The US Election 2016, Part VII

[HoonDing]

Also Hitler was a socialist.

[quidproquo]

The right probably has more white bigots. However, in a truth-loving society, the classification would not be confined to one group based on tired assertions of inherent racism or group privilege. Those are failing arguments. How do we know? They've failed. There are ebbs and flows, but racism still exists and, contrary to the mental gymnastics of grief mongers, racism is not confined to whites against non-whites. In fact, having lived around a bit, I've witnessed outright and openly stated racism between minority groups just as often as between blacks and whites. Also, idea that whites can be racist against blacks and black cannot be racist against whites isn't merely ridiculous, it's certain to engender resentment. To be sure, systemic racism has, in the west, been white vs non-white. Name a country in which the majority population, assuming that the minority wasn't keeping bloody fisted control, did not have an advantage. Yet, in some cases, the minority has advantages based on the sympathies of the majority. This includes ticketed traffic violations in some states of the US in which illegal aliens are not ticketed for violations because of the situation surrounding their status of residence while citizens are ticketed. If it sounds crazy, it is. Clearly, it is an advantage to be a citizen rather than an illegal alien, but the myth of systemic mistreatment falls apart. It's an advantage in the US to be a white male. It is. It's also an advantage in the US to be taller, better looking, healthier, and born into affluence. There is no leveling the playing field in life and the government shouldn't try to level it for everyone. The government should have laws and enforce them without regard to skin color or other incidental factors. Even that's impossible, but at least it's a goal that human beings can reasonably reach from time to time, even if temporarily. Fact is, I've been released without ticketing where I live based I'm sure on the fact that I'm an affable and friendly person who smiles and speaks politely. Do I have an unfair advantage because of my skin color? Probably. Do I have an advantage over someone who is surly? Undoubtedly. Do I have an advantage over someone who is unkempt and smells? Course. So a couple of times got stopped, followed all laws, and was released with a warning.

 

The point shouldn't be to take away an advantage I have that can only partially be attributed to my skin color. It should be to mitigate the disadvantage of the minority, and that occurs best by examples from within the community and never lastingly by law. If laws changed hearts, racism would not exist in many countries at all.

 

The smartest thing MothTrumpra did in his erratic and unhinged campaign was to go to Black neighborhoods and ask, "what do you have to lose?" The left can sneer and the more stridently and clever forum members here can do the same, but the point remains that if the goal is to remove racism from society (good luck with that no matter what) then the policies on the left have failed, even where the left has had virtually universal and unbridled rule.

 

At any rate, if you want to cleverly or stridently sneer at me, fair nough. Probably lose internet privileges soon here at the asylum anyway.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

the point remains that if the goal is to remove racism from society (good luck with that no matter what) then the policies on the left have failed, even where the left has had virtually universal and unbridled rule.

 

 

I dunno, I'd consider the fact that homophobia has been made déclassé over the course of a few decades a fairly good indicator that systemic prejudices can be driven extinct, given time.

Edited September 21, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Volourn]

"Not a perfect comparison but oh well."

 

It's a pefect one.

 

    

 

'I dunno, I'd consider the fact that homophobia has been made déclassé over the course of a few decades a fairly good indicator that systemic prejudices can be driven extinct, given time."

 

Yeah. Extinct. telkl that to the guy who shot up that gay bar. Extinct my ass.

[quidproquo]

 

the point remains that if the goal is to remove racism from society (good luck with that no matter what) then the policies on the left have failed, even where the left has had virtually universal and unbridled rule.

 

I dunno, I'd consider the fact that homophobia has been made déclassé over the course of a few decades a fairly good indicator that systemic prejudices can be driven extinct, given time.

 

And I would suggest, having already stated it explicitly, that the disadvantages of the minority are best mitigated and hopefully erased by examples from the community. ...But maybe laws made people more accepting of homosexuals. Maybe people are less likely to hate homosexuals in society because of government interference, but I don't believe that.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

'I dunno, I'd consider the fact that homophobia has been made déclassé over the course of a few decades a fairly good indicator that systemic prejudices can be driven extinct, given time."

 

Yeah. Extinct. telkl that to the guy who shot up that gay bar. Extinct my ass.

 

I didn't say homophobia is extinct. Don't lie.

[quidproquo]

How does one make differentism extinct in society? I'm actually ready to give the last word to you in this exchange, but I wanted to pop in just to ask that, and I don't do so rhetorically or facetiously. I don't believe laws change hearts. In a democracy hearts change laws. Where the laws are overreaching, even for a lofty and worthy goal, they can fail to achieve the goal or even work against it. Anyhow, I'm happy to let our arguments stand and will give you the last salvo in this exchange, my metallurgical friend.

[Gromnir]

In that many words... yes. Such a police for does not exist, that is true. But he has on at least five different occasions over the last eight years called for the creation of such. 

 

 

to quote vol, "no."

 

weird right-wing sites has been making such claims for a Long time... most is linked to the following quote:

 

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. "

 

actual full quote:

 

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

 

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

 

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

 

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

 

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

 

...

 

*shrug*

 

after dallas shootings and other similar incidents, obama has indeed called for more oversight o' local cops, but is typical referencing expanding already existing programs to do so.

 

regardless, while we don't support a national police force and we has observed how the Constitution precludes such on more than one occasion (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88911-the-us-election-2016-part-vi/page-5?hl=%2Bmissouri+%2Bgromnir+%2Bpolice&do=findComment&comment=1840673) the benefits o' a national police force is worth o' consideration and attempting to gets more national oversight has been considered by right and left and others for a long time. we can't have a genuine national police force, but local oversight has been lacking.  the recent economic downturn were particular hard on the poor and poor communities.  poor communities got their own police forces, so were predictable that such cities and counties would have shortfalls o' qualified personnel and resources. the American economy as a whole has rebounded, but that ain't the case for poor americans and their local governments. 

 

which again brings us back to what Gromnir keeps suggesting is the genuine problem.  income inequality and the increasing hopelessness o' the have-nots has increased significantly in the past decade and is only getting worse.  we get so distracted by police violence and imaginary appeals for national police when the actual problem is getting jobs and a future for those who have none.  just as significant, the white, working low-mid middle class is feeling equal disenfranchised and there is more than a little evidence to support their fears.  political extremism, a rarity in American politics, is predictable on the rise, 'cause a growing portion o' our population is fearful that the Government just don't give a damn 'bout them.  sure, working class whites and low-income minorities see complete different causes for their predicament, but the fear is the same.

 

distractions.  is far too many distractions.  get people jobs and future and hope.  is a huge undertaking.  is a generational undertaking.  even so, many other o' the current complaints o' folks on the left and right will disappear if we address the genuine problem.  but we is so easily distracted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I don't believe laws change hearts. In a democracy hearts change laws. 

 

That's a very elegantly phrased idea, but I think it's more of a two-way street. You can make laws forbidding discriminatory behavior, and maybe people won't hate the protected groups any less, but it will nonetheless result in less discrimination - which may make little difference from a philosophical standpoint, but I'm pretty sure that members of the group that is being discriminated against will appreciate the increase in their overall quality of life. Which is a worthy goal in itself.

Moreover, when you codify the idea of discriminatory behavior as socially unacceptable (such as by making laws against it), that will shape the attitude of future generations in a fairly fundamental manner. It may not change minds in the now, but it will probably have an impact decades down the line.

[Meshugger]

Also Hitler was a socialist.

 

In the eyes of Von Papen, yes.

[Meshugger]

Also, in terms of sexualities through history and civilizations, the term "Lex Scantinia" and "Puer Delicatus" comes to mind; as in how history is not a one-way street when it comes to sexual minorities. There's of course a debate on how these terms became more common nearer the end of such civilizations as in contrast being there in the beginning, but that's for another thread to speculate.

[quidproquo]

Yeah, I've read about the fact that the old greeks were more concerned with who was passive. The penetrator was okay, but the penetrated was shameful. Gross generalization, course. Kind of hard to pinpoint some of these things for cultures that were around for a while and sometimes covered wide areas. Ancient Rome, as I reckon, was probably ancient to itself after a couple hundred years. The Republic, the Empire, the East Roman Empire. Place was around a long time and there were struggles culturally and politically during that whole time. Perhaps more overtly in court and political debate during the Republic than the Empire simply because lawyers matter more when law is disputed civilly rather than dictated by the emperor. We struggle with the same things as ancient peoples, but we struggle with different aspects. For example, the Ancient Greeks, if I kith, would have been appalled at the idea of homosexual marriage, but homosexual relationships were at various times simply expected. They were simply not, as some of the people I know like to pretend, for gay marriage. How the cultures of Greece viewed sexual relations between women changed quite a bit as well during the centuries.

 

I've never had a problem with homosexual marriage. There's no compelling reason to deny it as far as I'm concerned. However, society has the right to dictate what constitutes a civil union and call that civil union a marriage as they please. Frankly, I think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Have people get married in a church and if they so desire, have them create civil contracts with one another to tidy up things like taxes, inheritance, etc. Been married for a while mself.

 

However, to the specific question of the current election, homosexual rights are simply not going to be a major factor. Something that the Democrats may rue.

[Guard Dog]

No, I did quote that speech but I am far more concerned about what they want to do and don't talk about:

 

A task force to look at Federal oversight of policing (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/policingtaskforce ) recommends that very thing: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf . They even had the Rand work up a study on a military force to be used domestically against American citizens :http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf . It hasn't received the news coverage it should have because it is not a thing that will or can imminently happen. But it is enough to keep in mind this is the direction that a political faction that controls half of the political power of this country wants to go. It has received  some news coverage :http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20305-obama-unveils-plan-to-further-nationalize-local-police , and of course some of the left are talking it up like it was a good thing: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-video-sharpton-calls-for-justice-department-takeover-of-policing-20150430-premiumvideo.html. I don't need to explain to anyone that a government that feels it is acting in the "public good" can do terrible harm to innocent people. Especially when it recognizes no restraint on it's ability to act in what it thinks is the "public good". And it is more than a little disturbing to see agencies like the EPA, FDA, IRS etc that do not have "police agencies" under them buying tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/golden-hammer-feds-spending-millions-to-arm-agenci/ . While the argument may certainly be made this is all in the name protecting the people from "terrorists". The problem is that tern has a pretty fluid definition. In 2009 the DHS direction Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration said the real terrorists where people just like me: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

 

How about we have a federal government that does what the federal government is supposed to do and stay the hell out of everyone's business?

[BruceVC]

Yeah, I've read about the fact that the old greeks were more concerned with who was passive. The penetrator was okay, but the penetrated was shameful. Gross generalization, course. Kind of hard to pinpoint some of these things for cultures that were around for a while and sometimes covered wide areas. Ancient Rome, as I reckon, was probably ancient to itself after a couple hundred years. The Republic, the Empire, the East Roman Empire. Place was around a long time and there were struggles culturally and politically during that whole time. Perhaps more overtly in court and political debate during the Republic than the Empire simply because lawyers matter more when law is disputed civilly rather than dictated by the emperor. We struggle with the same things as ancient peoples, but we struggle with different aspects. For example, the Ancient Greeks, if I kith, would have been appalled at the idea of homosexual marriage, but homosexual relationships were at various times simply expected. They were simply not, as some of the people I know like to pretend, for gay marriage. How the cultures of Greece viewed sexual relations between women changed quite a bit as well during the centuries.

 

I've never had a problem with homosexual marriage. There's no compelling reason to deny it as far as I'm concerned. However, society has the right to dictate what constitutes a civil union and call that civil union a marriage as they please. Frankly, I think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Have people get married in a church and if they so desire, have them create civil contracts with one another to tidy up things like taxes, inheritance, etc. Been married for a while mself.

 

However, to the specific question of the current election, homosexual rights are simply not going to be a major factor. Something that the Democrats may rue.

Unfortunately every Western country has had to ensure things like " sexual orientation " or " the rights of the LGBT community " are legislated because we still grapple with real homophobia in many countries and cultures

 

I am very supportive of the rights of the LGBT community and the way the supreme court in the USA legalised gay marriage was long overdue and had to be done because some  of the states in the USA would always have pushed back on this 

 

Gay rights do matter but not to everyone. But for example I would never personally support a politician who was homophobic 

[BruceVC]

 

I don't believe laws change hearts. In a democracy hearts change laws. 

 

That's a very elegantly phrased idea, but I think it's more of a two-way street. You can make laws forbidding discriminatory behavior, and maybe people won't hate the protected groups any less, but it will nonetheless result in less discrimination - which may make little difference from a philosophical standpoint, but I'm pretty sure that members of the group that is being discriminated against will appreciate the increase in their overall quality of life. Which is a worthy goal in itself.

Moreover, when you codify the idea of discriminatory behavior as socially unacceptable (such as by making laws against it), that will shape the attitude of future generations in a fairly fundamental manner. It may not change minds in the now, but it will probably have an impact decades down the line.

 

This is very true, we must legislate certain laws to prevent bigotry or rather it becomes one way to combat it

 

It makes a difference, I see this in SA . I dont care about people who are homophobic...most of the time you cannot change there minds because there view is based on religious interpretation, I just dont want to hear them on radio stations or associate with them

[Gromnir]

No, I did quote that speech but I am far more concerned about what they want to do and don't talk about:

 

 

 

what they "don't talk about" is not same as multiple instances o' obama calling for the creation o' a national police force.  it simple ain't.  again, Gromnir has concerns 'bout a national police force, and such a thing is unconstitutional regardless, but the claim you made is simple untrue. the issues you raise is valid. am even agreeing with some o' what you say. no need to muck up the water with mischaracterization o' obama statements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Well, certainly would be more efficient than FBI, DEA, ATF and INS

[Guard Dog]

 

No, I did quote that speech but I am far more concerned about what they want to do and don't talk about:

 

 

 

what they "don't talk about" is not same as multiple instances o' obama calling for the creation o' a national police force.  it simple ain't.  again, Gromnir has concerns 'bout a national police force, and such a thing is unconstitutional regardless, but the claim you made is simple untrue. the issues you raise is valid. am even agreeing with some o' what you say. no need to muck up the water with mischaracterization o' obama statements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I do sometimes take the liberty of boiling a topic to it's simplest terms. 

[Guard Dog]

Well, certainly would be more efficient than FBI, DEA, ATF and INS

Pay your student loans.... or ELSE motherf----r!

[quidproquo]

That's human nature, guard dog, but as the British Bulldog said, "sometimes imagination makes things out far worse than they are, yet without imagination not much can be done." This same imagination of dark times is what spurs the left and the right alike to attack Trump as the second coming of Hitler, but the system is here. Either the system can prevail or it cannot. Personally, I think it can. Obama could not see the completion of his every scheme and desire. He was often thwarted by judicial intervention, included more than a couple clear majority or unanimous decisions from the Supreme Bench in your land. Congress itself, even under Democratic rule, prevented his initial plan to house Guantanamo enemy combatants in the mainland United States. Even that weak and impotent body, with it's ineffective hearings, meeting, and proclamations did thwart some executive over-reach.

 

There are people who want a national police force and many of them for the very best of reasons. After all, fascism could get the trains to run on time, and that view of efficiency is enough for some. Still, in all our lands there is balance. Not all constitutional, but a balance nonetheless because until the power is explicitly and completely taken from the people, the people can take action. When people talk about one administration or another imposing military rule, they must consider from whom the ranks of the military comes. In a country with as vast a military as the United States, telling patriotic citizen soldiers that they will now find use as oppressors of the citizenry is simply not going to be easy. The right to bear arms won't protect the citizens from the military, but luckily the military are the citizens.

[Guard Dog]

OK just to re-iterate. I did not say a national police force is imminent or inevitable. But I do think I'v given everyone enough evidence that this is a thing the American Left (Barack Obama and his ilk) wants. Now I seriously doubt anyone (talking about citizens rather than political leaders) want this thing because they think it will be a weapon used against them someday. Too many people entertain the notion that their government is a benevolent giant that only wants to help them. It isn't. The government is a monster that you need to have around, but have to watch every minute or it will eat you. Those who don't see the danger in this whole concept have never read a history book. As soon as you give the Federal government the monopoly of Force along with the monopoly of power we are all pretty much f----d. 

 

Of course I won't live to see it. 

[Gromnir]

 

Well, certainly would be more efficient than FBI, DEA, ATF and INS

Pay your student loans.... or ELSE motherf----r!

 

 

lordy.  we do feel sympathy for those who took out massive loans to pay for school.  is there any school that discourages ignorant 20-somethings from mortgaging their futures in the name o' higher education?  "hey kid, go work for ups instead."  how many art history, political science and communication majors at private and public universities 'cross the nation woulda' benefited from such advice?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Well, certainly would be more efficient than FBI, DEA, ATF and INS

Pay your student loans.... or ELSE motherf----r!

 

 

lordy.  we do feel sympathy for those who took out massive loans to pay for school.  is there any school that discourages ignorant 20-somethings from mortgaging their futures in the name o' higher education?  "hey kid, go work for ups instead."  how many art history, political science and communication majors at private and public universities 'cross the nation woulda' benefited from such advice?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

They have a mortgage with no house! I told someone last week who is starting U of Memphis  in the spring he'd be crazy not to take his first two years at Shelby County Community college. It's the exact same curriculum for $40 hr vs $92 hr. I took my first two years at Miami-Dade & Broward Community Colleges before going on to FAU. I'll bet I save $15k that way.

[HoonDing]

[BruceVC]

 

 

No, I did quote that speech but I am far more concerned about what they want to do and don't talk about:

 

 

 

what they "don't talk about" is not same as multiple instances o' obama calling for the creation o' a national police force.  it simple ain't.  again, Gromnir has concerns 'bout a national police force, and such a thing is unconstitutional regardless, but the claim you made is simple untrue. the issues you raise is valid. am even agreeing with some o' what you say. no need to muck up the water with mischaracterization o' obama statements.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I do sometimes take the liberty of boiling a topic to it's simplest terms. 

 

But I have to say you are one of the few members on this forum who will recognize you may be wrong or at least your comments may be misplaced due to emotion. This is a positive character trait