If This The End Of The United States?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 08:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would just respond to that by saying that each period of strife like this in our country was followed by reforms to help bolster the democratic society we have once we got on the other side of them. In the midst of them, there would have been people fighting like hell to preserve the systems that were in place, just like there have been during the past 4-5 years. Sitting back and saying "it'll all be fine" isn't the approach. Our country doesn't continue without people putting in the work to make it so. Those of us fighting against Trump, what led to his rise, and what has been happening are trying to make sure the bystander effect doesn't make this time different than those others. We're trying to prevent our government from being another Kitty Genovese.

It's not about saying it will all be fine, it's having faith in the institutions and the people who support them.  I don't consider posting on a message board as doing anything.  While I appreciate the varying points of view I get here, well most of them anyways, I don't consider anything done here as making a substantial difference.  I do think that continuing to be part of these institutions and supporting them is very important, which is why I've continued to do exactly that for the past four years, just like all the previous ones.  I didn't spend any time lamenting the US as "irredeemably racist".  I didn't spend the last four years denigrating the millions who voted for a candidate I didn't particularly like.  I also won't spend the next four doing that without great cause.

Interestingly enough, I see some of the items on the "progressive" wish list as far more damaging than anything Trump did, or could have done for another four.  DC and Puerto Rican statehood, packing the SCOTUS, universal health care with no private option.  The first two are naked power grabs and the second would be, IMO, disastrous.  But we shall see.

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2021, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not about saying it will all be fine, it's having faith in the institutions and the people who support them.  I don't consider posting on a message board as doing anything.  While I appreciate the varying points of view I get here, well most of them anyways, I don't consider anything done here as making a substantial difference.  I do think that continuing to be part of these institutions and supporting them is very important, which is why I've continued to do exactly that for the past four years, just like all the previous ones.  I didn't spend any time lamenting the US as "irredeemably racist".  I didn't spend the last four years denigrating the millions who voted for a candidate I didn't particularly like.  I also won't spend the next four doing that without great cause.

It should be noted that what I said was rooted in my perspective as someone who is actively engaged in a greater than average way when it comes to our government. I also spend a lot of time trying to explain these concerns to people in all sorts of different scenarios to talk about the importance of these institutions. I definitely took your sentence "I've spent the last four years arguing that our governments foundations were beyond solid enough to survive any attempt by Trump to destroy them," as saying that there will be a continuity after Trump and things will even out, but maybe I read too much into it by inferring the addition that it would be so without much need for action. That is something with which I vehemently disagree.

Of course, I'm also not one that considers our country irredeemably racist (no one is beyond redemption ) and I certainly didn't spend my time denigrating his voters wholesale (because my Appalachian heritage means I know better), but I have absolutely brought attention to concerns about Trump to people in my community as well as my elected officials. I've advocated for policy options to help bolster our institutions against attacks from within like what Trump engaged in as well as pointing out the reasons many Trump voters in my region that aren't just Republican partisans felt the need to vote for him.

Anyway, my main point is that things won't just return to normal. Many of the supports of our foundation are either weakened, stripped away, or their weaknesses have been laid bare. We have to be active in our efforts to repair them.

(01-14-2021, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interestingly enough, I see some of the items on the "progressive" wish list as far more damaging than anything Trump did, or could have done for another four.  DC and Puerto Rican statehood, packing the SCOTUS, universal health care with no private option.  The first two are naked power grabs and the second would be, IMO, disastrous.  But we shall see.

The reasons many people advocate for DC and Puerto Rican statehood may be a power grab, but that shouldn't be a reason to be against it if the citizens of those territories seek it. They lack equal representation in our government compared to other citizens of the country, and that alone should be reason enough to grant them statehood if they choose to seek it. It would be interesting to see if DC would change their license plates after statehood.

I don't know of anyone advocating for no private option on healthcare, and I know for certain that wouldn't fly with the Democratic party.

SCOTUS would definitely be a power grab. I can make some legitimate arguments for increasing the size of the court (like matching the number of justices to the number of circuits), but it isn't as convincing as the statehood one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 12:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It should be noted that what I said was rooted in my perspective as someone who is actively engaged in a greater than average way when it comes to our government. I also spend a lot of time trying to explain these concerns to people in all sorts of different scenarios to talk about the importance of these institutions. I definitely took your sentence "I've spent the last four years arguing that our governments foundations were beyond solid enough to survive any attempt by Trump to destroy them," as saying that there will be a continuity after Trump and things will even out, but maybe I read too much into it by inferring the addition that it would be so without much need for action. That is something with which I vehemently disagree.

Of course, I'm also not one that considers our country irredeemably racist (no one is beyond redemption ) and I certainly didn't spend my time denigrating his voters wholesale (because my Appalachian heritage means I know better), but I have absolutely brought attention to concerns about Trump to people in my community as well as my elected officials. I've advocated for policy options to help bolster our institutions against attacks from within like what Trump engaged in as well as pointing out the reasons many Trump voters in my region that aren't just Republican partisans felt the need to vote for him.

Anyway, my main point is that things won't just return to normal. Many of the supports of our foundation are either weakened, stripped away, or their weaknesses have been laid bare. We have to be active in our efforts to repair them.

Well stated as usual and I agree.

Quote:The reasons many people advocate for DC and Puerto Rican statehood may be a power grab, but that shouldn't be a reason to be against it if the citizens of those territories seek it. They lack equal representation in our government compared to other citizens of the country, and that alone should be reason enough to grant them statehood if they choose to seek it. It would be interesting to see if DC would change their license plates after statehood.

Well we already discussed that.  Just absorb DC into a neighboring state, either would work, done.  They have the representation they so clearly lack.  As for Puerto Rico, there are certain benefits to their current status that they would lose.  Also, the recent ballot measure, which did vote for statehood, was disingenuously couched as an "end of colonialism".  My biggest issue with it is I see no way the US benefits from such a move.  

Quote:I don't know of anyone advocating for no private option on healthcare, and I know for certain that wouldn't fly with the Democratic party.

The "squad" has definitely advocated for it.  After all, allowing the private option allows for continued "inequality" as the rich will get better care.

Quote:SCOTUS would definitely be a power grab. I can make some legitimate arguments for increasing the size of the court (like matching the number of justices to the number of circuits), but it isn't as convincing as the statehood one.

Arguments can always be made, but none of them conceal that it's a naked power grab.  I really hope Manchin has the spine to stick to his guns on this issue, because this more would prompt a response that would make the Capitol Building protest/riot pale in comparison.

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2021, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well we already discussed that.  Just absorb DC into a neighboring state, either would work, done.  They have the representation they so clearly lack.  As for Puerto Rico, there are certain benefits to their current status that they would lose.  Also, the recent ballot measure, which did vote for statehood, was disingenuously couched as an "end of colonialism".  My biggest issue with it is I see no way the US benefits from such a move.  

I think a lot of people have concerns about the nation's capital being within another state, which I think is valid. There are a lot of complications with DC. As for Puerto Rico, there are always pros and cons, but if the citizens vote for it, we should make it happen.

(01-14-2021, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The "squad" has definitely advocated for it.  After all, allowing the private option allows for continued "inequality" as the rich will get better care.

Eh, I don't pay attention to them because they are focused on in a disproportionate way compared to their impact on the party and what is happening in Washington. As for the issue itself, what they would be advocating is equality in the policy, which isn't what policy should focus on. The three E's of policy are effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Not equality. Equity is equal treatment under the law, giving everyone the opportunity. It isn't putting everyone on an equal level. So while I am a great advocate for providing for the welfare of our citizenry, the policies I tend to focus on are ones that give people the ability to live their lives without concern of going bankrupt for medical care or wondering where their next meal will come from. But people should all have the opportunity for more.

/mini rant

(01-14-2021, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Arguments can always be made, but none of them conceal that it's a naked power grab.  I really hope Manchin has the spine to stick to his guns on this issue, because this more would prompt a response that would make the Capitol Building protest/riot pale in comparison.

Honestly, everyone likes to say "term limits!" for SCOTUS, which I actually disagree with because it politicizes the court more than it currently is (knowing when someone would be leaving makes it even more of a political weapon), but there are two reforms to the court that I think would help reduce the pollicization. There should be an amendment to permanently set the number of justices to the number of federal circuits, and it should require a 2/3rd vote for approval by the Senate. I don't care about any other nomination from POTUS, or even legislation. Blow up the filibuster. But justices are constitutional officers and should require a higher bar.

[CKwi88]

Calls all people in higher education snowflakes......while asking if the country is now over because his guy lost...


Yikes.

[hollodero]

(01-14-2021, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well we already discussed that.  Just absorb DC into a neighboring state, either would work, done.  They have the representation they so clearly lack.  As for Puerto Rico, there are certain benefits to their current status that they would lose.  Also, the recent ballot measure, which did vote for statehood, was disingenuously couched as an "end of colonialism".  My biggest issue with it is I see no way the US benefits from such a move. 

Without wanting to rudely interrupt (sorry for still doing that), I just want to interject that I don't find it a radical idea to give one's own citizens the right to vote like Puerto Rico; I do not find it disingenuous at all that this would be tabbed "end of colonialism" in a ballot measure (I think it's quite fitting really), and first and foremost I find it weird to say the outcome of such a ballot measure does not quite count for such disingenuous slogans were used. That argument didn't work for Brexit either.

And the US benefits by, well, giving its legal and lawful citizens of Puerto Rico one of the most fundamental rights that this imho must entail. Voting and representation. How this can be called "more damaging than anything Trump did" puzzles me. To me, it seems like a disgrace that you haven't done it yet, even though the Puerto Ricans would like it and it imho clearly would be the only democratic thing to do.

[CJD]

(01-13-2021, 04:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What I mean by the end of the United States is it this the end of the things that made the country great?!

The end of our basic freedoms?

No basic freedoms are being ended

Quote:Biden's vision reflects a more liberal landscape, and Ronald Reagan said "if Fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the way of Liberalism."

Just because Reagan said something doesn't mean it's true. Fascism is much more likely to come to America by way of fascism. Liberalism does allow for fascism to grow because of the freedoms it allows fascists (freedom to spread their fascism, for example), but that doesn't mean Liberalism is to blame for fascism.

Quote:The government is too big and has too much control.


The First Amendment is under attack because everyone is so easily offended by everything.  We're raising a generation of people that are offended by everything and need safe spaces when things don't go their way.

The government is too big and has too much control AND corporations are silencing people. These two opinions don't work together. You either think government is overreaching and too powerful or you think big tech has run amok. It can't be both things at once, since government would be the entity that would control (or, in this case, not control) big tech's suppression of people's freedoms (if you were to subscribe to that line of thinking).


Pick a side. Either corporations have too much power or the government does. Those are your options.

Quote:The Second Amendment is obviously under attack and that needs no explanation.

This is a bit of a blanket statement, especially since the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment (that everyone can own as many guns as they want and any attempt to limit that is unconstitutional) is only like 20 or 30 years old as it is. Attempting to keep guns out of dangerous people's hands is not the same as violating the constitution.

Quote:Biden and the Dems want to brainwash people into thinking that the government is daddy and should control everything.  

There's nothing to argue against here. Just bad rhetoric based on nothing.

Quote:There's more, but is this the end of the country as we know it?  Will all these snowflake college kids keep voting Democrat even if the next four years are a complete failure?  Are we on our way to an authoritarian government?

There's more than nothing? I guess that's possible. I bet you calling them snowflakes will not help in getting them to vote for your candidates. We avoided an authoritarian government on November 3rd by electing Biden. Whether Trump comes back in 2024 to try to establish a dictatorship again is still pending. Hopefully, he decides not to run but there's always a chance and he did get like 74 million votes so...

[GMDino]

(01-14-2021, 02:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: Without wanting to rudely interrupt (sorry for still doing that), I just want to interject that I don't find it a radical idea to give one's own citizens the right to vote like Puerto Rico; I do not find it disingenuous at all that this would be tabbed "end of colonialism" in a ballot measure (I think it's quite fitting really), and first and foremost I find it weird to say the outcome of such a ballot measure does not quite count for such disingenuous slogans were used. That argument didn't work for Brexit either.

And the US benefits by, well, giving its legal and lawful citizens of Puerto Rico one of the most fundamental rights that this imho must entail. Voting and representation. How this can be called "more damaging than anything Trump did" puzzles me. To me, it seems like a disgrace that you haven't done it yet, even though the Puerto Ricans would like it and it imho clearly would be the only democratic thing to do.

Many people, including me, can form an opinion and get so set in that opinion that it doesn't matter "why" anymore.  

The hard thing to do is to be open to an opposing view and really consider it.

That's just the psychology of it.

For example I hate the television Seinfeld.  I don't think he is funny or the show was that good...especially after writer/creator Larry David left.  But my family loves it and tries to get me to see the "funny" parts of it.  I have a hard time with that...but I don't think it was the absolute worst thing ever on television.  

Sometimes it's just a "pet" cause like gun rights or abortion or whatever.  Once minds are made up and locked up tight it becomes difficult to shine any light in them.  It's sort of like the Trump supporters.  No amount of facts can penetrate what they "know" and believe.

To the topic so far PR has been moot because I believe the people there have voted against requesting statehood.  I just think we should be open to the idea if they do want it for all the reasons you provided.

[Tiger Teeth]

Is this thread for real? After 4 years of Biden, we'll be more or less the same. Just like after all the other Democratic Presidents. The country might collapse, but if it does it will be because of the damage the outgoing administration is leaving behind.

I wouldn't want the job of fixing all this shit.

[Yojimbo]

Here’s how much Joe Biden is going to run ramshod as President:

Only wants to pass a stimulus package if it’s bipartisan...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-12/biden-aims-for-deal-with-republicans-on-covid-19-relief-package

The the point of the Georgia senate elections were...?

Republicans win elections: “It’s a mandate to do whatever we want by any means necessary.”

Democrats win elections: “People want bipartisanship, we can’t do anything unless the Republicans let us.”

[*Nately120*]

Biden - Go out and vote.
Trump - Tell the electors/senate/VP to make me the president regardless of what the vote says.

Yeah, liberals are the fascists, here. Geez.

[CJD]

(01-13-2021, 09:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The highlighted part is why you can't be taken seriously.  Trump called for peaceful assembly and protest:


From your post, you obviously thought I'm too stupid to have known that.

Yes, he threw the word "peacefully" in there once, but the other 10,000+ words are pure fuel for an insurrection. (For context, imagine if I said "I really hope that this group of rioters kill you, peacefully of course" does that actually mean anything? You can't say someone advocated for peace because they said it once when the other 10,000 words do the opposite of advocating for peace).

Trump spent, what, two hours telling his supporters that he wants them to march to the Capitol and that their actions will be paramount in "saving our democracy." Would standing outside the Capitol stop a chamber of 500+ people "stealing the election?" Would it make them not "steal the election?" Surely, everyone in that chamber is already aware that Trump supporters think the election was stolen. What would standing outside do to change their minds?

Would peacefully protesting make the Vice President, who Trump has already said had no courage in this speech, suddenly have courage? Why? Maybe because of the threat of violence? This is further evidenced by the fact that Trump said in the speech that it would take courage from Pence to NOT bend to his commands.

Quote:They want it back. All Vice-President Pence has to do is send it back to the States to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.

I just spoke to Mike. I said, “Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage,”

 
Why would that take courage? Sounds a lot like he's trying to pressure Pence into succumbing to fear of violence because it would be actually courageous to still certify the election. If sending the votes back to the states would make the crowd "the happiest people" what would not sending them back make them? Perhaps...angry people? Violently angry people?

He constantly tells them their voices have been silenced unless they do something (specifically, marching to the Capitol) and that they must stop the fraudulent confirmation of the election.

"We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy."

"We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that."

It's true that he didn't literally say "I want you to break down the doors and pummel DC police with fire extinguishers." 

But this goes back to what I consider one of the biggest differences between Conservatives' and Liberals' view of violent speech. I just think the bar is set so high by Conservatives such that coded language and obvious implications can easily slip right under their noses. He's telling them that, unless they stop the count of the electoral votes, our country will be destroyed and our democracy ruined.


How did he expect them to react? There are obviously more quotes from the speech that further this idea that the protesters must take things into their own hands to stop the steal. It's a very long speech. But the fact that it's over 11,000 words and only one of them has anything to do with peace is telling.

[*Nately120*]

Trump is preaching peace...the fact that his idiot mob killed multiple people, chanted to execute the VP, made plans to kidnap/kill politicians, and have republicans who voted to impeach Trump fearing for their lives just shows that his supporters are dangerous and pure evil.

If MAGA's can take such violent measures after being given such peaceful directrion from Trump can we even expect them to be able to assimilate back into our society? We have a problem here. He said PEACE and they heard KILL!

At least liberals are too wimpy to go out and kill people when they're done listening to their Peter, Paul & Mary records.

[hollodero]

(01-14-2021, 03:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Many people, including me, can form an opinion and get so set in that opinion that it doesn't matter "why" anymore.  

Yeah sure, same with me, and I don't even live in such a bipolar society that yours is. It's human nature to a point, I guess.

[I also don't really get the appeal of Seinfeld, I find him boring and his show kinda meh, and yet many people here love it beyond words.]

(01-14-2021, 03:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the topic so far PR has been moot because I believe the people there have voted against requesting statehood.  I just think we should be open to the idea if they do want it for all the reasons you provided.

Yeah I looked that up previously... the last (barely) negative referendum was in 1993, so 27 years ago. There's another negative referendum in 1967 that was boycotted by the statehood party. More recently Puerto Ricans voted for statehood in 2012 and again in 2020.

[*jason*]

(01-14-2021, 03:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump is preaching peace...the fact that his idiot mob killed multiple people, chanted to execute the VP, made plans to kidnap/kill politicians, and have republicans who voted to impeach Trump fearing for their lives just shows that his supporters are dangerous and pure evil.

If MAGA's can take such violent measures after being given such peaceful directrion from Trump can we even expect them to be able to assimilate back into our society? We have a problem here. He said PEACE and they heard KILL!

At least liberals are too wimpy to go out and kill people when they're done listening to their Peter, Paul & Mary records.

I fully expect the maga folks to be place in reeducation camps once Biden installs his Marxist/ Leninist agenda in 6 days...

[*Nately120*]

(01-14-2021, 04:03 PM)jason Wrote: I fully expect the maga folks to be place in reeducation camps once Biden installs his Marxist/ Leninist agenda in 6 days...

It's hard to say...I mean, Trump clearly told them to be peaceful and not violent and look what they did.  I think they're just beyond hope, really.  How did they get so angry?  

[Benton]

(01-14-2021, 02:00 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Once again, you're taking all that to mean violence.  

The issue is, it wasnt pat taking it to mean violence, it was his supporters at the capitol that day who took it to mean violence. 

Words have weight. And when trump made a career of telling people everyone else is lying, he made it so his words weigh the most to his followers. That day specifically he spent a considerable amount of time telling those people everyone inside the capitol was lying to them and stealing from him, then he finished it up by telling them to fight like hell.

Did he intend for violence? None of us know. But he definitely and intentionally stoked it.

[BFritz21]

(01-14-2021, 08:38 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: To your first paragraph, I'd like to point out that yes - some reacted poorly to Trump's election. Not 'storm the Capitol in a vain attempt to overturn a legal election' poorly, but poorly nonetheless. It's almost as if they could see the shit show coming.

To your second statement - that is true; violence isn't necessary for change. Which makes one wonder why that mob on 1/6 descended into violence so quickly.

Third; call the ***** National Guard, call off the mob he incited, not provoke them in the first ***** place. Take your pick.

Fourth, I imagine most people voted for Biden over Trump because over 300,000 people are dead from a virus that Trump downplayed, millions are out of work because of said virus Trump downplayed, and they realized giving a thrice failed casino owner with a boatload of other failed businesses was in fact running this country like one of his business ventures - into the ground.

I literally talked about the First and Second amendment in my first post on this nonsense topic. Just because you can't refute what I said doesn't mean nobody touched on it. And as an addendum to that original comment, I'd like to point out that the last major sweeping gun regulation was enacted via Executive Order by *drum roll* Donald J. Trump, a Republican. 

(01-14-2021, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I dunno, maybe not waited until people ***** died and he literally had to be shamed into saying something before speaking out to his followers to stop the violence.


No, it wasn't being soft. But it also wasn't being a blowhard. Take the T. Roosevelt approach; talk softly but carry a big stick. the threat is there, but it doesn't need to be brandished at every opportunity. In order to be a great nation we have to be respected and trusted, neither of which were true of us during the Trump administration.

And again with the "liberal snowflake" shtick when we spent a year listening to MAGAts whining about masks and then Vanilla ISIS just attempted a coup because they were unhappy about the election.


Well, this is just a lie, because your comments on the First Amendment have absolutely been addressed.

(01-14-2021, 09:49 AM)jason Wrote: Did I expect him to go down and fight? I don't even know what to do with that?

No... I wanted him to act like a leader of a western democracy.

(01-14-2021, 10:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When the crowd you're speaking to includes people who are wearing shirts that say "civil war" and in militias, one can expect violence. Also, he has a history of promoting violence.

I think it's pretty obvious that people wanted him to call for swift action from federal agents to quell the violence his supporters were engaging in. That was well within his power. No one expected him to go down there and fight them. He instead watched gleefully and the Secretary of the Army instead had to consult with Mike Pence to activate the DC National Guard. He also couldn't even get on TV to say anything. He tweeted a 1 minute video where he told the terrorists that "we love you and you are very special"...

The majority of Americans voted for Biden for one of two reasons: Biden is sane and Trump has been a terrible president. 

Multiple people addressed your comments about the 1st and 2nd Amendment. You've ignored them. Matt and I both went line by line with your first post but you did not respond to either.

To all these, Trump called for a peaceful protest.

Police removed barrircade, so what's the natural reaction going to be?  To go further.  

If you'll look at the timeline of everything, you'll see that the police and guards at the Capitol start spraying the crowd with hoses when things didn't look like they were out of control, so you don't think that played a part in the crowd getting agitated?  

You want Trump to have called for peace?  How many of these protesters do you think were opening their phones in the middle of this mess to check the internet and to be somewhere quiet enough for them to hear the President asking them to stop?

The mob did all this because they were provoked by the guards and the police.

My last question to you all is, if you don't think that they were provoked by the police and guards, what was their motive?  What did they want the end result to be?  Why didn't they follow through to achieve that end result once inside?

[Benton]

(01-14-2021, 04:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: How did they get so angry?  

Obama. He tried (horribly) to lower their healthcare costs. Fours years later they're stealing stuff from federal buildings and beating cops to death.

Coincidence? No way.

[*jason*]

(01-14-2021, 04:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's hard to say...I mean, Trump clearly told them to be peaceful and not violent and look what they did.  I think they're just beyond hope, really.  How did they get so angry?  

Well... Many years back I remember Sarah Palin telling folks that their loved ones lives were gonna be placed in the hands of Obama's death panels. Glenn Beck was also lamenting the fact that Obama was burning the country down on a nightly basis. Obama made a remark about bibles and guns. Mexican thugs took people's jobs. You never knew who you were gonna run into in the bathroom. There was an attempt at healthcare reform, and a deal made with Iran.... Here we are.