Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Yes
No
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Superb Opinion
Voted no, but that does not mean it is not divided. Indeed, a bit of historical perspective helps.
See also the 1960s and 70s. That was a period of race riots, assassinations, bitter politics, the "hippie" subculture and all the rest.
There were also the divides of the late 19th century. As the economy transitioned from an agricultural/mercantile economy to a manufacturing base, the resentments of the laborers that got left behind resulted in a populist upsurge (see also William Jennings Bryan) - not unlike the current populist phase - and rising labor unrest.
Even in quieter periods - the 1920s, for example - there have been divides. That period being characterized by the decay of the old Edwardian social order in the wake of World War I. The roles of men and women began to change. The rule of law was routinely challenged in the opposition to Prohibition - see also "bootlegging." It was a relatively peaceful and prosperous period compared to the times before and after it, but not without serious cultural and political upheavals.
Yet those perhaps all pale in comparison to the bitterest period of division in American history. Specifically, the Civil War, when more Americans died in combat than were lost in both world wars and the Korean War combined. Indeed, when the very idea that the nation was one single nation was up for debate.
Suffice to say, that last period makes the current divides seem positively quaint by comparison. Which is not to say that there are not serious cultural divides. These being aggravated - and in some ways not unlike the 19th century. Only now the economy is transitioning from a manufacturing/industrial economy to a high tech/service economy.
Suffice to say, those who were once at the relative top of the cultural/economic pyramid - see also the blue collar middle class - resent their displacement by a new white collar tech savvy and in some ways younger generation. All this being further aggravated by that new technology.
The technology of the 19th and 20th centuries forced people of differing views to see the world through the same shared experiences. Mass circulation newspapers, movies - first silent then talkies and newsreels - radio and television all produced shared cultural experiences.
The new technology tends to divide. If a person wants to see the world, they pop out their phones or the Internet and type in what interests them. That then pops up various options with the reader/listener/viewer then going to those sources that most appeals to him/her. The oddity being that the wider the choices, the more the individual will choose what narrowly appeals to him or herself.
Suffice to say, this is all a source of much tension. Especially when a variable economy is thrown into the mix. Economic upheavals tend to aggravate matters.
That said, as the 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli put it, "'Finality' is not in the vocabulary of politics." Things change.
Indeed, sometimes simple exhaustion does the job. The relative - it is always relative - peace and stability of the 1950s was born in the wake of two world wars, the Korean War, the "forgotten" Depression, the Great Depression, the Spanish Influenza pandemic and the aforementioned "Roaring" 1920s.
People grew weary and just wanted peace and normality and the peaceful placid 1950s followed. Then, as George Will humorously put it, "All Eisenhower delivered was peace and prosperity and that was boring!" The 1960s and 70s to follow. This then, in turn, followed by the relative peace and prosperity of the 80s and the 90s as again, people grew weary of the tumults of the 60s and 70s. The 80s and 90s giving the nation its present tensions as people came to take for granted what they had and new tensions arose.
The pendulum will swing back and forth. Keeping in mind that nothing made my mortal man will last forever and one day it will come crumbling down. The problem being that "we know neither the day nor the hour," so it is a people's civic duty to assume that times will change and that things will get better and worse and better. The current phase being, as noted above, hardly unique nor hardly the bitterest the nation has ever seen.
135 Reply- +1 y
Okay. You are 55. you had your job in a factory for 17 years. You have three kids, a wife, and a home. You were listened to by various political groups and factions. (Once, the Democrats were the party of the "working man." Today they are the party of the young and college educated.)
Now that has changed. You have to provide for your family. You have to find work as fast as you can to feed and care for them. Yet in the midst of all that you will get a 4 year degree in a tech field.
Theoretically, you are not wrong. Now, put it into practice in fact. Harder to do.
Over time, as happened when the economy transitioned from rural/mercantile to manufacturing/industrial, the society will make the transition. Indeed, those aforementioned young kids are already doing it. However, it does not happen over night. - +1 y
He doesn’t have to get a 4 year degree. He could spend an hour a day online for free and learn to code, or some new industry. But they’re too lazy and too easy to get welfare. #realwelfarequeens
- +1 y
Actually, probably not. First, you underestimate the extent to which a college degree is sort of ticket in. Try putting "self-taught" on a resume and see how far it gets you.
Indeed, one of the more interesting phenomena in the current economy is how, as the labor force becomes more tech/service oriented, one of the other things that is happening is technical schools are becoming more of a force.
For those who wish a job in the older sectors of the economy - and as the labor force changes the need for "industrial labor" is taking on a new character - the technical schools have become the way to go. In fact, college enrollment is down and tech school enrollment is rising.
The bottom line being that credentials are becoming a prerequisite to the new economy. This, by the way, is not new. In the pre-Civil War mercantile/agricultural economy, basic literacy was all that was necessary to get gainful employment.
As industrialization took hold, the high school diploma became the gold standard. Now, as the economy switches to service/tech, the college degree is the new basic standard. This being modified only as demographics shift the make-up of the labor force, this setting the stage for the aforementioned rise of technical schools - mostly in the plumbing, electrical and related sectors.
Bottom line, we have seen this before and while there may be an individual exception here or there, overall the nature of work and the labor force makes "pulling yourself up" absent some form of credentials increasingly problematic. The more sophisticated the economy, the more urgent the need for a "certified" labor force. - +1 y
“For some organizations, proving you can do the work is enough to get you the job without a degree. Recently many leading companies have changed their mindset about requiring degrees, including Google, Netflix, Tesla, IBM, Penguin Random House, Bank of America, Hilton, and Apple. In fact, nearly half of Apple’s U. S. workforce includes people without four-year degrees.“
www.flexjobs.com/.../ - +1 y
Great! Then in a generation the problem will be solved. However, that these organizations are willing to hire individuals without degrees does not suggest that those without degrees have the time or resources to qualify for such jobs.
There is still a mismatch between resources and qualifications. What percentage of their workforces are without degrees? How large is the non-college workforce relative to the total population and the workforce overall? How fast could they be absorbed into the labor force? How many of these do not require some form of certification and do the companies provide such certification or does that require paying a tech school? If the latter, what percentage of the non-college labor force has the requisite disposable income to pay for such education?
My point here is that it is easy to snap your fingers and assume the answer is as easy to implement as it is to identify. When you imagine the enormous populist upheavals born in the 19th century and again in the 60s and 70s as the economy - and more importantly, the culture - transitioned to the new economy, you begin to get some sense of the enormity of what you suggest.
You are, I sense, nominally a conservative. Yet you make the typical mistake of the liberal in assuming that something as complex as an economy or a culture is something that can be pulled apart and reassembled at will according to some a priori plan.
History suggests otherwise. - +1 y
The problem is not layoffs - in fact you will note that unemployment is relatively low. The problem is matters of the culture. It is matters of declining wages. It is a stagnating standard of living. Unemployment is episodically a problem, but it is hardly the whole issue.
Again, revisit similar episodes in American history. You may call yourself a pragmatist, but a pragmatist who is ignorant of history is not apt to be very pragmatic. Indeed, is prone to the hubris, arrogance, and delusions that they have more influence and control than they actually do.
The funny thing is that "pragmatists" such as yourself - and whether you know it or not, your presumptions are in the liberal tradition - are apt to presume that problems are less complicated and more easily solved than they actually are. We did not, after all, get to where we are culturally by accident. - +1 y
Nightdrot, excellent explanation. I've had a similar conversation with Odd on this topic and he essentially said the same things. Odd, I have worked for software and other IT companies and can tell you that they do not just take anyone off the street who watched a few YouTube videos like you suggested to me was possible. And don't forget about age discrimination (note the 55 year old man in Nightdrot's example), which is rampant in IT.
So, while it may be possible to reinvent yourself and get into IT, it's not something everyone can do, nor does everyone have the aptitude for it. Realizing that doesn't make you lazy, as Odd thinks. - +1 y
@Avicenna Agreed. Even more than that, though, there is the broader cultural context. For nearly a century the "working man" who went to the factory, who raised his kids, went to church, and considered himself patriotic - not least because large numbers of them experienced military service - were the center of the cultural and political discussion.
Now they are being moved aside - and again, this is a natural development as the economy and the society change - and it is disorienting. This fosters a sense of resentment that has fed the populist tone of the nation's politics.
So what I am referring to is not just the problem individuals have in adapting to the new economy. It is also about the changing cultural and social context in which that adaptation must take place. When suddenly your views no longer carry the weight they once did, it can be quite jarring. - +1 y
Excellent points, as always, nightdrot. People were willing to buy into a system that generated income inequality from structural economic change as long as democracy seemed to function and you could still support a family. Both have been seriously called into question by the changing times.
- +1 y
@nightdrot I love being called ignorant of history by someone who thinks Hitler was a leftie. But yes declining standard of living is a problem. And one your side doesn’t want to solve.
We could easily use Keynesian economics to put people to work rebuilding highways and cleaning up marginalized neighborhoods. But we’re too busy arguing about trannies and bathrooms. - +1 y
Well, glad you are not taking it personally.
As to Hitler being a leftie - to repeat, who said, "I'm a socialist, but a very different kind of socialist than your rich friend Count Revntlow."? If you can explain how a socialist is a "rightie," and how the pedigree of those ideas trace out, I'll be persuaded.
Till then, I have a degree in political philosophy and the history and pedigree of political ideas. I tend not to confuse a study of those ideas with mere popular usage. That will have to suffice.
As to Keynesian economics, those basically died with the 14.5% inflation rate and high unemployment of the late 1970s. The juxtaposition of inflation and unemployment that Keynes postulated went out the window with stagflation.
Please, in that connection, do not confuse Keynesian economics with the welfare state. They are distinct things. - +1 y
P. S. Oh, and by the way, this is not just an economic problem, but a cultural one. The respect with which the stereotypical "working man" was held in earlier decades has been replaced by a culture that values the techno-age.
It is subtle and can best be seen in the switch in emphasis in the Democratic party. Please note that once upon a time the Democrats were the party of the working man and the GOP that of the "rich." While the rhetoric is still somewhat the same, the shift in voting patterns is illustrative of the change.
Suffice to say, as the working man has felt displaced, this is not just a mere economic problem - an oddly quasi-Marxian view in any case - but one of culture. This being harder to correct or adapt to than mere worker training.
Indeed, your last point illustrates the point. The worry about "trannies" and "bathrooms" is illustrative of a shift in cultural emphasis that has left the working man by the side of the road - economically and culturally - and it is bitterly resented by that class. Mere worker training will not correct it. - +1 y
We’ve been down this road on Hitler, and I thought all the historical links and consensus from experts would have changed your mind a bit, but yet I’m ignorant…lol
Keysnian economics is not dead, it’s keeping Europe the happiest continent on the planet. Not the most successful in gdp, because business isn’t their goal. It’s investing in the middle class during hard times and giving loads of services (you call it socialism) to its populace making them 10x happier than Americans. - +1 y
“Democrats were the party of the working man and the GOP that of the "rich."
Still is. Not that Dems are great at it. And still take loads do corporate money. But it’s obvious from legislative dockets they care more about marginalized people then Repubs, who are still obsessed with Reaganonomics. - +1 y
On point one - you showed me no evidence. You have not traced out the origin and pedigree of their ideas. You have not explained Hitler's opposition to the hereditary monarchy - a very basic conservative position. I could go on but suffice to say, you have hardly made your case.
As to the Democrats being the party of the working man, have you seen the latest stats on voter breakdown by income? Also, given that the working class tends to a more traditional social viewpoint, why are the Democrats making appeals to what is referred to as "woke" voters.
To be sure, our parties are coalitions and not ideological parties as you tend to see in Europe. Still, overall, the Democrats have shifted further to the "left" and are losing working class votes. This actually beginning in the late 1970s with the advent of the "Reagan Democrats." Our parties are in transition and they are not the parties of your childhood.
CONT. - +1 y
As to Keynsian economics, the idea - as embodied in the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and - to a lesser extent - the Great Society - was the idea that the government could manage the economy through fiscal policy. This helping, in the USA, to facilitate the advent of the welfare state. (Do recall that the welfare state was originally conceived in Europe by two conservatives - Disraeli in Britain and Bismarck in Germany - not to manage the economy but to lessen the vicisitudes of a free market economy by reducing the impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.)
Keynesian economics basically expired with, as noted, the double digit inflation and high unemployment of the 1970s. The confidence that government could manage the economy with predictability and precision died. It being replaced in the short term with "supply-side" economics, then monetarism, then neo-classical economics and at the moment a more populist economics that is more haphazard than not - responding to the grievances of the hour.
The tools are the same, but the expectations and theoretical underpinnings have changed dramatically. - +1 y
As the supply siders argued. You don't. The laws of unintended consequences always pertain and you are as apt to get consequences the opposite that you intended - see the 1970s - when you attempt to manage something as vast and complex as the economy with such crude tools.
The supply siders and the monetarists argue that the appropriate method is to create an environment that minimizes interference in the economy and allows the markets to function freely. Please note that markets are human contrivances - anti-trust laws and the like must be set.
Yet the Keynsian idea that the economy could be, in effect, micromanaged has proven false. Economies are simply too complex for the crude tools of fiscal policy to manage them to any significant extent. - +1 y
So you’re a laissez fair, corporatist who thinks the market can regulate itself. If only…there were some recent cataclysm of those right wing strategies…oh! 2008 crash!
So big business can’t regulate themselves. And the government should nationalize and rule like the Soviets. Well that leaves a middle ground where Hayek and Keynes debated…like I said.
Jesus I wish I could argue with people smarter. I wouldn’t have repeat myself so often. - +1 y
Nope. I am not. I am simply pointing out that the Keynsian model - that government can "run" economies at the behest of fiscal policy - has been played out.
In fact, I happen to believe that free markets are a tool and not, as American conservatives - who are actually classical liberals, albeit with a streak of social traditionalism rooted in the Reformation - believe an end in themselves.
Recall that the welfare state was founded by two conservatives - Disraeli in the UK and Bismarck in Germany - in order to ameliorate the dynamics of a free market economy by reducing the societal impacts of old age, illness, and temporary unemployment. They rejected the liberal model - of which Keynes was a part - that government and the welfare state can transform the economy, let alone the social order. (Note the progression in the USA from New Deal to Fair Deal to New Frontier to Great Society.)
Suffice to say. Keynsianism collapsed in the stagflation of the 1970s. Inflation hit 14.5% and unemployment reached nearly 10%. How could that happen in the Keynesian model which postulated a trade-off between inflation and unemployment?
This does NOT, thereby, imply a government rules all model. Indeed, to the contrary, it demonstrated the incapacity of government, as far too blunt an instrument, to regulate anything as complex as an economy - let alone a whole society.
Really, this is much more complex and subtle, then you in your epithet throwing self-satisfaction seem to be able to grasp. Buy a history book. Read some intellectual history and political philosophy.
Suffice to say, how you drew the conclusion that I pointed to supply side economics and monetarism - two economic theories that have supplanted Keynesinism - as a call for the Soviet model is beyond me. Really, you do not seem to grasp the nuances of the argument. - +1 y
Keynsian economics postulated a trade-off between inflation and unemployment and the capacity to "manage" the economy such as to produce full employment via predominantly fiscal policy. Recall that the New Deal was the implementation of the Keynesian model to counteract the free market doctrines that were believed to have collapsed and led to the Great Depression. (Of course, this in time led to "the Great Society" agenda that was, in effect, social engineering.)
This model, as I say, collapsed with the stagflation of the late 1970s. Keynsianism could not explain, and therefore had no policy prescriptions for, managing the economy.
As I say, you might do well to read a history book or two. In any case, the collapse of the Keynesian model led to the rise of supply-side, monetarist and neoclassical economic theories. - +1 y
Wow International Monetary Fund has a lot more shit you’re leaving out. I think you’re trying to subtly tie Keynes to socialism or Marxism or whatever and it just won’t fly.
“ Aggregate demand is influenced by many economic decisions—public and private.”
www.imf.org/.../basics.htm - +1 y
No I am not. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, a centrally planned economy and the abolition of private property.
Keynsianism is a theoretical structure that argues that a free market economy can be managed to predictable and desired outcomes by the manipulation of fiscal policy to manipulate the levels of demand in the economy. In this, by the way, it postulated a trade-off between inflation and unemployment in that the former was the product of demand in excess of production, the latter the result of inadequate demand and thus lower productivity.
Obviously demand is influenced by many economic decisions - public and private. The problem is that it is not predictable to the extent that the Keynsians presumed and their capacity to manage it was less than presumed.
So, expert that you are, how did Keynsianism explain stagflation and what policies did it propose to counter that stagflation? - +1 y
Hayek did not invent supply side economics. Beyond that, the distinction is more subtle.
The neo-classical economists in general argue that the most that you can do is create a general environment in which markets can operate. The more spending and taxation, the more it distorts the functioning of the market.
That, however, is not the distinction between the neo-classicals and the Keynesians. The latter argue that you can intentionally manipulate the market to maximize its' output. This by pulling the policy levers to increase or decrease inflation, this having an inverse impact on unemployment.
This is why policymakers were at such a loss by the end of the 1970s. Their program had been premised on the trade-off between inflation and unemployment to get certain preplanned intended outcomes.
Instead, they got stagflation which, in the Keynsesian model was not supposed to be possible. Further, their attempts to manipulate the economy through fiscal policy failed and only made the situation worse.
Again, to repeat, are, how did Keynsianism explain stagflation and what policies did it propose to counter that stagflation? The historical record is pretty clear but as you see yourself as an advocate of Keynsianism, perhaps you have a solution to proffer? Historical record notwithstanding. - +1 y
You are right, you are just missing the implications of what they prioritize. Again, it was a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Slow economy? Cut taxes to stimulate demand. High inflation? Raise taxes to reduce excessive demand.
The problem was that when confronted by stagflation, there was nothing in the Keynesian model to explain it, let alone address it. This is true both in the theoretical context and what happened historically.
Keynesianism was about the prioritization of aggregate demand to achieve desired economic outcomes. Why do you think that Keynesianism was the heart and soul of the New Deal during the Great Depression? The model prior to that time was that government stayed out of the economy and that the economy would find its' own equilibrium point.
The Keynesians argued that the government - via fiscal policy - could influence and attain maximum employment by influencing the level of aggregate demand in the economy. This of course depending on a trade-off between supply and demand. When either went too far, fiscal policy would move the economy back toward equilibrium.
Suffice to say, this model broke down in stagflation when you had high inflation - suggesting excessive demand relative to supply - and high unemployment - suggesting an excess of supply relative to demand at the same time. This is why, to repeat, supply-side economics and monetarism would, beginning in about the 1980s, would replace the Keynesian model as stagflation seemed to suggest a breakdown in the unemployment/inflation trade-off as well as the capacity of government, using fiscal tools, to achieve intended economic outcomes.
One last thing. I am growing weary of the crude language. I don't see why we can't have a civil debate. Cut it out. Your vulgar tone suggests that your glands are at work where it ought be your mind. You are a symptom of the culture's current maladies and it is NOT making your case any stronger.
Most Helpful Opinions
. Yes America is irredeemably. divided we cannot agree on what a woman is. We can’t agree that Black Lives Matter without supporting the organization Black Lives Matter which is a Marxist organization. We are so divided we cannot agree on what constitutes child abuse were so divided that we believe me, saying that Kaitlyn Jenner is not a woman is hate speech. We’re more divided now than we were during the Civil War and I would have fought for the union and that war. Democrats and Republicans are as different as night and day, whereas different as infrared versus ultraviolet blue. We go together like the plus side of a magnet versus the - of a magnet, there is no meeting in the middle. At this point our only option is to become like the European Union. We’re all our own individual countries that leave each other alone and agree on trade.
11 Reply
+1 yWhen the divide is over human rights, it's always irredeemable divided. Unless you mean is it divided so it can't ever be united again, in which case no. We can be united if one side changes their mind. But I'm not going to change my mind and I fucking hope nobody else who is on the yes side of human rights will change their mind. The people on the no side of human rights have historically, consistently been able to change their minds tho, given time and enough pressure and finally not being able to hold their original opinion in good conscience. So hope hopefully they come around again and keep coming so we don't hit the same shit in another however many years.
00 Reply
Very much so.
10 Reply
Ask to an AI Persona
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
What Girls & Guys Said
5
Opinion
15Opinion
The entire country seems to have some irreconcilable differences. It’s not just that we believe what we believe with passion and conviction; it’s that our convictions are so strong that we surround ourselves with only people who think the same way we do.
The differences are so great that America may be headed toward something akin to a divorce. Either American may be headed toward a divorce or else a civil war.
The war between the states, or, if you prefer, the civil war, was over taxes. The North wanted the South to pay for their overpriced good. Therefore, to prevent the South from trading with France and other countries, the North put exorbitant tariffs on good imported to the South from other countries. To enforce the tariffs, the North invaded the South, murdering millions, burned their homes to the ground, and kept the South in servitude, that is slavery, for decades. It took a hundred years of lies to overcome the animosities.10 Reply
+1 yyes. only thing that brings people together... is food, and war. but good luck getting people together to even discuss "facts". No longer possible.
So just accept people live in different realities and hope they don't devolve to killing each other when they don't like the others restrictions/behaviors/rules/decisions.
00 ReplyYES! I have been advocating for a national divorce for a while. The country should be divided down the middle. We can have West US and East US. The conservatives would be on the right side and we build a wall along the east side of the Mississippi River to keep the liberals on their own side once they run out of money.
010 ReplyYes, but it might be possible to marginalise the horrible people who are doing it again, like the previous America First bunch were after WWII and McCarthy was after his House un-American committee. The one place that the right wing media won't be able to hide the facts will be when Trump is in court. There, facts matter.
The fact is, he's guilty as hell.
01 Reply
Anonymous(25-29)+1 yThe only "redemption" we have is to let the country fall. The far left has the state by the balls and the right doesn't have any of that to do something about it except saying "We'll get em in 2024" even though you can't vote out authoritarianism. The left made it clear that if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying and the right refuses to try and that is why the right couldn't do it in 2022.
It will fall to communism/fascism/nazism or whatever and then the trash will take itself out with many innocent and not so innocent people dying in the process.
I wish this didn't have to be the case. I certainly warned many people but I get called every name or insult in the book without any actual arguments so I suppose we get what is coming to us.
00 ReplyI don't think so since it has require active race hustlers to keep it divided. If the race hustlers go away talking about "white privilege" and all that, chances are that a great deal of racism would go away.
06 Reply- +1 y
Even Jim Crowe segregation laws. A common but very possibly faulty view of that is that this was reflective of the racism of the citizens. Why need laws then to keep black people segregated from white people if white people were mostly racist in that region at the time? Chances are to me that the segregation laws were required because Democrats wanted to prevent white people who wanted to interact more with black people, hire them for work, treat them like ordinary citizens, from doing it.
- +1 y
There's no need to outlaw something people are already doing. A state finds the need to outlaw things because people are largely doing it. Without Democrats in our US history, I'm almost certain that racism would be near non-existent now... without Jim Crowe, without Anslinger, without LBJ, without Biden, or any other horrible Democrat... our country wouldn't so divided. Because while, in fairness, the KKK might have shifted to the right at some point, all the race hustlers now that divide us all are on the left these days.
- +1 y
Hustling to me is convincing people that they're in some sort of oppressed group and that anything they perceive (possibly even incorrectly) as normative is a form of oppression.
So I think a lot of genuinely compassionate and empathetic types of people have serious blinders on with respect to this hustle.
But maybe a subject where I can at least persuade some slimmer people to my side is this hustle with obesity and fat-positivity. It is convincing society to put pre-diabetic or full-blown type-2 women on fashion magazines and even see doctors suggesting such patients to lose weight as "fatphobia". They've even developed mottos like:
>> Real men love curves, only dogs like bones.
For anyone who can see at least the absurdity of this "fat hustle", the race hustle, sex hustle, trans hustle, straight hustle, all function largely the same way.
+1 yNot yet, but as the federal government centralizes more power it will become more and more that way. Why? Because the winners on both sides seem to love to dictate things all the way down to the local level, ignoring that people who live in rural areas and those who live in inner cities, for example, might seek different solutions for problems in their areas.
00 ReplyI didn't vote on your poll.
I hope America is not irredeemably divided.
I don't know.
Time will tell.
Good leadership would help.
I mean "Leadership", not "politics as usual".
00 ReplyAmerica has been divided for a long time. it's only now we've gotten bored of our entertainment and see through the lies society has been hiding all along
00 Reply6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I think the 25-40 crowd is, but in 80 years or so they'll all be dead so who knows.
00 Reply12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. No, but it may necessitate gunfire and bloodletting to get it right.
02 ReplyMost people don't care about that left vs right bullshit.
00 Reply
+1 yWe will need to have a civil war and kill all the woke people to save this country.
01 ReplyYes, we will always have fascists and racists with us I'm afraid.
02 Reply
+1 yNo, but you seem pretty divisive yourself.
12 Reply- +1 y
You are*
You guys are SO fucked.
03 ReplyCertainly looks that way.
00 Reply
Anonymous(36-45)+1 yYep, thanks to Trump
46 Reply- +1 y
The divide was here loooong before Trump.
- +1 y
Omg. The division has been worse than ever since Obama.
- +1 y
@Kingofkings1992, I distinctly remember George W. Bush being referred to as “literally Hitler”.
- +1 y
@DarkWinterNights Lol. I’ve heard Obama referred to as the Antichrist
- +1 y
@reds-noro very true. And perspective. Liberals are now Cheney fans!
- Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
And that's what the dems want.
00 Reply - Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
Yes, thanks to Biden.
01 Reply
Show More(15)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Continue reading 
Do You Believe America Is Divided?
Lucy68
Yoda · Age 28 Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
