The Republican Crisis

[Divinus Arma]

The election season has long since begun, and it shall lead right up to the huge season in 2008. Everything is up for grabs, but the dynamics of the current political atmosphere are striking in so far as polarity, special interests, and power-hunger have gripped both parties.

Speaking as a staunch constitutional conservative I see a truly unique crisis for the Republican Party. Observe:

The Democrats have always been fractured due to their policy of serving anyone and everyone at once. The only voice of unity in the Democrat party talking points have been: (a) “Republicans are evil” and (b) “we, the Dems, are more socially permissive than the Christian GOP”. This is nothing new. What IS new is that many Americans do not want a socialist system in America. Americans are rightly fearful of expanded government power, no matter who holds it. Americans do not want to give anyone a free ride, and expect each individual to rightfully earn their place in this world, unless of course they are crippled. Hence, the “compassion” in modern conservatism.

The Republican Party has been given a once-in-a-generation chance of uniting this country under their core principles of smaller government, stronger national security, and conservative social policy. So, in this new climate of populist conservatism, what has the Republican Party done?

They have squandered it by abandoning their principles and becoming whores to power.
• No Child Left Behind was a MASSIVE enlargement of federal power over state governments.
• The NSA wiretaps were outrageous because their already existed secret judicial oversight- why sidestep it and expand federal executive power? The official line from AG Gonzalez was that obtaining a warrant was “too much work”.
• A marriage amendment: NOW? And why at the federal level? This is a state issue; what works for Alabama might not work for California.
• Illegal Immigration- The Republican controlled Senate has passed a bill granting amnesty to all illegals with the enthusiastic endoresement of the President. (One of the 1993 world trade center bombers was a 1986 amnesty recipient, BTW. How's that for national security?)
• Pork Barrel spending by the federal legislature that I could never have dreamed of. The $30 million Alaskan bridge to nowhere is a prime example of feeding at the trough.
• The propping up of the oil industry has compromised our national security to terrorist states like Iran. An energy independence initiative would promote domestic innovation while providing us with unimaginable foreign policy capability.

So as a conservative in a conservative nation, surrounded by fellow conservatives, what am I to do? My party has betrayed me. This is the current crisis of the Republican Party.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Republicans this season or for the big one in 2008. This would give notice to all in the GOP that they have a "free pass" and that I approve of their betrayal.

Nor can I vote for the Democrats. They are even more destructive to America than the Republicans, given their hatred of our troops, sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi, socialist squishy give-money-to-lazy-crack-whores policy, true federal power hunger, and Dean-scream liberal zeal. After all, it was Carter who was responsible for Iran-Contra, trading weapons for hostages. It was Clinton who allowed North Korea to develop nukes behind the back of the UN. It was Clinton who ran from Somalia like a tail tugged Chihuahua. It's Murtha, Pelosi, and Dean who all scream that our troops commit atrocities and that we should run from the middle east and hide from AQ. It was liberal constitutional interpretation by a left-leaning judiciary that has eliminated private property rights and eliminated state sovereignty. The Democratic Party has decided that the return to power is more important than the security of this nation. There is blood in the water and the Democrats are in a political feeding frenzy.

The Republicans offer us conservatives their policy betrayal. But it is the Democrats that offer us destruction.

So what is a lowly conservative champion like me to do? My party has abandoned me. I cannot vote for the GOP because they would grow more bloated with self-deluded false confidence. And I can't stay home because the Democrats would cause irreversible damage to America, both at home and abroad.

It is indeed a crisis for the average American patriot conservative.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Have your primaries taken place yet? If not, I'd suggest voting for the GOP candidate who is currently not the incumbent (assuming that a Dem isn't one).

If they have... vote Libertarian.

[Papewaio]

Question:

So what is a lowly conservative champion like myself to do? My party has abandoned me. I cannot vote for the GOP because they would grow more bloated with self-delluded false confidence. And I can't stay home because the Democrats would cause irreversible destruction to America.

Answer:
Immigrate, run for politics or get involved in a grassroots organisation.

In addition given outside information to the question, that you are a law enforcement officer. Become a civilian one at the state or federal level and deal with the issues that you find most likely to cause harm to your nation at the long run.

Or given your teaching, become a teacher and change the nation one child at a time. Help create independent thinkers of the future.

[Reverend Joe]

Oh, give it a rest, Divinus. You know goddamn well both parties are wildly rightwing, not to mention Totalitarian. And for that matter, the vast majority of that which you attribute to Leftism is actually Totalitarianism. So just stop it. Please.

[Divinus Arma]

Oh, give it a rest, Divinus. You know goddamn well both parties are wildly rightwing, not to mention Totalitarian. And for that matter, the vast majority of that which you attribute to Leftism is actually Totalitarianism. So just stop it. Please.

Time to put down the hash pipe and open a book my very good commie friend.

Please tell me how you came to this conclusion me Amigo.


edit:

An

swer:
Immigrate, run for politics or get involved in a grassroots organisation.

Well. Political office MIGHT be a possibility in 30 years. But then some leftist nut here will dig up my picture and mention "sheet of glass". Than it will all be over. lol

In addition given outside information to the question, that you are a law enforcement officer. Become a civilian one at the state or federal level and deal with the issues that you find most likely to cause harm to your nation at the long run.

I leave this career in August. I'll never work in LE again. I'm tired of dealing with liars. I work in public service to help people. LE does that, but indirectly. By the time I get there, the crime has been committed. And I am sooo tired of cops who think they are tough stuff cause they carry a gun and have a little authority. I feel best about my job as a cop when I am the shoulder for the victim to cry on, the source of info for the distraught, the sense of calm in the storm. I like to make people's lives better than they were just seconds before they met me. And I do not get to do enought of that as a cop. I never got my jollies cracking heads. I just angry at the drunks and the abusers, which made me feel like crap inside because it is always reactive and not proactive. I'm sick of chasing losers. Kudos to the guys who get their rocks off, but it isn't for me. 7 years is enough.

I'll stay in public service. But I am making a career change to the Fire department. I'll teach college on the side, and eventually get into management as a captain or chief. After I finish my PhD in public policy, maybe I'll work in emergency management and disaster relief. Then maybe the fact that I wake up every day will actually mean something. Maybe I can do a little of God's will in a big way. I've always been amazingly calm and focused in times of hard core crisis; bringing order to chaos. I feel most comfortable in the eye of the storm.

Or given your teaching, become a teacher and change the nation one child at a time. Help create independent thinkers of the future.

I'll teach college once I finish my first graduate degree. And I will continue to do that until long after I retire from a life of stress and hardship. Teaching people who want to learn- that's an awesome exchange.

[Reverend Joe]

Time to put down the hash pipe and open a book my very good commie friend.

Please tell me how you came to this conclusion me Amigo.

Uh... common sense and READING?

Seriously, I became a heavy "individual freedoms" leftist long before I took up drug use, or any addictive substance for that matter. And I am NOT a Communist. That is totalitarian and I LOATHE totalitarians.

[Divinus Arma]

Uh... common sense and READING?

Seriously, I became a heavy "individual freedoms" leftist long before I took up drug use, or any addictive substance for that matter. And I am NOT a ****ing Communist. That is totalitarian and I LOATHE totalitarians.

Edit: whoa... I wrote "****ing"... sorry. Moody trip.

Easy big daddy. Calm yourself. I know you hate the system of control.

However, there ARE moral absolutes. There must be otherwise all ethics are relative and all crimes are jsutifiable.

It is an elected government that determines the moral will of the people. And the people of this country have been betrayed by their own parties time and time again.

[Reverend Joe]

Easy big daddy. Calm yourself. I know you hate the system of control.

However, there ARE moral absolutes. There must be otherwise all ethics are relative and all crimes are jsutifiable.

It is an elected government that determines the moral will of the people. And the people of this country have been betrayed by their own parties time and time again.

If you are saying that, then I agree with you. I am fully against the two-party system, because it stifles all ideas except for those at the top, most common of which is Totalitarianism.

[Kanamori]

The Republican Crisis

Yes, for the last fifty years, the Republicans have been a crisis for America.

I don't know why anyone should feel particular loyalty to one party or any parties. I vote based on how they match me, and I will not support someone who is not the best matched to my philosophy; I would feel responsible for all the poor actions taken.

"we, the Dems, are more socially permissive than the Christian GOP”

They are more permissive, but they would never say 'christian' as if it were a bad thing. All of the dems have bent over backward to appear more religious than they are, and it's really sickening.

Americans do not want to give anyone a free ride, and expect each individual to rightfully earn their place in this world, unless of course they are crippled.

Yep, and then they should look at all the people born into famous riches who will never work but to hire someone to do it for them. They give them a free ride besides, by perpetuating their wealth by buying only coca cola, et al. What is funniest though is how people don't want to give others a free ride, and then they ignorantly label some tax on the transfer of property a 'death tax.'

And I'll not put down my pipe, not now and not ever.

[Divinus Arma]

Yep, and then they should look at all the people born into famous riches who will never work but to hire someone to do it for them. They give them a free ride besides, by perpetuating their wealth by buying only coca cola, et al. What is funniest though is how people don't want to give others a free ride, and then they ignorantly label some tax on the transfer of property a 'death tax.'

Ah yes. inheritance. Why dont; you tell your keenedys and kerrys to ditch their cash first?

Nepotism is rampant in politics and government.

Inheritance, on the other hand, is the right of the holder of wealth to do with it as he pleases. That money is not the property of the state or "society" (lazy poor people). It was the earned right of the person who obtained it and they can do whatever they so please. The alternative is to simply give it to their heirs before death, so what is the difference? Let's not talk socialist theory. I'm just pointing out that the Republicnas are screwing us and the Dems would destroy us. That's all. That leaves GOPers in a bad way. You dem blind followers are kind of out of the equation for us.

[Kanamori]

Dem blind followers? You need to put down the can.



There are very few on these boards that respect that sad thing representing 'liberalism'. They are only barely better because they are not focused on forcing people to come to their stuffy morality.

[Divinus Arma]

Dem blind followers? You need to put down the can.



There are very few on these boards that respect that sad thing representing 'liberalism'. They are only barely better because they are not focused on forcing people to come to their stuffy morality.

The liberalization of the GOP is tempered only by the christianization of democrats. Betrayal to all. Success to none. An electorate unrepresented. A country in crisis.

The direction America must take is clear to all. But there is no political will to make it so.

[AntiochusIII]

Now, for a late-night exercise in the art of internet post-study, we shall together examine this first post, shall we?

And bear with the sarcasm, please.

The election season has long since begun, and it shall lead right up to the huge season in 2008. Everything is up for grabs, but the dynamics of the current political atmosphere are striking in so far as polarity, special interests, and power-hunger have gripped both parties.

A most unsuspecting of beginnings. We see here the scene far too common in the history of humanity.

Speaking as a staunch constitutional conservative I see a truly unique crisis for the Republican Party. Observe:

And he proposes his thesis. Of course, we are left to wonder what does he mean, exactly, by "Constitutional Conservative?" Is he talking about adhering to the interpretation of the day, the oldest interpretation (how, exactly, would anyone know that?), the interpretation of his preference, and hence the right one, or the interpretation as strict as possible to the words written, of course having a hard time at every vague point? We may never know.

The Democrats have always been fractured due to their policy of serving anyone and everyone at once. The only voice of unity in the Democrat party talking points have been: (a) “Republicans are evil” and (b) “we, the Dems, are more socially permissive than the Christian GOP”. This is nothing new. What IS new is that many Americans do not want a socialist system in America. Americans are rightly fearful of expanded government power, no matter who holds it. Americans do not want to give anyone a free ride, and expect each individual to rightfully earn their place in this world, unless of course they are crippled. Hence, the “compassion” in modern conservatism.

First claim: the Democrats have a policy of serving everyone and anyone. Of course, it does not recognize the fact that poor President Johnson signed away the racist South with his Civil Rights bill, which sadly did not serve everyone, really, those poor segregationists.

Second claim: they like to say Republicans are evil. Indeed they are. Like all of those who wants power over others. Of course, we understand his point here and we're just playing around.

Third claim: they like to think they are more socially permissive than the Christian GOP. Of course, their propaganda does say that, except for the Christian part. They're not foolish enough to touch the sensitive religious button.

Fourth claim, Americans, told here in a singular-plural perspective (ahem, generalized), hates socialists, which is of course a bad word, and ties it with expanded government power. Because only those who sit at the Left of one old French council was responsible for an Orwellian state.

Fifth claim, that modern conservatism how adds compassion into it. Nice. Though we must wonder why this particular poster choose to take up a banner of the 2000 election event which he apparently hates, and really means nothing.

The Republican Party has been given a once-in-a-generation chance of uniting this country under their core principles of smaller government, stronger national security, and conservative social policy. So, in this new climate of populist conservatism, what has the Republican Party done?

He provides the Republican party with some "core principles" they must uphold. Poor man, he forgot the Party is an evolving entity whose birth involves an issue long past (slavery) and through its evolvements become an institution with the sole intention of serving itself. Its own power, how Machiavellian, is its raison d'etre. Just like its supposed very opposite. The ends are the same=power. The differing means? Whore a different group.

They have squandered it by abandoning their principles and becoming whores to power.
• No Child Left Behind was a MASSIVE enlargement of federal power over state governments.
• The NSA wiretaps were outrageous because their already existed secret judicial oversight- why sidestep it and expand federal executive power? The official line from AG Gonzalez was that obtaining a warrant was “too much work”.
• A marriage amendment: NOW? And why at the federal level? This is a state issue; what works for Alabama might not work for California.
• Illegal Immigration- The Republican controlled Senate has passed a bill granting amnesty to all illegals with the enthusiastic endoresement of the President. (One of the 1993 world trade center bombers was a 1986 amnesty recipient, BTW. How's that for national security?)
• Pork Barrel spending by the federal legislature that I could never have dreamed of. The $30 million Alaskan bridge to nowhere is a prime example of feeding at the trough.
• The propping up of the oil industry has compromised our national security to terrorist states like Iran. An energy independence initiative would promote domestic innovation while providing us with unimaginable foreign policy capability.

Prelude: they don't have principles, as far as we are concerned.

The points: of NCLB, the poster seem concerned that the Federal power is expanding beyond the proclaimed "principles." Of course, we must remember that Eisenhower's only true support for the Civil Rights (that damn hippy rally) cause was forced by an entirely different interest, the Federal authority over the local. And Eicke was a member of the Republican Party. Of NSA, we must agree. Of the glorious "omg fags" Amendment, he seemed sadly more concerned over the federal exerting its power over the local than the fact that individuals are being denied ability to act in non-harmful behaviors, but we shall reserve our judgement on that. On immigration, he proposes a case that does not really ties into the issue, though his concern is based on the presumably "wrong solution" being given. It is entirely another topic. On pork barrel, well, power as an end, they are using all possible means in this best of all possible worlds. On the oil industry, he expresses a sentiment of national pride combined with a yearning for independence. Good for him.

So as a conservative in a conservative nation, surrounded by fellow conservatives, what am I to do? My party has betrayed me. This is the current crisis of the Republican Party.

Conservative...what does he mean by saying that? Of course, he also claims that his nation is conservative, too, whatever that means, leaving about quite a large chunk of people out who do not believe themselves conservative, implying that they probably aren't of his group, his nation, whatever. But we shall assume it is unintentional. And disturbingly he seemed to identify himself with a particular political party as if it is, say, my [substituted]"Nation", "Country", "Family", "Group"[/substituted]. From what this one remembers the extreme loyalty to a group because of an ideology that group does not uphold is rather futile.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Republicans this season or for the big one in 2008. This would give notice to all in the GOP that they have a "free pass" and that I approve of their betrayal.

Of the frogs and their hated lords. We shall mourn with him, though admittedly he is being naive with "betrayal." Promises from those in power for those without power usually got "betrayed."

Nor can I vote for the Democrats. They are even more destructive to America than the Republicans, given their hatred of our troops, sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi, socialist squishy give-money-to-lazy-crack-whores policy, true federal power hunger, and Dean-scream liberal zeal. After all, it was Carter who was responsible for Iran-Contra, trading weapons for hostages. It was Clinton who allowed North Korea to develop nukes behind the back of the UN. It was Clinton who ran from Somalia like a tail tugged Chihuahua. It's Murtha, Pelosi, and Dean who all scream that our troops commit atrocities and that we should run from the middle east and hide from AQ. It was liberal constitutional interpretation by a left-leaning judiciary that has eliminated private property rights and eliminated state sovereignty. The Democratic Party has decided that the return to power is more important than the security of this nation. There is blood in the water and the Democrats are in a political feeding frenzy.

Congratulations must be with him for a rant targeted at Republicans (The Right Side) to be more vicious against the Democrats (The Wrong Side) because they are evil and evil and evil and commie b. they are. And liberal too, damn them.

We are left to wonder what definition of liberal he is using, since the Party, like its righteous counterpart, does not uphold any particular ideology except when it serves their self-interested end: virtù, or power.

The Republicans offer us conservatives their policy betrayal. But it is the Democrats that offer us destruction.

Ditto. Because his "side" betray him, he expresses a hatred of the "other side."

So what is a lowly conservative champion like me to do? My party has abandoned me. I cannot vote for the GOP because they would grow more bloated with self-deluded false confidence. And I can't stay home because the Democrats would cause irreversible damage to America, both at home and abroad.

Once again, he proclaims himself a conservative, but fails to provide his definition of the term which, by its very nature, is very flexible and very regional. Alas, we are left to wonder and take upon the most available stereotype of his self-identified term. And we must congratulate his success in delivering the pathos: "my friends betray me, but I still hate my enemies, greatly, deeply, gravely!"

It is indeed a crisis for the average American patriot conservative.

And, in his brilliant conclusion, he manages to repeat the thesis, the theme, and even adds into this little sentence a call for pride, patriotism, the greater National entity, the nostalgic picture of unity, Nation, and everything good ever professed in the propaganda for that cause, enhancing the echo of his lament, professing his loyalty, and confirm his righteousness, his ethos, to the audience. And that will serve as his warrant, for this poor reader finds no other.

*applauds*

[Kralizec]

I've said it before, and I'll do it again now: the USA needs more parties. Last time I checked, there's only one independent representative in Congress. Pathetic? I thought so. People need to stop thinking in the demo/publican only box, and recognise that there is room, need for a third (and a fourth) political party. Aside from that 2 parties can't possibly represent the political spectrum consistenly, it doesn't make for a healthy debating culture.
This is the cause of your dillema, DA: you're conservative, but there's no conservative party you can in good conscience vote for. A good political system allows not only competition between left and right, but also between right and right and between left and left. It's obvious that internal party elections can't cater for that. Without competition, the one party with the monopoly on right or left is bound to give itself over to corruption, incompetence and demagogy.

[Xiahou]

Have your primaries taken place yet? If not, I'd suggest voting for the GOP candidate who is currently not the incumbent (assuming that a Dem isn't one).

If they have... vote Libertarian.

That's the best solution imo. It seems nobody votes in primaries- which is silly because thats virtually the only chance you get to influence the direction of your party. In PA, due to voter outrage, many long-time incumbents were kicked out in favor of political neophytes in elections across the state. If you're fed up get yourself and your family and friends out to vote in the primaries.

Outside of that, obviously voting for your average democrat would be far worse than even the current batch of GOP fat-cats. So vote third party- if there's no third party candidate, write someone in- even yourself. Just dont stay home- thats the worst thing you can do.

[Divinus Arma]

Wow.

You guys might like this. I regularly exchange emails with a diverse group of individuals, one of which being a "moderate" Democrat family member.

I sent my first post out to everyone on my email list and here is what this Democrat had to say:

Interesting and insightful observations, right up to the point where you said "given their hatred of our troops, sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi." That's where you became Ann Coulter. I know a lot, an awful lot, of Democrats. Not one hates our troops. In fact, the dark side of me sometimes wishes that a Coulter or Hannity Republican would accuse me of same to my face so I could knock them down. I love our troops, and believe that they've been let grossly down by the Bush Administration in a variety of ways. Sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi? Puleeease! Find me one person who feels that way. Even if you could find one, and perhaps you could, because there's all kinds of nuts out there, there are far, far fewer of them per capita amongst the Dems than there are of correspondingly extreme lunatics per capita amongst the present-day Repubs. In any case, to characterize all Dems, or even more than a tiny fringe minority of Dems, as such is simply inaccurate and salacious. Personally, given the opportunity, I would have happily occupied Al-Zarqawi's last moments with blinking my urine out of his eyes. I have nothing but loathing towards terrorists, and view them in an even dimmer light than I do our home-grown religious fundamentalists (I also see them as a great example of what comes of unchecked religious fundamentalism when it fully infests the organs of governance).

Most Dems are Dems, like me, not because we think crack whores deserve a free ride and illegals need a place to birth their babies for free, but because Repubs are decidedly heading in the wrong direction. As for their betrayal of you - they betrayed you before you were old enough to vote for one. The building blocks for what the Republican party now is have been in place for a long, long time. Perhaps the planners did not foresee the result we have today, but they wrought that result nonetheless.

I think you are mired in the classic stereotypical view of the Democrats which has been pounded into everyone's heads by the Republicans, the folks whom you have now concluded have let you down. Does this not cause you to question, among other things, their dogma? This is all not to say that your criticism of certain Democrats, and the positions that the Dems have advocated in the past, is incorrect. However, myopia or dogmatic thinking will not serve you. Or me.

Like you, I am without a party to feel passionate about, without a party that represents my interests and concerns. Like you, I concluded that the Repubs had betrayed the core principles of conservatism, which is why I became a Democrat. Changing parties not because of the good of one but because of the evil of the other is not a good thing, but there it is.

So, this seems to leave both you and I without a set of oars. The Republican party is on its way down, and it has a lot further to fall before it hits bottom. And once it hits bottom, it has to stay there for awhile and purge itself before it can begin to rise from the ashes. And a huge purge that will be. The Dems have been bottomed out for a long time, and are in a position to rise from the ashes. However, what is pulling them up from the ashes is not - at this point - the strength of their position, but is instead the vacuum created by the Republican house of cards imploding. In effect, the Democrats are being "sucked" upwards through no good works of their own. Nonetheless, while they may not, and probably will not do it, the Dems are presently in a position to reform themselves, to change their focus, to redefine what they mean. The parties have shifted polarity at various points in our history, and there is no reason why the Dems could not do this now (except for myopia and the unwillingness to openly abandon certain positions). On the other side, the Repubs are completely incapable of doing this now, particularly with any credibility. In 10, 15, 20 years, with a brutal enough purging, perhaps. Otherwise, status quo.

So, it seems like you and I both need a party, and there apparently ain't one that'll have us. What I'd like in a party includes, without limitations, as follows:

A

• view towards smaller federal government, and allowing states to self-determine wherever possible and wherever inherently national interests are not affected.
• Placing national security at the top of the list. Securing our borders, knowing who comes and goes, what they intend to do while they're here, and where they are while they're here. Adopting a realistic immigration policy, enforcing it stringently, and being willing to live with the consequences of doing so. Doing away with the current system of having laws, then not enforcing them at all, and making certain parts of the country suffer disproportionately (i.e., border states).
• Having an military staffed sufficiently in all services to enable it to handle all reasonably foreseeable scenarios, plus an adequate reserve, and giving them what they need to do the job. Promoting the practice of staying on the cutting edge of military technology. Sufficiently staffing the intelligence services to the extent necessary to provide us with accurate on-the-ground intelligence in all nations. Ending the parochial practice of civil and military intelligence agencies not communicating with one another and not sharing intelligence, and instead, striving for full integration.
• Getting religious fundamentalism out of government, and keeping it out. Cutting off the stranglehold of powerful evangelicals. Being willing to revoke a religious organization's tax-exempt status if it becomes (as many are) a PAC for all intents and purposes.
• Promoting the government funding of elections, ending all systems of patronage, and prohibiting to the greatest extent possible the ability of politicians and/or parties to sell out to special interests. Prohibiting industries/groups from influencing national policy for their own gain.
• Ending corporate welfare. Prohibiting the hiring of regulators from regulated industries; prohibiting regulators from accepting employment after their terms in office from the regulated industries. Perhaps prohibiting former government servants from ever lobbying on behalf of foreign governments or interests. Perhaps prohibiting former government servants from ever lobbying for anyone at all for any reason.
• Reforming the personal welfare system to as to discourage crack whores from sitting at home, watching Montel, and spitting out more babies.
• Promoting keeping American business in America. I'm tired of talking to goddamn India every time I call Dell or any other company.
• Reasonably addressing environmental realities. End the current system of making the science of things a political football. End the current practice of government attempting to dictate what is scientific fact.

So, who will offer me this? Certainly not the Repubs. Quite probably (but not certainly) not the Dems. So then, who? I believe that I share most of the above views with a majority of Americans. Why can we not be heard?

Here was my reply:

I agree with you, in essence, bullet for bullet.

Where we disagree is not in how our country shall be governed, but on whom is most capable.

I believe we are both viewing each other "through the looking glass", so to speak. We see a mirror image of ourselves from the perspective of our own choice of party. While I believe the Republicans are best equiped to govern because they are "not Democrats", you believe that Democrats are best equiped because they are "not Republicans". The reasoning for choosing our respective parties differ, but the conclusion is ultimately the same. Thus when you wave wave, I wave back. When I give you the finger, you give me yours in return. A mirror, but not.

If this is the case, and it seems now to be true, then attempting to convince the opposite to switch sides will only induce further polarity as the mirror reflects itself. The argument, as an instrument of influence, is thus ultimately negated by self-reinforcing circular reasoning.

...

[Byzantine Prince]

DA, have you ever considered that you might be using politics as a sport for yourself?