is the US more divided now than before?

[NewOrleansTrolley]

Of course not. We're not killing each other after all nor are we afaird of open rebellion.

If you know American history, you'll know this is whatever. It might seem that way the older you get though.

[mvaliz]

Realistically the ideological divides in the country have been there for the last couple of centuries: On the Left you have those who think that they have all the answers if we follow their way exclusively, on the right you have those who think that they have all the answers if we follow their way exclusively and in the center you have those who say that everyone on the right and the left are fools and have stopped listening, and in the US has stopped voting to a degree. -big snip-

You see, I think that's the part that I'm realizing.

It's not that we're more divided... it's as the other poster said above - it's about one side being FAAAR more angry/hateful/louder than the other, and that REALLY drives home the division.

It's like owning a German Shepard and Golden Retriever - two separate dogs with two different styles. Then one dies and you replace it with a Tasmanian Devil. :P

[Darsithis]

Not by much. I remember my boss hearing I was possibly voting for Clinton - and he walked up to me and threatened me right to my face that if I voted for him, he'd fire me and scared me into not voting (was about 19 at the time in my first career-job... I was stupid)

Before you say it: Yes, it was sure as hell Illegal of him to do that... but again, I was 19 in what I perceived to be my dream job... I wasn't thinking along lines of morality and ethics back then. :P

Well, come on, that's happened to all of us at some point. There is always someone with extremely strong political views. You can't view that one incident as a sign of divisiveness for the entire country.

[tangers58]

were us posters this politically polarized after presidentil elections before? Maybe I am too young to remember or havent lived here long enough, but I dont remember this much name calling when bush was in office except for calling him an idiot for bushisms.

Nah, has been this way for as long as I can remember. Also for our most divided time we had this little thing called the Civil War

[mvaliz]

Of course not. We're not killing each other after all.

If you know American history, you'll know this is whatever. It might seem that way the older you get though.

Is that a joke? Did Gabby Giffords not teach you anything?

I'll admit, the 2016 elections might be the make-or-break point for the country in terms of division. I think either way it's not going to be fun:

If Dems win in 2016: There will be a series of VERY embarrasing and violent riots that Tea Party people will try to call the "Second Civil War" or "Second American Revolution". The UN/Rest of the world would say "Good god... sorry you have to deal with those idiots!"

If the Repubs win in 2016: There's a high chance the UN will kick us out and a true civil war to reclaim the USA would actually erupt, with the entire rest of the world backing the "Rebels", if only to keep the Tea Party nutjobs away from the nukes.

EDIT: Probably not a "True civil war" if republicans won I'll admit on hindsight... mostly because American Liberals tend not to be the violent ones. :P

[NewOrleansTrolley]

Do you actually believe that? My sarcasm meter blew up.

[mvaliz]

Well, come on, that's happened to all of us at some point. There is always someone with extremely strong political views. You can't view that one incident as a sign of divisiveness for the entire country.

Well, that's not just the one example. Many of my co-workers were staunch anti-democrats (One today is has moved on to be a Tea Party activist trying to take down the GOP in favor of his "right minded" thinking folks). Not to mention my family and family friends was pretty divided too.

Sure, those are still a small portion - and I'll VERY much agree that it's not nearly as bad as it is today...

...having said that, I guess you're right - we are pretty more divided now. :P

- - - Updated - - -

Do you actually believe that? My sarcasm meter blew up.

Probably not the "True civil war" part if republicans won I'll admit on hindsight... mostly because Liberals tend not to be the violent ones. :P

If the Dems won in 2016 though? Oh, I absolutely do believe that would happen... and it would be over VERY quickly and, again, be just more of an embarrassment than a war. :P

[TheTaurenOrc]

well as promised during his campaign we are more divided
this is what some voted for....twice now
so those who voted for him can not complain when this is what he promised

So when the opposition party manufactures crisis and goes on personal crusades to single out and split the American people, it's Obama's fault? That makes no sense, the Republican party is going out of its was to divide this country on so many issues.

Womens Rights (the whole birth control / religious rights fiasco)
Gay Marriage (self explanatory)
Health Care (need I say more? the whole government shutdown for christ sake)

The Republican party is offering this country nothing and doing everything in its power to derail any progress, period. Personally I feel anyone who would vote for a republican candidate is either incredibly misinformed or has questionable moral values.

[Jackmoves]

In recent times maybe(last 15-20 years), but not "all time high". There was the various social movements etc back in the day.

[Masark]

If the Dems won in 2016 though? Oh, I absolutely do believe that would happen... and it would be over VERY quickly and, again, be just more of an embarrassment than a war. :P

a 2nd whisky rebellion?

[Raeph]

You see, I think that's the part that I'm realizing.

It's not that we're more divided... it's as the other poster said above - it's about one side being FAAAR more angry/hateful/louder than the other, and that REALLY drives home the division.

It's like owning a German Shepard and Golden Retriever - two separate dogs with two different styles. Then one dies and you replace it with a Tasmanian Devil. :P

Beautiful dogs btw.

On topic, I think the best thing that will come of all this nonsense on the national level is that the states will become more empowered. We seem to be transitioning more and more to powerful governors rather than powerful Senators and Presidents. I personally think that is a good thing, for various reasons, which I won't get into.

The dysfunction at the national level has left open a fairly large power vacuum that is allow several aggressive Governors to begin making near national policy decisions and effecting national cultural discussions that used to be left up to DC. However now DC is left to itself to enjoy gridlock, the States, by and large, are making significant changes to policy, and standing up to the national policy makers in DC with significant success.

Think of these 8 governors and how much change they have brought about on the national level in the last 12 months: Jan Brewer(Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal(Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Jerry Brown (California), Pat Quinn (Illinois), Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) and Andrew Cuomo (New York). What we are seeing with the so called "national divide" that they OP is asking us to comment on is actually serving as a chance for the leaders of the states to be culture makers/shakers/changers, in contrast to the stagnation that we are seeing on the national level.

I think it makes things a bit fun to watch now. DC can be damned, the are making themselves more and more irrelevant by the day.

[Deleted]

The UN certainly won't kick the US out, that's just ridiculous. Even countries like North Korea are in the UN. No civil war is going to happen because people in America (as well as many other countries) are lazier than ever, a Facebook page isn't going to overthrow the government no matter how many likes it gets Although the 2016 elections may very well be more interesting than previous ones with more and more people getting fed up with both main parties, but it'll most likely depend on what happens in the last few months as recent memory is often the main thing that people base their decisions on (I don't see this shutdown or Syria making a major influence for example, unless the Syria situation does continue until then with US involvement one way or another).

I think the best thing that will come of all this nonsense on the national level is that the states will become more empowered.

So soon it'll just be "the States of America"?

[Shocking]

I've seen this discussion a lot recently, but you can read political polarization narratives in the media going back all the way to founding fathers. It's nothing new, and, as someone else pointed out, there will always be ebbs and flows in a two-party system like ours.

[stumpy]

If anything, we're a little less divided now than we were before the shutdown. Thanks, Senator Cruz!

[Lazy Gecko]

The GOP has painted themselves into a corner by pandering too much to conservative demographics and letting them carry the party. This is now an aging, dwindling group that you can't count on as much for securing enough votes anymore. The kind of people who run and influence the republicans, ie rich corporate guys, more than likely don't care at all about things like LGBT rights, religion or immigration (how could they logically say no to an influx of paperless, easily exploitable cheap workers?). They just happened to be popular issues among certain folks, and they could use those talking points to further their other agendas. But you can see which way the wind is blowing in the US, and they'll have to reinvent themselves and ditch the bible belt dependancy at some point in order to remain relevant.

You can see the same kind of tactic going on in Russia now with all the outrage over LGBT treatment. The politicians probably don't give a crap about it. It just so happens that the messed up nationalist gopnik youth culture is very widespread across Russia, so they can harness that sentiment to gain further power and influence.

[mvaliz]

Beautiful dogs btw.

On topic, I think the best thing that will come of all this nonsense on the national level is that the states will become more empowered. We seem to be transitioning more and more to powerful governors rather than powerful Senators and Presidents. I personally think that is a good thing, for various reasons, which I won't get into.

The dysfunction at the national level has left open a fairly large power vacuum that is allow several aggressive Governors to begin making near national policy decisions and effecting national cultural discussions that used to be left up to DC. However now DC is left to itself to enjoy gridlock, the States, by and large, are making significant changes to policy, and standing up to the national policy makers in DC with significant success.

Think of these 8 governors and how much change they have brought about on the national level in the last 12 months: Jan Brewer(Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal(Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Jerry Brown (California), Pat Quinn (Illinois), Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) and Andrew Cuomo (New York). What we are seeing with the so called "national divide" that they OP is asking us to comment on is actually serving as a chance for the leaders of the states to be culture makers/shakers/changers, in contrast to the stagnation that we are seeing on the national level.

I think it makes things a bit fun to watch now. DC can be damned, the are making themselves more and more irrelevant by the day.

OK - clearly you have a Republican/Liberalist ideology backing this.... one that I don't agree with....

...but you know what? I applaud you! You're the FIRST one here who presented the ideals behind it without resorting to ridiculous labels or too much fearmongering. Sure, I see the resentment... but that resentment wasn't what you're focusing on, but rather what you believe is the switches necessary.

While I still don't agree with your view, I'm at LEAST going to complement you on your civility! Please try to convince the rest of your party to act like that and you MIGHT see some more open up to your party's beliefs. ^_^

[Nictuswolf]

So when the opposition party manufactures crisis and goes on personal crusades to single out and split the American people, it's Obama's fault? That makes no sense, the Republican party is going out of its was to divide this country on so many issues.

Womens Rights (the whole birth control / religious rights fiasco)
Gay Marriage (self explanatory)
Health Care (need I say more? the whole government shutdown for christ sake)

The Republican party is offering this country nothing and doing everything in its power to derail any progress, period. Personally I feel anyone who would vote for a republican candidate is either incredibly misinformed or has questionable moral values.

Want a good look at what happens when liberals run something? >>See Detroit

Womens Rights: So it's ok to choose to murder a child?

Gay Marriage: This was just a shot at Christians, they always cry about Christians trying to make legislation against them but it is the opposite. They are making Legislation against Christians.

Health Care: Seriously? So it is ok for one half of the country to pay for the lazy half? Create jobs, jobs create money, money pays for healthcare.

Liberals are liberals because they take their liberal share of other peoples stuff, either it being money, freedom, or human life.

Liberals always cry "Fair share" but never pay theirs, they want their fair share at the expense of others.

[mvaliz]

Want a good look at what happens when liberals run something? >>See Detroit

Womens Rights: So it's ok to choose to murder a child?

Gay Marriage: This was just a shot at Christians, they always cry about Christians trying to make legislation against them but it is the opposite. They are making Legislation against Christians.

Health Care: Seriously? So it is ok for one half of the country to pay for the lazy half? Create jobs, jobs create money, money pays for healthcare.

Liberals are liberals because they take their liberal share of other peoples stuff, either it being money, freedom, or human life.

Liberals always cry "Fair share" but never pay theirs, they want their fair share at the expense of others.

You see this Raeph? This is the kinda insanity I'm talking about that you need to get rid of from your party.

EDIT: For your info Nick - if you believe us "Liberals" take at the expense of others... please observe my post I made here about the 30k I just paid this year in taxes, and was happy about it:
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...6#post23022726

[Mihalik]

Want a good look at what happens when liberals run something? >>See Detroit

Womens Rights: So it's ok to choose to murder a child?

Gay Marriage: This was just a shot at Christians, they always cry about Christians trying to make legislation against them but it is the opposite. They are making Legislation against Christians.

Health Care: Seriously? So it is ok for one half of the country to pay for the lazy half? Create jobs, jobs create money, money pays for healthcare.

Liberals are liberals because they take their liberal share of other peoples stuff, either it being money, freedom, or human life.

Liberals always cry "Fair share" but never pay theirs, they want their fair share at the expense of others.

Now you are making stuff up.

Like Detroit is all the local administrations fault, and it has nothing to do with Reagan era, deregulation of markets and the emigration of manufacturing to off-shore locations? Yes...Detroit exists in a void, apart from America and the rest of the world.

Women's Rights/Gay Rights- Majority disagrees with conservatives, and asks them to keep their religion and ideology out of their lives. On the other hand Republicans are hellbent on forcing their minority stance on everyone. Freedom and Democracy doesn't work like that. That is why they keep losing elections.

The rest of your arguments are just stuff Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh made up for you.

[Linkedblade]

Women's rights? Why not human rights?
Gay marriage? Why should the government regulate marriage to begin with?
Health care? If doctor's didn't have rediculous malpractise doctor's could take care of people for a much less expensive rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Now you are making stuff up.

Like Detroit is all the local administrations fault, and it has nothing to do with Reagan era, deregulation of markets and the emigration of manufacturing to off-shore locations? Yes...Detroit exists in a void, apart from America and the rest of the world.

Women's Rights/Gay Rights- Majority disagrees with conservatives, and asks them to keep their religion and ideology out of their lives. On the other hand Republicans are hellbent on forcing their minority stance on everyone. Freedom and Democracy doesn't work like that. That is why they keep losing elections.

The rest of your arguments are just stuff Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh made up for you.

Being conservative has nothing to do with any of this.