The Radicialization of Parties

[Distruzio]

Fwiw, in American politics, I think the fault is largely that of the Democrats and their extreme inferiority complex regarding anything that might hurt someone else's feelings, which has led them to support corrupt and decedent monsters. In other countries, the issue isn't as big.

That said, Antifa is a terrorist group. The definition of terrorism as follows: Noun | The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. A prominent piece of evidence: The Berkeley Protests ((Reasoning: The inflicting of around 100,000$ worth of damage, the assault of numerous peaceful right-wing protestors, the use of Molotov Cocktails and other prohibited items.) Further evidence: FBI Designation of Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization)

I was originally going to provide a counter-argument by modifying your rather biased statement, but it morphed a bit at the end. Anyways, Your initial response is just as radicalized as other previously mentioned statements on this thread, by marking President Donald J. Trump off in a biased and blatantly provocative way.

The democrat party doesn't support corrupt and decadent monsters. If you're referring to Clinton, Trump is worse. Also, if we really are looking at comparisons in other countries, look at the worldwide opinion on Trump. Republicans are the outliers (e.g. Trump, opposition to gun control, opposition to taxes, opposition to gun control, opposition to abortion) by the standards of the developed world.

So who leads "Antifa"?

Also, describing Trump in a "biased" way is actually pretty accurate.

... doesn't support corrup--

Where were you the last 8 years?

[Hatterleigh]

The parties are not becoming more radicalized, they're just more divided. Republicans and democrats are in essence the same and really aren't growing farther apart.

[Distruzio]

Excuse me? Did you conveniently exclude the Democrats also going apeshit every single minute of their lives everytime Mr. Orange Man does something?

You're ignoring the fact that the "Orange Man" has been doing things that would not have been acceptable 5 years ago never mind 25. The fact that democrats are outraged by such behaviour while republicans aren't suggests that they're the ones who have radicalized over that period of time.

Being outraged over outrageous behavior is not radical. Responding to radical behaviour by nominating the person doing it president is.

Nonsense. Trump says stupid things. Yes. But does things? No. He hasn't done anything out of the norm except excise the cancer of the previous Administration as much as possible and fool the Dems and the Media (though I repeat myself) into falling over themselves in a race to the bottom.

For which I am eternally grateful.

[Bentus]

No. The GOP has gone off the rails nuts, nowhere near 25 years ago.

I beg to differ.

Pew research over the past decade says otherwise. In fact, it says the EXACT opposite.

I feel like that article is grossly misrepresenting the Pew Center's publication.

The graph which they show in the article doesn't necessarily have a fixed base scale, and the Pew publication itself says that the median American voter has moved to the left since the original data was collected. If anything, the conclusion from the authors was that the American public as a whole has moved towards the left whereas the Republican party-line has shifted away from the median. In addition to this, the cited article explicitly found that Republicans were less likely to prefer candidates who compromise with those across the political spectrum than Democrats. Imho that seems like an effective measure of partisanship, although perhaps the reasoning for the Republicans to not want to support bipartisan deals is because the Democrats are more extreme? The paper doesn't really go into that level of detail.

Pew Paper Linky

Edit: Since it seems like Trump got brought up above, there's a good section near the end of the paper that looks into his impact in the Republican party. It indicates that a higher proportion (40%) of moderate and left-leaning Republicans feel that Trump is bad for the party vs conservative Republicans. This again could be an indication that he is steering the party towards a more extreme position perhaps.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes and it sucks.

[The Batorys]

Not sure any of you remember either the 2000 or '04 election.. the '04 election on NSG was cause for many of the rules about gloating and etc put in place.

I was not there for I was a youngster before hoping on the internet. Could you kindly tell us about it?

It was ugly.

[The Batorys]

As we reach 2020 within a few years, politics are becoming more intense and sensitive in private and public domains. Where people, instead of debating and seeking understanding between one of another (of why one each follows this political party), are now yelling and physically/virtually harming (fighting on streets to arguing in forums) each other because each side thinks they are right. It has created more recent terrorist groups like Antifa and Isis that encroach peoples rights through the globe.

Nothing is done but only arguing on whose wrong instead of doing something right

What do you think? Do you think radicalization is an issue or not.

TIL I'm a terrorist.

[The Batorys]

The GOP met shortly after Obama was elected in '08, sat down and agreed their only agenda was to oppose anything Obama put forward. That is they had no policy other than to oppose everything Obama did.

That was a new and different kind of strategy, we have no policy other than to oppose.

So.. they can take a little more of the blame with that kind of scorched earth tactic.

And now its the same thing happening during the current presidency. Its like there's a "us vs them" every time there's a term in these recent decades. I read at least there was a time where both parties cooperated, where there was liberal conservatives and conservative liberals (though disagreed with each other, they had shared some views on both sides) had at least put their differences aside and put the people first. Now its seems nonexistent among the major two

Part of this was structural, with the end of the strong committee system in congress in the 90s.

[The Batorys]

Antifa isn't a terrorist group.

Partially right since Antifa is a Domestic Terrorist group that consists of anarchists who insight violence against common people who they categorize as "Anti-Semitic" to "Racist" (or at least people who disagree with them and have a different opposite point of view)

I'm not an anarchist. I'm an anti-fascist.

[Big Jim P]

True, as the election of 2016 end results showed Human dignity and understanding for one another was basically thrown out the window as violent riots and murders occurred across the states. There was other events that help break the mule's back, such as the Syrian Refuge crisis into Europe and the British withdrawing from the Euro Union.

And definitely true when seen on here

Not sure any of you remember either the 2000 or '04 election.. the '04 election on NSG was cause for many of the rules about gloating and etc put in place.

Stephistan lost her modship over bushes reelection IIRC

[The Batorys]

I really don't even see polarization as a dirty word. When there is an ideological battle for our civil rights, liberties, and human dignity against people who oppose those things, we better damn well be polarized. If we start reaching out to the likes of the alt-right to unite and work together with them, we are screwed.

Lemme guess, the Republicans are the evil ones?

I wouldn't say all of them are evil.

But bigoted, yes.

[The Batorys]

Apparently? And the fact that stating that other points of views are evil due to disagreement. And saying its better to be polarized rather to understand and try to cooperate with your fellow man, woman and child.

What happens if the other side's goal is to hurt your side? How do you cooperate then?

Exactly. How does one compromise on human rights?

[The Batorys]

What happens if the other side's goal is to hurt your side? How do you cooperate then?

Well have a third unbias party, or a security force (the police) to be install to ensure factions like Antifia do not come in to interrupt talks because one group is there. As well to make sure that both sides, no matter what their opinions say about them being righteous and state the other side is evil, to be calm and settle it like Human beings rather than brawling in the streets. Seek understanding and talk about the issues instead of using it as an advantage for support.

The police are not unbiased.

[Page]

Antifa isn't a terrorist group.

Partially right since Antifa is a Domestic Terrorist group that consists of anarchists who insight violence against common people who they categorize as "Anti-Semitic" to "Racist" (or at least people who disagree with them and have a different opposite point of view)

How many people has antifa killed in America? Oh, right - zero. How many bombs as antifa set off?

You call them a domestic terrorist group based on what, that they are willing to use force to defend themselves and others from fascists who actually do people, like the vehicular murder at Charlottesville. And when antifa is facing off against scum like Gavin McInnes and his "Proud Boys", a man who openly admits to trying to insight violence, a man who has said "choke a tranny", leading a group of cowards where 20 of them gang up on one or two people, you think antifa is the problem?

[Big Jim P]

You're ignoring the fact that the "Orange Man" has been doing things that would not have been acceptable 5 years ago never mind 25. The fact that democrats are outraged by such behaviour while republicans aren't suggests that they're the ones who have radicalized over that period of time.

Being outraged over outrageous behavior is not radical. Responding to radical behaviour by nominating the person doing it president is.

This. And the GOP went apeshit every time Obama breathed.

Without the physical attack and harassment the dems are doing these days. It is obvious just which side is the sane, civil side.

[Page]

This. And the GOP went apeshit every time Obama breathed.

Without the physical attack and harassment the dems are doing these days. It is obvious just which side is the sane, civil side.

Only one side's extremists kill people and it's not the left.

[Mystic Warriors]

This. And the GOP went apeshit every time Obama breathed.

Without the physical attack and harassment the dems are doing these days. It is obvious just which side is the sane, civil side.

One Democrat doesn't equal all and the GOP has done both. Obama was the first President to get his citizenship questiond for years. Some still question it.

[Mystic Warriors]

Without the physical attack and harassment the dems are doing these days. It is obvious just which side is the sane, civil side.

Only one side's extremists kill people and it's not the left.

I still remember the unite the right rally. Total racism.

[Isvataan]

Wow, so looking the poll numbers, it interesting to see not only a majority say its become more radicalize but also see 1/6 of saying otherwise.

[Tobleste]

No. The GOP has gone off the rails nuts, nowhere near 25 years ago.

I beg to differ.

Pew research over the past decade says otherwise. In fact, it says the EXACT opposite.

Government aid to needy. Over the past six years, the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying the government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt, has risen 17 percentage points (from 54% to 71%), while the views of Republicans and Republican leaners have barely changed (25% then, 24% today). However, Republicans’ opinions on this issue had shifted substantially between 2007 and 2011, with the share favoring more aid to the needy falling 20 points (from 45% to 25%).

Not really.

Besides, a change of opinion over 25 years doesn't make one radical. 100 years ago, thinking women shouldn't be allowed to vote would be moderate. Still thinking it would make one radical.

Compared to other democratic countries, which of the US' party's opinions are closer to the mean on gun control? On climate change? On healthcare? On taxation? On Iran? On the UN? On Israel? On Russia?

On every issue, it's democrats. Republicans are closer to far right parties like Front National and AfD in Europe than mainstream conservatives.

[Tobleste]

You're ignoring the fact that the "Orange Man" has been doing things that would not have been acceptable 5 years ago never mind 25. The fact that democrats are outraged by such behaviour while republicans aren't suggests that they're the ones who have radicalized over that period of time.

Being outraged over outrageous behavior is not radical. Responding to radical behaviour by nominating the person doing it president is.

Nonsense. Trump says stupid things. Yes. But does things? No. He hasn't done anything out of the norm except excise the cancer of the previous Administration as much as possible and fool the Dems and the Media (though I repeat myself) into falling over themselves in a race to the bottom.

For which I am eternally grateful.

If you believe that Obama was a cancer while Trump has not done anything wrong or corrupt, speaking and listening to you is a waste of time.

[Isvataan]

And as mentioned before, some individuals are proving my point that radicalization is a problem, as seen with the posts talking about who is on the right side and who is on wrong side.

Those who came in to debate naturally and discuss what your point of view without dehumanizing and demonizing your fellow man than good job. Others who just came in and did what the first paragraph says, thanks for falling into my trap and providing evidence to the subject, much appreciated.

If you want to continue to debate and talk about the subject without stating your agendas (unlike other people here) then by all means please continue as a civil person would (or don't that's fine too)

On final notes, here to answer some posts: The left, though a bit of right as it, is a more radicalized then right (don't agree on both radical sides but acknowledge which one is more violent) as Antifa (recognized by the United States Government as a terrorist group) has harm individuals (who have different opinions) in a fascist (Morally equals to Neo Nazi) manner (they became the thing they wanted to destroy when there was none in the beginning within common people). Especially true when you see them distrupting peaceful protests, such as in Portland, Oregon. Also police are not bias, only that if they recognize a threat to the peace (such as the radical group I mentioned), they will uphold the laws for all people (regardless of their skin, sex, belief, class, disability, orientation, and so forth). And yes, it sucks to see radicalization to ruin our system of parties.

[Tobleste]

And as mentioned before, some individuals are proving my point that radicalization is a problem, as seen with the posts talking about who is on the right side and who is on wrong side.

Those who came in to debate naturally and discuss what your point of view without dehumanizing and demonizing your fellow man than good job. Others who just came in and did what the first paragraph says, thanks for falling into my trap and providing evidence to the subject, much appreciated.

If you want to continue to debate and talk about the subject without stating your agendas (unlike other people here) then by all means please continue as a civil person would (or don't that's fine too)

On final notes, here to answer some posts: The left, though a bit of right as it, is a more radicalized then right (don't agree on both radical sides but acknowledge which one is more violent) as Antifa (recognized by the United States Government as a terrorist group) has harm individuals (who have different opinions) in a fascist (Morally equals to Neo Nazi) manner (they became the thing they wanted to destroy when there was none in the beginning within common people). Especially true when you see them distrupting peaceful protests, such as in Portland, Oregon. Also police are not bias, only that if they recognize a threat to the peace (such as the radical group I mentioned), they will uphold the laws for all people (regardless of their skin, sex, belief, class, disability, orientation, and so forth). And yes, it sucks to see radicalization to ruin our system of parties.

More people have died as a result of right wing terrorism in the US than 'left wing' terrorism so blankly arguing that 'the left' is more violent than 'the right' suggests you have more of an agenda than you realise.

[Free Armed Peoples]

Honestly, this trend of radicalization in politics is not something that has been felt particularly in Aus, but its slowly starting to show its ugly face here now as a result of the intensifying divide between groups in society. I really don't see why people can say that one side is good while the other side is bad without coming across as either an uninformed reactionary or a hypocrite. As someone who (at least according to the Pol. Compass) is mildly Auth-Right, you'd probably expect me, by virtue of my political standing, to go and write off the left as a bunch of nasty minges, but rather I'd like to say that anyone, regardless of their political standing, who tries to say that one side is totally guilty while theirs is totally guiltless is, well, a nasty minge. No side in this has a clean record, and just because one side might appear to be worse, that doesn't excuse the other side's own wrongdoings

[Page]

On final notes, here to answer some posts: The left, though a bit of right as it, is a more radicalized then right (don't agree on both radical sides but acknowledge which one is more violent) as Antifa (recognized by the United States Government as a terrorist group) has harm individuals (who have different opinions) in a fascist (Morally equals to Neo Nazi) manner (they became the thing they wanted to destroy when there was none in the beginning within common people). Especially true when you see them distrupting peaceful protests, such as in Portland, Oregon. Also police are not bias, only that if they recognize a threat to the peace (such as the radical group I mentioned), they will uphold the laws for all people (regardless of their skin, sex, belief, class, disability, orientation, and so forth). And yes, it sucks to see radicalization to ruin our system of parties.

In America, the far-right is more violent. This is not a matter of opinion at all. To claim otherwise, you may as well also claim the sun revolves around the other. Far-right domestic terrorism is right behind radical Islamist terrorism in terms of body count, and the only reason radical Islamist terrorism ranks first is because of 9/11.

Apart from 9/11, far-right domestic terrorists are several times deadlier than radical Islamists. The far-right did Oklahoma City, the Sikh Temple shooting, the Charleston Church shooting, several attacks on law enforcement, dozens of bombings, arsons, and murders directed at abortion providers, the Olympic Park bombing, and the murder of Heather Heyer at Charlottesville. They even kill their own. When a nazi or klansmen ends up dead, it often is another nazi or klansmen that did it, because they get into drunken fights over whose cousin they get to have sex with.

Leftists don't kill people in 21st century America. Leftists aren't making bombs or shooting up places. You call the left violent based on the fact that they defend themselves against people who openly call for killing?