Support NeoGAF

[GAFDooMsDaY]

This post is anecdotal. I grew up in New York, went down south roughly 10 years ago. Neither there or here have I ever seen the country so split on anything and everything. The closest thing I can compare to it is during the O.J. Trial. I barely see "leftist" posts on the off topic forum anymore, usually right themed posts, but you can see any politically charged video on youtube or post littered with "cucks", "snowballs" and several racist undertones. Under Obama (didn't vote for him) I don't remember people this divided. With this being said, Trump did get elected so I imagine a certain portion of the country is happy with his leadership. Do you believe he can bring us all together and that he is focused on making a more united America once immigration laws are fixed? Or is he responsible for the hate filled speech and soured relations we see today?

 

[King of Foxes]

I honestly think its not Trumps fault but social and traditional medias fault.

Mainly promotion of outrage culture. News channels regularly showing random twitter messages is a prime example.

 

[888]

While I don’t think he is the most eloquent President and is mildly controversial, it seems to me that the biggest division is Mainstream Media and Social Media. Every little thing is amped up and blown sky high to whip everyone into a frenzy. I mean when they are reporting on how many scoops of ice cream or diet cokes he drinks in order to make him seem like a dictator or unhealthy. The media has it out for him and are knee jerking every thing to whip everyone up.

Then on the social media side of things you have people acting like complete fools on either side and they also whip everyone up over every little thing.

Personally this whole presidency outside of the media and hysterics has been fairly normal and benign. I don’t see any Facist policies that people are screaming about. People are protesting and causing all sorts of havoc and guess what. No one is stopping them.

People are being separated into and by labels, being attacked for those labels bestowed upon them and guess who is doing that, not Trump.

I’m no trump lover but what I don’t like is hysterics and people acting like lunatics.

And let’s not forget who is calling for harassment of Cabinet members and indirectly supporters.

Clicked the wrong side on the poll. While I think yes things are pretty divided it’s not the worst it has ever been. I mean, there isn’t a civil war. (Cool, changed vote.)

 

[DESTROYA]

I think Democrats thought Clinton was in 100% guaranteed and are still in shock Trump got elected and are still having childish tantrums over the outcome.
The media doesn’t help with outlandish rhetorical headlines.

 

[SaviourMK2]

No shit they've divided it. Obama at least fucking tried, Trump just labels anyone whose not a follower an enemy of the people, traitors, horrible/bad people.

 

[Blood Borne]

Trump simply unmasked the left.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Not more than ever before. The USA has some dark history. But very divided currently.

 

[Super Mario]

Liberals / Liberal media are responsible for at least 3/4 of the divide. Their platform consists of identity politics. It's all about how women, gays, and minorities are oppressed while white men are sexual harassers, hoarding all of the money, and screwing everyone over. Infinite repeat.

I 100% believe Trump generally wants what is best for America. The biggest problem is that there is a big money out there opposing every time he farts. The second biggest problem, is he isn't the greatest at articulating his points.

 

[dionysus]

Is the poll on the thread title or the poll title? I answered on the poll title. Maybe not ever before, but the country is the most divided it has been since at least the 60s.

As for the thread title, Trump is not a uniter. But I'd say the majority of the political hatred in this country is stemming from the left.

 

[sometimes i game]

Liberals / Liberal media are responsible for at least 3/4 of the divide. Their platform consists of identity politics. It's all about how women, gays, and minorities are oppressed while white men are sexual harassers, hoarding all of the money, and screwing everyone over. Infinite repeat.

I 100% believe Trump generally wants what is best for America. The biggest problem is that there is a big money out there opposing every time he farts. The second biggest problem, is he isn't the greatest at articulating his points.

I respect your opinion but am confused at your argument. Is it every time he "farts," or every time he attacks someone, name calls, bans countries except the ones with his businesses, defends white nationalists, etc? Liberals do not write his tweets. Liberals don't dress the First Lady. Liberals aren't making him do or say what he's done and said?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Way more than during obama. The right was responsible for the divide then, but now it's truly both sides.

 

[Atrus]

I would say yes. While a candidate can be normally polarizing, I don't think either side of the spectrum has seen a president so dedicated to upending so many conventions all at once. (NATO, NAFTA, EU, UN etc.)

The same guy giving North Korea and Russia a reacharound, is now declaring Canada a threat to national security in terms of trade. Trump makes no case that he plans on uniting anyone, be they Democrat or Republican. He's got his side and then the enemy and his side doesn't even need to be American, just loyalists.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I would say yes. While a candidate can be normally polarizing, I don't think either side of the spectrum has seen a president so dedicated to upending so many conventions all at once. (NATO, NAFTA, EU, UN etc.)

The same guy giving North Korea and Russia a reacharound, is now declaring Canada a threat to national security in terms of trade. Trump makes no case that he plans on uniting anyone, be they Democrat or Republican. He's got his side and then the enemy and his side doesn't even need to be American, just loyalists.

Or hell, offering France tremendous! Trade deals if they leave the EU. That's puzzling on a few levels higher order than trade.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

No. Americans had a civil war years ago.

Many people want unabashed conservatives (Trump) in charge and leftists (Cortez) that counter the Third Way approach which is more or less Republican-lite.

Basically less political correctness. Less people in politics saying whatever they need to get votes. The outsiders are framing the debate and finding an audience.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Trump to bring every American together. 63 million voted for him. 66 against him. The rest were indifferent or thought both sides sucked. There's no way he can bridge that gap. Just keep the base happy.

 

[Rentahamster]

Until we have Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo, the country is NOT the most divided now than ever before. I mean, c'mon.

The current "divide" as is perceived is the natural evolution of tribalism + internet social media echo chamber outrage culture arms race between the left and right. And even then, it's still a minority that just seems big due to availability bias.

 

[JordanN]

It's the opposite. Trump brought America together. It's the coastal liberals who are screaming the loudest and want to dictate the lives of anyone who doesn't live in California or New York City.

Trump's whole campaign was "America first".
What was the Democrat one? "I'm with her".

Who is dividing who again?

 

[appaws]

I would say it has been trending that way for a while. Accelerating since the 90s. The US is very culturally divided. The deepest cultural values we have have never been more dissimilar, even in the antebellum era. I look around at myself and my neighbors here in rural Kentucky, and I think "are we really members of the same nation with an urbane Manhattan dweller, or a person of Mexican descent in East LA...? And if we are different nations, should we really live in one nation-state...?

The ability of Constitutionalism to hold us together is fraying rapidly. I believe it is time for a peaceful separation before we come to tearing ourselves apart physically.

The territory of the US would make several beautiful little Republics, that could be much more homogeneous and less polarized within themselves. Self-governing, but with a mutual defense treaty and free travel within themselves. Maybe even maintain a common currency.

 

[Captain Zyrain]

I think outside of social media bubbles (Twitter, Facebook, Forums, etc) things are pretty okay between people.

I have friends on both sides of the spectrum and we can still get drunk and casually chit chat about shit, including politics, without getting as crazy as stuff you'll see on a random twitter post or forum thread. I think the social media explosion has made it easy to buy into different perceptions on how things are actually going.

I think we're just fine, we can get better, but it's not terrible.

 

[GAFDooMsDaY]

Off topic but who added the Thor option. Lmao

 

[Enosh]

Trump just "exploited" divisions that started forming long before he decided to run

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

No, he's not responsible. He's not even the primary perpetrator.

Corporate/ideological interests have been driving the divide between citizens for a few decades now.

No shit they've divided it. Obama at least fucking tried, Trump just labels anyone whose not a follower an enemy of the people, traitors, horrible/bad people.

Would you consider that to be the same tactic -- or a different one -- from how certain people attached labels to those who supported the "Idiot in Chief" W. Bush or from how certain people attached labels to those "basket of deplorables" who supported Trump or how certain people attached labels to anyone who didn't automatically worship the actions of Pres. Obama? Same tactics or different? Explain.

I think politicians in general -- both sides of the aisle -- have spent a lot of effort to divide the country.

Anyone with half a brain should be asking "why are they both dividing us?" instead of drooling and muttering "b..but whose fault is it? Who was worse?"

 

[Captain Zyrain]

Off topic but who added the Thor option. Lmao

I dunno, but it should be Thor 3: Ragnarok.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's the opposite. Trump brought America together. It's the coastal liberals who are screaming the loudest and want to dictate the lives of anyone who doesn't live in California or New York City.

Trump's whole campaign was "America first".
What was the Democrat one? "I'm with her".

Who is dividing who again?

Without specifying population densities in those counties and/or the overall population totals, that map is paining an incomplete picture of the situation, FYI.

 

[Rentahamster]

I dunno, but it should be Thor 3: Ragnarok.

But that one's actually good tho

 

[Papa]

Thread title and poll title are completely different questions. What are you playing at, OP? Welcome back, btw.

 

[Enosh]

I would say it has been trending that way for a while. Accelerating since the 90s. The US is very culturally divided. The deepest cultural values we have have never been more dissimilar, even in the antebellum era. I look around at myself and my neighbors here in rural Kentucky, and I think "are we really members of the same nation with an urbane Manhattan dweller, or a person of Mexican descent in East LA...? And if we are different nations, should we really live in one nation-state...?

The ability of Constitutionalism to hold us together is fraying rapidly. I believe it is time for a peaceful separation before we come to tearing ourselves apart physically.

The territory of the US would make several beautiful little Republics, that could be much more homogeneous and less polarized within themselves. Self-governing, but with a mutual defense treaty and free travel within themselves. Maybe even maintain a common currency.

don't think there is a reasonable way to separate without massive forceful relocations of people

 

[mneuro]

The vocal minority of liberal extremists are turning many people away from the Democratic party. People are getting turned off by what they see as whining and complaining from the left.

It would seem this is uniting people, just not in the way the media would like.

 

[Rentahamster]

I would say it has been trending that way for a while. Accelerating since the 90s. The US is very culturally divided. The deepest cultural values we have have never been more dissimilar, even in the antebellum era. I look around at myself and my neighbors here in rural Kentucky, and I think "are we really members of the same nation with an urbane Manhattan dweller, or a person of Mexican descent in East LA...? And if we are different nations, should we really live in one nation-state...?

The ability of Constitutionalism to hold us together is fraying rapidly. I believe it is time for a peaceful separation before we come to tearing ourselves apart physically.

The territory of the US would make several beautiful little Republics, that could be much more homogeneous and less polarized within themselves. Self-governing, but with a mutual defense treaty and free travel within themselves. Maybe even maintain a common currency.

How much of the world have you traveled? In my experience, whatever differences there are within America culturally, there is still a common American culture. This gets a lot more obvious when you see people from other cultures. Put 5 "culturally different" Americans on a road trip in Europe, Asia, or Africa, and they'll probably find out that they're actually not that dissimilar, especially relative to the local people.

 

[Spheyr]

The left and the media are working overtime to divide the country.

 

[Joyful]

on the internet yes

 

[Captain Zyrain]

don't think there is a reasonable way to separate without massive forceful relocations of people

I am sure you could do it along state lines for the most part. Have clumps of states group up together. I'm sure Texas would be happy to stay by themselves. You would need to come up with some kind of policy for people who maybe didn't want to remain where they are, but it seems like it would be do-able.

 

[Coffe Time]

It's the opposite. Trump brought America together. It's the coastal liberals who are screaming the loudest and want to dictate the lives of anyone who doesn't live in California or New York City.

Trump's whole campaign was "America first".
What was the Democrat one? "I'm with her".

Who is dividing who again?

Without specifying population densities in those counties and/or the overall population totals, that map is paining an incomplete picture of the situation, FYI.

Precisely what I was thinking. Here is a map from business insider roughly estimating population density vs polling data. They morphed a map of what Jordan posted above according to population density.

Painta a different picture where its hard to say exactly what party is more representative of the needs or wants of the country.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Precisely what I was thinking. Here is a map from business insider roughly estimating population density vs polling data. They morphed a map of what Jordan posted above according to population density.

Painta a different picture where its hard to say exactly what party is more representative of the needs or wants of the country.

I don't see why either of you are arguing the case of "population density".

The USA's system was set up with an explicit bias against "vote by population density". It's to protect farmers, miners, loggers, and other rural workers who wouldn't be able to get their voice heard via having a bigger population but still wanted their region to be considered in political decisions.

This is known as a "minority".

The way our system is set up is to allow for minorities in rural areas to still be represented. That way, the "city folk" can't run things from the city while forgetting the providers out there in the wild getting a lot of the invisible work done.

Basing things on population density just means "mob rule, please". No thanks. I'd like people's voices to be heard and then we can try to make the fairest compromise moving forward. It's the American way.

 

[DKehoe]

No. Americans had a civil war years ago.

Yup, it's always tempting to think of right now as the worst things have ever been. But the US had a literal civil war. People arguing with each other a lot doesn't compare to that.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't see why either of you are arguing the case of "population density".

The USA's system was set up with an explicit bias against "vote by population density". It's to protect farmers, miners, loggers, and other rural workers who wouldn't be able to get their voice heard via having a bigger population but still wanted their region to be considered in political decisions.

This is known as a "minority".

The way our system is set up is to allow for minorities in rural areas to still be represented. That way, the "city folk" can't run things from the city while forgetting the providers out there in the wild getting a lot of the invisible work done.

Basing things on population density just means "mob rule, please". No thanks. I'd like people's voices to be heard and then we can try to make the fairest compromise moving forward. It's the American way.

You're talking about something different than what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about division as it pertains to electoral representation.

 

[Gander]

I don't think there will ever be another civil war. Back then people for fighting lifestyles and livelihoods. The south was getting rich off free labor and liked the convenience of owning people. North was fighting to keep the Union together to keep the U.S. enemies at bay and keep from getting invaded.

Things are not that drastic but it's bad.

 

[JordanN]

I don't think there will ever be another civil war. Back then people for fighting lifestyles and livelihoods. The south was getting rich off free labor and liked the convenience of owning people. North was fighting to keep the Union together to keep the U.S. enemies at bay and keep from getting invaded.

Things are not that drastic but it's bad.

And back then, both sides had guns.

Today, it's the left that is calling all guns evil, so I have no idea what weapon they would use in a civil war. Throw soy milk at them? Ayyyyy.

 

[Coffe Time]

I don't see why either of you are arguing the case of "population density".

The USA's system was set up with an explicit bias against "vote by population density". It's to protect farmers, miners, loggers, and other rural workers who wouldn't be able to get their voice heard via having a bigger population but still wanted their region to be considered in political decisions.

This is known as a "minority".

The way our system is set up is to allow for minorities in rural areas to still be represented. That way, the "city folk" can't run things from the city while forgetting the providers out there in the wild getting a lot of the invisible work done.

Basing things on population density just means "mob rule, please". No thanks. I'd like people's voices to be heard and then we can try to make the fairest compromise moving forward. It's the American way.

You just argued for exactly why the map Jordan posted is not an accurate representation of the US' political views.

 

[American]

It's the opposite. Trump brought America together. It's the coastal liberals who are screaming the loudest and want to dictate the lives of anyone who doesn't live in California or New York City.

Trump's whole campaign was "America first".
What was the Democrat one? "I'm with her".

Who is dividing who again?

Ever heard of 'gerrymandering'?

 

[TrainedRage]

THOR!!!! It's ALWAYS THOR!!!

 

[DiscoJer]

As far as I am concerned, it really started when Obama called half the country bitter people who cling to their bibles and guns.

 

[pramod]

All Trump did was do what a politician is supposed to do: try his best to win an election.

It's the Democrats that seem to have a problem dealing with losing.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You just argued for exactly why the map Jordan posted is not an accurate representation of the US' political views.

What do you mean when you say "US's political views" and by what measurement? Are we measuring the distribution of political alignments geographically or by population?

 

[Joe T.]

I think Trump's only hope in bringing the country together will rest squarely on his policies' ability to improve the quality of life across the country. The tax bill alone won't be able achieve that, obviously, though if he pushes hard enough on immigration, foreign trade and infrastructure so that it delivers beneficial results some of the hostility thrown his way may be taken down a level or three by the end of his term. That's no easy task, though, and as others have said, right now it doesn't look like the Dems are interested in uniting the country either, doing so before the mid-term and 2020 general election would work against them considering all the time and energy they've spent working the public into a frenzy.

 

[Coffe Time]

What do you mean when you say "US's political views" and by what measurement? Are we measuring the distribution of political alignments geographically or by population?

Kinda both. So the map Jordan posted, while initially looks like conservative beliefs are representative of the US, the adjustments of the map I posted shows, based on population density of the map, that the distribution of polling data is very different. We can see many of the democratically aligned voters are along the coast or in larger cities.

Now, I hate the electoral college. I think it misrepresents the voters and is skewed by gerrymandering. It's been incredibly generous to the Midwest states with less people. To some degree, it's fine, because theyre given a voice, but I think its a bit too biased to their favor.

Just elect a president by popular vote. That will give actual weight to the voting system where many feel their vote is pointless. I've heard countless times where people dont want to vote, becausw they dont think it means anything. Their state will always be blue, or red. They feel theres no point.
*end rant* hahaha.

 

[Gander]

As far as I am concerned, it really started when Obama called half the country bitter people who cling to their bibles and guns.

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He was right though, the uneducated use racism and hatred to fuel anger for the bad things that have happened to them. They'd sooner blame black people or mexicans though it was the billionaires who decided to save money by moving jobs oversees.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Kinda both. So the map Jordan posted, while initially looks like conservative beliefs are representative of the US, the adjustments of the map I posted shows, based on population density of the map, that the distribution of polling data is very different. We can see many of the democratically aligned voters are along the coast or in larger cities.

Now, I hate the electoral college. I think it misrepresents the voters and is skewed by gerrymandering. It's been incredibly generous to the Midwest states with less people. To some degree, it's fine, because theyre given a voice, but I think its a bit too biased to their favor.

Just elect a president by popular vote. That will give actual weight to the voting system where many feel their vote is pointless. I've heard countless times where people dont want to vote, becausw they dont think it means anything. Their state will always be blue, or red. They feel theres no point.
*end rant* hahaha.

But that's exactly the opposite of how our system is set up, and this is on purpose. America is about checks and balances. I feel you don't realize that doing away with the electoral college would allow Elites in populated cities to rule the country. Screw the rural folks and the minorities.

I don't remember the exact number, but I believe over 60% of Hillary's popular vote came from New York and California. Sorry, but I don't want New York and California calling the shots for the other 48 states. That's not how our country is set up.

If enough states suffer from "coastal policies" decreed by the densely-populated regions of the country, eventually they're band together and elect someone else. Or vice versa. This is good. This allows minorities to build grassroot movements and rally for their rights. These USED to be Values that the Left cherished. Not anymore.

 

[LordPezix]

Well Yes and No currently sitting at 38.3% exactly sooo.....................


And Thor looking solid at a 21.3%. Noice.

 

[Coffe Time]

But that's exactly the opposite of how our system is set up, and this is on purpose. America is about checks and balances. I feel you don't realize that doing away with the electoral college would allow Elites in populated cities to rule the country. Screw the rural folks and the minorities.

I don't remember the exact number, but I believe over 60% of Hillary's popular vote came from New York and California. Sorry, but I don't want New York and California calling the shots for the other 48 states. That's not how our country is set up.

If enough states suffer from "coastal policies" decreed by the densely-populated regions of the country, eventually they're band together and elect someone else. Or vice versa. This is good. This allows minorities to build grassroot movements and rally for their rights. These USED to be Values that the Left cherished. Not anymore.

Rural people are not minorities, they represent half the country. And their needs Will be determined by state laws, not coastal cities. Tell me how rural people are minorities and why they should have their voices heard over the needs of city people?

 

[manfestival]

I feel like trump inadvertently created a more transparent America. Exposing the stupidity to the greatest degree of both parties. Rather than the passive aggressive nation it was become. You could tell things were at a boiling point during Obama's presidency but trump existing blew it wide open.