Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[hollodero]

(05-07-2021, 02:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the sort of thing that has caused me to call for a new Constitution for quite some time.

Thanks for the insightful reply. There's nothing to respond really than a thumbs up, especially since I know from past encounters that I probably concur with 99% of the things you say about that topic.

Also, the founding of the US is one of the most remarkable events of history to me and I still find incentives to learn more about it through replies like yours, so saying thank you is not just a figure of speech.

(05-07-2021, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Allow me to rephrase and say it is much less of a public issue now.  I don't think that's even debatable.  I will absolutely concur that there are people whose attitude on the situation has been consistent.  They are certainly a minority.

Well... I think I concur to a large extent, after all consistency usually is not the most important trait, left or right.
I will say this though, it also is less of a public issue now because some of the imho most controversial rhetorics are no longer heard and some of the most controversial policies are not followed any longer. I'd wager there's be more attention and ongoing outrage if Biden had said he plans to keep the Trump era's family separation policy.

(05-07-2021, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, The US is unique or unusual in a lot of ways compared to other democracies, this certainly being one of them.  It comes from being founded by men who both saw the value of a strong central government and also intensely distrusted it at the same time.  In fact, and not to diverge the topic, but the Second Amendment is another example of exactly that.  So, I can understand from an outside perspective how the system does not appear egalitarian, because it was deliberately made not to be in some ways.

What I don't like, and I cannot countenance, is people within the US; politicians, pundits or whatever, who only decry the system when it doesn't work to their advantage.  Or want to change the foundation of the system to solely benefit themselves. 

Yeah... we've been there, and I still feel that while I totally get where you're coming from (because sure I for example also think most democrats want PR statehood mainly becuase they hope it benefits them) there's still the issue of what aside from party politics would be the right thing. There's an argument to be made why reforms, like PR statehood, are the right (in this case, democratic) thing and I made points for that. My issue with your take is that no liberal or democratic politician could ever make these exact same points without being open to the accusation of only wanting to benefit their own side, resulting in an automatic dismissal of all these points made. To which I'd reply, even if party politics were to be the main or even only real motication here (which might be true, but still is rather assumption than fact), the points don't get any less objectively valid because of that.

Of course I don't want to claim that what I deem right is objectively right and every other take is not. I just try to explain why this particular counterargument of yours, imho, can be seen as flawed or weak in that respect, or why I see it as such.

As for the other parts, the reply to Bels also applies to you. It is not designed to be egalitarian is an interesting insight, albeit not a totally unfamilar one. It's apparently true, and the whole basis of me severely questioning it (whilst getting the arguments for it).