In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 15 2017 01:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 15 2017 01:00 frazzle wrote:
On August 15 2017 00:12 xDaunt wrote:And just to comment on the earlier discussion regarding what caused the emergence of the Alt Right, the big omission from the discuss is conservatism and the modern GOP. The whole reason why the Alt Right has any juice is because people like me recognize the catastrophic failure of conservatism to be a bulwark against the Left. Ask any conservative or person on the right what the lure to the Alt Right is, and the answer is always the same: "The Alt Right fights." This is why the term "cuckservative" has become so popular and has been so effective against mainstream conservatives.
I get that conservatives like you feel this way, but the reality is that the Left in the States has become more and more marginalized every year for 40 some years. The left, politically, has lost grounds on all fronts. The Supreme Court is far to the right of where it was in the 60's. Democrats used to always control the House, now they need to wait most likely at least a decade to hope to get it back, if Trump helps them. States are mostly in the hands of Republicans. The only exception that comes to mind is gay rights. Beyond that the only scary thing out there I can think of for you guys is the SJW stuff, but the only reason you see any of the scary SJW stuff is because of the internet. It's not a real political threat to you.
I guess maybe I forgot that some courts have determined that religious beliefs aren't grounds to refuse service to homosexuals. But let's face it, when that gets to the Supreme Court it will go your way.
I don't really agree.
What I understand from conservatism is that, rather than wanting things to stay the way they are or were, it wants to keep intact certain very specific power structure and hierarchies. A racial hierarchy in society, which is an inheritance from the slavery era, a gender hierarchy at home with a patriarchal view on family and women, and a financial hierarchy at work where the employee should have the right to obey, and where money gives you power over poorer people than you.
From there, conservative can be more revolutionary than leftists, keeping in mind Lampedusa famous words: for everything to stay the same, everything has to change. See Banon.
In that analysis, conservatives are luckily losing everywhere. The american society is still hugely racist but immensely less so than a few decades ago, and racism has become something shameful. Gender inequalities have melted and feminism has improved gigantically women's rights and place in society. The only real victory for conservatism has been the death of unions and the grotesque rise in finantial inequalities, that the left has been unable to challenge.
I think the problem is that right wong folks have started to realize that the only thing that really interests the GOP is to cut aid for the poor and transfer wealth to the rich. And that the racial and sexual resentment the GOP leaders have been exploiting for decades is just a way to get the turkeys (poor white people) to vote again and again for Christmas (because the welfare state is all for those lazy black people). Paul Ryan doesn't give a crap about the so called culture war. What interests him is tax cuts for a class of billionaire that finance him.
It looks like in the last decade, the GOP has lost control of the ugly creature it has unleashed, and that the racism, sexism and anti-intellectual, anti-elite resentment it has nurtured since Reagan has taken an ugly life of its own, in the form of the Tea Party first, the alt right later and finally in the grotesque presidency of Donald Trump.
The con is basically over, but all the filth that they created in order to get there is very much alive.
Yeah, fuck those "conservative" people. I hate them, too.
I don't have much love for american conservatism, but then again neither do you for the left. Sticking it to liberals seems to be a really big part of what motivates a lot of your positions. It's fair enough.
That being said, I believe that conservatives are totally necessary in a democracy. Power structure are meant to evolve, but it's a good thing there is a balance between people who want to undermine them and people who want to preserve them. In most european countries, there are perfectly reasonable and useful conservative parties, which whom I don't agree with but that are sometimes full of bright people whose ideas make sense and who contribute efficiently to their countries and the democratic debate.
The crisis of american conservatism comes in my views from the fact that the GOP has had a con agenda for a long time, and in order to achieve it has exploited the most disturbing and ugly aspects of the country's psyche.
I'm not sure what a sincere, reasonable american conservative can do. The alt right and the whole populistic movement is a monster, and the party is a bunch of hypocrite whose goal is to fuck everyone but a tiny group of filthy rich people.
You know better than me and I don't want to speak for you, but I think that it is where you stand; and I am sorry to say that I don't see, if you are as I think, a sincere conservative, who can represent you in this clusterfuckfest that has become the american right wing.
I had a long conversation with a conservative politician about this type of stuff last week. The point that I made was that conservative leadership was intellectually bankrupt, thus the entire conservative establishment needed to be swept away so that someone new could take the reins. To my surprise, he not only agreed with me, but he took it a step further. He stated that everything above the local level (ie anything at the state and national levels) was so corrupt that anyone who made it that far was basically either a) corrupt on arrival, or b) effectively coerced into being corrupt by the established authorities. The politician did not think that anything short of constitutional changes would fix this mess. And it's not a mess that is limited to the right. It's a bipartisan problem.
On August 15 2017 07:22 Mohdoo wrote: Here's a question: Should people trying to join Nazis be treated the same as people trying to join ISIS?
in america, what exactly does happen to people trying to join isis? what are they charged with?
Pretty sure there is something in the patriot act about attempting to aid designated terrorist organizations with some base level prison sentences. i remember when I moved to the US for college we got a pamphlet on it as part of the NSEERS registration.
Notably I received no such thing when moving to Canada.
xda-> it may not be limited ot the right; but the problem is more severe in the right (at the national level).
though from what i've seen local levels are often highly corrupt as well.
if there's a problem weith intellectual bankruptcy, why can't they just pay a bunch of intellectuals to figure something out? there's no shortage of academics in the country.
Personally, I find the argument that it is all broken so we need to remove everyone from the system to be tiring and reductive. It is also sort of pointless, since it will never happen.
On August 15 2017 07:22 Mohdoo wrote: Here's a question: Should people trying to join Nazis be treated the same as people trying to join ISIS?
in america, what exactly does happen to people trying to join isis? what are they charged with?
Pretty sure there is something in the patriot act about attempting to aid designated terrorist organizations with some base level prison sentences. i remember when I moved to the US for college we got a pamphlet on it as part of the NSEERS registration.
Notably I received no such thing when moving to Canada.
This is my understanding as well. I think this should apply to people sympathizing with Nazi ideology. Someone waving a Nazi flag at these sorts of events should just be straight up arrested.
The fact that we tolerate pockets of ideologies we have formally gone to war with makes no sense to me.
"Well, we won, and they won't overthrow the government in these numbers, so you guys can totally just hold rallies and do whatever the fuck you want."
On August 15 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote: [quote] The amendment process is a high hurdle particularly because it should be an enormously popular and supported thing. I think compromise should start with smaller funding bills to bring Congressional oversight to government bureaucracy. All or nothing government shutdown shit hurts compromise, it's just brinkmanship. The funding of the defense department should be well-debated just like the rest.
On your edit: And neither are white people. Which was part of his point.
congress already has plent yof oversight authority over the bureaucracy. they simply chose not to use it and/or exercise it in a poor fashion. it's also sadly the case that congress is in general worse than the bureaucracy; so their oversight isn't that helpful, and is often more harmful. having terrible people oversee half-bad people just doesn't help much. oversight works far better when it's decent people doing the oversight. what we need is to fix congress itself.
How are you possibly going to fix congress by sending not terrible people there? Any representative republic is going to be filled with terrible people during the normal of times.
Election reform, from voter suppression to how we pay for them. That would go a long way.
So publicly funded campaigns a short cycle of campaigning and voter ID laws on par with Canada or Europe. I don't see how this changes the quality of people elected just the motivations behind what a lot of them do.
Rich conservatives being unable to bankroll candidates to do literally nothing while in congress will go a long way. Regulating Super PACs to not make elections miserable. Democrats not running weak ass garbage to fight pandering garbage would also help a lot.
But the reality is I know you are right. This won’t happen. States imploding due to failed budgets and another recession is the solution. We election shitty people and then our country goes to shit. 2007 was not enough, we need a second helping of economic suffering.
2007 wasn't even a really large economic hit. sure it stunted the economy but no one with any brains really saw the end of the world coming. Any other country in the world and their economy collapses as their currency becomes cheap building material. But the super power of the world controls global stability so everyone supported the dollar the best they could. The great depression saw real government change beyond Europe and a possible loss of Midwest farmlands (outside of the great lakes wonderland zone). 2007 saw Iceland peacefully change their government and was surprisingly kept afloat by a game company popular in many foreign nations. Greece was held onto by Germany flexing its economic might and no one else saw much more then low level civil unrest.
A lot of people with a lot of brains saw the end of the world economy coming and they did an awful lot of work preventing that outcome so that people like you could say that there was never really any danger. Pretty much every business kept their day to day liquidity accounts in money market funds which are not FDIC insured, which led to the start of a run on the banks that would have had every single financial institution, most likely in the world, unable to stay liquid. Paychecks would have bounced, ATMs would have dried up, bank accounts would have been wiped out. In the week of September 15 2008 over $300b was cashed out of commercial paper accounts with money market funds starting to drop below $1 per $1 which should be unthinkable. The treasury stepped in with a $3,500,000,000,000 guarantee to keep the commercial paper market liquid and the run on the banks stopped. But it was a close run thing.
Yes but there was never a threat on the currency itself not being worth anything. sure banks and the global trade was at risk but it was only ever at risk as long as there was a currency to make the whole thing flow. If people ever lost faith in the dollar for a moment it wouldn't matter what anyone did it would have just spiraled the situation out of control like you said. That guarantee is unthinkable in scale and impossible by even the United states standard of economic strength. But the world could see instantly what was at risk and no one lost faith in what was going to be done. It was the Cuban missile crisis of the global financial system but the solution was never in doubt of what could be done to solve it. Once it became "clear" it wasn't an issue to anyone as they just assumed they could do the same thing next time as they could and no one really wanted to not do it.
You're missing the point. Commerce doesn't run on dollars, it runs on dollar denominated commercial paper which is trusted to be worth dollars. A subtle difference but a meaningful one because it creates the potential for a run on the bank. They pay each other in commercial paper and they accept commercial paper from each other in payment because everyone knows that commercial paper can be readily liquidated back into dollars because everyone accepts commercial paper, there is never any difficulty in finding someone who will take $1 of commercial paper off your hands for $1.
The problem was that in September 2008 people started to feel much more comfortable with actual dollars that with dollar denominated commercial paper. Which means that they wanted to sell their $1 of commercial paper for $1 of dollars. But the problem was that nobody wanted to trade their dollars for the paper, and suddenly it starts to drop below $1 per $1 as people discount it to offload it. At which point the system built entirely on faith starts to collapse and nobody wants to take it because the assumption that it would always hold par value against the dollar has just been shattered. And in a single week $350b of the stuff is liquidated. But the problem is that there is $3.5t of it, and it's used for absolutely everything. When Walmart pays their employees they do so out of their commercial paper account which is accepted at par value by the bank which then direct deposits into employees' accounts etc. A three and a half trillion dollar run on the bank where the actual dollars that people want just aren't there and the entire economy is built on commercial paper.
Whether or not faith in the dollar was lost wasn't important because the economy wasn't running on dollars, it was running on dollar denominated commercial paper. And faith on that was being lost (in favour of actual dollars). Only when the treasury stepped in and offered to buy all 3.5 trillion dollars of commercial paper on demand for $1 per $1 did people resume accepting it at par value.
I do get that but the Treasury didn't have 3.5 Trillion dollars in any sort of account or in any real standing. They simply spoke currency into being and no one questioned it because to do so would collapse it. They didn't have 3.5 trillion in dollar equivalent assets or any way to show people that there was anything more then 3.5 Trillion anywhere. It worked for everyone involved and everyone assumes it will work in another crisis because we've all agreed at this point that there isn't a need for a basis in a currency as long as everyone agrees that it is worth what it says its worth. That China needed the same dollars as walmart but that they're both willing to play along so that the dance goes on is the miracle of 2008. No one has any reasoning for it to keep working but it does because everyone insists that it keeps working. Things didn't stay like that and no one kept it going for as long as it took to get out of the crisis but I don't think anyone really understands how we got out of what we did past a faith based "lets not all die" approach to the situation.
On August 15 2017 02:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 15 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
On August 15 2017 01:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 15 2017 01:00 frazzle wrote:
On August 15 2017 00:12 xDaunt wrote:And just to comment on the earlier discussion regarding what caused the emergence of the Alt Right, the big omission from the discuss is conservatism and the modern GOP. The whole reason why the Alt Right has any juice is because people like me recognize the catastrophic failure of conservatism to be a bulwark against the Left. Ask any conservative or person on the right what the lure to the Alt Right is, and the answer is always the same: "The Alt Right fights." This is why the term "cuckservative" has become so popular and has been so effective against mainstream conservatives.
I get that conservatives like you feel this way, but the reality is that the Left in the States has become more and more marginalized every year for 40 some years. The left, politically, has lost grounds on all fronts. The Supreme Court is far to the right of where it was in the 60's. Democrats used to always control the House, now they need to wait most likely at least a decade to hope to get it back, if Trump helps them. States are mostly in the hands of Republicans. The only exception that comes to mind is gay rights. Beyond that the only scary thing out there I can think of for you guys is the SJW stuff, but the only reason you see any of the scary SJW stuff is because of the internet. It's not a real political threat to you.
I guess maybe I forgot that some courts have determined that religious beliefs aren't grounds to refuse service to homosexuals. But let's face it, when that gets to the Supreme Court it will go your way.
I don't really agree.
What I understand from conservatism is that, rather than wanting things to stay the way they are or were, it wants to keep intact certain very specific power structure and hierarchies. A racial hierarchy in society, which is an inheritance from the slavery era, a gender hierarchy at home with a patriarchal view on family and women, and a financial hierarchy at work where the employee should have the right to obey, and where money gives you power over poorer people than you.
From there, conservative can be more revolutionary than leftists, keeping in mind Lampedusa famous words: for everything to stay the same, everything has to change. See Banon.
In that analysis, conservatives are luckily losing everywhere. The american society is still hugely racist but immensely less so than a few decades ago, and racism has become something shameful. Gender inequalities have melted and feminism has improved gigantically women's rights and place in society. The only real victory for conservatism has been the death of unions and the grotesque rise in finantial inequalities, that the left has been unable to challenge.
I think the problem is that right wong folks have started to realize that the only thing that really interests the GOP is to cut aid for the poor and transfer wealth to the rich. And that the racial and sexual resentment the GOP leaders have been exploiting for decades is just a way to get the turkeys (poor white people) to vote again and again for Christmas (because the welfare state is all for those lazy black people). Paul Ryan doesn't give a crap about the so called culture war. What interests him is tax cuts for a class of billionaire that finance him.
It looks like in the last decade, the GOP has lost control of the ugly creature it has unleashed, and that the racism, sexism and anti-intellectual, anti-elite resentment it has nurtured since Reagan has taken an ugly life of its own, in the form of the Tea Party first, the alt right later and finally in the grotesque presidency of Donald Trump.
The con is basically over, but all the filth that they created in order to get there is very much alive.
Yeah, fuck those "conservative" people. I hate them, too.
I don't have much love for american conservatism, but then again neither do you for the left. Sticking it to liberals seems to be a really big part of what motivates a lot of your positions. It's fair enough.
That being said, I believe that conservatives are totally necessary in a democracy. Power structure are meant to evolve, but it's a good thing there is a balance between people who want to undermine them and people who want to preserve them. In most european countries, there are perfectly reasonable and useful conservative parties, which whom I don't agree with but that are sometimes full of bright people whose ideas make sense and who contribute efficiently to their countries and the democratic debate.
The crisis of american conservatism comes in my views from the fact that the GOP has had a con agenda for a long time, and in order to achieve it has exploited the most disturbing and ugly aspects of the country's psyche.
I'm not sure what a sincere, reasonable american conservative can do. The alt right and the whole populistic movement is a monster, and the party is a bunch of hypocrite whose goal is to fuck everyone but a tiny group of filthy rich people.
You know better than me and I don't want to speak for you, but I think that it is where you stand; and I am sorry to say that I don't see, if you are as I think, a sincere conservative, who can represent you in this clusterfuckfest that has become the american right wing.
I had a long conversation with a conservative politician about this type of stuff last week. The point that I made was that conservative leadership was intellectually bankrupt, thus the entire conservative establishment needed to be swept away so that someone new could take the reins. To my surprise, he not only agreed with me, but he took it a step further. He stated that everything above the local level (ie anything at the state and national levels) was so corrupt that anyone who made it that far was basically either a) corrupt on arrival, or b) effectively coerced into being corrupt by the established authorities. The politician did not think that anything short of constitutional changes would fix this mess. And it's not a mess that is limited to the right. It's a bipartisan problem.
I don't think liberals and democrast are willfully this inept and incompetent at basic politics but that they're as screwed as the right is. Its a fault of 2 party politics I think beacuse if either party was in another nation it would get crushed for a few elections as it sorts its shit out and re-figures how it does things. But because there is such inertia within the two brands neither can really get out of the position it is in and things just keep getting worse as flexibility keeps getting stripped away from the parties.
On August 15 2017 07:53 Uldridge wrote: So, personally, what would you do to try to improve a broken system. Or are you happen with a status quo?
Reforming elections would go a long way to keeping very rich donors from spoon feeding their views to candidates. But the system isn’t as broken as people say.
We are just in a cycle where the post WW2, post Vietnam/civil right politicians are cycling out. The new politicians have no great conflict or struggle to use as a touchstone for real crisis. The Iraq war was a side show that left America bitter and war weary. The closest we came was 2007 and we managed to pull out of that. And without crisis, there is a total lack of leadership. The parties are devoid of leaders and they have stuffed shirts instead. Or people who got support by voting no nothing for 6 years. They will fail and be replaced. Hopefully this election cycle, but maybe not.
But to be honest. There is not really way to “fix the system”. This government is a reflection of the US people. A bunch of people who grew up in an era where the biggest crisis was 9/11. And if you look at how our political parties and voters failed to respond to that, its sort of makes sense that shit is fucked. We sent to war with a random nations because we were high on patriotism and let ourselves be lied to.
On August 14 2017 23:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 14 2017 22:28 Danglars wrote:
On August 14 2017 22:18 Nevuk wrote:
Less than 24 hours after Charlotte trump released this ad that contains a list of people he identifies as the enemy.
Woah there no need to go full Nixon. He's trying to change the narrative and identify people obstructing his agenda (which is massive massive bigly success already apparently). List of people he identifies as enemies my ass, Nevuk.
Out of curiosity, and since all you Trumpers suddenly disappeared fron that debate, what's your take on Charlotte's events and the aftermath?
Debate? You must mean echo chamber. You'll have to drill down to some concrete questions that I didn't already post on, and the search function is open to you for the ones on the historical statue issue, political tweets from senators/NYT, left wing and right wing violence, etc.
Oh, and if you have curiosity, I'm not a Trumper. He was bottom of the barrel of acceptable candidates for the primary, and it was only the dawning reality of a Clinton presidency that got my to the polling station. Unless you're the kind of tribal member that wants to be called a Hillary shill. I'm a conservative Republican.
My respect and consideration for you will get such a boost the day you will be able to, you know, openly condemn a terrorist attack commited by the right wing, openly admit that Trump is a disaster and that maybe you made a mistake voting for such a clown and such a horrifying person, or openly admit that there is something deeply disturbing happening that got revealed in Charlottesville.
But you won't. Us getting horrified at nazis marching with swastikas and performing isis style terror attack is "echo chamber".
You simply can't get past your partisan hackery. And that's this mindless partisanship that is slowly killing your country.
When a Bernie supporter tried to kill a republican congressman, we were all horrified and tried to understand how that could happen. Sanders reacted immediatemy, denouncing that horrible act, instead of, like your guy, being a fucking jerk and putting victims and terrorists in the same bag. I haven't read a line of you, xDaunt, biology major or any of you hardcore conservatives expressing the slightest concern at nazis marching with torch Nurenberg style or going full Al Qaeda. It's shameful.
Which is sort of the reason I asked you to develop your question and put it forth. The real statement of your curiosity is along the lines of, "I know you to be a partisan Trump-loving hack at relative ease with white supremacist rallies, and I want anything I can twist to support my preconceived ideas." I'm not into your fanciful notions of conservatives needing to pipe up or they're assumed white supremacists ... but again, you're a confirmed Stalin lover for refusing to distance yourself from the Soviet flag held by one of the counter protestors. So, many apologies, but if you just want passive punching bags that issue disavowals at every turn, go play with impressionable and fearful children. If you have any doubt of my thoughts on white-supremacists and neonazis in marches, you can ask away.
On August 15 2017 07:22 Mohdoo wrote: Here's a question: Should people trying to join Nazis be treated the same as people trying to join ISIS?
in america, what exactly does happen to people trying to join isis? what are they charged with?
Pretty sure there is something in the patriot act about attempting to aid designated terrorist organizations with some base level prison sentences. i remember when I moved to the US for college we got a pamphlet on it as part of the NSEERS registration.
Notably I received no such thing when moving to Canada.
This is my understanding as well. I think this should apply to people sympathizing with Nazi ideology. Someone waving a Nazi flag at these sorts of events should just be straight up arrested.
The fact that we tolerate pockets of ideologies we have formally gone to war with makes no sense to me.
"Well, we won, and they won't overthrow the government in these numbers, so you guys can totally just hold rallies and do whatever the fuck you want."
What? In what world does that make sense?
something like this:
The 1949 Grundgesetz, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20 (since 1968) recognizing the right of the people to resist unconstitutional tyranny, if all other measures have failed: All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.
? wouldn't that kind of do it since Nazi's are trying to get rid of human/natural rights as well as (I'd assume) democracy/the rights involved with that like voting, for everyone who doesn't fit their... color scheme?
There's a bit of a discussion on that in Germany as well though. Somewhat recently a judge deciding that for example the NPD isn't a real threat to our constitution even if it's their goal to change it in such a way simply because their numbers and support aren't there.
On August 15 2017 07:22 Mohdoo wrote: Here's a question: Should people trying to join Nazis be treated the same as people trying to join ISIS?
in america, what exactly does happen to people trying to join isis? what are they charged with?
Pretty sure there is something in the patriot act about attempting to aid designated terrorist organizations with some base level prison sentences. i remember when I moved to the US for college we got a pamphlet on it as part of the NSEERS registration.
Notably I received no such thing when moving to Canada.
This is my understanding as well. I think this should apply to people sympathizing with Nazi ideology. Someone waving a Nazi flag at these sorts of events should just be straight up arrested.
The fact that we tolerate pockets of ideologies we have formally gone to war with makes no sense to me.
"Well, we won, and they won't overthrow the government in these numbers, so you guys can totally just hold rallies and do whatever the fuck you want."
The 1949 Grundgesetz, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20 (since 1968) recognizing the right of the people to resist unconstitutional tyranny, if all other measures have failed: All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.
? wouldn't that kind of do it since Nazi's are trying to get rid of human/natural rights as well as (I'd assume) democracy/the rights involved with that like voting, for everyone who doesn't fit their... color scheme?
There's a bit of a discussion on that in Germany as well though. Somewhat recently a judge deciding that for example the NPD isn't a real threat to our constitution even if it's their goal to change it in such a way simply because their numbers and support aren't there.
This seems stupid. Doesn't a rapist actually have a totally negligible impact on the country as a whole? By that logic, it doesn't make sense to jail a rapist because they could never rape a significant portion of their country, even if they tried and went unchallenged.
On August 15 2017 07:50 Plansix wrote: Personally, I find the argument that it is all broken so we need to remove everyone from the system to be tiring and reductive. It is also sort of pointless, since it will never happen.
I mean it sort of always happens, they aren't immortals. We just keep replenishing them with new ones.
On August 15 2017 07:22 Mohdoo wrote: Here's a question: Should people trying to join Nazis be treated the same as people trying to join ISIS?
in america, what exactly does happen to people trying to join isis? what are they charged with?
Pretty sure there is something in the patriot act about attempting to aid designated terrorist organizations with some base level prison sentences. i remember when I moved to the US for college we got a pamphlet on it as part of the NSEERS registration.
Notably I received no such thing when moving to Canada.
This is my understanding as well. I think this should apply to people sympathizing with Nazi ideology. Someone waving a Nazi flag at these sorts of events should just be straight up arrested.
The fact that we tolerate pockets of ideologies we have formally gone to war with makes no sense to me.
"Well, we won, and they won't overthrow the government in these numbers, so you guys can totally just hold rallies and do whatever the fuck you want."
What? In what world does that make sense?
something like this:
The 1949 Grundgesetz, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20 (since 1968) recognizing the right of the people to resist unconstitutional tyranny, if all other measures have failed: All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.
? wouldn't that kind of do it since Nazi's are trying to get rid of human/natural rights as well as (I'd assume) democracy/the rights involved with that like voting, for everyone who doesn't fit their... color scheme?
There's a bit of a discussion on that in Germany as well though. Somewhat recently a judge deciding that for example the NPD isn't a real threat to our constitution even if it's their goal to change it in such a way simply because their numbers and support aren't there.
This seems stupid. Doesn't a rapist actually have a totally negligible impact on the country as a whole? By that logic, it doesn't make sense to jail a rapist because they could never rape a significant portion of their country, even if they tried and went unchallenged.
Thats not a fair analogy.. criminal acts that dont aim to overthrow the constitutional order are still criminal acts. There are other laws for that.
On August 15 2017 07:22 Mohdoo wrote: Here's a question: Should people trying to join Nazis be treated the same as people trying to join ISIS?
in america, what exactly does happen to people trying to join isis? what are they charged with?
Pretty sure there is something in the patriot act about attempting to aid designated terrorist organizations with some base level prison sentences. i remember when I moved to the US for college we got a pamphlet on it as part of the NSEERS registration.
Notably I received no such thing when moving to Canada.
This is my understanding as well. I think this should apply to people sympathizing with Nazi ideology. Someone waving a Nazi flag at these sorts of events should just be straight up arrested.
The fact that we tolerate pockets of ideologies we have formally gone to war with makes no sense to me.
"Well, we won, and they won't overthrow the government in these numbers, so you guys can totally just hold rallies and do whatever the fuck you want."
What? In what world does that make sense?
something like this:
The 1949 Grundgesetz, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20 (since 1968) recognizing the right of the people to resist unconstitutional tyranny, if all other measures have failed: All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.
? wouldn't that kind of do it since Nazi's are trying to get rid of human/natural rights as well as (I'd assume) democracy/the rights involved with that like voting, for everyone who doesn't fit their... color scheme?
There's a bit of a discussion on that in Germany as well though. Somewhat recently a judge deciding that for example the NPD isn't a real threat to our constitution even if it's their goal to change it in such a way simply because their numbers and support aren't there.
This seems stupid. Doesn't a rapist actually have a totally negligible impact on the country as a whole? By that logic, it doesn't make sense to jail a rapist because they could never rape a significant portion of their country, even if they tried and went unchallenged.
Thats not a fair analogy.. criminal acts that dont aim to overthrow the constitutional order are still criminal acts. There are other laws for that.
From my perspective, there is not a reason to treat a group any better once their numbers get low enough. Fundamentally, society decided that those views were plain and simply damaging and not simply "some other perspective". We went to war with Nazis because that was a really, really bad thing.
Why ever stop arresting Nazis? Why have there been a few convictions recently dating back to WW2?
Reforming elections would go a long way to keeping very rich donors from spoon feeding their views to candidates. But the system isn’t as broken as people say.
We are just in a cycle where the post WW2, post Vietnam/civil right politicians are cycling out. The new politicians have no great conflict or struggle to use as a touchstone for real crisis. The Iraq war was a side show that left America bitter and war weary. The closest we came was 2007 and we managed to pull out of that. And without crisis, there is a total lack of leadership. The parties are devoid of leaders and they have stuffed shirts instead. Or people who got support by voting no nothing for 6 years. They will fail and be replaced. Hopefully this election cycle, but maybe not.
But to be honest. There is not really way to “fix the system”. This government is a reflection of the US people. A bunch of people who grew up in an era where the biggest crisis was 9/11. And if you look at how our political parties and voters failed to respond to that, its sort of makes sense that shit is fucked. We sent to war with a random nations because we were high on patriotism and let ourselves be lied to.
I'm going to respond with something that's short and won't look like a bit of a conspiracy theory (or at least could be interpreted as one as to dismiss my arguments). I find politics to be too esoteric for most people. A lot of people don't actually know who they elected or why they elect them. Sure, there are different layers to reasoning. But it's scary, because if you can only talk about the most important people in power just like presented your argument for how the last superhero movie you saw is good in one sentence or less, then there's a problem. I don't suggest people need to get politically schooled or anything, I'm saying there's a general disinterest in politics, yet it has to be done. It seems like a paradox. Why do people need to be elected when not even over 60% of the country (and sometimes barely 50%) can be bothered to vote?
I completely disagree with government being a reflection of the people. I think a lot more goes down than just representing the demographic that's elected someone.
That's why I don't necessarily want to ascribe to something like democracy per se, or at the very least want a heavily reformed version of it. But you don't just revise a completely entrenched part of society just like that. The issue I have is that people willingly accept what we have now and don't see a problem with it, or don't care enough. I like to believe decentralization of power and collectivism might be something that has clear upsides to the current democratic process, but I haven't fleshed out the ideas enough to account for every facet of society, so I won't be claiming anything much at the moment, except for the idea (of some type of change).
getting people to care; or understand the need to fix it; is hard. what's really hard is that since most people won't know how to fix it; they won' tbe able to intelligently and correctly select the people trying to fix it from all the other people.
at any rate, there's some good research in the political science field at least.
EPT
