[semantic]

D1, each side (correctly) views the other as the "enemy". One cannot establish a nation/group of willing participants without a properly constructed narrative that establishes reasonable moral authority for their particular side.

Did the Nazis or Imperial Japanese believe they were the "bad guys"? How about the Viet Cong? Or, more currently, ISIS? Until the right recognizes that the left thinks they hold the superior ethical position, and that we represent all that is evil in the world, some people will continue to underestimate just what the left's intentions truly are. (Hint: force citizens to work, pay taxes and support our designated 3rd world replacements so that the deep state can rule over a new, maleable peasant class.)

With that being said, it's quite easy to simply reverse what you wrote:

Allowing terrorists allies to come here: Not a domestic enemy

Preventing terrorists allies from coming here: A domestic enemy

When citizens inhabiting the same country reach this level of philosophical division, the only solution is for one side to lose, to yield the public square. Consider that Franco ruled for 36 years, and that Spain is still fairly conservative until this day.

As Lincoln stated in his 2nd inaugural address: "Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

[DoughtyOne]

D1, each side (correctly) views the other as the "enemy". One cannot establish a nation/group of willing participants without a properly constructed narrative that establishes reasonable moral authority for their particular side.

Academically, I think you could make that claim.  Making this statement, I don't want you to think I'm trying to deligitimize your comment.

What I could say, it that each side could think they are right.  I do not think each side can prove to be correct in their view.  One can.  One can't.

I say this because we can  point to our founding documents and use them as a guidepost.  The Left can't.

Sound citizens have a right to demand our nation live up to it's founding documents.  The Left does not have the right to damn our founding documents and demand we abandon them.

If they don't like this nation, they can leave.  We cannot go to another nation that believes as we do.  They can.  All of Europe is in tune with what they want.  So leave.  Nobody is stopping them.  

Did the Nazis or Imperial Japanese believe they were the "bad guys"? How about the Viet Cong? Or, more currently, ISIS? Until the right recognizes that the left thinks they hold the superior ethical position, and that we represent all that is evil in the world, some people will continue to underestimate just what the left's intentions truly are. (Hint: force citizens to work, pay taxes and support our designated 3rd world replacements so that the deep state can rule over a new, maleable peasant class.)

What I think you are fogetting, is that different groups can try to see themselves as legitimate, but there are always measures that can be used to test them.  The NAZIs were doing things that were against international law, and for lack of a better word, humanity.  They were intent to exterminating a race of people, and eliminating other classes of people.  Sure their corrupt leaders thought they were right, but that was only because they were so morally corrupted that they couldn't grasp right from wrong.  Most people can grasp right from wrong.  The NAZIs and the Japanese leadership was so screwed up, that by the end of the war the Japanese people knew and accepted how corrupted their leadership was.  All of humanity did.

My father traveled around Japan by himself in uniform after the war was over.  The Japanese people treated him with respect.  When he was riding on a bus, a pregnant woman tried to stand up and give him her seat.  He refused and assured her he wanted her to have the seat.

With that being said, it's quite easy to simply reverse what you wrote:

Allowing terrorists allies to come here: Not a domestic enemy

Preventing terrorists allies from coming here: A domestic enemy

Sure it is easy to reverse my words.  Does the new meaning pass standard tests of legitimacy? Is it reasoned to let people into the nation who will kill our citizens?  No.  There's not equal legitimacy for the other side of the argument.

When citizens inhabiting the same country reach this level of philosophical division, the only solution is for one side to lose, to yield the public square. Consider that Franco ruled for 36 years, and that Spain is still fairly conservative until this day.

One side will have to beat the other down.  It's sad it has to come to this, but sanity is a one way street.  Two people can claim to be right, but only one will be.  Issues have one sound solution.  Any deviation from it, is not sound.

As Lincoln stated in his 2nd inaugural address: "Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Yes, and I can tell you the full power of Trump's federal government will be against the terrorists within.  They will accept war rather than watch the nation perish.

If a war comes, the Lefties are going to have the livin' snot kicked out of them.