absolutely nobody hated him, but I can't remember one friend or acquaintance who showed the levels that we've since seen towards W, Obama and Trump.

Actually was in SE Texas. Montgomery County is the most republican county in the US, and that may have something to do with it.

I agree that it has ramped up successively with GWB, Obama, and now Trump.
(10-12-2019 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 11:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]...and you were in North Atlanta area (Huntsville, AL) right? 03-wink
I'm not meaning to say absolutely nobody hated him, but I can't remember one friend or acquaintance who showed the levels that we've since seen towards W, Obama and Trump.

Actually was in SE Texas. Montgomery County is the most republican county in the US, and that may have something to do with it.

I agree that it has ramped up successively with GWB, Obama, and now Trump.

Why do they have that reputation? Is it size? Off the top of my head, Hardin County goes like 90/10 Republican.
(10-12-2019 12:16 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 11:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]...and you were in North Atlanta area (Huntsville, AL) right? 03-wink
I'm not meaning to say absolutely nobody hated him, but I can't remember one friend or acquaintance who showed the levels that we've since seen towards W, Obama and Trump.
Actually was in SE Texas. Montgomery County is the most republican county in the US, and that may have something to do with it.
I agree that it has ramped up successively with GWB, Obama, and now Trump.
Why do they have that reputation? Is it size? Off the top of my head, Hardin County goes like 90/10 Republican.

Montgomery has a slightly smaller percentage breakdown but it has a much bigger population. It went about 75/25 for Trump in 2016 and also for Cruz in 2018. I think it gave both of them their largest numerical margins of any county in Texas. Democrats don't bother to run candidates for many local positions. There have been times when there were more libertarian candidates on the ballot than democrats.
(10-12-2019 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
Bill Clinton was a sleaze the likes of which we have never seen in the presidency. Is it irrational to dislike having a crooked rapist in the presidency? Whitewater WAS a bribe. Merrill Lynch was a bribe. Has anyone else done a young intern IN the Oval Office (JFK has never been accused of doing his affairs there). And Hillary is a Marie Antoinette who is more crooked than Bill. Yes, there is visceral hatred of the Clintons. But if you don't like Trump's coarseness, it was Bill who made it mainstream and his supporters who excused it, just like Weinstein's supporters justified him for years.

I don't mind Clinton's or Trump's coarseness. My tax dollars pay a president to do a job, and how he does that job is more important than personal characteristics. Clinton is the last president that was pragmatic enough that people could work with him.

That is a reasonable point of view. But it is also why you can't comprehend the disgust towards the Clintons.
(10-12-2019 11:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:50 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hateddisliked Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
I don't remember too many outright hating Bill Clinton at the time, not like the level of W Bush, Obama and now Trump. Laughing at him, disliking him yes, but not like what people had against the others. People who disagreed/disliked Bill tolerated him. Now many did begin to hate his wyfe and decided they weren't with her. But Bubba was a foil at best.

I do. Maybe it was more extreme in Texas than in Atlanta (you are in Atlanta area, right?).

I really thought Newt and Bill could have reprised the old LBJ, Ike, and Mr. Sam bourbon and branch sessions and run the country together, and we would have been far better for it (they could even have swapped phone numbers, although Newt's taste in affair partners seems far better than Bill's). But the hatred on both sides would not allow it.

...and you were in North Atlanta area (Huntsville, AL) right? 03-wink

I'm not meaning to say absolutely nobody hated him, but I can't remember one friend or acquaintance who showed the levels that we've since seen towards W, Obama and Trump.

Well nobody totally lost their head and acted like a nut about it.
(10-12-2019 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
Bill Clinton was a sleaze the likes of which we have never seen in the presidency. Is it irrational to dislike having a crooked rapist in the presidency? Whitewater WAS a bribe. Merrill Lynch was a bribe. Has anyone else done a young intern IN the Oval Office (JFK has never been accused of doing his affairs there). And Hillary is a Marie Antoinette who is more crooked than Bill. Yes, there is visceral hatred of the Clintons. But if you don't like Trump's coarseness, it was Bill who made it mainstream and his supporters who excused it, just like Weinstein's supporters justified him for years.

I don't mind Clinton's or Trump's coarseness. My tax dollars pay a president to do a job, and how he does that job is more important than personal characteristics. Clinton is the last president that was pragmatic enough that people could work with him.

Thats the way I remember Clinton. After his mid-term disaster where Republicans took control of the House, Clinton ended up sliding to the right enough to be a decent president.

While many point to Trumps coarseness---the reality is the left has been coarse all along. Wildly unfounded charges of racism lace every single election. Worse yet, the media plays into this same charge. For instance, you never hear the media carefully saying---"AOC's "unfounded and unproven" charges of racism were again in the news today.

So is Trump a coarse scary person who has no business being president---or is Trump the first one to show Republicans that fighting fire with fire works and is the only way to win in the course nasty mud slinging politcal environment that the left has created? The left was only able to do that because the right was too polite to fight back in kind. As past Republican candidates understood, fighting back in kind creates an even more divisive atmosphere---but Trump shows us it also works. Its a little shocking that it took all this time to figure out that playing with one hand tied behind your back is a losing strategy. If the left doesn't like Trump's combative style---they should take a look in the mirror. The Left's course attacks and unfounded unsupported charges of racism have gone unchecked for decades and has led to the nasty divisive political environment we have today.

There's a difference between being combative and fighting back compared to what President Trump does. He picks fights with nobodies. He IS coarse. He is sloppy with his language. He is often callous (I'm reminded of the question in the debates from the Muslim woman about something like acceptance and he immediately goes into, "You need to turn in the extremists in your mosques!") He could fight back without all of that.
(10-12-2019 03:05 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-12-2019 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The left hated Reagan, and even more GHWB. The right hated Bill Clinton, and developed a visceral hatred of all things Clinton, for reasons that I find irrational. The left hated GWB, the right hated Obama, and the hatred by each side of the other side has just grown by leaps and bounds. We need some sort of healing leader, but the last few have been anything but.
Bill Clinton was a sleaze the likes of which we have never seen in the presidency. Is it irrational to dislike having a crooked rapist in the presidency? Whitewater WAS a bribe. Merrill Lynch was a bribe. Has anyone else done a young intern IN the Oval Office (JFK has never been accused of doing his affairs there). And Hillary is a Marie Antoinette who is more crooked than Bill. Yes, there is visceral hatred of the Clintons. But if you don't like Trump's coarseness, it was Bill who made it mainstream and his supporters who excused it, just like Weinstein's supporters justified him for years.
I don't mind Clinton's or Trump's coarseness. My tax dollars pay a president to do a job, and how he does that job is more important than personal characteristics. Clinton is the last president that was pragmatic enough that people could work with him.
That is a reasonable point of view. But it is also why you can't comprehend the disgust towards the Clintons.

I can be disgusted with him, but still prefer him as president to the alternative, which in the impeachment case would have been Al Gore. Bill Clinton could not possibly do anything sleazy enough to make me want Al Gore to be president.

Kind of like I find Trump's persona disgusting, but not as bad as president as any democrat with whom I disagree on 100% of the issues, including 3 or 4 that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me.

The enemy of my enemies is my friend. I just wish my enemies had better enemies.
""You need to turn in the extremists in your mosques!") He could fight back without all of that."

Uh huh, he wasn't wrong though.

I agree he is very coarse but I don't care about his language. I care about his actions. With all the BS that the Demons have thrown at him, he's proven that they are lying. But what of his actions? This country has not been in such a good position in very many years and it's because he gets in the trenches to fight for it, unlike the Swamp. LBJ was much more coarse and a big racist and as a Demon really didn't accomplish much except make poor people depended on the government and not on themselves.

Thanks but I'll stick with callous Trump instead of a country destroying Demoncrap.
We can hope big liberal losses will make moderate Democrats rise to leadership, but I don't see it happening.

The problem is the far left's goal is not winning elections. Their goal is destroying Constitutional rule. They don't necessarily have to do that in the ballot box.

If the Democrats do not reject the extreme leftist leadership, the question isn't will there be violence, the question is how much.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's