You're a Trump supporter and Conservative/Republican right? So, the wall was something that you wanted? And now you're getting it fixed up, expanded and the gaps closed, right?

So, isn't that a good thing for you?

I mean, I don't know about you but for example I was not much of a Trump fan when he was in office, but I was thrilled that he was taking China to task on a lot of things towards the end of his Presidency, even if I didn't think he was the best leader, personally.

Is it possible that you prefer the thrill of chasing divisions and criticising "the left" more than you actually want to see the realisation of the policies you support and desire?

And is it also possible that this is a part of the issue to begin with of why the US seems so polarised at the moment?

I don't know about everyone else but I'm pretty exhausted of the "culture war", toxic neomarxism/feminism/identity politics vs science denialism/anti-humanism/religiosity.

Where's the common ground? We've got to all sit down like adult human beings and speak with common sense.

I mean, you're right. Adding pieces to a wall is by definition building a wall. But if that's what you wanted and it saves even one more vitriolic argument, then why be so intent on creating the vitriolic argument? Where is the adult in all of this at this point?

I agree with most of this, but the US was always a secular nation with special protections for freedoms that a lot of other countries at the time didn't have. One of those was freedom to practice any religion, or irreligion.

That being said, I do reckon an agreed upon moral framework is necessary. I won't say objective because I can't be certain objective morals exist. But what I do know from travelling is that Western societies are far more developed, advanced, free and safe than almost all others. So, what is that unifying moral code that helped them get there?

Well, I might argue it's freedom of expression, open debate, individual rights, the rule of law, and self determination under the protection of constitutionally engrained legal axioms. What does that look like on the day to day? Respectful debate; moderation of mind; varied education; individualism; free markets for commerce and ideas; accountable polity; and some unifying force.

America right now is really missing that unifying force element. What unites Western countries and gives them something to strive towards together? That's the big question right now. Whoever finds the answer will rule the free world. But I can tell you that it's no longer Christianity (if it ever was at all).

Perhaps it's the idea of positive endeavour towards creating stable democracies and free societies at home and around the world. That's something that can unite people with the right motivations and speeches and redirections of people's attention Or perhaps it's something else.

But whatever the answer is: at the moment, social media, virulent neomarxism and a slew of other inner problems make common ideals seem naive, even trite to a lot of people.

Too many opinions and not enough mediation, for my taste. Honestly, people need to be willing to conscience firstly that they may be wrong about some hard-held beliefs (not just leftists or rightists but everyone), and secondly, people need a moderating voice, a central man or woman, a third option.

This left-right thing is only getting more polarised and extreme in my view and you're completely right that such a schism destroys countries. So, the question becomes: how can I start bridging ideas and having open, respectful debates, even if it means considering and making concessions to some views or ideas that on first glance make me cringe or recoil.

Surely it's better than the alternative?

Abortion up to a limit - moderate

Common sense regulations on guns for a "well regulated militia" as per Great Amendment Number Two - moderate

Disallowing kids from being maimed by gender nutcases but still allowing adults to be trans if they themselves choose - moderate

Opposing mass migration but still giving people opportunities to come across the border to escape violence and go through proper channels - moderate

Giving women equal pay for equal work but also giving men more rights in divorce and whatnot - moderate

Banning anti-democratic indoctrination in schools but teaching anti-democracy through the lens of the historical failures of communism and authoritarianism in general - moderate (and extremely necessary)

This is what we need, really. Middle ground. A compromise.

This is a pretty simple and correct observation. Guns make killing easier purely by the nature of their proliferation and form. Replace every gun with a knife and you are statistically certain to have less murders, purely because knives are harder to kill people with, especially lots of people at once.

But let's be honest, the States will never abandon guns. The best a sane populace can hope for is a "well regulated militia" as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states it. But for that, you first need some form of regulation.

I agree America seems to be currently going to hell in a hand-basket and into neomarxist madness but I'm not convinced it's to do with "big corporate America". Seems to me to be more to do with culture war instigated by internet troll armies in authoritarian countries; that and the neofeminist distraction that's being played out in the open nut-house.

Saying that, protections from malicious foreign investment wouldn't hurt the cause of protecting democratic societies. The UK are about to pass a huge bill attempting to future proof the educational system, politics, social media and businesses from neomarxist foreign influence, cancel culture and attacks on freedom of expression, free speech, rule of law and malicious foreign investment. I believe the US government also recently passed some legislation about protecting intellectual property rights and privileged university research from espionage by foreign students (mainly Chinese) and corrupt professors and whatnot.

I can see your point about the communists seemingly playing the Western leaders but I also see the intelligence agencies and lawmakers behind the scenes very lucidly aware of these threats, too.

I hope this whole gender madness and the veil lifting away from "developed China" narratives can open people's eyes a bit.

Anyway, I don't know if you remember me but I left this site a few years ago, moved to an ex communist country, and came back changed.

Check out "wumao" on Google. And down the Rabbit Hole you go.

It depends what you mean by liberalism. Classical liberalism or modern liberalism? Free speech/expression/market based society or neomarxism/neofeminism/identity politics?

Because those are two very different ideological frameworks. The former works well everywhere it has been adopted.

Yet another logical, grammatically coherent, insightful argument from yourself, I see.

You are so stupid it's not even like playing on the same surface. Please remove yourself from this planet.

How is this relevant? The debate premise is about Trump and Nazism. Yet again another American buffoon making a fool of himself.

This is weak sauce. No country ever remains in such a position for long. Having the biggest stick doesn't excuse wielding it without any intelligence or insight.

Can you spell s-t-r-a-w-m-a-n?

Please at least try to form a coherent argument the next time.

Thank the universe sensible people still exist, who see the value in art.

Again, political point-scoring for Republicans is not a valid response to the debate question. America isn't even a full democracy, you fucking retard. It has some of the lowest standards of living in all the developed world.

How about fuck up and answer the debate.

Oh wait ... you have.

Point proven, again.

The internet cannot, in its entirety, be considered an echo chamber. The lamentable fact (for you), is that your people genuinely are more dense than the rest of the planet.

Completely proves my point. Take a statistic entirely unrelated and ineffectual to the premise posed, and turn it into an "argument".

Dumb bastards.

You really are stupid.

Nazism is literally a right wing ideology. So you are saying "leftists brought rightism".

Idiot.

Isn't that pretty much, not choosing a candidate? Pretty sure there is nobody called "torn up piss paper" running for election.

And are you suggesting that people ought to just choose a candidate, even if they don't believe in them?

How about no.

Well, actually, you did. You talked some nonsense about "only god can save", hail Jeebus, praise be the bearded man. Which is nonsense. We have perfectly rational explanations for why kids aren't getting killed by this virus as much as adults.

Parents keep children away from sick people. Medical care is more urgently pursued for children. Children have generally less resistance to antiviral medication. Children are, in most countries, strictly monitored for health, and nourished exceedingly well. Children generally live with less stress, which we know increases resistance to illness.

There are a multitude of reasons why this virus kills kids less, that are far more rational than "because bearded holy man in the sky".

Not at all. I would be happy if you stopped posting nonsense shit and actually went out an experienced and explored the world, instead. but nah. Stuck in little ol USA, in your home town probably. Still with the same backward religious bullshit that kept your parents there.

Live a little, man.

God is a fiction. You are an idiot. This debate question is a load of shit. Case closed.

A dictatorship? Seriously? are you retarded?

A dictatorship is a dictatorship. A movement is a movement. A movement for people to accept something is not a legal demand for them to accept it upon penalty of death. Stop being so fucking stupid.

Yes, with the option of "no candidate chosen". And if a majority don't choose a candidate, the election runs again, until they do.

You don't have the mental acuity to win a tally of to whom does the longest list of logical fallacies belong. You are in a fragile glass house, because you believe in absolute fairy tales.

No, they don't. And if the United States are gonna sanction nations for human rights violations, they ought to start with the ones they sell weapons to.

The Saudi government are, by far, the worst human rights violators of all governments in the middle east. By far. The Iranians don't even hold a candle.