Would you agree a simple way to solve at least some tension within US would be to have Biden and Trump talk normally without debating?

[Kaneki05]

Ya know show they are both human, even if they disagree they can show compassion to each other. Always gonna be people out there who are nuts but it would help somewhat right?

[Syntosi]

I think that is too later. I also dont think that Trump is capable of having a normal conversation with Biden either. I have seen Trump try to manage his behavior, it never works out. He does not have particularly good self control. But that is sort of besides the point.

Biden is the wrong person. I can't speak for the right wing but having Trump be civil towards Biden means nothing to those that do not respect Biden in the first place. Biden became president because his voters voted against his opponent, not in favor of Biden. As such Biden would not represent me or people like me and would not lower tensions.

[Kaneki05]

I don't find that to be true from a personal case. I really don't like Tories here, hated the PM glad Labour just won.
But ya know what? That Tory PM stepped down praising democracy for working and gracefully respecting the new choice of PM and Government.
Within that action I gained respect for that PM.
And ya know what I dislike Trump a lot but him just having a simple stance together with Biden would make me respect him more in a similar way.
And I do think this is the reason why English Politics are just way less extreme as US.

[Syntosi]

If this was the case from the beginning then maybe you would have a point but political division in USA is already entrenched, and again, Biden is not the ally to most people. Imagine if instead of the Labour party wining and dethroning the Tories, the party that won was instead just another Tory party. That is kind of the feeling many people have with Biden. While they might prefer him over Trump, he is not their pick.

[Kaneki05]

Yeah I know that well, every Liberal I've spoke to thought Bernie was gonna be the primary then Biden came out of the woodwork lol. And I for sure don't like Biden and wanted Bernie too.
Biden was a slap to the face.

But I still feel like that show of humanity and empathy would impact a lot of the way it's viewed.
US division been bad is all more reason to do this, and them not doing this is for sure why it gets so heated and like this.
Have them debate all the time but ya know have them also talk like humans to each other every now and then.
Tbh I think Obama actually did a pretty good job of this

[Syntosi]

Obama was very smooth indeed but he was actually part of the problem in this regard. For various reasons you could even blame Obama for there not being any Democratic candidates for president outside of Biden and Bernie for the last few decades. He really screwed up the whole process when he ran for president and the party has not recovered even to this day.

[Kaneki05]

I am not saying he was perfect and there wasn't errors that's for sure.
More was just focusing on been human part, maybe I don't recall it right but he wasn't creating tensions of the like of Biden and Trump from what I remember.

[Syntosi]

Well he personally were not really creating that much tension but the Republicans were. Obamacare especially became a huge thing for them and Trump himself looks to be primarily motivated by Obama, or rather to exceed/replace everything Obama did. Not sure if there is some form of jealous going on there but definitely an obsession. Obama left a rift between the GOP and Dems just as much as Biden has done, just for other reasons.

I also remember all the hate that was pouring out against Obama such as the whole birth certificate thing or the selling of gun range targets featuring Obama. Its easy to forget afterwards but if you go back and see then its clear that the building tension has been going on for a while.

[Kaneki05]

Damn didn't know about the gun range targets. It's crazy how that's not illegal. Should make it illegal to joke or even hint at such things and prosecute for it see how much it happens then.
I would like to believe not all conservatives are nuts and many would see that as a bad thing.
And the terrible irony of that between trump actually getting shot.

At some point it's gotta stop or you'll all civil war which hey will make it stop at some point I guess.

[Syntosi]

While I would say that a civil war would resolve some of the tension, its not like its a solution either. I mean, its not the like first civil war resolved the issue of racism. Also I agree with you that normal people dont automatically jump to believing in violence or even necessarily hatred but they will go with the flow.

And sadly, the flow is very much flowing right now. To resolve this very much needs some sort of resolution. Lowering the tension is not a realistic long-term solution, there needs to be a conclusive ending where one side wins. Preferably through rhetoric and not violence. Otherwise we will just be here again in a few decades with the same problem.

[Kaneki05]

There is no conclusive one side wins though.
There is no winners in democracy, how it works is one side gets a couple years then people flip flop to the other and back forth etc.
And the long term solution for sure is lowering tension, that's how it works for Uk. Is it perfect? No nothing is. Is it better than US? Yes.
Democracy is made to be okay with losing, and having such problems but on a peaceful level which only happens through promoting peace, compassion, empathy and security.

[Syntosi]

Not entirely true. The civil rights era was a pretty conclusive win for the democratic side in USA and fundamentally changed discourse ever since. Going from things like racial segregation to "racist" being one of the worst titles you can have is a big change.

The last few decades in USA has been different though. The power has flip-flipped between Republicans and Democrats but that change in power has only been the source for more division. However even if we were to lower the tensions today, that would not solve the problem and it would flare up again in the future.

Lets for example take racism. USA has struggled with this issue since a very long time. The height of the tension was probably the American civil war where people were literally killing each other over it, followed by the civil rights era where people assassinated others over it. However, even though much progress was made on the topic it never actually resolved it. Racism is still alive and well in USA and very much part of the current tension.

You can suppress the tension for 100 years or more, like USA did, but if you dont resolve the issue it will return like it does today. The tension right now is not a new problem, its a continuation of much older ones.

[Kaneki05]

That wasn't a win it was democracy evening out. Like you said yourself racism is still rampant and those views didn't really go away.
Democracy keeps flip flopping but as it does most people eventually find common ground, which is not democracy winning it's more it evening out to the new views that come within time.
Though if you want to call that winning by your metric then I suppose it is.

And one could argue the war changed all that but I would actually say it didn't. Did it speed up the progress? For sure but it wasn't the reason such things changed.
I think things would of changed overtime anyway as people views progressed.

Though I would be curious if you don't think lessening the tension will help how do you resolve such issues in a Democracy to never come back?
Because I don't see how that would be possible therefore the best thing to do is lower tensions.

[Syntosi]

I have to admit that the one thing I dont truly understand is why USA is so extreme. It was among the first that actually tried to address the problem of racism as an example but where as most other developed countries has been able to move on from that by now, USA is still stuck with this burden. I personally believe this is because it has been repressed rather than resolved but again, I might be wrong.

[Kaneki05]

I think that problem goes all the way back the founding fathers who were very clear in their constitution that Church and State would be separate, and did not want Religious Dogma to be the foundation of laws.
Yet a lot of people back then weren't as progressive and disagreed, and those same people today argue that abortion is against god as a good reason to ban it.
The irony of that which is that England Religious Dogma which these Founders were trying to get away from, is now more rampant in America than England.

[Syntosi]

Yeah the irony is thick. That said, its not like the founding fathers agreed on much either. They very much were in two minds on most of these issues. The declaration of independence and constitution was more of a pragmatic compromise than a clear vision of the future.

[Kaneki05]

True but they all agreed upon that.
It was more the downfall of them not realizing how religious the citizens were and I can't remember her name but there was a woman that led practically a religious army against the fathers that caused a lot of issues.

I'm sure America will get better as time goes on as that's how just general progression works but it will take a long time.
Though it's of course not that bad when you think of the countries that are way worse in the east that will need way longer if they even change at all.
America does change and times have shown that so I'm a bit more hopeful than you Americans seem to be lol.

[Syntosi]

Maybe, maybe not. That said, as things stand we might find that the middle east stabilizes and moves past their issues before America pulls itself out of the mud. We sure as hell dont appear to be in a hurry.

[normalice]

No. Trump would never go for it and if he did everyone would just assume he was faking it to sneak project 2025 in by pretending to moderate before November.

[Kaneki05]

Some will but I think if both had a genuine convo most people would see it and get it.
There will always be extremists but it actually helps them by not showing empathy towards the other party.
This would show that empathy, and a lot would see it as it is.

Ya know over here we've just had a turn for Labour and our Tory Pm praised democracy for speaking and saying sorry about how he failed them, along with respecting our new choice for PM. I didn't like that guy at all but ya know? That right there made me feel some respect to him.
It's something that don't cause tension and if anything helps.

[normalice]

I should clarify: Trump would be faking it. It would only trick those who are either too young to have witnessed his malignant narcissism four yeas ago or have been living under a rock. He is, at root, a con artist. And he would use that trickery to become president and so usher in the era of extreme apathy, rage, and hate explained in detail in project 2025.

[Alli112]

tbh I think it wouldn't change much. People would find a reason to be upset over some aspect of the conversation. Being in the spotlight is inherently dehumanizing from an outside perspective (ex. how reality stars are barely treated as people, as opposed to fully fictional characters, by their viewers)

[Kaneki05]

No? It's the exact opposite it's humanizing the presidents? And if your point is no one wants that I can assure you if it led to less extreme views and such violence they would.
Celebs put on shows. But presidents actually shouldn't.
Politicians should show clear differential of debate vs hate. Letting debates happen but not hate. And showing that both are human trying to do best for their country not an enemy.

Tbh it's even kinda crazy how so many seem to disagree with this point when it seems obvious from someone where this happens and we are much better for it.

[Alli112]

Hey, I'd love it to work and if it did work I'd be happy, I'm just not convinced that it would be as effective as you're hoping given the current political climate. That's all.

[dustybiker2]

Wouldn't that be great? Never going to happen. One side is too weak and the other too vicious.

[Kaneki05]

The extremism over there is crazy.
Ya know Labour over here got voted in here and our Tory Pm said about how democracy had spoken, and gave respect to our new Pm and government.
If this was America the PM would be saying it's rigged lol

If they spoke like this, I would put money on that tensions in US would lessen. Just speaking to each other normally and praising democracy. But no one wants to do that if they lose in US.
It may take time and a long time even after I am dead maybe but I think that future will eventually come.

[dustybiker2]

One can only hope. lol

[Anonymous]

It would have to be Trump and Obama. You cannot have a conversation with Biden because he is senile, and Obama has been running the show since before he was in office in 2021.

[Kaneki05]

True Obama would be better to do it with in the future. But after this whole ordeal with the shooting it would be a powerful stance and better show if Trump and Biden spoke.
Granted he just got the virus so that won't be happening.
I think the phone call they had helped but we didn't get to experience that. When I think that's exactly what is needed.

[Avicenna]

Nah, we need to partition the country in two (peacefully).

[Kaneki05]

That did not end up well in multiple fictions based on that idea and I think they were very accurate in realistically portraying what that would do. And even in recorded history that's not a good idea of real examples of such things happening.
One can hope it for to happen peacefully and magically work out, but humans are humans. And making two separate dogma's don't actually turn out well.

[Avicenna]

Well, had India and Pakistan not been partitioned, there would have been much more sectarian violence and war in South Asia. Imagine how dysfunctional it would be to have the Israelis and Palestinians in one state.

Partition worked out fine for the Czech Republic and Slovakia and South Sudan and Sudan are much better off separate from each other, just like Eritrea and Ethiopia. And who thinks the Soviet Union should still exist other than Putin and his merry band of crazies?

[Kaneki05]

Israel and Palestine more proves my point, that is a main reason why they are killing each other.
Does India and Pakistan no longer have issues? I think it does.

Czech and Slovakia is a good example for your point but I am not aware of that unfolded tbh. And I have no clue how there people are.
Maybe it's something to do with less religious extremism? Or there culture was always less extreme? I don't know would need to look into that one and them others.

I feel like any Extreme country with polarizing views which I for sure would class US as one wouldn't have such a peaceful exchange.
Because one half would think the other side is evil unreligious baby killers and be without guns while the other half would religious people thinking they are righteous with guns. Can you tell me that somehow wouldn't lead those attacking the other?
I think it would.

Soviet Union wasn't democratically made so that's a different example. Soviet Union was dictated into existence.
Anything that sways into existence by dictatorship will be bad. And I think such push to divide the states would be more delivered by such dictatorship than democratically. And two extreme very different nations right next two each other? Yeah that normally don't end well.

[Avicenna]

Here's another one- Pakistan and Bangladesh. India and Pakistan have quieted down a lot, and they would be at each other throats if they were one country.

The Israelis and Palestinians would be killing each other nonstop if they were in the same country- it's beyond insane not to separate them.

The big challenge for any partition in the US would be keeping the leftist state that emerges from trying to subjugate the non-leftist state (US leftists are control freaks).

Who says a dictatorship is necessary to partition? The only real way to do it is peacefully.

[Kaneki05]

You just expressed the extremist views that would lead to such problems.
You think the left would try to subjugate your side while they will think that of the rights.
Nah I agree with presidents and the founding fathers when they say to be United is the way to go, letting both parties have their say and leading democracy, as this is what makes both sides who are at least reasonable find common ground.
And doing anything by those of extremist mind sets will lead to destruction and dictatorship.

It's called a civil war and nobody really wants that with out such extreme views but the problem is humans do have extreme views foolish would it be to deny that. And we shouldn't play into that since it causes issues down the line. Aka Palestine Israel, India Pakistan.
Oh these countries would still have discourse if that never happened but the point is they still do?
And it's still extremist fed.

If they stayed together slowly but shortly things would balance out, and while it's an issue at least a united state would be trying to solve it.

It's of course all theoretical as no one could say for sure but my view of how extreme Americans are in such positions this would just lead to Civil war, and less trust between each other way more than even now. And would be a breeding ground for extremists.
The way to lessen it is to be united, and see that the other people are human they have compassion too. Not forgot that and make them the enemy next door.

[Kaneki05]

Also you think misinformation is bad now? How much do you figure that would be in such a divide? I don't know just sounds like an awful idea.

[Avicenna]

Decades of experience shows that I am correct about the leftists as we see when they interfere with other countries' affairs, so they would attempt to do the same in a new neighboring country.

You leave out the Democrats' extremism, which has gotten really bad domestically during the Biden Administration. And we don't have a real democracy, including a real opposition party. You can lip service to democracy all you want, but we don't really have it anymore. There needs to be enough sense of shared identity for a large country to stay together, and, thanks to the Democrats, we don't have that anymore either.

Your naive view of the situation is feeding the dictatorship, not a partition which would lead to more democratic outcomes in the non-leftist country.

[Kaneki05]

The fact you didn't see how my comments could be accurately put to either side only shows to prove my point so thank you.

[Avicenna]

* Feeding the leftist dictatorship

[Avicenna]

The only thing you've proven is your dictatorial nature. And a whole lot of cluelessness- what person truly believes the Israelis and Palestinians belong in a unitary state? Or India and Pakistan? Only a would-be dictator.

[Kaneki05]

Funny how you say words but don't understand you keep proving my point. Those countries are having issues and ya know why?
Because of extremists like yourself.
Who think one country would be better off gone than together working as a nation to fight extremists.

[Kaneki05]

You would wish all leftists gone would you not? If you agree with this then that's all ya need to say to prove my point.

[Avicenna]

Your point is as insane as you are- all of the partitioned countries would be in the throes of extreme violence right now if they were still together, yet you insanely insist they would be better off if forced to remain together. The reasons for their conflicts were varied, but they are better off as separate countries.

Leftists don't "work together as a nation", nor do they compromise (as you definitely show everyone here) - they force their extreme agenda on everyone else. I've called a spade a spade.

[Avicenna]

Let me ask you something closer to home- would you force Ireland back into the United Kingdom? Note I am not asking about Northern Ireland.

[Kaneki05]

Ireland is not full of just left or right winged people tho it has both it's not just made up of a echo chamber of one lot of extremists that you would want.
You are talking about two political ideologies been separated and been forced apart rather than working together. You are the one talking about not compromising.
And if you ask me are Israel and Palestine for sure made of extremists that just view it one way for sure they are. That's why they are killing each other.
While Ireland is not yet don't get me wrong there were terrorists but where are they now? It's almost like that solved it's self by not been a extremist state.

And there is no way a Americans with such extreme views like yourself wouldn't have Left and Right dictated societies that both think they are more righteous than each other, try to attack, and kill each other.

Since you missed my point before about not applying it to both cases let me ask it more directly. How bad do you think misinformation would be in this all Left Country right beside you if this was theoretically going to happen?
Do you see that as a good thing?
If not then wouldn't it be better to stay United so you can lessen such misinformation? Turn people to realize the left is wrong is better than letting a whole country brainwash those views right?

It's kinda sad I have to make these obvious extremists points in your favored direction to see why this is bad. This would be bad for both sides. As the all Right state would also spread all it's own rubbish brainwashing stuff.
And naturally would come war between both as both think they are right.

[Kaneki05]

If Ireland was separated because they were all Right or Left winged then yeah that would be bad because who knows what rubbish they are telling their own people.
They aren't allowing a 2nd opinion. And at the end of the day that matters a lot, whether you like it or not that is very important as a society.

[Avicenna]

I simply asked you if Ireland should be forced back into the UK, and you refuse to answer that. It's not a tough question. Ireland was once ruled by the UK, it's not now, so they obviously were not able to "work out their differences".

And while we are at it. how about the former Yugoslavia?

It's completely naive to expect everyone to be able to work out their differences. Sometimes going your separate ways is best for both.

[Kaneki05]

And I answered if you couldn't figure out what I said that's not my problem.
If you don't get my point then there is nothing further to debate as you don't get my point and trying to argue against it would be pointless leading into circles.

But good luck not understanding having a 2nd opinion is important.
It's a good thing I don't just block everyone who disagrees with me otherwise your opinion wouldn't exist on my question and I hear out other opinions rather live in a world made of echo chambers. Because I know that's fundamentally a bad idea but if you wanna believe it's good then ya probably should block me since that's the world you want.

[Avicenna]

Your opinion has been considered carefully and I've explained to you what doesn't make sense about it. You may think you can tell people who have been in conflict with each other and have fundamental differences that they should just work their differences out, but many times it just makes sense for them to go their separate ways, and I've given numerous examples of situations that would have seen much worse conflict if there hadn't been partitions. And some of those places, like the former Yugoslavia, weren't necessarily expected to descend into violence, something which could well happen in the US.

I don't block people who simply disagree with me, no matter how ridiculous the things they post may be. I guess it will make you sad that you can't play the victim "I was blocked!". And you have a really narcissistic view of yourself and your grand opinions.

[Kaneki05]

You just proved that you don't stand by your own point here by not blocking me so well done. And nope I just understand my own point, while you clearly don't understand your own.

If your point is to separate those who think differently and live in echo chambers by your own rationale blocking others who disagree with you would serve that purpose, as you said they can't work things out and should go their own separate ways.
Then why on earth are you not going your own separate way here and still arguing with me?

Live by your own code and point lol.

[Avicenna]

Well, unsurprisingly, you've conflated two unrelated things and have shown yourself to be frankly ridiculous. Conflating tens or hundreds of millions of people in conflict with each other IRL with disagreements in an online discussion is silly, plus a partition is not akin to people blocking each other online- the countries would still trade with each other, visit each other, and have diplomatic relations, whereas people who block each other on GAG don't even see what the other posts as well as being unable to communicate with each other.

A political disagreements can and have led to violence, as have ethnic and religious differences. Wanting to avoid that violence and give people more options to choose their preferred governance via partition makes sense.

[Kaneki05]

Not really. Once again you failed to see your own point. In your claim you would agree that left are brainwashed right by false media?
If that is the case such country founded on letting such actions to take place would naturally end up as a dictatorship, which naturally leads to violence.
The same goes for the right.
How you can't see the divided would be founded by two dogmatic states that will just kill each other I don't know. It's not the same at all to a nation of land divided by country terms as those still have both parties within their own country what you are arguing is to have a country founded on one party evoking of how dictatorships even come to be in the first place.

Democracy needs both sides to work. What you are fundamentally arguing for is not a Democracy and don't find middle ground nor hears the other side out.
Yet you yourself don't even stand by this by talking to me.

I think you need to go work out your own rationale because it don't make sense and you aren't even following it.
Also if you vote for Trump or in that direction you would then be hypocritical as Trump himself states in many of his speech's that he wants to help all Americans not just one side and say's we should all be united not divided.
So I don't think when you actually think about this you fully commit to this idea.
And if you do then at least live by it.

[Dargil]

The tension between the Left and Conservatives can only be resolved at the ballot box or by gunfire. There is no middle ground.

[OddBeMe]

That’s been a discussion for awhile. But they always say more conflict more viewers.