America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

American Politicians really need to grow some balls and have the guts to go against the 2 parties (I know there is the libertarians and independants). There are enough moderate democrats and republicans that dont agree with some of the extreme actions and policies of their parties. I cant imagine how it must be being a moderate republican and forced to fall in line with this president just to show the party is united. It isnt very democratic to have 2 major parties and eventually 1 party having only a small majority having the most power. It is very Ironic how the republican party represents both the established rich people and the working class and low income religious people. Dont these groups have conflicting interests?

And really the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same things with just a few differences. They're both awful, awful parties too that have no interest in serving anyone but themselves.

For the forseeable future though, I don't see a candidate from a third party winning anything major.

 

[baldgye]

And really the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same things with just a few differences. They're both awful, awful parties too that have no interest in serving anyone but themselves.

For the forseeable future though, I don't see a candidate from a third party winning anything major.

Until the process is changed so that campaign spending is limited and controlled, how could you ever have an actual 3rd party/option that wasn't funded by self interested billionaire(s)/companies?

 

[TexRex]

Yes, I've point it out more than once myself, I just don't see the need to do it every single time I post as if one side being hypocritical justifies the other side being hypocritical.

What?

You could have left that at the second comma, though even saying that much is entirely unnecessary as nobody ever suggested such a thing. But you didn't.

In a response to a post saying that I was pointing out hypocrisy, unnecessarily establishing that you don't feel the need to do it every single time appears to be an implication that I do.

 

[PocketZeven]

And really the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same things with just a few differences. They're both awful, awful parties too that have no interest in serving anyone but themselves.

For the forseeable future though, I don't see a candidate from a third party winning anything major.

There already is division within the parties. The unity is just really just fake. I am not referring to a third party, but perhaps both centre right and centre left parties would easily find a following. The current status quo just is a recipe for dividing the country in 2. Multiple smaller ones need to work with another to form a majority and indirectly a lot more voices will be heard that way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There already is division within the parties. The unity is just really just fake. I am not referring to a third party, but perhaps both centre right and centre left parties would easily find a following. The current status quo just is a recipe for dividing the country in 2. Multiple smaller ones need to work with another to form a majority and indirectly a lot more voices will be heard that way.

The Republicans tried two candidates that were relatively centrist (in American terms) in 2008 and 2012 and got trounced. Remember Mitt Romney implemented healthcare reform in Massachusetts in 2006, affectionately known as Romneycare, that covered nearly all residents and he was painted by his opponents as a right wing wacko/corporatist/mysoginist etc. Think about that for a minute. A Republican who had already implemented an Affordable Health Care plan in an entire state couldn't get elected in a country that supposedly is concerned about healthcare and half of the country wants a single payer system supposedly. And he couldn't get elected. Obama, whom I'd classify as a leftist, wanted to fundamentally transform the U.S. of A, won in a landslide. The ability of a centrist candidate to get elected is pretty much zero as of now.

 

[Joey D]

The Republicans tried two candidates that were relatively centrist (in American terms) in 2008 and 2012 and got trounced. Remember Mitt Romney implemented healthcare reform in Massachusetts in 2006, affectionately known as Romneycare, that covered nearly all residents and he was painted by his opponents as a right wing wacko/corporatist/mysoginist etc. Think about that for a minute. A Republican who had already implemented an Affordable Health Care plan in an entire state couldn't get elected in a country that supposedly is concerned about healthcare and half of the country wants a single payer system supposedly. And he couldn't get elected. Obama, whom I'd classify as a leftist, wanted to fundamentally transform the U.S. of A, won in a landslide. The ability of a centrist candidate to get elected is pretty much zero as of now.

I feel like Romney's religion played a big role into why he wasn't elected. Looking back, all presidents beside JFK are Protestant. I can't foresee a country voting a Mormo....uhhh The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (because we can't call them Mormons for some reason now). Honestly, no matter what platform a candidate ran on, I'd have a hard time voting for someone who was Mormon too. It's the main reason I don't vote in Utah.

 

[Pupik]

The Republicans tried two candidates that were relatively centrist (in American terms) in 2008 and 2012 and got trounced. Remember Mitt Romney implemented healthcare reform in Massachusetts in 2006, affectionately known as Romneycare, that covered nearly all residents and he was painted by his opponents as a right wing wacko/corporatist/mysoginist etc. Think about that for a minute. A Republican who had already implemented an Affordable Health Care plan in an entire state couldn't get elected in a country that supposedly is concerned about healthcare and half of the country wants a single payer system supposedly. And he couldn't get elected. Obama, whom I'd classify as a leftist, wanted to fundamentally transform the U.S. of A, won in a landslide. The ability of a centrist candidate to get elected is pretty much zero as of now.

Individuals or small groups may have centrist ideals or those which are aligned in different directions. But it's extremely difficult for think-tanks, super PACs, media, and vast pipelines of money to support vague ideas. Vast masses aren't good at fully supporting semi-partial ideals; there's too much color, light, and nuance to manage. And when it comes down to it, a vote is a binary action. People are sold on an idea by its negatives or positives - but rarely the nuances of both by the same individuals/group - except by touting the ideals or making you fear the extreme problems with it. Voting is like getting married or changing jobs; you get all the core family members, relatives, distant folks, and hangers-on which you didn't choose.

We shouldn't normalize this.

Democracy: it's pie with four and twenty blackbirds, so don't forget a pocket of rye (whiskey).

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you really expect an acknowledgement of this truth, you're impressively optimistic.

Meaning what? I've never acknowledged hypocrisy or bias on both sides of the aisle? Or something else? Please explain.

 

[Danoff]

Democracy: it's pie with four and twenty blackbirds

 

[PocketZeven]

The Republicans tried two candidates that were relatively centrist (in American terms) in 2008 and 2012 and got trounced. Remember Mitt Romney implemented healthcare reform in Massachusetts in 2006, affectionately known as Romneycare, that covered nearly all residents and he was painted by his opponents as a right wing wacko/corporatist/mysoginist etc. Think about that for a minute. A Republican who had already implemented an Affordable Health Care plan in an entire state couldn't get elected in a country that supposedly is concerned about healthcare and half of the country wants a single payer system supposedly. And he couldn't get elected. Obama, whom I'd classify as a leftist, wanted to fundamentally transform the U.S. of A, won in a landslide. The ability of a centrist candidate to get elected is pretty much zero as of now.

I am talking about the senate and congress where the real power lies. The republican party is making a mockery of themselves by being forced to defend Trump's lies. In our country we dont directly vote for a president. The president will be the nr. 1 on the partylist of the party of the majority election winner.

 

[Pupik]

View attachment 769066

...kind of proves my point. Definitely didn't get our money's worth out of the SR-71.

(Well, that I'll ever know of.)

forced to defend Trump's lies.

No, it's typical Artisan-Crafted Shapeshifting.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I am talking about the senate and congress where the real power lies. The republican party is making a mockery of themselves by being forced to defend Trump's lies.

The real power does not lie in any single branch of the U.S. government. It's designed that way from the beginning. The political scene at the state and local level is simply a reflection of the national. I live across the river from Detroit and pay some attention to the state and Detroit political scene and it's no different than the national scene with the exception that there is no Trump in Michigan. Maybe it's less polarized in states the have a long history of voting red or blue but Michigan swings back and forth. That party will always defend it's leader until it's not politically expedient to do so that's how politics works. It's a dirty business. Bill Clinton was an accused rapist, serial molester, had sex with his intern in the White House, denied it on national tv and the Democrats had no problem goose stepping behind him for 8 years. Nixon, I suspect, would have been impeached by his own side but only because it was politically expedient. Even rats jump off a sinking ship. We'll never know because he resigned.

 

[PocketZeven]

The real power does not lie in any single branch of the U.S. government. It's designed that way from the beginning. The political scene at the state and local level is simply a reflection of the national. I live across the river from Detroit and pay some attention to the state and Detroit political scene and it's no different than the national scene with the exception that there is no Trump in Michigan. Maybe it's less polarized in states the have a long history of voting red or blue but Michigan swings back and forth. That party will always defend it's leader until it's not politically expedient to do so that's how politics works. It's a dirty business. Bill Clinton was an accused rapist, serial molester, had sex with his intern in the White House, denied it on national tv and the Democrats had no problem goose stepping behind him for 8 years. Nixon, I suspect, would have been impeached by his own side but only because it was politically expedient. Even rats jump off a sinking ship. We'll never know because he resigned.

The political system is not that different from individual countries in europe. Except that states have a lot more sovereignity then provinces in european countries. My whole point was that one should not have to chose between 2 evils or left/right, red/blue. there should be more choices. If you believe what both parties accuse each other for in extreme cases it can seem you have to vote between either white racist nationalist and russian loving communists. Look what happened when voters were forced to choose between Trump and Hillary. A lot folks have admitted they voted for Trump only because they wouldnt vote for Hillary.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The political system is not that different from individual countries in europe. Except that states have a lot more sovereignity then provinces in european countries. My whole point was that one should not have to chose between 2 evils or left/right, red/blue. there should be more choices. If you believe what both parties accuse each other for in extreme cases it can seem you have to vote between either white racist nationalist and russian loving communists. Look what happened when voters were forced to choose between Trump and Hillary. A lot folks have admitted they voted for Trump only because they wouldnt vote for Hillary.

It's actually dramatically different from the European countries that I'm aware of, in almost every way. Other than people showing up to vote, the American system is different from start to finish. They've tried third party politics on more than one occasion and it's generally not gone over well in modern history. People like their two choices which is, again, one of the huge differences between America and the rest of the world.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's actually dramatically different from the European countries that I'm aware of, in almost every way. Other than people showing up to vote, the American system is different from start to finish. They've tried third party politics on more than one occasion and it's generally not gone over well in modern history. People like their two choices which is, again, one of the huge differences between America and the rest of the world.

You are exagerating the differences. I read somewhere that the republican party originally was a 3rd party themselves and the reason why there are only 2 left is simply money. And money and politics is not a good combination.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

More nonsense from my 'home' state:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45656149

The grandstanding by the state AG is kind of hilarious. I really don't see how this ends in any other way than SCOTUS sending Mr. Paxton a link to the wikipedia article for West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

I guess it will play well for him in November.

edit: Have republicans always been this cynically tethered to the worst aspects of their base? I ask because I use to consider myself fairly-republican (I wouldn't say I've ever been card-carrying in a literal or figurative sense) and I don't remember it being it that way. For instance, I don't think the Texas AG under Gov. Bush would have put his weight behind defending a school district in this situation. The cynical rejection of objectivity is the thing that gets me the most....

 

[huskeR32]

Meaning what? I've never acknowledged hypocrisy or bias on both sides of the aisle? Or something else? Please explain.

Meaning I don't recall you ever complaining that

As I've said before, Trump Obama could walk on water and still wouldn't get any credit

or

Trump Obama could be the second coming of Christ and the Democrats Republicans and their buddies in the mainstream media would still have a laundry list of offences and greivences for him.

But hey, if you have links to any posts where you're taking Republicans to task for being too hard on Obama, please by all means provide them. I'll happily eat that crow.

P.S. I also remember you blasting Obama for playing golf, but you've been utterly silent on the fact that, so far, Trump has visited golf courses twice as often as Obama did.

 

[Dotini]

You are exagerating the differences. I read somewhere that the republican party originally was a 3rd party themselves and the reason why there are only 2 left is simply money. And money and politics is not a good combination.

American politics has always been an unbroken succession of two party systems. No third party has ever won a Presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress.

Have republicans always been this cynically tethered to the worst aspects of their base?...The cynical rejection of objectivity is the thing that gets me the most....

The Republican Party was born and grew rapidly in the chaos of the 1850's following the collapse of the Whig party. It was formed of former Whigs (those against the populist Andrew Jackson) and by those opposed to slavery, including "Free Soil" Democrats. It held every state in the north, and won the Civil War with Abraham Lincoln as president.

 

[PocketZeven]

More nonsense from my 'home' state:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45656149

The grandstanding by the state AG is kind of hilarious. I really don't see how this ends in any other way than SCOTUS sending Mr. Paxton a link to the wikipedia article for West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

I guess it will play well for him in November.

edit: Have republicans always been this cynically tethered to the worst aspects of their base? I ask because I use to consider myself fairly-republican (I wouldn't say I've ever been card-carrying in a literal or figurative sense) and I don't remember it being it that way. For instance, I don't think the Texas AG under Gov. Bush would have put his weight behind defending a school district in this situation. The cynical rejection of objectivity is the thing that gets me the most....

There is nothing wrong about being proud of your country, but shouldnt it be a choice? I am born and raised in my country and never ever were required to stand for the flag or National anthem, but that doesnt mean I dont love my country.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The Republican Party was born and grew rapidly in the chaos of the 1850's following the collapse of the Whig party. It was formed of former Whigs (those against the populist Andrew Jackson) and by those opposed to slavery, including "Free Soil" Democrats. It held every state in the north, and won the Civil War with Abraham Lincoln as president.

I meant in more recent history.

There is nothing wrong about being proud of your country, but shouldnt it be a choice? I am born and raised in my country and never ever were required to stand for the flag or National anthem, but that doesnt mean I dont love my country.

For the record, I always stood and recited the pledge of allegiance while I was in high school in Texas....but I've always been one to follow the rules and I never had a reason not to.

It angers me because the entire point of this country (notably, the specific amendment those boys felt was important enough to list it first) is that you can do **** like burn the flag or disrespect civic/governmental institutions. It's kind of our thing...

 

[Dennisch]

is that you can do **** like burn the flag or disrespect civic/governmental institutions. It's kind of our thing...

We are allowed to burn a Dutch flag, as it falls under freedom of speech.
But they can arrest you for polluting if you do so, but (finest bureaucracy coming up)

If you have a permit for demonstrating, you can burn as many flags as you want, as it is part of your permitted civil disobedience.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

We are allowed to burn a Dutch flag, as it falls under freedom of speech.
But they can arrest you for polluting if you do so, but (finest bureaucracy coming up)

If you have a permit for demonstrating, you can burn as many flags as you want, as it is part of your permitted civil disobedience.

Thankfully, burning a US flag is not illegal in the US (at least not the act, I wouldn't advise doing it during a red-flag period in NorCal, for obvious reasons), but that hasn't stopped many from proposing amendments to the constitution to render it otherwise. If it ever does get rammed through by some off-the-charts conservative congress, I would leave the US.

edit: This was Paxton's absurd reasoning:

"Requiring the pledge to be recited at the start of every school day has the laudable result of fostering respect for our flag and a patriotic love of our country"

And this was the Texas court of Criminal Appeals summary decision in the 1989 over-turned conviction of Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned a flag in front of Dallas city hall and was arrested for it:

"Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol."

Of course, the state of Texas appealed that one and it went to SCOTUS which, of course, upheld the lower court's ruling. Notably Antonin Scalia was even part of the Majority on this decision! What has everything become?!

 

[TenEightyOne]

American politics has always been an unbroken succession of two party systems. No third party has ever won a Presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress.

While that's true it bears noting that Washington wasn't a member of a party at all.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Meaning I don't recall you ever complaining that

I have. I can think of a million things you've never complained about. Perhaps I should make passive aggressive remarks about those as well?

But hey, if you have links to any posts where you're taking Republicans to task for being too hard on Obama, please by all means provide them. I'll happily eat that crow.

I didn't say anything about Obama.

P.S. I also remember you blasting Obama for playing golf, but you've been utterly silent on the fact that, so far, Trump has visited golf courses twice as often as Obama did.

Why would you think the answer would be any different?

 

[UKMikey]

More nonsense from my 'home' state:

"The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents have a fundamental interest in guiding the education and upbringing of their children, which is a critical aspect of liberty guaranteed by the Constitution."

I don't get it. Where is the liberty in being forced to conform to the pledge of allegiance?

P.S. I also remember you blasting Obama for playing golf, but you've been utterly silent on the fact that, so far, Trump has visited golf courses twice as often as Obama did.

Why would you think the answer would be any different?

Because you've been utterly silent on the matter. When was the last time you said anything positive about Obama?

 

[Dotini]

I don't get it. Where is the liberty in being forced to conform to the pledge of allegiance?

That's a pretty easy one. It's a privilege and an honor as well as our duty to pronounce the pledge of allegiance, since our system of government has delivered us from tyranny, has done the same for Europe in two world wars, brought Europe back from the grave with the Marshall Plan, and fostered human rights and democracy around the world ever since. We Americans exemplify the virtues of liberty, and bring its gifts to world.

 

[TexRex]

When was the last time you said anything positive about Obama?

To be fair, nobody is expected to say anything nice about anybody, let alone is it compulsory, but not having done so despite claims of repeatedly acknowledging hypocrisy on both sides and demonstrating a propensity to verbally fellate His Orangeness smacks of a laughable degree of bias and...well...hypocrisy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's a privilege and an honor as well as our duty to pronounce the pledge of allegiance

Doesn't sound a lot like liberty

 

[baldgye]

We Americans exemplify the virtues of liberty, and bring its gifts to world.

 

[Imari]

...kind of proves my point. Definitely didn't get our money's worth out of the SR-71.

(Well, that I'll ever know of.)

The US probably did. They weren't cheap to develop or run, but there was never that many of them and they weren't exactly breaking the bank either. In the days before cheap drones, they were an excellent way to get timely intelligence and the role that they filled has never really been entirely filled since.

It also provided a basis for some pretty major advances in aerospace design, particularly with regards to high speed and high altitude as well as stealth technologies. I think overall it's pretty likely that the US got it's money's worth, given how a lot of that technology has propagated through to modern aircraft.

People like their two choices which is, again, one of the huge differences between America and the rest of the world.

It's more than that. If you get into the game theory side of it, in political systems like the US having two parties to vote for is optimal. There's the favourite and the challenger, and voting for anyone other than those two is almost certainly a wasted vote. You're better off voting for the lesser of two evils than you are for a third party, because then at least you have a chance that your vote will sway the result at least somewhat in a preferred direction.

It's unfortunate, but it's just the way the current system seems to be set up.

It angers me because the entire point of this country (notably, the specific amendment those boys felt was important enough to list it first) is that you can do **** like burn the flag or disrespect civic/governmental institutions. It's kind of our thing...

You should probably be aware that burning is a respectful way to retire a worn out US flag.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/09/08/retiring-worn-out-american-flags/

See Leonard French teaching people how to do it right.



There's nothing wrong with burning a flag. What you object to is disrespect, and that would be the same whether the symbols they use to convey that are a flag or a placard or a burning paper bag full of feces.

But having the option to disagree and if appropriate disrespect institutions is sort of what distinguishes a free country. A free country does not need to mandate respect of it's institutions, it maintains respect through serving the people well.

That's a pretty easy one. It's a privilege and an honor as well as our duty to pronounce the pledge of allegiance...

If it's a duty, then you have no liberty not to do it. You literally just explained why there's not liberty in requiring people to conform to a pledge.

Which is fine, that's absolutely a choice that one could make. But don't try and mask it by telling people that black is white. If you want to restrict freedom in this particular area, then own it.