How Trump's Rhetoric Has Divided The Nation And Increased Political Polarization

[PoliTalker]

As I said, we have always been a divided nation.

I don't think the Hillary comment helped our unity, but you have to admit we have some deplorable people in this nation.

Then why did the dems drive the blue dog democrats from the party?

That happened after the Democratic party split over civil rights.

So your idea of bipartisanship is that the left doesn't need to do anything and the right needs to do everything, huh?

No, not at all. I think we need to work together and really listen to one another instead of name-calling. I am always willing to discuss policy here, but the most extreme right wingers can not do that without name-calling, insult-hurling, unloading hatred, etc. I am completely willing to listen to why arguments for conservative policy might be better, but in between the insults, name-calling and flames, I have not heard any convincing arguments backed up by verifiable facts. I don't disrespect anybody here or get angry at other poster for supporting policy I disagree with, so I don't understand it when others get angry at me for believing what makes sense to me. To a T, every extreme right wing poster here has flamed on me. I don't see how it is possible to have a rational discussion of policy with people like that, nor do I understand where all this hatred comes from. I just want to do my part and be a good citizen in a prosperous nation. I don't deserve to be flamed at for that. Nobody does. That shuts down meaningful discussion, which is apparently what the extreme right wants to do. They don't want people actually talking and listening to one another. All I can do is put it out there that I am willing to talk and listen in civil discourse. I can't force people to be cordial and fair when they are determined to be angry and hateful.

I see it as human nature.

Using polarization to become wealthy is 'human nature?' Well, yes, greed is a part of human nature. So is killing and mass murder. Some parts of human nature we deem as harmful to society so we prohibit those things.

You cannot regulate speech that way. For every Hillary book there is an Ann Coulter book.

Yeah, it's a toughie. I have wondered if political advertising should be illegal, on the assumption that it's all propaganda. Not sure if I am ready to go as far as advocating that. But I'd like to hear ideas for attempting to regulate inciting hatred.

Besides, you have already made it clear that you don't think your "Peaceful mature" side should have to change or compromise.

I have done no such thing. You just made that up. You have no support for that statement.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Tranquillus in Exile,

The US is far more bitterly divided than any other western nation (so far). Other countries have political rivalries; the US has HATE.

Trump didn't cause that, but he seized on it, appealed to it, made it worse. What is it about the modern American experience that brought this about?

I think hate radio played a big part.

How could there not be a consequence of having flamboyant talking heads spew hatred all day long every day?

[Heff]

It's not like President Trump invented hate speech. We figured out how to capitalize on hatred long before the rise of Trump. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et all have been profiting huge from it for a long time. Emotionally shocking messages get attention. As soon as you have somebody's attention, hit 'em with a commercial. Show the commercial enough times, people buy product. That pays for everything, inadvertently making hatred profitable. That's part of the sorry side of capitalism. Strong and effective, well funded public education can make this far less effective. But we don't have that, because we think tax breaks for the rich are a better deal for society.

Did those hate-peddling pundits think there would be no harm in selling hatred of liberals, half of the nation? Naturally, our nation became more polarized. Trump has capitalized politically on that polarization.

What Trump has done has been to take hate speech to an exponential new level. He has used this simple formula: Twitter + media story domination with emotional shock factor = power and wealth. Anybody who stands in his way is crushed, swept aside. Relentless down-talking of opponents builds crowd-mentality support for whatever Trump wants. And it's all built on spreading hatred. Oh, *so* emotional about everything. What an act. And the right is totally falling for it. So they support him as he abuses the powers of his office a little more each time. The integrity of the USA is like a frog being slowly brought to a boil.

The result is increased hatred on the right for everybody and everything Trump down-talks.

The left is angered by hearing Trump encourage racism, hatred and violence. Many on the left are also harboring new-found hatred for right wing politics. Because of Trump. And make no mistake. Trump is as right WING politician. He is not quite to the point of extremism, but he is uncomfortably close to it.

After forcing policies which hurt people, those hurt on the left are angry at the right. This also generates hatred on the left for the right.



Where did we, as a nation, go wrong?

We have a lot of very rich and powerful people running this country, but most of the people don't seem to be very happy. Even the President who gets his way! And somehow, Gee, I don't know how, this happens:

The more bitterly the two sides are divided, the richer and more powerful the rich and powerful become.


Maybe it is time we take the importance of education more seriously. Maybe it is time that we learn the true measure of character is not wealth, consumption nor accumulation of the trappings of wealth. It is achievement for social good. It is not taking, but giving.

Standard anti-troll thread thief disclaimer:

How did we become so divided?

Can our nation function well while being so bitterly opposed to one another?

What can we do to move toward more unity?

Is it a problem that some use this polarization to become wealthy?

How can that be regulated?

Just note that you're blaming one man's words for dividing an entire country.

Regarding unity, the most united, anti-partisan, least divided also happen to be the most totalitarian. Division is a fundamental property of politics. Without it you're left with mind-numbing consensus and conformity.

[tsuke]

We'll pack the fucking courts, then your fascist kangaroo court goes poof.

BUT! i still get a supreme court justice Alex Jones right?

[Irish Exit]

I don't think the Hillary comment helped our unity, but you have to admit we have some deplorable people in this nation.

No I really don't have to admit that. I don't worry that much about other people's nature.

That happened after the Democratic party split over civil rights.

It more happened after Clinton.

No, not at all. I think we need to work together and really listen to one another instead of name-calling. I am always willing to discuss policy here, but the most extreme right wingers can not do that without name-calling, insult-hurling, unloading hatred, etc. I am completely willing to listen to why arguments for conservative policy might be better, but in between the insults, name-calling and flames, I have not heard any convincing arguments backed up by verifiable facts. I don't disrespect anybody here or get angry at other poster for supporting policy I disagree with, so I don't understand it when others get angry at me for believing what makes sense to me. To a T, every extreme right wing poster here has flamed on me. I don't see how it is possible to have a rational discussion of policy with people like that, nor do I understand where all this hatred comes from. I just want to do my part and be a good citizen in a prosperous nation. I don't deserve to be flamed at for that. Nobody does. That shuts down meaningful discussion, which is apparently what the extreme right wants to do. They don't want people actually talking and listening to one another. All I can do is put it out there that I am willing to talk and listen in civil discourse. I can't force people to be cordial and fair when they are determined to be angry and hateful.

Ironic. See below.**

Using polarization to become wealthy is 'human nature?' Well, yes, greed is a part of human nature. So is killing and mass murder. Some parts of human nature we deem as harmful to society so we prohibit those things.

It is far more systemic than that. NBC will promote income equality being bad on MSNBC and literally the next channel over for me is NBC's BravoTV that is all about playing up income inequality with its shows about yachts, foodies, millionaire reality shows, etc. playing up income inequality.

Yeah, it's a toughie. I have wondered if political advertising should be illegal, on the assumption that it's all propaganda. Not sure if I am ready to go as far as advocating that. But I'd like to hear ideas for attempting to regulate inciting hatred.

Political advertising is irrelevant. People just need to accept that there are a lot of people who believe the opposite of them, have completely different life experiences, cultures, and world views.

I have done no such thing. You just made that up. You have no support for that statement.

So rather than ask, "What makes you think that?" You proclaim yourself innocent and me a liar. How very open minded and self-reflective.**

[PoliTalker]

Hello Heff,

Just note that you're blaming one man's words for dividing an entire country.

I said he made it worse.

Regarding unity, the most united, anti-partisan, least divided also happen to be the most totalitarian. Division is a fundamental property of politics. Without it you're left with mind-numbing consensus and conformity.

Ya know, I can understand division and disputing the best policy; but why all the anger and hatred? That destroys meaningful debate. What happened to 'love thy neighbor?' I don't recall anything about hating thy political foe.

[PoliTalker]

No I really don't have to admit that. I don't worry that much about other people's nature.

You won't admit there are deplorable people? Child sexual predators are not deplorable? Racism isn't deplorable? Mass shooters are fin upstanding citizens?

It more happened after Clinton.

I would respectfully submit that the big split of the blue dog Dems toward the Republican party occurred following the Civil Rights Act.

It is far more systemic than that. NBC will promote income equality being bad on MSNBC and literally the next channel over for me is NBC's BravoTV that is all about playing up income inequality with its shows about yachts, foodies, millionaire reality shows, etc. playing up income inequality.

I don't see how that justifies using polarization as a tool to get rich. The lucrative activity does not benefit society overall. It picks winners and losers. Ideally, society should reward that which contributes to society.

Political advertising is irrelevant. People just need to accept that there are a lot of people who believe the opposite of them, have completely different life experiences, cultures, and world views.

I believe our system of values should not reward hate speech.

So rather than ask, "What makes you think that?" You proclaim yourself innocent and me a liar. How very open minded and self-reflective.**

You're making unsupported claims here. I am interested in understanding why you believe what you do, but if you say something I understand to be false, I am going to point that out. Wouldn't you do the same if I said something false? Having a misunderstanding is not the same as lying. I think people of opposing views can give one another insight as to why each believes the things they do. It's important to be able to accept a credible reason why something we believe may not be correct. When I am shown to be wrong I accept it and end up better informed for having learned and corrected the mistake. Nothing wrong with that. We learn from our mistakes. We all make them. It's OK to be respectfully told by another. We have to accept that or we don't improve our perception of the world.

But, of course, for those who refuse to accept this, there's always name-calling and flaming. Just trot out the trash-talk as a substitute for the ability to convincingly refute an objectionable statement. Standard troll procedure. There's got to be a better way. We must be better than that.

[Aarr!]

We learn from our mistakes. We all make them.

President Trump never made a mistake. Except once when he bad-mouthed the Pope, and somebody reminded him there are 80 million Catholics in America.

[Sirthinksalot]

The party of hate will fall! They must compromise and become more centrist, they are too extremist to stay in government.

You're talking about the Democrats, right?

[kudzu]

Hillary divided us into the deplorables, the sort of deplorables and the democrats.



Our country was designed to be in a perpetual state of opposition.



The left can surrender.



Nope.



Can't be.

You haven't forgotten all the hateful rhetoric from the birthers, have you? How about the vicious slanders against Mrs Obama?

[Irish Exit]

You haven't forgotten all the hateful rhetoric from the birthers, have you? How about the vicious slanders against Mrs Obama?

Politics are politics. The people who think it is horrible now, should spend some time deep diving into the history of negative campaign tactics. Lots of butt sex type stuff. My favorite has always been LBJ first winning by starting a rumor that the wildly popular opponent he was facing was arrested for having sex with animals. Once his opponent felt that it was necessary to come out and deny that it was true, his support cratered.

[PoliTalker]

Hello kudzu,

You haven't forgotten all the hateful rhetoric from the birthers, have you? How about the vicious slanders against Mrs Obama?

And even when they go low, she still goes high. Class act.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Sirthinksalot,

You're talking about the Democrats, right?

I must have missed something. What is so hateful about Democrats? They love everybody.

Giving up strong approval ratings to finally bring healthcare to everybody is an act of love for the American people. Trying to take it away is hateful.

[Sirthinksalot]

Hello Sirthinksalot,



I must have missed something. What is so hateful about Democrats? They love everybody.

They certainly don't love conservatives or Republicans. Protesting outside of Tucker Carlson's home to intimidate his family is not an act of love.

Giving up strong approval ratings to finally bring healthcare to everybody is an act of love for the American people. Trying to take it away is hateful.

The ACA did not provide healthcare to everyone. In many cases, it made health insurance so expensive, people couldn't afford to use it. And I would describe it as more of a first step toward control than an expression of love.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Sirthinksalot,

They certainly don't love conservatives or Republicans. Protesting outside of Tucker Carlson's home to intimidate his family is not an act of love.

Point of order: That wasn't all Democrats. It would be disingenuous to hold all Democrats responsible for the actions of a few.

The ACA did not provide healthcare to everyone.

Then it is time to adopt Medicare For All.

In many cases, it made health insurance so expensive, people couldn't afford to use it.

Yes, we've heard that, but how much of it is verified and how much of it is rhetoric? Do you have examples of a rich person made poor because of the ACA? (I know it made a some really rich people much richer...) Do you have examples of a middle class person made poor by the ACA? Or is it really just people who could actually afford it, but merely complained that they had to pay more to help their less fortunate neighbors. We certainly didn't see many people quitting work so that they could be needy and get it for free like the ones they were complaining about. If they had it so good, why did the complainers not want to take their place? What actually happened was anybody who could get a job got one, and the economy expanded even after conservatives wrongly complained the ACA would hurt the economy.

And I would describe it as more of a first step toward control than an expression of love.

The ACA was about Americans showing their love for other Americans, whether they could afford health care or not.