Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

stupid sti[id analogy.

Not sure what it is going to take to get things back on track, but my confidence that we can do it is at an all time low. I certainly want to avoid a war between the factions, but I think the only way to do that is to do what the Soviet Union did...partition.

Sad times. But as Hightor noted above, the people are in a rage against the Dems...and the Republicans have no intentions to fix anything.

Looks all downhill to me.

Hmmmm. No, you didn't.

(1) You fought a war to end slavery.
(2) Or the Civil War was really about states rights.

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Now, states DO have rights. We do not have a tyrannical central government (yet), but if it goes too far in that direction, you will very much not have an America.



It seems to me that you have misread the statistics. This isn't a sign that Democrats are gonna vote Republican, and we wouldn't want you to. There are however a sign that current Democrat leadership is so far off center that regular Democratic voters are getting uneasy.

You are correct, the Republicans won't fix anything. But by definition, they will not "destroy America" either. Republicans are conservative, not reactionary. That is, they want things to stay the same (not change for change's sake), not change them back. Nobody wants to undo feminism, but they do want to put a stop to abortion. And no, abortion doesn't "define" feminism, that would be the right to vote, the right to work, the right to inherit, the right to not be forced into arranged marriages, things like that. Though I personally think we need a reactionary party as we've gone too far in the wrong direction.

Look at it as a car. The left is driving off the road in an area near a cliffside (let's say the cliff is on the left side of the side). The road is like a driver trying to pull the emergency brakes. But they're not in the driver's seat, so they're not able to get it back on the road. They can only try to pull the brakes and occasionally touch the wheel.
The right ready to destroy this country? You haven't been paying attention. The car is on the left heading for a cliff, not anywhere near the right.
https://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/new-york-can-fine-you-250k-for-misgendering-somebody/
(Fines for misgendering people)
https://www.revolver.news/2021/07/south-africa-riots-looting-critical-race-theory/
(The same crap that created violent riots in South Africa)
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/climate-change-nonsense/
(Insane green policies)

What about this makes you see this country as in danger of tilting right?

@MontereyJack Is that a better analogy Mister Cheese?

Yes you can. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are.

Because you're arguing about the "main cause" of the Civil War.

Either the Civil War was about racist slaveowners trying hold on to other human lives. Or it was about the was about the right to secede.

PERIOD.

Now, I'm gonna in turn argue with everyone else that it was indeed about racist slaveowners trying to hold on to human lives, but that the wrong people lost. You see, the federal government is a group of slaveowners, and their Federal Reserve System (which took power just around 1920s, with a federal income tax in 1913 and inheritance tax in 1916)
https://www.aier.org/article/the-real-history-of-the-american-income-tax/
has held us in chains for nearly a century, gradually tightening them, until today we feel them with ridiculous food and gas prices.

Do we have states rights? Oh course we do! They are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, which the founders refused to ratify the Constitution until it had. Why not? Because they were worried that things would be as bad as Britain who invaded their homes, told them what they couldn't say and couldn't write, disarmed them, took away their freedom to worship, etc. This should send off warning bells that I'm talking about this, but you seem to want unfreedom, so let's explain something. A war doesn't give you the right to take away other people's rights, any more than losing to a spoiled child at Parcheesi gives them the right to ride on your back for the next ten years. The issue of slavery was settled because this is the stated reason behind the Civil War. But the North immediately followed it up with the 14th Amendment (ratified under duress), and a number of other unconscionable Amendments (including one to basically pay themselves).

State rights are laid out in the 10th Amendment, and states rights are a good thing. It means that if you don't like how Texas does things with regard to abortion, marriage, or treatment of gays, you can GTFO and go to a state that does. You don't have to care how Missouri votes on the homeless, because Portland Oregon understands how you think. And there are plenty of blue states.

If it doesn't look like it, this is because most of middle America hates you. But most of coastal America is quite liberal, with about 4 or 5 states swinging back and forth.


Here's a good example of a state's rights. Each state has specific laws about drinking. Some allow it even as a minor, but only if served by parents. Some allow it as part of religious customs. Some have dry counties. Some have rules about how restaurants have to have full meals and not just a bar. Others must make a certain percentage from food. Still others have BYOB restaurants.

That you don't like states rights means you're insufferable and think that everyone should think like you and do things your way. That's the mentality of a 9-year-old, not of someone who I assume has been at least college educated. So let's turn the tables. By this logic, if I have all the power, I get to slap you around and force you to pay a "bulmabriefs144 tax" for not being bulmabriefs144. Sounds fair, right? National law that says you gotta do that, so you'll do it, right? No? Then states rights are legitimate, and only people who live in my state of mind have to do that.

Oh yeah, here's alcohol laws by state.



Interesting part is that some have laws against dry counties... yet still have dry counties.

Nope. I'm arguing about the political justification for secession.

So you're in favor of splitting a nation along political beliefs?

Isn't that what communism looks like?

???

You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension. I wasn't arguing for the political justification for secession. I was drawing a distinction between the cause of the U.S. Civil War (and many continuing social problems), i.e. slavery, and the rationale used by the Confederacy to support secession, states' rights.


No.

School's out forever: Arizona moves "to kill public education" with new universal voucher law

Families who bail on public school will get $7,000 per kid in GOP's new scheme: "Every red state" urged to follow

What is the purpose or expediency of even drawing such a distinction? The secessionists themselves tied the god-given right to subjugate blacks in chattel slavery to the states’ rights to do so. They connected the two themselves in the Articles of Confederation.

What is served by drawing a line between the two?
It seems to me to dignify the actions of the traitorous confederates who chose to fight to the death in defense of continuing to prosper on the bloody backs of my ancestors.

Good riddance!

It always stuns me about the hypocrisy of people who support public education, but not one of their kids is in public schools.

The government needs to be forced to compete with the private sector. If their product is no good, people need to be able to shop around. Period.

You see no difference between the institution of slavery as part of the history of western colonization and a political euphemism used by defenders of southern secession (and still used to engineer discriminatory practices today)? I don't see that as "dignifying" anything.


Ask bulmabriefs144, as he's the one who brought it up.

Whatever the reasons for fighting the first Civil War...I just do not want to see a second one.

I suspect some states WILL want to secede during the next two decades; our differences are much too great for a peaceful accommodation to take place.

So...a peaceful split-up is the rational solution. (Even that will not be without lots of rancor and arguing over the terms, but still better than an actual war.)

At very least there will be three entities resulting...a west coast nation; a north east nation; and a south/mid-west nation. There may well be individual states that will vote to secede separately...and become a single nation on their own.

Initially it will seem like a disaster...a failure of the Republic experiment of the founders. Eventually, it will be seen as something of more positive consequences. And further along, humanity may learn to get along enough to coalesce to a single, confederate union that works for peace throughout the world.

Or we may do what most evolving people probably do throughout the universe...destroy ourselves totally.

Can anyone help me understand how it is that campaigns asking for donations set a “deadline” for midnight - every night?

I mean, it just seems like a scam to manufacture urgency- “Give, in the next few hours, or we’re doomed!”

Is that all it is? Or is it maybe some arcane election rules I don’t know about, that makes candidates have a new “deadline” every 24 hours?

I’m old enough to remember when a deadline was something that really was urgent because you just had one chance to meet it, not something that you just reset every day.

I've noticed this as well. Obviously part of it is to convince you to make a donation now rather than later but I think they also figure out projected donations in specific time periods. So if they expect to pull in a certain number of dollars by a certain date they refer to it as a "deadline" – but should you miss that one, don't worry, there's another "deadline" tomorrow. I really hate our method of funding campaigns – along with the primary system – but I doubt it will ever change.

is pretty much my feeling for our country right now and the direction it is going.

There is a pretty easy way to avoid a second Civil War.

When you see that something doesn't fly in Podunk, back the **** off. Whatever crazy leftist ideas you have should not be national ideas, but ideas suited for that major city or town where you live.

State rights are a thing, and having different laws throughout the law is a very very effective means of keeping order.

That said, I do not believe there will be a Civil War. Based on polls, Democrats and Republicans both majority agree that the current government is heading in the wrong direction. Although they can't stand each other, the government itself is a far bigger threat. I think we'll see a state overthrow thingy ("off with their heads"?) long before we will see a Civil War. Civil Wars happen when there is strong division between two cultures. There is some of that, yes, but even more key is the extremely incompetent leadership. That's a far bigger problem.

So...

...you do not see "a strong division between two cultures"...

...and I should accept your ideas of how to deal with the problems we face.

Uh huh!

No, that's not what the poll says. It says that both Democrats and Republicans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Democrats are appalled at the the gun lobby, attempts by red states to suppress voter turnout, racial and gender prejudice, inaction on climate change, inflation, income inequality, christian nationalism, the packed Supreme Court, etc.

Republicans are apoplectic over LGBTQ issues, urban crime, secular humanism, taxes, contraception, abortion, sexuality in general, scientific expertise, BLM, public health measures to combat covid, inflation, Biden, etc.

Our government is hamstrung by partisan gridlock and is actually not going in any direction.