The "Untied States of America".

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I am always told to "speak truth to power". But it seems like every time I do those in power freak out.

I don't think you really get it. What happened was only that a bouncer told you to go and do your best impression of Walter Sobchak ranting about the U.S.of A. someplace else - other than the place where real people bereave the loss of their. real. dead. humans.

This rant was moved out of the "R.I.P." thread.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by chalsall

It's a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Basically, it's FUBAR, and I don't think this needs any translation. So, when did it start? January 20, 2016. Where did it start? Washington, D.C. Who started it? The Orange Man from Mar-A-Lago.

He set out to change this country from a democracy to a dictatorship. He was following the example being made in Moscow. All of his lies, hate, racism, and narcissism, led to a near total division among the people. One side thinks he can do no wrong, and the other thinks he is the devil incarnate. He only served himself, and a few others in his little circle. Of course, all of this came to a head on January 6, 2021.

The January 6th Committee claims to have something which will "blow" this wide open for all to see. His defense secretary cut on him hard yesterday. "Can we just shoot them?" was a question posed in the WH in response to a group of protesters Trump found annoying. "Can we shoot them, like in the leg?" was a follow-up. Trump wanted to use the military to attack the group of protesters. It was him that asked the questions.

IMHO, the SCOTUS has lost all credibility and respect. It is reported that 70% of the population is against their plan to overturn Roe v. Wade. What a can-of-worms this will become if they actually do overturn it, and they probably will, based on what I have heard recently.

I could go on with this, but I don't need to. Folks like using the term "dumpster fire." It's not a fire yet, but the kerosene soaking has been plentiful. All that is required now is the match to light it with.

[rogue]

SCOTUS has gone far into the "if it isn't a right explicitly stated in the constitution, the states can take it away from you". This means that only a national law or new amendment can give you new rights. Kind of scary of one thinks about it. It wouldn't take much for some states to outlaw gay marriage and SCOTUS to go thru mental gymnastics to agree with them. Note it was 5-4 in 2015 to require states to recognize it. Since then SCOTUS has gone far to the right. Next to fall will be the right to privacy because it doesn't exist in the constitution. This means that governments can legislate contraception and put people in jail just for using birth control. Note that only women are impacted by this as it would prevent use of IUDs. SCOTUS has already attacked the Voter Rights Act and it won't take much for them to scuttle what is left of it. Consider how states are writing laws that make it nearly impossible for people who are impacted by those laws to go to court. Environmental legislation is a good example. They want to argue that only the US government can take a business to court for breaking pollution laws, but if the US government doesn't care, then nobody else can anything about it. Another example is the anti-abortion law in Texas. The state cannot be taken to court to fight the law because the state is not enforcing the law. It is only enforced by citizens.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by storm5510

So, when did it start? January 20, 2016.

I respectfully disagree. That was the culmination of a process that has been ongoing for decades. Both parties have been electing fewer and fewer moderates, more and more ideologues.

Both parties are guilty of "if the other party is for it, we're against it", "if this is a good issue for our base at the polls, don't find a middle ground solution, demagogue and campaign on it instead". The internet and cable news outlets provide echo chambers to amplify the rhetoric.

Remember the days of Blue Dog democrats, members voting their conscience instead of the what their party leaders dictate, dinners with Tip O'neill after a legislative session, the white house having informal lunches/dinners with opposition members on a semi-regular basis? For the most part that's all gone.

It culminated in 2016 when both parties managed to nominate the two worst candidates possible from within their ranks. The voters thought process had to be "the other party's candidate is so bad, our terrible candidate is a shoo-in for the general election" -- a hell of a way to run a country, we got what we deserved. The only long term solution is a viable three/multi-party system. Alas, what may be the ONLY issue the two parties agree on is sharing the political cash and power with a third party must be avoided at ALL costs.

Can the U.S. recover before its too late? Perhaps. I did read an article recently that the political divisions were even worse in the late-1800s and early-1900s. Unfortunately, I suspect there is nothing but further polarization coming for the rest of my lifetime.


....and then there is the whole Wall Street's gutting of American industry for short-term personal gains dilemma...

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Prime95

I respectfully disagree. That was the culmination of a process that has been ongoing for decades. Both parties have been electing fewer and fewer moderates, more and more ideologues.

Both parties are guilty of "if the other party is for it, we're against it", "if this is a good issue for our base at the polls, don't find a middle ground solution, demagogue and campaign on it instead". The internet and cable news outlets provide echo chambers to amplify the rhetoric.

Remember the days of Blue Dog democrats, members voting their conscience instead of the what their party leaders dictate, dinners with Tip O'neill after a legislative session, the white house having informal lunches/dinners with opposition members on a semi-regular basis? For the most part that's all gone.

It culminated in 2016 when both parties managed to nominate the two worst candidates possible from within their ranks. The voters thought process had to be "the other party's candidate is so bad, our terrible candidate is a shoo-in for the general election" -- a hell of a way to run a country, we got what we deserved. The only long term solution is a viable three/multi-party system. Alas, what may be the ONLY issue the two parties agree on is sharing the political cash and power with a third party must be avoided at ALL costs.

Can the U.S. recover before its too late? Perhaps. I did read an article recently that the political divisions were even worse in the late-1800s and early-1900s. Unfortunately, I suspect there is nothing but further polarization coming for the rest of my lifetime.


....and then there is the whole Wall Street's gutting of American industry for short-term personal gains dilemma...

I fully agree on all points.

I think that one potential solution is weighted voting. I think that has a chance of moderating the battlefield between the two parties as each side will need to make an effort to appeal to the opposing side. This would work well in primaries as one could place a weighted vote across members of all parties. Right now it feels like a "race to the bottom".

I hate the idea that humility or accepting that one has made a mistake is somehow viewed as a weakness. Honesty and integrity are not important.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Batalov

I don't think you really get it.

I do.

Originally Posted by Batalov

This rant was moved out of the "R.I.P." thread.

Correct. And, the post was meant to be serious. To generate some serious debate. Which, clearly, it has. Not that it's actually going to make much difference on the grand scale.

I understand all too well that the United States of America is still a serious player. And a large amount of the World's economy still depends on the "Greenback". Not to mention its serious military, able to project force literally anywhere.

The point I was /trying/ to make is those who rely on the USA for stability have been a bit unsettled by the instability demonstrated internally recently. To the USA's credit, this has been fully documented by the Free Press.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Correct. And, the post was meant to be serious.

It was not on topic for that thread. You would not expect a serious post about gun control in the GPU72 status thread. The post about the Sinking Russian warship was also moved out of the RIP thread to a more appropriate location (the one about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[jwaltos]

No one is perfect and the one that supposedly was, was killed. Recalling the play "Hamilton", there will always be intrigue and injustice, Otzi was taken down with arrows..politics or religion or crime?..or all of the former? It doesn't matter what "normal" is because situations like the Inquisition and Salem witch trials speak volumes about that. Who among the current crop of world leaders would the populace trust to craft an enlightened constitution? I don't see a Hammurabi anywhere. ..won't get fooled again? ..don't bet on it!

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Prime95

...Both parties are guilty of "if the other party is for it, we're against it", "if this is a good issue for our base at the polls, don't find a middle ground solution, demagogue and campaign on it instead". The internet and cable news outlets provide echo chambers to amplify the rhetoric.
....

It culminated in 2016 when both parties managed to nominate the two worst candidates possible from within their ranks.

If one is for it and the other against, and vice versa, has been around for a long time. It's gotten far more noticeable in recent years. If one wants to whiz on a certain tree, the other will avoid it just from spite.

Two worst candidates. I had to think on this for a minute. The other was Hillary. It seems like ages ago.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Both parties ...

Both parties...

... both parties ...

There's your problem.

[Dr Sardonicus]

I have mentioned before, e.g. here that people have been getting brainwashed for decades. I would add Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts of his ilk to the list of brainwashers.