America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,707 comments
  • 1,595,118 views
I do not think that black people need some kind of aid. They need equal treatment under the law.

Under the exact words of the law, everyone in this country has the right to equal treatment. But! But! The issue with the legal system of this country is that the word of law has been allowed to be interpreted by anyone in anyway. And only technically until precedent is set, no legal definitions of what words in a law realistically mean.

But not the issue. I agree, the first statement you make is bold. And while most people will find it controversial, as they will immediately call you a racist, or whatever. For you to make a bold state, you must elaborate. And I will just slightly add my two cents to that statement.

It is not 100% wrong what was said in this statement. The black community (and in a greater sense, the lower classes) in the United States of America is in the place they are due to societal and governmental stagnation. Society saw the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thought, "We are done." Which is half right. That goes back to the top statement I made. From a legal standpoint, we as a nation are all equal. But over time, we realized that law didn't solve the greater problem. Which is what we are seeing very blatantly in the last few years. American, and the world in general has had the long issue of one group being better than the other. And currently we are asking that to switch much quicker than what is the traditional norm. But I believe as a world society, we must do such as we have evolved as a species so quickly in the last 100 years, that in order to progress forward to continue the health of our massively growing population, it is in the best interest to make the switch. And realistically, at least in America, that evolution is actually a lot better than much of the world.

Now we go to where I feel the true issue arises; government stagnation. The United States falls behind other parts of the world miserably. And in the case of the black community, this stagnation has shown more prominently. Look at our nation's public education system. In communities with high percentages of blacks and minorities, schools fall behind many third world nations. Why is that? Partly, it goes back to funding. Funding is based upon property taxes. And when you have a poor community, tax revenue is low to nonexistent. Which ultimately reflects upon the school. They cannot afford to keep good teachers, and provide the tools necessary to educate a child for the future. Partly, it goes back to the cycle of poverty. Schooling is difficult for a child when a families finances are a daily struggle. When day to day they struggle for food, for housing. That inconsistency in one's short term life leads to a difficulty in seeing the long term. In the ability to take advantage of schooling.

And this government stagnation goes further. With those daily financial struggles leads to creative ways to make an income. Like crime. Which is where our nations policing comes into play. While we have some draconian laws about drugs and such, I feel the stagnation has led to a devolution in the police departments. We are asking too much out of our police officers. They where intended to do one job. Enforce the law. But in recent decades, due to governmental actions, the police departments are asked to do other jobs as well. A police officer shouldn't need to be a social worker. They are not trained for such. Jails and prisons where intended to deal with just housing criminals. They where not asked to deal with mental disabilities. That was meant for special facilities. But due to the stagnation, or even back stepping, it has not been able to do it's job correctly. Which in turn adds to the further cycle of poverty.

I know I left some stuff out, but I don't feel I said anything new to most people. The blights of the black community are just a highlight of the faults in the United States.
 
Your plan does not address the problem of massive institutional inequality on a wide range of problems. Mine does.
In my plan, I raise and address the constitutional problem briefly.

There can't be one all-encompassing plan. You need to look at the smaller picture, fix those issues, then work on the next problem. Law enforcement targets young blacks, we have actual evidence of this. If you fix that issue, then that's one obstacle blacks no longer have to face. Legalizing drugs would also help them avoid felony convictions that prevent them from getting a decent job since having an ounce of weed is a victimless crime.
 
Can we (mostly) all agree that the Black people of America as a whole lack full participation and equality and are deserving of some kind of justice, some kind of aid, aid that will give them a stake in the ongoing success and improvement of America as a whole? If so, then here is my prototype plan:

- Congress passes enabling legislation approved by the President and cleared by the courts as Constitutional - even if an Amendment must be required and passed.
- A new corporation is created, working name Martin Luther King Corporation, MLKC for short.
- The mission of the corporation is to design, manufacture, distribute and service a certain percentage - gradually rising to close to 100% - of all manufactured materiel and goods currently imported from China. This includes steel, nut and bolts, appliances, furniture, car parts, clothing, electronics, everything.
- Design centers, manufacturing plants, distribution and service centers are set up across the land, mostly near Black population concentrations.
- The best corporations in America from Microsoft to Tesla, all of them, will assist.
- Employees and management of the finished corporation will be majority, or maybe close to 100% Black.
- Ownership of MLKC will be by stock distributed proportionately to every Black person in America. Period. Superstar athletes and entertainers can decline their share.
- Corporations previously importing Chinese goods will be compensated, but only up to a point. They should have been investing in America in the first place.
- Customers of MLKC products will guaranteed by USG, states and municipalities, and the price and quality of the products will attract customers from all walks of life.
- The funding of MLKC will be by the federal government, both individual and corporate taxes.
- The import of almost all goods from China will be ended by law.
- This plan is in raw, rough form, and will need some polishing. Your input is needed.

Now, I'll freely admit I'm not the brightest of sparkles, and I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I'll read some of the stuff Danoff, or TexRex, or Famine, or Imari, or whomever, post in this subforum... then I'll read it again... then leave it a bit to sink in, come back to it and try again, and sometimes I get to a point where I think I understand, and sometimes my brain gets tied up in knots and it's just beyond me.

But even I can understand that racism has to be legal because you can't have thought crime, and that the solution to racism is not "more racism".
 
Hannity: Media calls for unity after spewing 'never-ending, nonstop psychotic rage and hatred for four years'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hanni...stop-psychotic-rage-and-hatred-for-four-years

Congratulations Hannity, you just played yourself. The media is not calling for unity, at least not that I can tell. Joe Biden is (and has been throughout his campaign) calling for unity. The democratic party has (mostly) rallied behind that message (except AOC and a few others standouts). It is the democratic party, under Biden's direction, that is calling for this.

And I think it is just so telling that Hannity mistakes this for the media. In the mind of Trumpeteers, the media is the democratic party. This is how they manage to close their minds and ears off to information coming from the media, because they've pre-defined it as their political enemy.

No, Hannity, the media is not calling for this. The President-elect is calling for it, like a leader, like a President.
 
Last edited:
Saw this video today talking about why the way you say something or present something makes a difference. I kind of agree. Even if you think Democrats or republicans are the same, I think we can all agree there is at least a difference in the way they present their points. Maybe wasn’t true always, but certainly true lately.

 
there is at least a difference in the way they present their points

However good the point its impact and command of respect will always be diminished when delivered by an aggressive, offensive ass-hat. That applies to all aggressive, offensive ass-hats regardless of their beliefs, heritage or lifestyle, obviously.
 
That applies to all aggressive, offensive ass-hats regardless of their beliefs, heritage or lifestyle, obviously.
giphy.gif
 
Obviously America has entered a particularly dark political time. It's not as dark as it would be if Trump had won the election, of course, but it is dark anyway. Because Trump is back with a wrecking ball at the underpinnings of the country, most notably, the democratic process that we rely upon for a peaceful transition of power.

I've been reading about the divided nation, the possibility of civil war, the possibility of a Trump military coup, the need to go scorched-earth with fascists, the possibility of a future military coup, the impossible and naive goals of Joe Biden to unite the country...

Some have mentioned that the idea of a coup or a civil war is somewhat far fetched in America. These things happen when countries are weak, and poor. Not when they are powerful and prosperous. I suppose that's true, but Trump's ability to seize power permanently is still not entirely out of reach before January. That's ignoring the possibility of it 4 or 8 years from now, for Trump or for someone else. I'm tempted to say that Trump is a once-in-a-century figure, like Hilter, whom we have apparently dodged. But that sets aside the 70 million authoritarians we have voting in the US.

As best I can tell, the problem we are faced with is this... we have a large authoritarian faction, which our government is weighted to enable to take control. And if they do, they might finally push the US to authoritarianism. Look what they managed in just 4 years! The idea that they're going to fight for power while they're "out" of power I think is absurd. The US military is too strong. The idea that anyone else could regain power if they refused to give it up while "in" power is also absurd. The US military is too strong. The way I see it, there is only one thing that can be done to stop the rise of authoritarianism. It's not uniting with them, much as I appreciate that Biden is spreading that message (I'm not sure he should do anything else). It is quite simply to disenfranchise them. They might try to take matters into their own hands, but without the backing of the military they'll be unable to.

Authoritarians do not make up a majority of this country. And if our laws were structured such that they could not take control of congress and the presidency, they would be unable to fulfill their authoritarian goals. We need a popular vote for president. We need an end to gerrymandering. And we need to pack the senate with 2 more states. All that really needs to happen is to enable the majority a more direct line to representation. I do not think that this authoritarian faction will be a majority of the nation. I also do not think they can be worked with, or convinced.

Edit:

What's the process for demoting Alabama and Mississippi to territories? Maybe we can drop them while picking up DC and Puerto Rico. That would keep the flag-sewing simple.
 
Last edited:
The USA should okay as long as a plurality of the military isn't in favour of an authoritarian takeover, which it currently isn't, but it should be at least noted that the stronger you make your military, the easier you make it for them to hypothetically instigate a takeover. Most coups in modern history have come with the support of the military or from directly within the military itself.

How merciful that Trump is such an idiot that he says stupid things to embarrass and alienate the military.

And we have approached probability 1; this refusal to give up on power, undermining the democratic process and willingness to rewrite laws with abuse of executive power is straight out of the Ermächtigungsgesetz, aka the Enabling Act, which gives the incumbent the power to do anything without checks.

Want to override the 22nd? Cool, I'll stay in office forever.
Don't want to lose an election? No worries, I'll just accuse everyone against me of vote fraud with zero proof.
 
Obviously America has entered a particularly dark political time. It's not as dark as it would be if Trump had won the election, of course, but it is dark anyway. Because Trump is back with a wrecking ball at the underpinnings of the country, most notably, the democratic process that we rely upon for a peaceful transition of power.

I've been reading about the divided nation, the possibility of civil war, the possibility of a Trump military coup, the need to go scorched-earth with fascists, the possibility of a future military coup, the impossible and naive goals of Joe Biden to unite the country...

Some have mentioned that the idea of a coup or a civil war is somewhat far fetched in America. These things happen when countries are weak, and poor. Not when they are powerful and prosperous. I suppose that's true, but Trump's ability to seize power permanently is still not entirely out of reach before January. That's ignoring the possibility of it 4 or 8 years from now, for Trump or for someone else. I'm tempted to say that Trump is a once-in-a-century figure, like Hilter, whom we have apparently dodged. But that sets aside the 70 million authoritarians we have voting in the US.

As best I can tell, the problem we are faced with is this... we have a large authoritarian faction, which our government is weighted to enable to take control. And if they do, they might finally push the US to authoritarianism. Look what they managed in just 4 years! The idea that they're going to fight for power while they're "out" of power I think is absurd. The US military is too strong. The idea that anyone else could regain power if they refused to give it up while "in" power is also absurd. The US military is too strong. The way I see it, there is only one thing that can be done to stop the rise of authoritarianism. It's not uniting with them, much as I appreciate that Biden is spreading that message (I'm not sure he should do anything else). It is quite simply to disenfranchise them. They might try to take matters into their own hands, but without the backing of the military they'll be unable to.

Authoritarians do not make up a majority of this country. And if our laws were structured such that they could not take control of congress and the presidency, they would be unable to fulfill their authoritarian goals. We need a popular vote for president. We need an end to gerrymandering. And we need to pack the senate with 2 more states. All that really needs to happen is to enable the majority a more direct line to representation. I do not think that this authoritarian faction will be a majority of the nation. I also do not think they can be worked with, or convinced.

Edit:

What's the process for demoting Alabama and Mississippi to territories? Maybe we can drop them while picking up DC and Puerto Rico. That would keep the flag-sewing simple.

Personally, I think Popper summed it up best with the Parradox of Tolerance.

"Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
 
The confederacy of dunces that this motley bunch is turning out to be may just be what staves off an actual coup. I feel like that could very well be what they're shooting for, but they're too inept to actually pull it off.
 
As best I can tell, the problem we are faced with is this... we have a large authoritarian faction, which our government is weighted to enable to take control. And if they do, they might finally push the US to authoritarianism. Look what they managed in just 4 years! The idea that they're going to fight for power while they're "out" of power I think is absurd. The US military is too strong. The idea that anyone else could regain power if they refused to give it up while "in" power is also absurd. The US military is too strong. The way I see it, there is only one thing that can be done to stop the rise of authoritarianism. It's not uniting with them, much as I appreciate that Biden is spreading that message (I'm not sure he should do anything else). It is quite simply to disenfranchise them. They might try to take matters into their own hands, but without the backing of the military they'll be unable to.

Do I understand you to be saying that there is a (large) group of people you would disenfranchise because you disagree with them and see their ideas as a threat?

Please say that's not the case.
 
I wonder if Trump's policies regarding Israel/Middle East was seen as a success or failure, and how Biden will treat the area.

It probably depends largely if you're:
- A Palestinian (-10)
- A Taliban Insurgent (+10)
- An Assad hard liner (+10)

EDIT: I would have added Kurds in Syria but it's hard to have an opinion when you're dead
 
Last edited:
It probably depends largely if you're:
- A Palestinian (-10)
- A Taliban Insurgent (+10)
- An Assad hard liner (+10)

EDIT: I would have added Kurds in Syria but it's hard to have an opinion when you're dead
The Kurdish situation is an outright failure because of Turkey treating them (and Armenians) as terrorists/not worthy of living. If there is one thing that I can say positive about Trump (which is going to be controversial because I am being biased) it is how much Israel has grown in terms of relations with its near neighbors. It's extremely hard to say how much influence Trump had on the Abraham Accords, I suspect it's non-zero but I doubt it's more than 25 percent.
 
Do I understand you to be saying that there is a (large) group of people you would disenfranchise because you disagree with them and see their ideas as a threat?

Please say that's not the case.

Compared to what they currently enjoy, yes. Right now, this minority of authoritarians is favored in our election system. I want their favoritism removed, so that their minority voting power cannot control the majority.

I would say that the constitution should handle it, but as we have seen under Trump, this minority of authoritarians can gather enough support in our separate branches of government that it can (and will) ignore the constitution and begin trampling human rights. As a result, we can't tolerate our antiquated, distorted representation system.


Edit:

To put a finer point on it (I don't think this should be necessary but), Hillary Clinton won a majority* in 2016 with 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. But because we weight votes differently, a minority was able to elect the president of the united states.

The same minority was able to take control of the stronger house in congress, because of the same weighting.

The same minority was able to pack the judiciary because they had control of the executive and stronger house in congress.

As a result, a minority of the US was able to effectively control (or at least heavily influence) all 3 branches of government against the will of the majority of the country. And what they did with that power was to undermine the safeguards we have in place to protect ourselves from rights abuses by the party in power.

I don't know how it could be any more clear that this is untenable. The Biden/Trump election is decisive in terms of the EC and popular vote. But it was still insanely close. It came down to just a few 10s of thousands of votes in a few states (probably 3 states). It should not have been that close. We very narrowly avoided** the same minority plowing forward with their authoritarian goals.

* technically a plurality but you get the point
** apparently avoided anyway
 
Last edited:
To put a finer point on it (I don't think this should be necessary but), Hillary Clinton won a majority* in 2016 with 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. But because we weight votes differently, a minority was able to elect the president of the united states.

The same minority was able to take control of the stronger house in congress, because of the same weighting.

The same minority was able to pack the judiciary because they had control of the executive and stronger house in congress.

As a result, a minority of the US was able to effectively control (or at least heavily influence) all 3 branches of government against the will of the majority of the country. And what they did with that power was to undermine the safeguards we have in place to protect ourselves from rights abuses by the party in power.

I don't know how it could be any more clear that this is untenable. The Biden/Trump election is decisive in terms of the EC and popular vote. But it was still insanely close. It came down to just a few 10s of thousands of votes in a few states (probably 3 states). It should not have been that close. We very narrowly avoided** the same minority plowing forward with their authoritarian goals.

Is it fair to say then, that you believe that the electoral college system should be done away with, but that the USA should always remain a two party system? Or would you prefer more parties to be involved and the ballot to be handled, for instance, as single transferable vote?
 
Is it fair to say then, that you believe that the electoral college system should be done away with, but that the USA should always remain a two party system? Or would you prefer more parties to be involved and the ballot to be handled, for instance, as single transferable vote?

I would prefer different representation altogether (such as proportional representation based on party or something like that), but I can't see how we get there from here.

The national interstate popular vote compact could limp us along (effectively doing away with the EC) until we get to the point where we can amend it properly into the constitution.
 
Last edited:
It'll be interesting if we can find out on which social media platform he laid out his plans to exterminate Democrats. Something tells me it wasn't Facebook or Twitter.
 
Last edited:
The Green party. Duh.
It will be interesting how much the Greens and the Progressives will be able to work their agendas up through Joe's yet unannounced cabinet and a reduced Democratic majority in the House. If Joe plans to go through with his plan to reunite the country, he will have to stick with a more Wall Street/neoliberal program as far as I can see.
 
Back