The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

The metaphor “Can’t see the forest for the trees” seems increasingly apt for this thread and for our interpretive and remedial effort.

What is America? The fact is there is no solid or accepted definition. Or the definition is in flux. Also: factions desire to remake or refurbish the notion of America and the New Definition is loved while the old, original definition is hated.

So, which America is loved and which hated? And by whom?

In order to fight in this battle each side has to concretize a version of America and declare “This is the real one”.

The battle is over definitions, on one hand, but those who are real power-players in national and geo-political struggles — do they really care about patriotic definitions?

[Sculptor]

The Democrat Party Hates America

Yeah read Project 2025.

Trump and Desantis' fascist manifesto for the future of the United Reich of America, from which they have frwn inspiration from "Man in the HIgh Castle" by P K Dick.

[Gary Childress]

The metaphor “Can’t see the forest for the trees” seems increasingly apt for this thread and for our interpretive and remedial effort.

Fair enough. What is the "forest"? Are trees not also in the forest? Would there be a forest without trees?

[Sculptor]

The metaphor “Can’t see the forest for the trees” seems increasingly apt for this thread and for our interpretive and remedial effort.

Social Media Bubble is another one.

[Gary Childress]

The metaphor “Can’t see the forest for the trees” seems increasingly apt for this thread and for our interpretive and remedial effort.

Social Media Bubble is another one.

Yes. We know, like me you also get upset with people who don't agree with you. Join the family.

[Gary Childress]

In order to fight in this battle each side has to concretize a version of America and declare “This is the real one”.

Which "battle" are we talking about? Are we in a war? Is there such a thing as a "fake" America?

[Sculptor]

The metaphor “Can’t see the forest for the trees” seems increasingly apt for this thread and for our interpretive and remedial effort.

Social Media Bubble is another one.

Yes. We know, like me you also get upset with people who don't agree with you. Join the family.

I dislike people who are willfully stupid, if that is what you mean.

[Gary Childress]

Social Media Bubble is another one.

Yes. We know, like me you also get upset with people who don't agree with you. Join the family.

I dislike people who are willfully stupid, if that is what you mean.

Yes. I dislike such people too. But I've come to the conclusion that I'm not the measure of what is stupid and what is not. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

In order to fight in this battle each side has to concretize a version of America and declare “This is the real one”.

Which "battle" are we talking about? Are we in a war? Is there such a thing as a "fake" America?

Or, to reword the question: Why must there be two sides concretizing something between them? What do you wish from America, AJ? Why do you want us that way?

[commonsense]

So, Gary, here is one way that should work, that should do away with wars. Make the instigator nation (or both warring parties) succumb to sanctions and embargoes. That should work, but it won’t in reality, because sanctions are never universally applied, and an embargo may be interpreted as an act of war.

There was an effort in the 60s to stop the war in Vietnam. It failed. There is no practical way to end war without an overpowering force (of war). You can wish it weren’t so but that’s just the reality of it.

[Gary Childress]

So, Gary, here is one way that should work, that should do away with wars. Make the instigator nation (or both warring parties) succumb to sanctions and embargoes. That should work, but it won’t in reality, because sanctions are never universally applied, and an embargo may be interpreted as an act of war.

There was an effort in the 60s to stop the war in Vietnam. It failed. There is no practical way to end war without an overpowering force (of war). You can wish it weren’t so but that’s just the reality of it.

What makes you think that wars can't be stopped through diplomacy instead of "overpowering force"?

[promethean75]

There was an unstoppable force in the Vietnam war but the U.S. abandoned him.

[Gary Childress]

There was an unstoppable force in the Vietnam war but the U.S. abandoned him.

Yes. The US abandoned conscience when it fought the Vietnam War. Then Reagan got the wheel spinning again after we left Vietnam and invaded Grenada. Then Bush invaded Panama and Bush's son Jr. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Putin has invaded Ukraine. We're all back where we were at the end of WW2. Have we learned anything yet? Are we going to move on to a more peaceful world where governments are NOT churning out weapons at a ridiculous rate without a formal declaration of war?

[Gary Childress]

AND NO a formal declaration of war IS NOT the answer.

[commonsense]

So, Gary, here is one way that should work, that should do away with wars. Make the instigator nation (or both warring parties) succumb to sanctions and embargoes. That should work, but it won’t in reality, because sanctions are never universally applied, and an embargo may be interpreted as an act of war.

There was an effort in the 60s to stop the war in Vietnam. It failed. There is no practical way to end war without an overpowering force (of war). You can wish it weren’t so but that’s just the reality of it.

What makes you think that wars can't be stopped through diplomacy instead of "overpowering force"?

They can be if there’s a willingness to negotiate, but diplomacy can also fail, whereas a war on war, perpetrated by a superior force, will end the war that’s intended to be ended.