Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election

Remember the tea party was a response to the almost depression that happened. The tea party was a agenda driven group that gave outlet to peoples fear…just as the 1% protests did. Which side you took was based purely on partisan lines. On both sides things because sometimes ugly…because of that fear…rather than reaching across that chasm…we withdrew even more into those lines. I agree the people behind the tea party was a driven agenda, but the participants and the people of the tea party were just reacting to what they were afraid of and siding with the side that was familiar and safe…

But whether or not they believe in some of the more horrific viewpoints popular in this country right now, they’re still voting to support them. So I’m not sure it really matters what they may or may not actually believe in private. If someone continually votes for horrible people then that someone is more or less a horrible person. Viewpoints aren’t just political issues these days - it’s right vs. wrong, moral vs. immoral.

Problem is, GOP right wing intransigence and refusal to “split the difference” goes back at least to the mid-1990s, with the Contract [on] America. The Tea Party/Freedom Caucus is just a more extreme manifestation of it.

That’s a good point, and not recognizing these as are completely subjective terms is the key problem. The fact is right or wrong and moral vs immoral are cultural and societal norms. What we do to fit into the society we live within…the problem right now is that those definitions are completely fractured and in opposition depending what side of the line you stand. So there is no agreed on immoral or right, and worse we tend to ignore wrongs we would consider wrong when our side does it…because the other side is so much worse.

We have become a toxic marriage in America of non compatible ideals…which has only one inevitable outcome unless we open to talking and mending with people that are not are real and actual enemies.

I agree with this… it really is the dissolution of the fairness doctrine in the 80s that allowed this fracture to start…at least IMO and news outlets hocking pundits that talked about ideas than facts as news.

Obama did that for eight years straight. The Republicans laughed at him, refused to work with him, and then nominated Trump.

What kind of revisionist bullshit is this?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, won’t get fooled again!

Can you provide context to your disagreement with that passionate…assessment?

I’d agree with that. The problem was we the voters were not doing that! At least not as a expected cultural norm, so our other leaders were reflective of us. I give Obama a lot of credit, he stood out as a leader that tried to roll model what we should all strive for…it didn’t take. Some of it was President Obamas fault several rookie political mistakes hurt him and gave ammunition to his opponents. He was also a leader out of time in this modern culture of fractured identity. He couldn’t solve what we needed to own as the voters.

No kidding. On the health care reform law, it was analogous (as I saw on Maddow’s show back then) to agreeing on going in on a pizza with someone and trying to decide what to get, but they don’t want meat on it. Or veggies. Or cheese. Or tomato sauce. Or olive oil, garlic, spices of any kind. And finally, they don’t want it to have crust either.* Keeping in mind that the ACA was a warmed over Heritage Foundation plan whose bones Bob Dole had run on in '96.
Hell, Boehner couldn’t even control his own goddamn caucus in 2011 to keep the damn lights on.

*But they’re totes down for getting a pizza!!

Well, the tea party did get rolling around the time of the financial crisis so it’s not immediately obvious bullshit. Economic downswings have lead to the rise of populists before, though I’d be tempted to point the finger more at the rise of filter bubbles and alternative facts.

Yes the trend of alternative facts were growing but I think it was the financial crisis that propelled the tea party to the limelight (because EVERYONE was afraid whether they were wiling to admit it or not).

I’d agree the entire strategy of the party was horseshit… being a party of no is not a solution. Reminding people, how the hell we are going to pay for this right after bailing out wall street and the banks, and the auto industry, and… you need to figure out HOW you are going to pay for all of it. just being a defiant and petulant NO is completely against what the founding fathers envisioned…

…but that’s the world we live in. You’re asking people to reach a hand across the aisle to people who simply refuse to budge, and worse IMO, have created a reality in their head that simply does not exist in fact. They’re like three year olds who look at the toy broken by their own hand moments before as Mom and Dad watched and claim right to their parents’ face, “I didn’t break it!” and never relent!

Adults don’t live like that. So apparently, there aren’t many adults on the R side of the aisle atm?

Yep, the only way forward is to brutally crush the GOP at the ballot box to remind future generations of politicians that if you try to ignore the facts and peddle division and hate the electorate will punish you.

I really sincerely wish anyone trying to do this the best, I’m just not sure how it’s achieved.

There is actually a ton of reaching across the isle these days. Only it’s between actual conservatives and liberals against Trump and his authoritarianism.

The problem is that those conservatives aren’t really in power.

Again its us the voters that created the environment and elected the leadership. I don’t know the whole answer but I know it takes being involved, talking, and really listening and building a new right and moral baseline based on what both sides can see working towards.

Or better yet give up the partisan sides and just work to discuss the specific challenge(s) in a practical and measurable way.

If we don’t find a way to listen and find a new middle do you disagree with Lincoln or the bible that we will fail as a nation? That its likely to get ugly, costly, and horrific before it ever gets better if we fail. I’d rather consider renegotiating a new national identity and universal definitions of right and wrong than let it go that bad…

Negotiating a new definition of right and wrong with the party of Nazism seems substantially worse in the long run than going to civil war against said party to enforce the definition of right and wrong where Nazism is bad.

I was heartened to see some of that. though the i see voters calling that betrayal or DINO/RINOs. That part makes me deeply sadden. Its a reflection that no one can talk to the other side without being branded a traitor…which is why reaching across the isle isn’t becoming more common I suspect

I mean… sure, but when one side is never going to do that, then trying to do it means they’ll win every time.