America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,689 comments
  • 1,585,090 views
Danoff
If only that were possible. It is not, power itself automatically creates money.
Click to expand...
It is, it is just that something prevents it from happening, because
Meythia
who in the right mind would agree to a salary cut of 90%
Click to expand...
To seperate power from money, all you need would be a law preventing politicians to take any donation and any other form of wealth of money other than their salary that would need to be tied to the nations median wealth so they are trying to make everyone richer for their own benefits.

Just like there are paragraphs like "all the above paragraphs including this one SHALL NEVER BE ALTERED", include to the above the rule how politicians are paid.
Dream scenario, wont happen, but would be possible. This is one of the things that are not functially impossible but will never happen, unless any other thing that if possible WILL happen at some point of time.
 
Meythia
To seperate power from money, all you need would be a law preventing politicians to take any donation and any other form of wealth of money other than their salary that would need to be tied to the nations median wealth so they are trying to make everyone richer for their own benefits.
Click to expand...
We have such a law covering Clarence Thomas.
Meythia
Just like there are paragraphs like "all the above paragraphs including this one SHALL NEVER BE ALTERED", include to the above the rule how politicians are paid.
Dream scenario, wont happen, but would be possible. This is one of the things that are not functially impossible but will never happen, unless any other thing that if possible WILL happen at some point of time.
Click to expand...
Yea, it is a dream. It's not possible. This is why I say the politicians should not have much power.
 
Imari
If you feel like your best shot at a decent leader is picking someone at random who doesn't really want to be there
Click to expand...
This line gave me an idea.

Let's defer to the parents of the forum. I'm in my mid-30s now and most of my friends are raising young kids right now. At some point they decided that would be a fine step to take. I can't put myself in their shoes honestly - not an ounce of me actually wants to have kids and after years of pondering this I've decided that it probably means it wouldn't be a good idea. Some people have natural talent as parents and have always hoped for it, some just sort of end up there and figure it out, some are terrible, some people don't want to, etc.

I'm not sure exactly who are parents here but I'm going to swing at @Danoff @Pupik @Joey D @TB.

Might the decision to run for a serious-business leadership role like this be akin to deciding to become a parent? I'm over here thinking that a person who wants power would be a bad fit because their motives could be skewed, though Imari says that's not always true. I think it's pretty clear that people who want to be parents tend to be much better at it than people who don't want to. People who know they like kids fit into the mentorship role much better than people who want to avoid kids (for me, these damn kids are like cats on the lap of somebody who hates cats :rolleyes: ). Maybe I'm just being paranoid of powerful people and their motives, possibly because of constant horror stories written in history books. Weird how most parents would be written about in a positive light while most Presidents are written about negatively.

Do we think it's okay for people who don't want to be parents, or are on the fence, to go ahead and try it anyway? That is arguably a much more important role than President and will be a constant responsibility for the rest of your life, unlike being a president. Or should we focus on people with natural talent and desire to do the job instead?

Edit: Don't tell the Republicans but I just came up with a great idea to bolster their white population numbers. Only allow parents to vote. That'll get people like me to jump right in the sack for muh rights.
 
Last edited:
Keef
Do we think it's okay for people who don't want to be parents, or are on the fence, to go ahead and try it anyway?
Click to expand...
I think if you're on the fence or don't want to do it, it's best not to. It's harder than you might generally imagine going into it. So if you're on the fence, I would assume that would result in a "this sucks" after facing the realities. Parenting is rewarding in its own way, but it is all consuming.

Keef
That is arguably a much more important role than President and will be a constant responsibility for the rest of your life, unlike being a president. Or should we focus on people with natural talent and desire to do the job instead?

Edit: Don't tell the Republicans but I just came up with a great idea to bolster their white population numbers. Only allow parents to vote. That'll get people like me to jump right in the sack for muh rights.
Click to expand...
I think being president is more important than parenting some kids. Just look at the damage Trump did during his presidency by effectively overturning roe. He has seriously harmed countless lives. And that's just roe, that's not even the many other ways that he continually harms people. My parents have effectively had their lives destroyed by being members of his cult, and they're still at it. Think of the number of people that died of coronavirus due to Trump's negligence. Estonia is currently preparing for war should Trump be elected and remove the US from NATO. I don't know how it's possible to stack the lives of a few people up against an entire country preparing for Russian invasion.

Jury duty represents a great deal of power. And juries are notoriously a bad system, but you definitely do not want people who WANT to be on a particular jury to be able to get there.

The reason juries are a bad system is because the jurors are generally unable to fully understand the law. This varies depending on the particular kind of crime. Juries have a harder time understanding nuanced and technical law than they do very basic things like murder. A jury for a patent trial, for example, is a real challenge. This stumbling block would also be present for pushing someone who didn't want to be president into the role. Because you don't want someone who is undereducated, knows nothing of the constitution, or who is a narcissist who has no appreciation for the nation being put into the presidency. Basically, you don't want Trump in the job - and you might get that by choosing citizens at random like jury duty. That's why I mentioned Jon Stewart earlier and not any other popular figure who has more sway with the democratic party like Clooney. Maybe Clooney could run and get elected, but I don't know that Clooney has the chops for the job. Stewart does though, he has dipped his toe in politics over 911 firefighters and been very successful and eloquent when he has addressed congress.

Arnold Schwarzenegger also had the chops for the job it turns out, and this might have left people with some poor expectations for Trump. Arnold was a fantastic governor, and continues to be truly eloquent. I wish he could run, he'd be super popular and do a great job.
 
Last edited:
@Keef

The one thing I think may throw a monkey wrench into your questionnaire are the parents that initially held your stance, but ended up with kids accidentally. They didn't want kids at all, didn't care for them. I have a friend couple that's like that to a T. But, I've definitely seen them told from other parents I know that they were the same way; had zero interest in kids until they got pregnant with their first & their attitudes changed the day they held their child. And these are parents I see love & raise their kids unconditionally. So, I don't think it's necessarily true that the people who want to be parents are better than people who don't want to b/c just from my own personal encounters (& even reading online), the common phrase is that your attitude will completely change when your first born arrives.

I think I see the linkage your making, but to me, the parenting aspect may be a lot more sophisticated than just those who want kids vs. those who don't determining how well they'll actually be. But, I'm also not a parent, so one of the other guys will know better.
 
See, I'm so risk averse that I'm suspicious of the mindset change, not just the responsibility.

Likewise with aiming for the presidency, I definitely wouldn't choose myself because like Danoff said, I lack the expertise and talent. I don't have the training required to do the job effectively, and although nobody really has formal parenting training you could argue that some people learn it better than others through their life experiences. They're not completely clueless.

I absolutely agree that we need people in the job who have the right skillset for it, I'm really just focusing on the aspect of desire. John Stewart was a great example...but he doesn't want to. I wish I could ask him why. To be fair, the job has the potential to completely ruin his legacy in minds of many and apparently it's a fairly dangerous job as well. How can a person with all that skill and talent not be pushed toward the job especially given the ridiculous situation we're in?
 
TumeK5
And Biden just contracted COVID

...again
Click to expand...
Hours after saying he would consider dropping out if diagnosed with a medical condition.

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi are all apparently telling Biden to step aside (though those reports admittedly seem a bit speculative).
 
So, Vance thinks it's a 'crisis' that the birth rate in America is dropping, and he wants to encourage Americans to have more children?

Berking idiots. All of them.
 
Duke
So, Vance thinks it's a 'crisis' that the birth rate in America is dropping, and he wants to encourage Americans to have more children?

Berking idiots. All of them.
Click to expand...
It's so weird how right-wingers get hung up on the birth rate. Our birth rate was too high for decades because the Silent Generation couldn't quit having kids, and then Boomers decided to be like rabbits.

Millennials sort of got screwed because every time they thought about having kids, something terrible happened. The oldest of Millenials were in family starting years around 9/11 and we didn't know what the hell the world was going to be like. Then, the economy went to hell about the time the world stabilized. Once the bulk of the generation hit the peak family-building years (late 20s-early 30s), a global pandemic made us reconsider. Couple that with the need to work more and stagnant wages, and it's little wonder the birth rate dropped. I can see Gen Z or Gen Alpha bucking the trend.

My wife and I would've had more than one kid, but we don't think we could afford it, especially living in Utah. The housing problem will keep people from having kids because if they're paying $2,000 a month to live in a small apartment, they sure as hell don't want to pay $2,500 a month to get something bigger. And good luck trying to find a house. We've been looking for over a year now and we're either bid out of every home we like or the houses need a ton of work while also being overpriced.

If you want people to have more kids, make it easier so they can financially support them. Also, we've been told for years that unwed teenage mothers (mostly minorities) are having too many babies and sponging off the system. So it's weird the conservatives act all surprised when people listened to that and decided not to have a bunch of kids so they weren't sponging off the system.

Also, it's always some wealthy right-winger (Musk) or some conservative politician who has unlimited healthcare and a solid job with good benefits telling people to have kids. Those people have the means to have a flock of children. Those of us middle-class rubes don't.
 
Joey D
If you want people to have more kids, make it easier so they can financially support them.
Click to expand...
cf6.jpg
 
Duke
So, Vance thinks it's a 'crisis' that the birth rate in America is dropping, and he wants to encourage Americans to have more children?

Berking idiots. All of them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps instead of what amounts to forcing women into having children - bans on abortion, potential bans on contraception etc. Maybe the party could stop ****ing around with popularist policies and try and come up with ways of solving the issues that have led to the drop in birth rates. Cost of living, the fact that younger generations are getting priced out of the housing market, job security, concerns over the enviroment, the safety of children in schools (guns not drag queen story time)... The list goes on.
 
TheCracker
solving the issues that have led to the drop in birth rates
Click to expand...
First we'd need a careful assessment showing that it's actually a problem. As far as I can tell, there are still tons of people in the world.

Duke
So, Vance thinks it's a 'crisis' that the birth rate in America is dropping, and he wants to encourage Americans to have more children?

Berking idiots. All of them.
Click to expand...
It's amazing that the same people who complain about birthrates also complain about immigration. Like... hey... did you notice how that solves your population issue all by itself? It's 2 birds with one stone. It's a pick 6! It's a win win.
 
Joey D
It's so weird how right-wingers get hung up on the birth rate.

[...]

If you want people to have more kids, make it easier so they can financially support them. Also, we've been told for years that unwed teenage mothers (mostly minorities) are having too many babies and sponging off the system. So it's weird the conservatives act all surprised when people listened to that and decided not to have a bunch of kids so they weren't sponging off the system.
Click to expand...
I'm forced to assume that the unspoken part is that they really mean white Christian native-born Americans of northern European descent are the ones who need to have more children. You know, proper WASP Republicans, so that America can get back to being great or something.

I come from a family with 4 kids. We have 2 daughters ourselves; one in her early 30s and one in her late 20s. We discussed having a third child, but I resisted. I could have been persuaded, but it really seemed to me that stopping at 2 was the prudent choice.

Our elder daughter decided in her early adulthood that she was never going to have children. I think our younger daughter would like to, and I hope she decides to at some point, but it's not time yet.

I have a niece and nephew in their late 30s / early 40s. Both are married but there is a grand total of one baby there, and it's not likely there will be another.
 
Last edited:
As long as you still have unemployment (4.1% in the US right now) a lower birth rate shouldn't be an issue.
 
TheCracker
Perhaps instead of what amounts to forcing women into having children - bans on abortion, potential bans on contraception etc. Maybe the party could stop ****ing around with popularist policies and try and come up with ways of solving the issues that have led to the drop in birth rates. Cost of living, the fact that younger generations are getting priced out of the housing market, job security, concerns over the enviroment, the safety of children in schools (guns not drag queen story time)... The list goes on.
Click to expand...
But the Handmaid's Tale is such a good instruction manual!
 
Duke
I'm forced to assume that the unspoken part is that they really mean white Christian native-born Americans of European descent are the ones who need to have more children. You know, proper WASP Republicans, so that America can get back to being great or something.
Click to expand...
It is, and that's where the Leopard comes into the dining room, waiting to be served. Because Vance knows complaining about immigrants "flooding" the country & declining American birth rates is easily conveyed as a dog whistle to those who believe in the Great Replacement theory. Of course, Vance can't come out and say it like Vivek Ramaswamy did, but only because he'd be called out (even more) for contributing to the "replacement". Which is a terribly ironic case because Vance had to have seen when Vivek, an Indian-American man born to Indian immigrants, was still told to his face he's not white enough to be President, whilst Vance has a half-Indian son named Vivek, who is only a generation removed from his own immigrant grandparents. But, it's well established that Vance has been feeding the leopard quite enough already.
img
 
Last edited:
Danoff
First we'd need a careful assessment showing that it's actually a problem. As far as I can tell, there are still tons of people in the world.
Click to expand...
The problem is its hard to have endless growth without an endless growth of people. Admitting that the world would be fine without quite as many people in it would put everyone in economic territory that's pretty uncharted. Which is pretty uncomfortable for those who have come out on top under the current system.
 
Liquid
cf6.jpg
Click to expand...
Woah woah woah, don't go bringing us into this. Sure, there's outliers like Segregation Steve (who gets a raging left hook whenever he realises he's part of Gen X), but we're a generation defined by being ignored and - almost as a consequence - not being into anyone else's business.
 
Famine
Woah woah woah, don't go bringing us into this. Sure, there's outliers like Segregation Steve (who gets a raging left hook whenever he realises he's part of Gen X), but we're a generation defined by being ignored and - almost as a consequence - not being into anyone else's business.
Click to expand...
Who's Segregation Steve?
 

Latest Posts

Back