Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?

[LateForLunch]

I've read comments even on conservative websites where posters will wonder when conservatives "will come to their senses" and support lib social programs and positions.
I usually ask those people why they think there are different parties?  We have different parties with different stances on the issues for the obvious reason that Americans disagree on many things.
That is not a bad thing....if we believe that the great majority of Americans believe in the concept of free citizens not chained by gov. I'm afraid I'm losing my belief in that.
Fifty years ago when I was coming of age even most Dems (like my parents) distrusted gov. and were socially conservative.
Now, I think too many Americans have veered leftwards towards seeing Big Government as the cure for everything. I don't see good things coming down the road.

The insidious process by which leftists and Statists have moved public policy discussions incrementally further and further in their preferred direction is known as a "dialectic". It is somewhat complex to understand, but once you do, you will see how it is employed by the far left and NWO types to further their agendas at the expense of principled conservative idealism.

See in particular the Hegelian Dialectic in addition to Sophistic Dialectic and Marxist Dialectic. A true dialectic starts with stipulations of fact that are accepted by all involved in the discussion. One odious habit of far leftists and other sick bastards is that they insist that things which are either blatantly false or else controversial be included as stipulated fact before agreeing to proceed with any further discussion.

Weak and/or subversive RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), CHRINOs  (Christians in Name Only) JINOs (Jews in Name Only) and other unprincipled people will often accept false premises and proceed with discussion of other matters as if all is well, simply because they have no personal need to maintain integrity in a fundamental sense of republicanism or other matters that don't affect them directly. 

For instance, a person who does not care about 2nd Amendments Rights may engage in discussion of approval of legislation which provides concessions for their own chosen favorite issue (Medical Benefits, for instance) while the same bill if approved would savagely decimate the rights of others on issues that the principles do not care about.

[r9etb]

One odious habit of far leftists and other sick bastards is that they insist that things which are either blatantly false or else controversial be included as stipulated fact before agreeing to proceed with any further discussion.

It's generally more subtle than that.  The more common approach is to present something as "a problem," about which some action is required.  And in many cases, what is presented as "a problem" really is a problem.  It's more a matter of whether the problem should be addressed at all and, if so, how it should be addressed.  Those on the left usually have the advantage in such cases because 1) they're prepared beforehand and we're not; and 2) they go to all the meetings beforehand, and they have input to the agenda for this meeting, which is why this topic is on the agenda to begin with. 

Another common ploy is to play on sympathy as a means of distracting from important points.  The "same-sex marriage" thing is a case in point.  The appeal to sympathy went, "Isn't it terrible that people who love each other are denied a formal acknowledgement of their love and commitment?"  Speaking for myself, I have no problem (other than finding it rather sad) with people loving and being committed to a member of the same sex, and the sympathy ploy has a certain credibility.  I actually don't mind acknowledging a union as, for the people involved, it's probably better than the alternative.  The problem is that it's not "marriage" in the same way that men and women can get married.... and have children and raise children and continue the species.  The dynamic of that kind of marriage is drastically different from the kind of union that a same-sex couple can have.  The appeal to sympathy is in large part a means of disguising the fact that we're being asked to affirm the pretense that they are the same.  If we limit the definition of marriage to those areas where the differences are negligible, then not only do we eliminate those areas where the differences are crucial, we also fail to enforce the very things (related to family) that make marriage so important to society.

The defense against the sympathy ploy is mainly to name what's really at stake, in a way that does not strengthen the sympathy ploy. 

[Davidfxs]

I could never Except a  felon, or any one  who has committed such blatant  many crimes, as my command and chief.  The Laws are not a "Suggestions" 

[txradioguy]

I could never Except a  felon, or any one  who has committed such blatant  many crimes, as my command and chief.  The Laws are not a "Suggestions"

So what about a Presidential candidate who admits to sexual assault or causes average Americans to lose retirement savings in a fraudulent "University" ?

[ABX]

The solution never comes from Washington.

The healing won't start unless it comes from us, the citizens. Starting with our homes, our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches, our local government, and so on, expanding the healing outward.

If we look to Washington for healing, we are continuing the main problem that has damaged us in the first place.

[txradioguy]

The solution never comes from Washington.

The healing won't start unless it comes from us, the citizens. Starting with our homes, our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches, our local government, and so on, expanding the healing outward.

If we look to Washington for healing, we are continuing the main problem that has damaged us in the first place.

They aren't the solution...but they are certainly part of the problem.

Politicians...to include Donny...need us at each other's throats to get and keep their positions of power over us in DC.

[ABX]

I could never Except a  felon, or any one  who has committed such blatant  many crimes, as my command and chief.  The Laws are not a "Suggestions"

How about human trafficking? http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/modern-slavery-of-vulnurable-young-girls-canadian-says-she-modelled-illegally-for-trump

[aligncare]

It's really fun revisiting these old threads from two weeks ago, just to see how wrong the Nevers have been and continue to be. 

Clinton's toast. She'll never get that chance to "heal a divided nation." Thank you, Jesus!

[sinkspur]

It's really fun revisiting these old threads from two weeks ago, just to see how wrong the Nevers have been and continue to be. 

Clinton's toast. She'll never get that chance to "heal a divided nation." Thank you, Jesus!

Wanna bet?  I'll put $100 on it?

You?

[Silver Pines]

No way.

[txradioguy]

It's really fun revisiting these old threads from two weeks ago, just to see how wrong the Nevers have been and continue to be. 

Clinton's toast. She'll never get that chance to "heal a divided nation." Thank you, Jesus!

Hate to break it to you...but trump is incapable of doing that either.

[RedHead]

Nope. She'll be another divider-in-chief, just like Obama.

And Trump.

[LateForLunch]

Hate to break it to you...but trump is incapable of doing that either.

Not even you can foretell the future. Regardless of what anyone says, any declaration of what will happen in the future is only that - a speculative prognostication based in conjecture. So saying absolutely that Trump cannot or will not unite the nation as president is to claim to be able to foretell the future.

I will agree with you to the extent that I believe leftists cannot be brought into any unified program because so many of them are contrarians, Alienists and lunatics who will effectively decide that the best way to help a nation led by Trump is to effectively destroy it.

That was seen in the case of Bush 43 - where millions of leftists effectively behaved much like traitors through the entire administration of Bush as president. Such hateful lunacy would no doubt increase under a Trump presidency, because the 'Crats have invested massive political capital in claiming that Trump is nothing less than a horrible person who has equivalent character to a mass murderer or a despot similar to Hitler.

They will not easily back off of that stance because to do so would mean that they would have to admit that they are wrong and the Rabid Dog Democrats who now dominate the political landscape would literally rather see the world destroyed than to ever admit to being significantly wrong about anything. That is how insane I believe many, and perhaps most of them are.

[Night Hides Not]

Could a President Clinton heal a divided nation?   

She's Ma Chalmers...watch out, America!!!

[r9etb]

Not even you can foretell the future. Regardless of what anyone says, any declaration of what will happen in the future is only that - a speculative prognostication based in conjecture. So saying absolutely that Trump cannot or will not unite the nation as president is to claim to be able to foretell the future.

By the same token, neither do you know otherwise.  However, we can certainly look to Trump's past behavior and draw the reasonable conclusion that he'd be just as divisive as is he now. 

But you know that, even if you won't admit it.  Hell, I'd go so far as to say you want him to further alienate those with whom you disagree.

[skeeter]

And Trump.

Yep. The difference is the gears of government will grind along as they are under Clinton. Under Trump they'll likely come to a complete stop - the left will not allow him to be effective in any way, and he'll probably sabotage himself daily.

That, to me, is reason enough to vote for him over her. Something has GOT to change.

[sinkspur]

Not even you can foretell the future. Regardless of what anyone says, any declaration of what will happen in the future is only that - a speculative prognostication based in conjecture. So saying absolutely that Trump cannot or will not unite the nation as president is to claim to be able to foretell the future.

I will agree with you to the extent that I believe leftists cannot be brought into any unified program because so many of them are contrarians, Alienists and lunatics who will effectively decide that the best way to help a nation led by Trump is to effectively destroy it.

That was seen in the case of Bush 43 - where millions of leftists effectively behaved much like traitors through the entire administration of Bush as president. Such hateful lunacy would no doubt increase under a Trump presidency, because the 'Crats have invested massive political capital in claiming that Trump is nothing less than a horrible person who has equivalent character to a mass murderer or a despot similar to Hitler.

They will not easily back off of that stance because to do so would mean that they would have to admit that they are wrong and the Rabid Dog Democrats who now dominate the political landscape would literally rather see the world destroyed than to ever admit to being significantly wrong about anything. That is how insane I believe many, and perhaps most of them are.

Change a few nouns and you are describing Trump supporters perfectly.

[r9etb]

Yep. The difference is the gears of government will grind along as they are under Clinton. Under Trump they'll likely come to a complete stop - the left will not allow him to be effective in any way, and he'll probably sabotage himself daily.

That, to me, is reason enough to vote for him over her.

If you're correct -- and you probably are -- then it ends in impeachment for Trump sooner rather than later.  So, really, you'd be voting for the guy in long relief (i.e., Pence).

[skeeter]

If you're correct -- and you probably are -- then it ends in impeachment for Trump sooner rather than later.  So, really, you'd be voting for the guy in long relief (i.e., Pence).

Needless to say that wouldn't break my heart.

[kjam22]

Change a few nouns and you are describing Trump supporters perfectly.

.   I say let Hillary etal have it.   I don't work or need to generate income.  I'm 58 so I say go ahead and expand Medicare.  I can live the rest of my life just like we do now by spending my own money.  As far as I'm concerned she can give every tax dollar to the 47 percenters.  We're selling the suburb house and moving to our ranch.   We love it there anyway.  This country wants a socialist crooked criminal.... And I say give them what they want.  Give them what they want until it all falls apart or until they can't stand it anymore. 

[r9etb]

This country wants a socialist crooked criminal.... And I say give them what they want.  Give them what they want until it all falls apart or until they can't stand it anymore.

Sadly, that's probably what it's coming down to.  And nothing will change unless and until it all falls apart on her.  I might even be looking forward to it, except for that fact that a lot of people will get hurt as a result.

[skeeter]

.   I say let Hillary etal have it.   I don't work or need to generate income.  I'm 58 so I say go ahead and expand Medicare.  I can live the rest of my life just like we do now by spending my own money.  As far as I'm concerned she can give every tax dollar to the 47 percenters.  We're selling the suburb house and moving to our ranch.   We love it there anyway.  This country wants a socialist crooked criminal.... And I say give them what they want.  Give them what they want until it all falls apart or until they can't stand it anymore.

I wish I could say the same but living here in a very blue state we have alot to lose.

[dfwgator]

Sadly, that's probably what it's coming down to.  And nothing will change unless and until it all falls apart on her.  I might even be looking forward to it, except for that fact that a lot of people will get hurt as a result.

Well if they voted for it, let them get hurt.  Elections have consequences.  I hope Hillary's Presidency goes down in flames.

[Night Hides Not]

I wish I could say the same but living here in a very blue state we have alot to lose.

I predict we'll be seeing a lot more of this:



It's in our DNA in the Lone Star State.

[LateForLunch]

Well if they voted for it, let them get hurt.  Elections have consequences.  I hope Hillary's Presidency goes down in flames.

With all due respect, that attitude sounds very much like ones I imagine were displayed in the last years, months and days of the Roman Empire. Being proud of an attitude of indifference to the fate of the nation is sort of callous, don't you think? Maybe I misunderstood your meaning, but letting Hill-O-Lies win and then taking satisfaction in her destruction while she does much to bring the nation further down with her?

This all sort of sounds similar to things I have heard embittered divorcees say about their ex wives when they hear that they are dating someone who is a loser -  they say things like they hope they burn up in a car crash, or that ther house burns down or that they fall off a cliff.

I don't think they really mean these things any more than I believe that people like you mean the things they say such as in your post. 

This especially since the plans that Hill-O-Lies and the 'Crats have for the nation are so radical and insane that they could very well weaken the USA and turn it into a full-on third world hell hole. I can't believe that you or anyone else wants to see that happen.