The General American Politics Thread

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

... Okay, what the Earth is that?

Islamaphobia and ignorance at its finest.

[Tani Coyote]

Since Islam is the hot topic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

Very informative. I recommend a watch.

No, this is not Islamophobic hysterics. This is actually a project by a Muslim woman who is deeply concerned about the amount of violence done in the name of her faith. She is especially concerned that liberals, as much as they tend to be interested in data and statistics, are so focused on political correctness they won't discuss radical Islam in depth.

"Most" means the greatest quantity. It is true that most Muslims are peaceful people. But as she discusses, the amount leaning towards violence is hardly a fringe minority, and this is a serious concern.

In total, when deeming ideas such as support for stoning of unfaithful spouses, executions of apostates, support for suicide bombings against civilians as radical, etc. you end up with about 300 million radical Muslims. Only a small portion of this demographic are actively violent (i.e. joining groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda), but it does highlight a possible powder keg.

Speaking as a historian, there is room for optimism despite these grave statistics. We must remember how brutal Medieval Europe could be as well. It was only with economic development that we more readily embraced gender equality, human rights, and a pursuit of peace and tolerance. While we have something of a fundamentalist core with Christianity as well, Christianity's radicalism is largely nullified by economic development so that it is largely harmless outside the realm of law.

The Muslim world is rife with political and economic issues that make radicalism appealing; let us not act like we in the West have not been prone to radicalism in our own times of desperation. The Nazis and Bolsheviks did not just accidentally stumble into power, but gave desperate people what they wanted to hear.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/new-kentucky-gov-lowers-minimum-wage-by-3-revokes-voting-rights-for-140000/

Whelp. The Tea Party continues to screw over hundreds of thousands of people.

Matt Bevin, freshly in office, has reversed the previous Governor's decision to restore voting rights to non-violent ex-cons. He has also slashed the minimum wage from $10.10 back to the federal $7.25.

Of course, Mr. Bevin possibly took power Mexican-style (there's serious suspicions of fraud) so there's that as well. Not that Republicans are averse to stealing elections, of course.

Oh yes. Oh yes I went there. This is a Party that has its implicit goal to manipulate electoral results in their favor. Whether it's mass incarceration purging millions of mostly-black people from the voter rolls, their bullcrap "anti-fraud" provisions, or lack of financial support for widespread suffrage, it's pretty clear there are a lot of policies that are in place to suppress wider turnouts that would most likely swing Democrat.

"But all these policies have a good reason!" So did the poll tax and literacy test. I find it funny we recognize the racism and bigotry motivating those laws, but won't consider that maybe a lot of GOP voting policies are serving a similar end. All this in spite of the fact the GOP only has political relevance because Nixon decided segregationist sentiment was the best way to score political points, masking it as "states' rights" and "limited government."

Again though. Your average white Republican denies being racist, but when you raise the specter of race, they very quickly reveal their true colors.  Racism is bigger than saying the word "nigger." Racism is well-documented when you go beyond the more explicit forms of it, especially when you shift the microscope southeast.

Calling themselves Republicans is a good choice. They despise democracy.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Noelgilvie

[Tani Coyote]

And our newest scandal award goes to (yet again)...

...the GOP!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-nsa-recorded-members-of-congress-with-israeli-leaders/

Knowing that he's a possible threat to peace in the Middle East due to unilateralism, the NSA has maintained its wiretaps on Israel's PM Netanyahu. As a consequence, it caught quite a few conversations that the Prime Minister had with members of Congress.

Netanyahu in particular was found asking rather risque questions like "How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”, which naturally raises the specter of bribery. There are laws against foreign donations to campaigns, of course, but the idea of another head of state actively meddling in American politics is concerning.

The GOP are of course throwing a huge fit over this, citing excessive surveillance, which is deliciously ironic because they're the ones who were cheering on a massive expansion of surveillance with the last President. You have nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide, right?

[Milo]

I was going through Cracked earlier today and this (blog) article by Mark Hill caught my interest (I know, Cracked is primarily a comedy website, but bear with me-they have a fair amount of surprisingly informative articles). "Four Things Everybody Overlooks When Talking About [Donald] Trump" (or if going by the URL title, "Trump 2000 vs. Trump 2016: Side By Side Comparison"). It compares the events and circumstances concerning his current 2015/2016 run for president for the GOP with his 1999 run for presidential for the Reform Party. I think it's a rather interesting read.

[Patticus]

And our newest scandal award goes to (yet again)...

...the GOP!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-nsa-recorded-members-of-congress-with-israeli-leaders/

Knowing that he's a possible threat to peace in the Middle East due to unilateralism, the NSA has maintained its wiretaps on Israel's PM Netanyahu. As a consequence, it caught quite a few conversations that the Prime Minister had with members of Congress.

Netanyahu in particular was found asking rather risque questions like "How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”, which naturally raises the specter of bribery. There are laws against foreign donations to campaigns, of course, but the idea of another head of state actively meddling in American politics is concerning.

The GOP are of course throwing a huge fit over this, citing excessive surveillance, which is deliciously ironic because they're the ones who were cheering on a massive expansion of surveillance with the last President. You have nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide, right?

I've been reading various liberal-leaning posts on Facebook saying that this  - undermining the president's foreign policy platform at the behest of a foreign government, with lots of bribery - pretty much amounts to treason. Does it? It has to break some kind of law if not. Aren't there anti-corruption laws that could be brought to bear to deal with these people?


So this is a thing...

It's almost like some sinister newsreel footage you might see at the start of a Call of Duty or Prototype game, detailing how the world is falling apart.

For someone campaigning to "make America great again," he sure is focusing on the foreign and the negative. I do love the way he says "What's going on?" like it's some big fucking mystery or something, though.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Patticus

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

I've been reading various liberal-leaning posts on Facebook saying that this  - undermining the president's foreign policy platform at the behest of a foreign government, with lots of bribery - pretty much amounts to treason. Does it? It has to break some kind of law if not. Aren't there anti-corruption laws that could be brought to bear to deal with these people?

That's a case of liberal blowhards, to put it bluntly. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," so says the Constitution.

It's certainly worrying, but legally it is not treason, as we are not at war with Israel. I'll chalk this up as the left-wing equivalent to when conservatives call abortion murder/genocide.

I'm not sure if there's any law against the behavior specifically, as Israel is not allowed to donate to the politicians. However, it could most likely get in touch with the Jewish lobby and the wider Jewish-American community to get around that.

Laws being the reactive things they are, though, I wouldn't be surprised if this could eventually prompt some sort of new restrictions on foreign heads of state. It's one thing when a foreign leader addresses Congress as a whole (e.g. like the Pope), but it's a whole other ballgame when they lobby individual politicians.

Maybe the PR disaster that was the Pope's visit (siding with the Democrats on nearly every issue and probably prompting Boehner's throwing in of the towel) prompted a change in approach to foreign dignitaries.

Quote

So this is a thing...

It's almost like some sinister newsreel footage you might see at the start of a Call of Duty or Prototype game, detailing how the world is falling apart.

For someone campaigning to "make America great again," he sure is focusing on the foreign and the negative. I do love the way he says "What's going on?" like it's some big fucking mystery or something, though.

How the fuck is that a legitimate ad. Taking oil. Making Mexico pay for a wall. Banning Muslim entry. And this guy has soaring numbers. Good Lord.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

18 hours ago, Patticus said:

I've been reading various liberal-leaning posts on Facebook saying that this  - undermining the president's foreign policy platform at the behest of a foreign government, with lots of bribery - pretty much amounts to treason. Does it? It has to break some kind of law if not. Aren't there anti-corruption laws that could be brought to bear to deal with these people?


So this is a thing...

It's almost like some sinister newsreel footage you might see at the start of a Call of Duty or Prototype game, detailing how the world is falling apart.

For someone campaigning to "make America great again," he sure is focusing on the foreign and the negative. I do love the way he says "What's going on?" like it's some big fucking mystery or something, though.

 

17 hours ago, Ogilviel Dreemurr said:

How the fuck is that a legitimate ad. Taking oil. Making Mexico pay for a wall. Banning Muslim entry. And this guy has soaring numbers. Good Lord.

"Hitler was right about the need to exterminate the lesser races, but he picked the wrong target. We should be killing Muslims instead of our fellow whites! HEIL TRUMP! Oh but we're totally not racist and fighting for the freedom of America." - Imaginary but sadly plausible if not in those specific words ad later on.

 

Yes I'm overly cynical, sue me.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.bipartisanreport.com/2016/01/05/feds-to-cut-off-militants-power-and-phone-lines-its-flat-ass-cold-up-there/

The militants in Oregon's power is to be cut, as will the phone lines.

This is why Locke says that while small grievances might morally legitimize armed rebellion by the aggrieved, rebellion is still unlikely.

Because you'd have to be insane to try unless it's a really broad, serious grievance.

[Patticus]

On 1/2/2016 at 0:45 PM, Ogilviel Dreemurr said:

That's a case of liberal blowhards, to put it bluntly. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," so says the Constitution.

It's certainly worrying, but legally it is not treason, as we are not at war with Israel. I'll chalk this up as the left-wing equivalent to when conservatives call abortion murder/genocide.

I'm not sure if there's any law against the behavior specifically, as Israel is not allowed to donate to the politicians. However, it could most likely get in touch with the Jewish lobby and the wider Jewish-American community to get around that.

I have been informed of something known as the Logan Act, which dates back to 11 months prior to George Washington's death. Yes, that far back:

Quote

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S.

Treason it may not be, but illegal it most certainly is.

[Tani Coyote]

That enters fairly muddy territory, however. While foreign policy is more the prerogative of the Presidency and Senate, Congressmen by merit of being part of the government have a sort of status that will give them broader latitude than the common citizen.

Any House regardless of political leaning will probably support inclusion of the House in foreign negotiations, given they can just refuse to fund any agreement otherwise.

[Tani Coyote]

http://mic.com/articles/131809/a-tearful-obama-announces-new-executive-action-on-gun-control#.sr0mMZnjA

Recap:

1. The ATF (which has legal jurisdiction to regulate who gets to sell guns) now requires any gun sale have background checks. Doesn't matter if it's between two individuals, a trade show, or over the internet.

2. $500 million in funding to mental health programs.

3. Simplified bureaucratic procedures to make background checks more effective.

4. 200 new staff will be hired to oversee the changes.

I'm just looking forward to the usual "RAWR ALL THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS!!" bullshit that comes with this, as usual.

You know, I'm surprised the GOP is so hyperpatriotic, when it clearly desires that we based on the British model of government. In their minds, the President shouldn't be independent in his actions. He should execute the will of the legislature, a la in Parliamentary countries.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, SpikySprinter said:

However, the fact is that the POTUS seeks to disarm the populace,

Okay, as much as I actually like being armed, this "disarming the populace" is absolute hysteria, and it needs to stop. All it is is just stronger background checks and liscenses to make sure we don't have nutjobs gaining easier access to firearms, so that they don't go misusing them and shoot up a school, theatre, a street, or a fucking church like the last few hundred times they did last year. He's not taking away people's rights to legally own a gun, so stop with this nonsense dude - we can still have guns, but it's not having them hypothetically taken away that's the issue.

And considering how often they've been misused, if it would greatly limit these shootings as much as it does in Australia or the UK, maybe the populace shouldn't be armed if they're too immature to handle the responsibilities of a weapon the same way we're to be responsible with how we handle our goddamned cars. We don't expect the government to take away all our cars just because they're licensed, now do we? Guns aren't going to be any different.

[Patticus]

Many of Sanders' constituents are hunters - which is why he was against the Brady Bill, apparently. Anyway, the very idea that he wants to disarm the populace is as utterly wrong as it is for Clinton and Obama. America couldn't be disarmed without a very large majority of its people desiring that that happen, anyway. A long-term cultural shift needs to happen, so I doubt that any of us will live to see a disarmed America.

The goal isn't disarmament, though. The goal is to stop the epidemic of suicides, accidental killings, murders and mass shootings carried out with firearms, and doing so within the constraints laid down by the nation's gun culture.

[Tani Coyote]

I just question why the Hell a disarmed populace is a bad thing.

Yes, there is the issue of criminals, and I can see why there is comfort in having a firearm due to police response times. But I ask us to consider: how many of these criminals are genuinely evil people, and how many were pushed into crime by external factors?

Our welfare net is garbage. Our prisons are overloaded with non-violent criminals. There's so many holes in medical benefits that not everyone can get the mental care they need. Mix this in with classism, racism, and sexism in our society, and you have a whole slew of mental and financial issues that are going to drive a lot of people into some form of violent behavior.

Of course there's also the "resist the government" bit but honestly the states (especially in the South, which I will note supplies a disproportionate number of federal troops) are so stubborn that there's already a good recourse in case of genuine federal tyranny. The states provide a backbone for any insurgency if there was ever a need for one. The federal government has taken on a lot of powers, but it's been fairly content to leave armed force in the hands of states, while maintaining that it can federalize state forces for its own purposes if the need arises.

[Patticus]

A disarmed populace is not a bad thing, as Britain, Australia and elsewhere aptly demonstrate. However, disarmament, particularly in a nation as flush with firearms and lobbyist cash as America, will require the consent of the people. Given that many Americans harbor a very strong mistrust of secular authority (which most often manifests in the form of the federal government) and the entrenched mythologizing of the Second Amendment... well, it's going to take a concerted effort to turn things around.

In his recent Town Hall event where he spoke openly about guns, president Obama seemed to suggest or infer at one point that the people should begin an organized movement to combat the NRA (a sort of Anti-NRA), which up to now has not had any effective counters on the national stage. He might be right; the only way to convince the people that disarmament isn't a bad thing might well be to form a strong, smart opposition group..

[Tani Coyote]

I'm on the record for believing in mandatory firearm ownership barring personal objection, mental illness, or violent criminal record, but even I can admit this is more a practical thing than an idealistic one. I say that even as someone who likes the security of being a gun owner.

Of course, I'm also the complete opposite of your average NRA enthusiast, who seems to have disturbing fantasies of shooting people who enter their home with zero mercy. They preach Castle Doctrine like it's the moral law of the universe, but I personally think it's psychotic and sociopathic. How do you know the criminal's motivation? They very well might be someone who's just trying to feed themselves or their family. Every night, I pray I will never have to use my firearm in self-defense, both for my own sake and for whoever I'd use it against.

In fact, that's another reason I'm so in favor of an unconditional safety net. Not only for the economic and ethical reasons, but the simple fact that if we've removed economic need, chances are high that whoever's committing a break-in is not altruistic in their intentions. It does a lot to remove the guilt that I feel any decent human being would feel after taking another life.

Some would ask why someone who just wants to feed themselves would have a firearm instead of doing a non-violent intrusion (e.g. stealing from unlocked cars) or going to charity. For the latter, charities just don't cut it; this is why welfare agencies exist in the first place (and thank the GOP for slicing welfare to pieces because the idea of black people collecting it made them uncomfortable).

As for the former, it could be a variety of things. Perhaps it's the fact widespread firearm ownership has upped the ante and so they've armed themselves in turn. Or maybe it's the fact that the way crime is treated in our society inclines criminals to become more violent, rather than less violent. Quite frankly, a gun owner asking why an altruistic criminal would be willing to use lethal force in a break-in strikes me as being like those people who question why Iran might want a nuclear weapon when the United States has proven it's more than willing to invade countries in the region. The gun owners, not the criminals, are at fault for this dangerous situation, for they set the terms of the game: arming themselves to the teeth while providing good people in hard times no recourse but to steal.

Then you have the fact that receiving handouts is seen as a shameful behavior. Robbery, while illegal, technically falls under the idea of working for your money, due to the effort and stress involved. Again, another beast fed by the right-wing.

"Run, fight, hide" is slammed by conservatives as "cowardly" because it doesn't meet up to their exaggerated, Old West ideas of heroism and justice. I say it's realistic, and by far the most moral choice. It not only is realistic - chances are high your cute handgun won't stop a mass shooter - but shows a value for human life over property and glory.

I once had a conversation with someone on this subject. I said I supported an unconditional welfare net so nobody would have moral cause to steal to provide for their survival. They responded by saying they would shoot someone who tried to steal from them with this motivation.

And nothing captures the sociopathy of the right-wing gun lobby more than that, if I do say so myself. You steal to feed yourself or your family? You deserve summary execution. What the actual fuck.

Above all, though, consider this. Even mass murderers like Al-Qaeda feel the need to find moral justification for their evil. If that doesn't speak to an innate aversion in most humans to evil for the sake of evil, I don't know what does.

My point being... even bad people aren't completely evil (our obligatory Godwin: Hitler spared at least two Jews due to personal closeness, while several other Nazis did the same; it's a tragedy that Nazis couldn't recognize that if there were a few "good Jews," there quite possibly were more. It's rather like how a lot of white people have black friends who are hardworking, intelligent people, but continue to paint them as exceptions to the rule). When you start granting broad license to kill your fellow man, you're not doing the world a favor. You're becoming the monster we need to fight against.

[ju87]

 

On 9-1-2016 at 3:21 AM, Patticus said:

A disarmed populace is not a bad thing, as Britain, Australia and elsewhere aptly demonstrate.

It is a bad thing because the criminals will always get guns and they will rob/kill you in your farm or house and you can't defend yourself without a weapon

There is no way to prevent the criminals from getting weapons, for example in the UK they get their weapons trough the former yugo republics

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

32 minutes ago, ju87 said:

 

It is a bad thing because the criminals will always get guns and they will rob/kill you in your farm or house and you can't defend yourself without a weapon

There is no way to prevent the criminals from getting weapons, for example in the UK they get their weapons trough the former yugo republics

And how often do criminals kill people with in the UK with it's stricter gun laws, compared to the US with it's more lax gun laws?

Serious question.

[Candescence]

Problem is, ju87, the evidence doesn't stack up to support your claim, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing a lower number of homicides over time. The Australian experience with the Howard gun buyback laws is that the overall homicide rate dropped even faster and that we haven't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur. And that hasn't changed despite some idiot conservatives and libertarians trying to water down gun control.

"Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" is a myth. Dealing with criminals with guns is a job for the police, not civilians.

[Blacklightning]

Obviously this might be a little outside of my experience, but it's also my understanding that buying guns on the black market, rifles especially, tends to be almost prohibitively expensive, easily over three times the equivalent cost of buying one in a place where it's both as easy and legal as it is in the US. It's important to consider what kinds of motives there are for people to turn career criminal, much less need guns to give them the extra edge in it - so if you were to consider say, crime that is motivated by desperation and a need for quick money, that already rules out most of it because anyone who already has tens of thousands of dollars to spend willy-nilly is probably in no dire need to grab a gun to make more. Same for most people with mental illnesses (which a background check by rights should catch in time, even forgoing simply providing better care for the mentally ill to lessen the chances of someone getting that crazy in the first place) and people who just snap one day and decide they're so sick of everything that they'd rather be remembered as a mass shooter than a miserable bastard (because jumping through hoops to own a gun turns that ownership into a commitment - you can't just buy a gun from a Walmart and start shooting people you have a beef with within the next few days).

That's not to say people don't die to knives or bashings instead - just that they'd be harder pressed to kill dozens of people in a single sitting, and I feel like it should go without saying that people are still better off in a Coward Punching epidemic than a gun massacre culture.

[Tani Coyote]

Yes, there is the principle of bad guys getting guns anyway. But then you have to consider that unless you're a marksman straight out of a Western film, you're still in a lot of danger even if you can defend yourself. If you miss, you're quite possibly a dead man. The presence of firearms is more a deterrent than an actual cure-all for gun violence, and it doesn't always work because the solution to your having a gun is for a criminal to have an even bigger one.

"Run, Hide, Fight" isn't cowardice. It's survival. The police arrive with several armed men who can most likely take down a single gunman. You're just one person, and your pistol is very likely outclassed. Again, remember the case of the Las Vegas vigilante who put a mass shooter at gunpoint... then was shot in the head from behind because he didn't realize there were two of them. If he had run away, he would still be alive. Plus, the shooters weren't even interested in killing random people; they were targeting the police. They had simply ordered everyone out of the Wal-Mart at gunpoint. But he decided to try and be a hero anyway, and now he's dead for it. This minuteman ideal needs to be laid to rest.

Self-defense is supposed to be a last resort, not the immediate go-to. Compare how we view the police use of lethal force: MOST people feel that lethal force should be their last option (though I have seen people here legitimately argue a police officer is under no obligation to reserve lethal force for last, which makes me concerned). And while American cops struggle with this idea, a lot of other countries' police are quite good at negotiating most criminals to surrender.

Which raises the next point, that the law and order conservatives ignore. Most criminals are not evil. They don't eat babies, or shoot pregnant mothers in the stomach for bonus points. Most of them have been damaged in some way by our system.

One man steals from a store because he needs to feed his family and welfare is a joke. Another man beats and kills his partner because time he spent in prison made him favor brute force over negotiation as a way to solve problems. Another man's mental illness compels him to end it all for himself, but not before he takes as many people with him, because he couldn't afford the healthcare to help him get by. Though we see evil acts in all these scenarios, we shouldn't be so quick as to see them as entirely responsible for their actions. There are pressures we face every day, and very often we will crack under them.

Solution: remove the pressures. Make welfare unconditional and realistic instead of this stupid, illogical "everyone must work!" ideal. Cease incarcerating people for non-violent crimes, or recognize that violent crimes may not even be malicious in their origin and thus worthy of probation over imprisonment. Make humanity, not money, the focus of our healthcare system, and declare coverage a right and not a privilege.

Countries with less income and wealth inequality have much lower rates of violence, mental illness, sadness, mortality, etc. I'm not saying whether or not we should keep our firearms (though I don't believe getting rid of them will be practical any time soon), but I think we're seeing a very clear case that American-style capitalism needs a stake right through the heart, because it only provides for the few and not the many.

Plus, conservatives and libertarians can give whatever reason they want for America's state of affairs, but remember: our socioeconomic system is primarily the result of a bunch of racist Southerners not wanting black people to have the same quality of life as them.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

19 hours ago, Ogilviel Dreemurr said:

 

Spoiler

Yes, there is the principle of bad guys getting guns anyway. But then you have to consider that unless you're a marksman straight out of a Western film, you're still in a lot of danger even if you can defend yourself. If you miss, you're quite possibly a dead man. The presence of firearms is more a deterrent than an actual cure-all for gun violence, and it doesn't always work because the solution to your having a gun is for a criminal to have an even bigger one.

"Run, Hide, Fight" isn't cowardice. It's survival. The police arrive with several armed men who can most likely take down a single gunman. You're just one person, and your pistol is very likely outclassed. Again, remember the case of the Las Vegas vigilante who put a mass shooter at gunpoint... then was shot in the head from behind because he didn't realize there were two of them. If he had run away, he would still be alive. Plus, the shooters weren't even interested in killing random people; they were targeting the police. They had simply ordered everyone out of the Wal-Mart at gunpoint. But he decided to try and be a hero anyway, and now he's dead for it. This minuteman ideal needs to be laid to rest.

Self-defense is supposed to be a last resort, not the immediate go-to. Compare how we view the police use of lethal force: MOST people feel that lethal force should be their last option (though I have seen people here legitimately argue a police officer is under no obligation to reserve lethal force for last, which makes me concerned). And while American cops struggle with this idea, a lot of other countries' police are quite good at negotiating most criminals to surrender.

Which raises the next point, that the law and order conservatives ignore. Most criminals are not evil. They don't eat babies, or shoot pregnant mothers in the stomach for bonus points. Most of them have been damaged in some way by our system.

One man steals from a store because he needs to feed his family and welfare is a joke. Another man beats and kills his partner because time he spent in prison made him favor brute force over negotiation as a way to solve problems. Another man's mental illness compels him to end it all for himself, but not before he takes as many people with him, because he couldn't afford the healthcare to help him get by. Though we see evil acts in all these scenarios, we shouldn't be so quick as to see them as entirely responsible for their actions. There are pressures we face every day, and very often we will crack under them.

Solution: remove the pressures. Make welfare unconditional and realistic instead of this stupid, illogical "everyone must work!" ideal. Cease incarcerating people for non-violent crimes, or recognize that violent crimes may not even be malicious in their origin and thus worthy of probation over imprisonment. Make humanity, not money, the focus of our healthcare system, and declare coverage a right and not a privilege.

Countries with less income and wealth inequality have much lower rates of violence, mental illness, sadness, mortality, etc. I'm not saying whether or not we should keep our firearms (though I don't believe getting rid of them will be practical any time soon), but I think we're seeing a very clear case that American-style capitalism needs a stake right through the heart, because it only provides for the few and not the many.

Plus, conservatives and libertarians can give whatever reason they want for America's state of affairs, but remember: our socioeconomic system is primarily the result of a bunch of racist Southerners not wanting black people to have the same quality of life as them.

 

BUT THAT'S COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST/WHATEVER WE DON'T LIKEIST, AND WE AMERICANS CAN'T HAVE THAT IN OUR STAR SPANGLED COUNTRY! CORPORATE OWNED OLIGARCHICAL POLICE STATES ARE PERFECTLY FINE HOWEVER!

Being serious however, I can't help but feel that unless America undergoes some kind of dramatic event where our worst traits are on display to the extent that they are massively condemned/cause such a massive backlash that it breaks America's reputation completely, we're just going to keep on sinking further into denial of our problems as a nation.

[Briraka]

8 hours ago, SenEDtor Missile said:

Being serious however, I can't help but feel that unless America undergoes some kind of dramatic event where our worst traits are on display to the extent that they are massively condemned/cause such a massive backlash that it breaks America's reputation completely, we're just going to keep on sinking further into denial of our problems as a nation.

If you put it that way, maybe electing Trump as president wouldn't be such a bad thing in the long run.

[Tani Coyote]

Maybe Armstrong was right when he suggested the only way to fix the United States was to just tear the system up from the root.

I'd say Trump utterly destroying any confidence in this nation's sanity might be a good start.