USA has always been like this.

R-T-BAs a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.

FordGT90ConceptLiberal state. How do you think the conservative states have been doing the past 8 years? Protesting isn't big in conservative states but they do tend to speak with their money. They bought a lot of guns, ammo, and trucks (Peterbilt literally sells trucks without engines and they'll install an engine you bring to them that is pre-emissions compliance)--all of the variety Obama administration were talking about or successfully banned. I think there would have been a lot more symptoms of conservative upheaval had the House not turned Republican in 2010 and state legislatures being mostly in Republican control (some 30+ states repeatedly sued the administration over Obamacare).

The liberal brain is more prone to conflict (conservative would rather avoid it) so I don't think the reaction to the landslide election is particularly surprising. It'll die down over time.


Remember, USA went to war over liberal (North)/conservative (South) ideals during the Civil War. This feud has existed since George Washington said two terms was enough. It's based in human psychology and sociology. These same conflicts exist in all governments to varying degrees. It is the most pronounced in the USA because the nation is massive, populated, and diverse. Trying to unify the political ambitions of wilderness Alaskans with a life-long New Yorker, there's going to be a lot of conflicts.

R-T-BAs a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.

dalekdukesboyThis is all true, except I'd disagree that the North was liberal and South conservative. Everything else is basically spot on. Hard to call the party of Lincoln liberal then or now really, unless you redefine the terms to mean differently from today vs. then.

dalekdukesboyErr....I see what you're saying dude but I think you still got your historical perspective a bit "off", even liberal democrats don't claim Lincoln as "theirs" all they say is the whole party switching over time thing you mention. But I also disagree that the modern liberal Democrats are FOR freeing the blacks not from slavery but inequality etc, that's fucking bull. That is what is said in public and what they have played off as, but in truth, true conservatives are for blacks and for everyone to succeed. So yeah, I like a lot of what you've said before, but I disagree with much of what you're saying, fancy charts and all. Also very few people of any stature I've ever seen would put down Lincoln in any way or claim he isn't a hero regardless of whatever flaws he had.

dalekdukesboyAlso many of states Coolidge lost/won have flipped in many elections for Dems or Repubs in every election including this last one so yeah, north vs. south is mostly flipped but many many exceptions so if anything all that map proves is we were much more polarized exclusively in that election then now and inbetween I'd argue.

Lincoln“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”

HistoryLincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia”

HistoryNearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

FordGT90ConceptThe South wanted to extend the status quo west (South states have slavery and North states do not). Lincoln refused to extend slavery into new territories and his election effectively triggered the South secession (the South will be overruled in Congress because the new territories will vote against the South). He felt his presidential duty was to reunite the states so off to war the North went to bring the South back in. Because the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery and each side went into their respective corners, who won the war definitely would mean freedom or slavery going forward after reunification. There would be no line drawn in the sand anymore; the matter would be settled forever. As the North pushed South, they freed the slaves they came across. A marching army can't do anything for slaves except unchain them and it also had the effect of further crippling the South's economy (no labor to tend the fields).

There was a pretty easy path to preventing the Civil War: pass a Constitutional amendment that says the federal government shall make no law in regards to slavery.

TheMailMan78Your history is a touch off there Ford.

RaevenlordThanks a lot, VSG. There was definitely a hard, thin line to try and thread here

lexluthermiesterYou failed on that point.

.... and your narrow-minded viewpoints out of it. Ok? Thanks!

Ahhzzand yours is better?

lexluthermiesterNotice how you skipped right over the "This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and" part of my statement. Hmm..

AhhzzYep. Intentional. I was just pointing out rudeness in either only insulting other's points of views, or the slightly more rude assumption that your points of view aren't just as narrow-minded.