What are the roots of the current divisiveness of American politics/discourse?

[OSR stands with Israel]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

For what?  Those are pretty standard lines used against any President.

Calling someone a war criminal you think is not outrageously bad .

[Sir Mohamed]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

For what?  Those are pretty standard lines used against any President.

Calling someone a war criminal you think is not outrageously bad .

W may not classified a war-criminal, but his foreign policy decisions, especially the invasion of Iraq, was a complete disaster. He and his neocon administration lied the heck out of it and made stuff up to legitimate a war. Not to mention torture and all the stuff that ruined our standing in vast parts of the world. For sure, Saddam was a horrible dictator, but terrorism and ISIS are even worse. It's mostly the fault of Bush Administration, although I acknowledge that the end result was not W's intent. But they are the result of wrong decisions made by this administration. The other points on W are garbage, he's neither a racist nor was he a dictator, though his 2000 victory is at least questionable.

But if we're talking about hate for a president, we should also talk about the far-right and Tea Partiers and their bigotry and hatred for Obama. They floated the stupid idea that he was born in Kenya, that he's a muslim etc. They did everything to damage this president, mostly due to racism. They hate him more than they love America. For sure, Obama is not perfect and he made some mistakes. But what the Tea Party did with Obama is a disgrace- and shameful.

[136or142]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

For what?  Those are pretty standard lines used against any President.

Calling someone a war criminal you think is not outrageously bad .

1.Illegal invasion of Iraq
2.Waterboarding and possibly other forms of torture.

Yes, the war crimes of W. Bush and his Administration were outrageously bad.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The repeal of the fairness doctrine, leading to rightwing talk radio and fox news, combined with the emergence of a new liberal culture, which freaked out the old order.

Because we're seeing a massive demographic change in this country as the white share of the population declines, which is exacerbated by coming in tandem with the political twilight of the largest and most polarized generation in a century occurring simultaneously as the next largest, and most diverse, generation begins to demand power. Further exacerbating is the aftershocks of a recession larger than anyone understood or cared to acknowledge, with rapid technological change making bubbles fiercer and more impenetrable than ever before.

That has completely nothing to do with it...  it's just the internet.  That's it.  And Bernie.

Stop fetishizing Hillary for a few moments and look at things objectively. Seriously, your love for her borders on the weird.

He's not being serious.

[pbrower2a]

Near autistic Partisan hacks who cant handle accepting any blame for anything.  Id say the responses in this thread are a pretty good indicator of how prevalent that cancer is.

I have Asperger's syndrome.  Or to put it more precisely, Asperger's syndrome has me. It has caused me much grief, and I stumbled through life until age 60 faulting my character or society in general for something that gave me great difficulty in getting and holding jobs. I got horrible advice from well-meaning people who led me in some of the worst career directions and life decisions possible for someone with Asperger's. Instead of trying office work I should have gone into some creative activity in which I had a chance so long as I showed adequate diligence and dedication. Where there are incentives and other encouragement, people turn their talents to productive activities and do well. Between the writing, art, music, and drama that I love -- and these are all expressions of humanity at its fullest -- I would have found something to my satisfaction. I simply could never get office politics.

The really-bad advice was to avoid the mental health system. There is no cure for Asperger's, but one can make adjustments to live a reasonably-normal life. One can be a good parent, but one had better be an adoptive parent -- especially if one ends up with a spouse who has Asperger's syndrome. Like attracts like.  One can dissolve the anxiety with an occasional drink; one drink does it. One beer or one glass of wine does the trick. One.

I am capable of moral judgment, indeed often harsh judgment of gross wrong-doing. I recognize the danger of anger, greed, and cruelty. I was old enough to see the contrast between the side of civil rights for Southern  blacks in contrast to white racism... yes, any side that must kill opponents to stifle a cause has a dubious cause. Male chauvinism? Once I was too old for Boy Scouts, all-male environments have lost all appeal to me.

...Last week at a filling station I saw a seven-year-old boy run away from his parents' (or custodial adults') vehicle. He showed a fear that seven-year-old boys never show. This was not "I don't want to see the dentist" fear. Seven-year-old boys don't show fear except of something that they have already experienced, like perhaps a beating by parents. What passed as his mother ordered him, with profanity, to get back into the car. His alleged father asked him if he was willing to put his job at risk, suggesting that he had the wrong set of priorities. I did not like what I saw. I told the store clerk what I saw and she called the police. I went out to gas up my car and watched the couple and their child. Maybe that couple figured out what I was up to, and figured that it was a bad idea to give their son a brutal spanking while I was around. They left, but not before I got their plate number.  

May that couple have a close encounter of the Blue kind. I am not referring to politics here -- I refer to the usual color of police uniforms. I may have thwarted some child endangerment. Who knows? They may have to take a junior-college course on child development that I found very useful in substitute school teaching.  

    

[publicunofficial]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

For what?  Those are pretty standard lines used against any President.

Calling someone a war criminal you think is not outrageously bad .

Maybe he shouldn't have broken the Geneva Convention then?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

Cry me a river. Bush himself did way worse to Kerry.

[pbrower2a]

The Democrat party is unable to man up and deal with losing an election....and has a kill list of the people who won the election.

Maybe go back to the old standard of trying to make Donald Trump a 1 term President?

Link

Were it simply a matter of Donald Trump and the GOP bamboozling the American people to vote for him, that would be one thing. Elections have consequences, and people deserve the consequences of their folly when they vote for demagogues and corporate shills. That includes injustice and economic calamities.

If the election were shaped significantly by a foreign intelligence agency, then we did not have a free and fair election. If it is Russia that does the hack this time, then it could be China the next time -- maybe choosing that we elect a Democratic President and Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

People connected to President Trump have inordinate numbers of ties to Russia -- not China, not India, not Japan, not any country in western Europe. Such causes the 2016 election to fail the 'stink test'.   

[OSR stands with Israel]

this all why the far left called bush

-illegitimate
-war criminal
- a dictator
- somebody who is a threat to American democracy
- called him racist


All of these were so outrageous that DU , TYT , all the far left commentators should apologize for using such malicious lies against Dubya

so anybody from the far left willing to apologize for this

For what?  Those are pretty standard lines used against any President.

Calling someone a war criminal you think is not outrageously bad .

W may not classified a war-criminal, but his foreign policy decisions, especially the invasion of Iraq, was a complete disaster. He and his neocon administration lied the heck out of it and made stuff up to legitimate a war. Not to mention torture and all the stuff that ruined our standing in vast parts of the world. For sure, Saddam was a horrible dictator, but terrorism and ISIS are even worse. It's mostly the fault of Bush Administration, although I acknowledge that the end result was not W's intent. But they are the result of wrong decisions made by this administration. The other points on W are garbage, he's neither a racist nor was he a dictator, though his 2000 victory is at least questionable.

But if we're talking about hate for a president, we should also talk about the far-right and Tea Partiers and their bigotry and hatred for Obama. They floated the stupid idea that he was born in Kenya, that he's a muslim etc. They did everything to damage this president, mostly due to racism. They hate him more than they love America. For sure, Obama is not perfect and he made some mistakes. But what the Tea Party did with Obama is a disgrace- and shameful.

I agree , and what the far left also did to Bush was also disgraceful and shameful.

Bush had no reason to be hated as much as was before late 2007/early 2008 .

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

This veneration of the president thing is why I hate presidential systems. Because the president is supposed to be some unifying symbol of the nation it becomes some weird thoughtcrime to say nasty stuff about the a POtUS, and any banal actions like one guy shouting "you lie" is treated as some sort of serious faux pas. Which is not really something you want in a HoG,

[OSR stands with Israel]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

[Sumner 1868]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .

Correct. All three should be relocated to the Hague.

[Mr.Phips]

It all goes back to Newt Gingrich's decision in the 1980s to wage "guerilla warfare" against the Democrats in Congress.  That led to constant gridlock and disdain for government.

[Anna Komnene]

The rise of wedge social issues is mostly to blame imo, specifically abortion.  There are so many people that think the other party is a bunch of terrible people that are going to hell.  Of course politics will be divisive when that's how people think.

[136or142]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

[OSR stands with Israel]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

First of all the Iraq war wasn't illegal (by the US law it was legal ) . Obama did exactly what Bush did in Iraq , to Libya(regime change without being attacked by that country or being allied with a country who is our enemy ) .

Bill Clinton imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq ,which resulted in countless of Iraqis to die under the guise suddam still had WMD's.

[136or142]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

First of all the Iraq war wasn't illegal (by the US law it was legal ) . Obama did exactly what Bush did in Iraq , to Libya(regime change without being attacked by that country or being allied with a country who is our enemy ) .

Bill Clinton imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq ,which resulted in countless of Iraqis to die under the guise suddam still had WMD's.

1.It was illegal under international law, which is one of the reasons why Dick Cheney, I believe Donald Rumsfailed (and possibly George W Bush) rarely ever leave the United States.  Hard to know with George W Bush since he apparently never left the United States (except maybe to go to Mexico) before becoming President.

It is true that there are no outstanding warrants for the arrest of any of these people, but this is likely because they hardly ever travel outside the U.S except for Bush on the occasional charity mission and to go to state funerals: I.E where he has been invited by the state beforehand.

Dick Cheney came to Canada on one occasion and there were protests calling for his arrest.  Obviously he was not arrested, but he canceled a subsequent scheduled visit to Canada without giving a reason.

2.The bombing of Libya was to prevent Qaddafi from slaughtering his own people and was called for by the United Nations.

3.It may be true that the sanctions were killing innocent Iraqis, but they were enacted by the United Nations, not by the United States.

None of your claims are correct.

Edit to add on the sanctions part, it's hard to know what to believe was true from W. Bush Administration, but one of the stated reasons they gave for the placing of U.S troops in either Kuwait or Qatar (I forget where the U.S had their base of operations) was that these troops placed pressure on Iraq and other nations (I believe France was specifically mentioned) that were looking to end the Iraq sanctions.

So, again, hard to know what to believe, but one of the initial justifications in the lead up to the war was 'the United States has to ensure that, at the very least, the sanctions remain in place.'

It was only after the war, and the subsequent collapse of Iraq as a nation, that Republicans and other Iraq war dissemblers claimed a justification due to the sanctions killing thousands of Iraqis.

[OSR stands with Israel]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

First of all the Iraq war wasn't illegal (by the US law it was legal ) . Obama did exactly what Bush did in Iraq , to Libya(regime change without being attacked by that country or being allied with a country who is our enemy ) .

Bill Clinton imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq ,which resulted in countless of Iraqis to die under the guise suddam still had WMD's.

1.It was illegal under international law, which is one of the reasons why Dick Cheney, I believe Donald Rumsfailed (and possibly George W Bush) rarely ever leave the United States.  Hard to know with George W Bush since he apparently never left the United States (except maybe to go to Mexico) before becoming President.

It is true that there are no outstanding warrants for the arrest of any of these people, but this is likely because they hardly ever travel outside the U.S except for Bush on the occasional charity mission and to go to state funerals: I.E where he has been invited by the state beforehand.

Dick Cheney came to Canada on one occasion and there were protests calling for his arrest.  Obviously he was not arrested, but he canceled a subsequent scheduled visit to Canada without giving a reason.

2.The bombing of Libya was to prevent Qaddafi from slaughtering his own people and was called for by the United Nations.

3.It may be true that the sanctions were killing innocent Iraqis, but they were enacted by the United Nations, not by the United States.

None of your claims are correct.

Edit to add on the sanctions part, it's hard to know what to believe was true from W. Bush Administration, but one of the stated reasons they gave for the placing of U.S troops in either Kuwait or Qatar (I forget where the U.S had their base of operations) was that these troops placed pressure on Iraq and other nations (I believe France was specifically mentioned) that were looking to end the Iraq sanctions.

So, again, hard to know what to believe, but one of the initial justifications in the lead up to the war was 'the United States has to ensure that, at the very least, the sanctions remain in place.'

It was only after the war, and the subsequent collapse of Iraq as a nation, that Republicans and other Iraq war dissemblers claimed a justification due to the sanctions killing thousands of Iraqis.

Any country who dares try to arrest bush should face severe consequences such as economic sanctions , destabilizing the countries politics , and in some cases we should go to war with them .

Also if an action legal under our laws it's legal, our laws supersede international law in every matter . Only time international laws should go above national law is if that country is a dictatorship .


But for America and any democratic republic they should put national law over international law.This is why I changed my mind about brexit and now support it cause anytime an international organization tries to pass laws what override national law they should be disregarded

 

[pbrower2a]

George W Bush is a war criminal bro

then so are Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama by that same definition .


In reality none of them are war criminals, and actually I would support heavily sanctioning, undermining their political stability , and in many cases go to war with countries who would arrest Clinton, Bush , or Obama just cause they disagree with their foreign policies.

I must have missed when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton illegally invaded another nation or engaged in torture.

I think this is one of the things Republicans have learned: be as extreme as possible and then when called out on it, criticize the other side for using 'over the top rhetoric' and expect the lazy 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad' crowd to jump in in defense and attack the 'over the top rhetoric.

What the Bush Administration did in foreign policy was materially significantly different from even the worst excesses of President Clinton or President Obama.

First of all the Iraq war wasn't illegal (by the US law it was legal ) . Obama did exactly what Bush did in Iraq , to Libya(regime change without being attacked by that country or being allied with a country who is our enemy ) .

The first Gulf war was perfectly legal as the liberation of Kuwait from a fraudulent annexation made as the result of an annexation. Obama inherited a war suspect in wisdom and could not avoid some of the consequences of the bungling of '43'.   
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I recall a map showing the potential range of missiles that Iraq had just before the invasion of Kuwait. That range included a significant chunk of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev also wanted the war machine of Iraq eviscerated -- especially the missiles and the poison gas programs. He is as culpable as the first Bush by your reasoning.

Saddam Hussein was once useful as a good customer of military equipment for his criminal war against the Islamic Republic of Iran which then had few friends. Once he invaded Kuwait he was no longer trustworthy. 




[/quote]

[RI]

The rise of wedge social issues is mostly to blame imo, specifically abortion.  There are so many people that think the other party is a bunch of terrible people that are going to hell.  Of course politics will be divisive when that's how people think.

Abortion policy wouldn't be nearly as toxic of an issue if it hadn't been unilaterally mandated by the Supreme Court in 1973 but was allowed to evolve by natural democratic processes.

Honestly? A growing dread and sinking conclusion that the country's best days are behind it and that the country is going to the dogs, which is shared by people on both sides of the aisle and has been for decades (at the very least since 9/11).

Have you talked to many liberal Boomers lately? A lot of them seem to think that "the decline" started on November 22, 1963 and has only gotten worse since.

It's funny you say that, although not for the obvious reasons. In a lot of ways, 1963 was the high water mark for American community based on a whole host of measures; ever since then, participation in all manner of American civic and communal life has eroded precipitously. We volunteer less, we vote less, we join organizations less, we generally do fewer things in person together, we interact face-to-face less frequently than ever. Much of this decline is associated with the rise of television in the home and suburbanization.











It's not hard to see trends like this and think we've lost something fundamental in the way we relate to our fellow man.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Greedy politicians running this country into the ground.

[vanguard96]

It's not hard to see trends like this and think we've lost something fundamental in the way we relate to our fellow man.

Your charts on social participation recalls what Charles Murray wrote about in Coming Apart. He also discusses about the decline of marriage. He discussed the lack of knowledge and the two different worlds being formed by the elites and working class groups in many respects. I think he was trying to avoid any kind of calls that the differences are attributable to race by limiting his study to whites but his prescriptions apply for everyone. Unfortunately, due to the baggage because of The Bell Curve this notable book per the NY Times is cast aside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book)

The book also discussed the concept of Super Zip which had both high average income and college graduation. The Washington Post has the info still up on their site for you to look up. Interesting and I wonder how these correlate to voting and redistricting/gerrymandering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2013/11/09/washington-a-world-apart/?utm_term=.775378f8cde0

[hopper]

Major factors:
1)America is not any more divided now than it has been in the recent past, it just feels that way: I actually think that the relative bipartisanship of the 1940s-1970s is the historical exception to the rule, rather than the standard
2)Lingering effects of Great Recession/Economic Inequality: I'd point more to the relative decline of the U.S. economy since the 1970s, as other countries modernize and take advantage of low trade barriers
3)White men threatened by the rise of women and minorities: I'd break this down into three factors: Whites threatened/angered by government programs aiding minorities (especially blacks) since the 1960s[/b],[/b] immigration, and the feminist and LGBT movement alienating cultural conservatives
4)Lack of a common existential threat - USSR, Nazis, Al-Qaeda: The lack of a common existential threat since the end of the Cold War, specifically, although al-Qaeda filled that role in a lot of peoples' minds for about a year

Another factor that comes to mind is a broad disaffection with government since the late 1960s, which I think is to some degree a phenomenon independent of the other factors. This led to a separation between those who see the government as a force for good and those who see it as basically a parasite (and of course there are other groups with more nuanced views)

Moderate factors:
5)America is an empire in a post-imperial world - our large and diverse country naturally lends itself to increased division: I don't know about the post-imperial world part, but the diversity is a challenge (as well as an asset)
6)The media is incentivized to promote conflict and sensationalism
7)Social media has strengthened the "bubbles" we live in, by showing us hundreds of people who agree with us and little else
A general moral decay, due to increasing irreligiosity and secularism: I don't agree with this statement. But I agree that the decline of Christianity has made many feel threatened, which goes into point number three above

Negligible factors:
People feel less agency over the decisions made by government due to increased influence of pan-national organizations like the UN and WTO: I would think that the rise of the bureaucratic state has affected "agency" far more than the rise of intergovernmental organizations. I think only the ideological fringe really cares about these groups.

Foreign powers have nurtured divisions between Americans to weaken the nation on the international stage: The only country that has done this successfully to some degree is Israel (specifically Netanyahu), but it hasn't had that big of an effect. Russia meddled in the election but I don't think that that has appreciably added to divisiveness (at least not yet)

On the federal programs front how many more programs do you think the Federal Government can add? The Federal Government is already 20 trillion dollars in the hole. I don't mind federal social safety net programs like Medicaid I mean the poor have to have access to Medical Services.

[hopper]

It began with the National Review. The National Review influenced Barry Goldwater, who captured the Republican nomination in 1964, ending the rule that only a moderate could be nominated for President by a major party. The culture wars of the 1960s and early 1970s divided America, as did the Reagan Revolution. It really went off the deep end when Newt Gingrich established a doctrine for congressional Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House: make wild accusations, never compromise, always obstruct, have hearings on everything, etc.

So it is just the Republicans fault? Democrats don't have any part in it whatsoever? Ok.

What specifically did the Democrats do that has played a role in this?  Just because there are two parties (literally) to this doesn't mean they are equally to blame or even that they both share blame.  

Thomas Mann is a liberal Democrat, but, while Norm Ornstein used to be a conservative Democrat he also used to work (or maybe he still does) for the conservative leaning American Enterprise Institute.


Let's Just Say It: The Republicans Are the Problem
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.197346bfc6b4

Yes I believe Norm Ornstein still works at "The American Enterprise Institute".

[hopper]

The extreme divisiveness in the political class goes back to Newt Gingrich and Lee Atwater.

I get tired of hearing the lazy 'both sides are equally bad' nonsense.  There was one comment here of the excessive hatred on the left for George W Bush.  The George W Bush Administration lied to the public to lead the nation into an unnecessary war and then compounded that by handling the post war situation in Iraq about as incompetently as possible.  I'm sorry, what is 'excessive hate' (or whatever the phrase was) over this?

Then, after that and two terms of President Obama Republicans nominated Donald Trump to be their Presidential nominee.  George W Bush and Donald Trump will almost certainly go down as two of the worst Presidents in U.S history (if not world history.) 

There is simply no comparison with the Administrations of President Clinton and President Obama.

In terms of the divisiveness with the public, I think there are a couple things here:
1.A good deal of the public is certainly at least an partisan as the politicians. I don't know what it is, but the Republican Party/Trump enablers seem to have lost their minds.  It seems pretty evident that all they are capable of doing is mindlessly regurgitating the phrase 'fake news' to every story critical of President Trump.

2.That aside, I don't know if they are fully reflective of the public and even if they are fully reflective of Republicans/Trump supporters.  I think with a lot of the discussions on the internet the exact same thing as with George Akerlof's used car lemon problem is occurring: those who aren't reflexive hyper partisan see the on line discussions and a lot of them basically throw up their hands and decide there is no point in adding a more thoughtful comment. So, the only people left to make comments on most web boards are the hyper partisans and the trolls.

I think Obama wasn't that good of a President either along with Trump and Bush W. There hasn't been a good president since Bill Clinton.