The historical great ideological divide thrives on

This forum epitomizes the  irreconcilable antagonism between political left and right, and the daily observed back and forth is historically precedented. It's been ubiquitous since before the US fought a revolutionary war and became a country. The conflict has often been characterized by conservatives who prefer stability / tradition ( change resistant; raises hand) pitted against those who might be referred to as 'progressive' reformists ( liberals who often embrace change). The underlying psychological, physiological, and experiential reasons which result in the basic differences between these two factions are multivaried..and vastly contrasting. They're also inevitable and often gives members of the contrasting groups a feeling of superiority over the opposing bunch; eg "your side is just stupid and / or morally bereft". The latter often leads to perceived expressions of arrogance and eventually some form of hypocrisy seems to emerge; plus the babble meter seems to be pegged quite often ( there's some arrogance). Then the opposing members leap off into diatribes about moral superiorities and employ those as the bases for their stances..and to define inflexible moralities as they see fit..for all members of the population. Do freedoms get lost in the battle? Stuck in the mud, so to speak? No, not at all ( the glass remains half-full).

The option to vote is the great effective weapon we  can employ whether  a believer in the great primordial ooze theory or some varied degree of belief in some higher power.  Please do..and maybe STFU a little..and maybe consider yourselves fortunate to not be ensconced in the aftermath of a recent hurricane ( if you aren't).

By all means.. have a few laughs when and where possible. I can belly laugh at Bill Maher and Lewis Black though neither can be classified as 'conservative'; can you liberals laugh at bits by Gutfeld, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen, who are conservative comics? Oh, the horror.

And...Go Cowboys ( still suffering  from persistent NFL team association  masochism).

It's no longer a battle between liberalism and conservatism. The Republican party tossed its conservative ideals overboard when they opened their legs for Trump. So MANY of the things he does and says, and plans to do, are utterly antithetical to conservative/"true American" values.

It's now a battle between democracy and authoritarianism; between inclusivity and nativism; between honest debate and populism. It's become much more primitive than an ideological debate. It's down to: do we follow an evil, selfish, narcissistic, bullying con man, or do we elect officials who will follow and respect the law and the Constitution?

And while you may not like it...it IS now, in fact, a battle of good vs. evil. And before you jump to the erroneous conclusion that I'm simply demonizing the other side, I should tell you that I used to agree with conservatives on many of their stances and disagreed with liberals on many of theirs. I was a true middle-of-the-road voter, and in fact voted for representatives of both parties. But then Trump came along, and turned the Republican party into a ugly, mutated thing that I and many others find repulsive.

If you are a Democrat running for Senate/House/President.....you can go to the constituents of a blue district and tell them you are willing to work and compromise with Republicans on policy.     And thats applauded.   Thats true in San Francisco, NYC, and the bluest parts of Vermont.

The reverse of that is not true.    Any Republican who says they will work with Democrats disqualifies his/herself and will never get passed a primary.   And its a big reason why Republicans cant keep a Speaker in the House.    Basic things like "paying the country's bills" cant be done without working across the aisle and thats inexcusable to the fringe right.     Ask Kevin McCarthy and soon to be exiled Mike Johnson.

So forget about Jan 6, fake electors, decertification efforts, and conspiracy theories to undermine the elections (Clearly Republicans have).     It should be noted that one party fundamentally would rather tear down the government as oppossed to work with the other party.    And thats not the historic ideological battle between left and right.   Thats Republicans being taken over by people who would rather implode our government than cooperate with the other party on anything.

I could cherry-pick legislative instances in which Democrats in fact didn't attempt a bipartisan approach to lots of issues; think Schumer not allowing bills to the Senate floor for a debate / vote . I won't enumerate all of them, but the original point still stands..that being the inherent issue divides that constrict an accommodating / compromising Congress. It's always been as such, but the situation does appear heightened currently because we're actually living it / experiencing  an exaggerated divide.

    The HUGE difference in the two parties (1) the DemocRats want to control every American with socialist policies and remain in power to totally destroy everything that made America the greatest nation in the world - and (2) the Republicans want every American to abide by the constitution, to abide by the law, and to get a job and be responsible for their actions. DemocRats hate America - Republicans love America. On November 5th. Americans will get rid of the corrupt, traitorous DemocRats and they will, once again, reelect President Trump.

I've been meaning to reply to this post, but have been very busy lately, I will not wax philosophical, I will get to the point. You seem to forget the great middle who do not subscribe to the "historical conflict" of left vs. right, they wish they would STFU and do their job. In my state, the registered voter population breaks down to 21% Republican, 27% Democrat, and 47% unaffiliated, count me in the 47%. I am 100% anti-MAGA.

I will use quotation marks to respond to the arguments that I would like to address.

"The conflict has often been characterized by conservatives who prefer stability / tradition ( change resistant; raises hand) pitted against those who might be referred to as 'progressive' reformists ( liberals who often embrace change)."

I have come to the conclusion that conservatives are the people who tell you it can't be done, so leave it alone, progressive find a way to make it work. An example would be renewable energy, conservatives used to complain it was too expensive, and when the price became lower than fossil fuels, they complained about storage. Liberals are solving those problems with advancements.

I'm not interested in debating baseline energy, I'm an all of the above person, except for coal in my state.

"I can belly laugh at Bill Maher and Lewis Black though neither can be classified as 'conservative'; can you liberals laugh at bits by Gutfeld, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen, who are conservative comics? Oh, the horror."

Your position of authority? haha funny.

I can tell you that I have never been a Tim Allen fan, Home Improvement was OK, if nothing else was on. It was in a lot of ways full of cliche's of how "traditional" America has changed, I was busy enjoying the new fun, everyone does what they like to do in America. 

The last time I watched Adam Carolla was when he had "The Man Show", excuse me if I got the title wrong. It was show that was all about juvenile comedy on how people are trying to impinge on his manhood because they are going to do want they want, and don't care if it's not their "traditional" role.

Gutfeld? Never heard of him until he got a show on Fox News, I don't watch TV news.

Right now my favorite comedian is Jim Gaffigan. Insightful, self-deprecating, and a great delivery.

Dang, I screwed up, I think I just waxed. That reminds me, time to pull out the skis, see ya.

I didn't forget the "great middle" or the so-called moderate members on either side of the aisle. I didn't single them out because they're generally not behind the big verbal conflict between the two party factions ( they may be passionate about certain issues, but they're not typically the big verbal punchers in the debate; ie sometimes you can convince those people to compromise on some issues). The right and left diehards were the theme characters of my point/s...currently and historically. It was all simply an observation of reality. Yes, I'm conservative and you can use that fact as fodder for your amusement / degradation. Slap me, beat me, make me play a bad blackjack game.

Apparently , you're a big believer in EV's based on your renewable energy comment. I think there's more than ample evidence that  general US consumers aren't quite ready for that on a massive scale despite subsidies, tax credits, and the published trend for  lower annual operating costs vs gas / diesel. Further there remains a number of current infrastructure / logistic problems with the EV industry (charging stations,etc.). OTOH, I have no qualms with anybody who elects to own and operate those vehicles; personal choice..go for it. Eventually, these EV's will be among the selective norm and comprise more than the 7-8% of the vehicles currently on US roads. I can see hybrids as a reasonable part of that early on transition ( more practical). How are you going to remove / ameliorate the current fossil fuel delivery infrastructure for the EV transition? The private and governmental machine pushing for sustainable energy is a fact; it's massive and determined to do away with FF's no matter how concerned I might be about it. It's an inevitability, but I'll probably croak before it's commonplace.

I've got one question for you regarding energy resources. Do you think it's possible we'll ever wean ourselves off fossil fuels ( there's some current indispensibility with those FF resources  that complement the push and processes for sustainable / green energy) ? Two questions, actually, which is a reserved right of conservative debate. What about nuclear energy and why can't we expand that option? Or are we still concerned about the risks / tradeoffs..or does such investment just get in the way of the green movement? Sure seems like a viable option from a production efficiency perspective vs solar / wind to me. But then you'd expect that from a redneck goober troglodyte with archaic tendencies, wouldn't ya? As you suggested, I too am in favor of alternative energy sources and resources..as long as they don't bankrupt us.

My position of authority on comedians is non-existent and I didn't imply that at all. I just named some comics who I find routinely funny; you aren't mandated to approve of my meaningless comic list ..I don't care. My skin is thick enough to not care too much about their specific political persuasions, either. They're funny or they aren't as I see it.

So..there's your answers in the form of more questions. Wanna make medicine?

"Apparently , you're a big believer in EV's based on your renewable energy comment."

Nope, I think the subsidies should be eliminated, and the cars should stand on their price and benefits.  So you typed that entire paragraph projecting me as much more liberal then I am, do you routinely fall into that trap?

Incentives to build charging stations from energy companies or the government are acceptable.

"Do you think it's possible we'll ever wean ourselves off fossil fuels"

Ever is a strong statement, maybe in the future we could, but in the short term probably not, but I also stated in my response that I'm an "all of the above guy". Except for coal.

"What about nuclear energy and why can't we expand that option?"

I have nothing against nuclear, but it's not the panacea the right seems to think it is, here's the last nuclear power plant to be commissioned in the US.

Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost | AP News

The right is very concerned about the cost of renewable, yet do they feel that this might be a problem with nuclear?

"Or are we still concerned about the risks / tradeoffs..or does such investment just get in the way of the green movement?"

As I said in my original response, I'm good with all of the above. As well alternative fuels being developed.

Porsche to put eFuel on sale by the end of the decade | CAR Magazine

"you aren't mandated to approve of my meaningless comic list ..I don't care. My skin is thick enough to not care too much about their specific political persuasions"

That part of my response was a bit tongue in cheek, maybe your skin isn't has thick as you think it is.I also never mentioned politics in my response, so why do you seem to think it matters to me?

"Wanna make medicine?"

No idea what the means.

See ya!

My unsolicited two cents:

Will we ever wean ourselves off fossil fuels? Yes, definitely--when they become too expensive to extract. Unfortunately, by then, we will have irrevocably fucked up the planet, because the true cost of fossil fuels isn't extraction and processing, but the negative externality--externality, that is, as far as the fossil fuel companies are concerned--of dumping 250 million years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere.

Nuclear power is a viable option if and when we have a way to safely contain it. So far, events have shown that we don't. And that's a huge risk.

EVs will be the go-to for the American consumer if and when they become the more viable cost option--not before (aside from the diehard throbbing-engine testosterone crowd). That point is approaching. The right's idiot scare-bleat about people being forced to buy EVs is nonsense.

Once again, though, the true cost of gas-powered vehicle operation isn't perceived by the public--the harm done to the environment. If not for the MAGAs, we might have already done what we should have done a decade ago, when the danger became starkly apparent: shut down every single internal combustion engine in the US.

Right-wing comedians are almost oxymorons--dear God, there is no political faction, past or present, with less of a sense of humor than the MAGAs--but the successful ones disguise their politics in the course of their performances. Supporting a narcissistic crook who wears a diaper and brags about how he plans to imprison everyone who doesn't vote for him is kinda...unfunny. And unappealing.