Total posts: 278
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc..
Looks like you are an aspiring single issue voter
What should the voting age be?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's a French concept. I'm not sure when it came into fashion in the United States to obscure political coalitions this way.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm impressed that you've looked into the history of the Constitution. Maybe I will get around to this, but the formatting where we take each sentence and apply an additional context isn't exactly intuitive to me. Sovereignty is not a vague term, and it shouldn't be taken to implicate a particular policy either. Sometimes I'll poke fun and say "left" is just vaguery contrived by people who suck at war.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Their "National Sovereignty" such as what? Is it people getting free health care? Making it to where emergency medical care isn't one of the top bankrupts? Make it to where they can't just rob victims of their earnings for something that usually isn't their fault? Perhaps you mean gun regulation, which isn't socialist in the first place, or free college? None of it is, and this sort of concern is unwarranted. Literally, this was something somebody said and nobody bothered to fact-check and now everyone i spewing it.
National sovereignty distinguishes "the people" of a country from the current state of the union. A country or state is comprised of both a defined state, and the people.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well, that difference is in what framework we're viewing the political spectrum. The Overton Window in America is shifted dramatically to the right, where those in Europe are just standardly to the left or barely leaning to that side of the spectrum, are considered radically left or Marxists or Communists in America. Essentially, I'm not really viewing it through the Overton Window of America, at least not your typical one.
State sanctioned religion, Monarchy, fascism, and socialism seem to be altogether incompatible with the way Americans tend to approach politics. A great deal of people who came to the United States evidently considered such notions intolerable, and the American people are not often predisposed to view their government as a leviathan like the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Citizens of the United States would rather eat grass than live in the knowledge that they've exchanged their national sovereignty to the heads of state in exchange for security, a prerequisite to the philosophy of "social democracy". Our government must have reasonable justification for its current state, whereas an Englishman must have reasonable justification for their current freedom. Americans aren't on a common spectrum with predominant thinkers of Germany and even though they share common law they have quite a different relationship with the State than the subjects of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps that is why Americans consider "socialism" objectionable, not purely as a matter of effective policy, but the means of progress that Europeans may be conditioned to.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
By putting this in the political section you're implicating the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, literally arguing against God would be vain. That's why the best argument you can make is whether it's appropriate to treat the title of God like an idol of creation through a finite term of existence.
I don't know how anyone could come up with anything else to comply to the rules here.
Created:
Posted in:
Put forth your favorite arguments against the existence of a God.
If existence as we know it is contingent upon God, than it may be appropriate to say that God is, but not that God merely exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I use knowledge to convey a perception of reality that one has the utmost faith in.
That is what it means to know, to be faithful to the perception of truth, or have complete faith in God.
Facts are verifiable knowledge, a useful distinction in the transfer of knowledge. Facts may be accepted by a jury as indisputable evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There are three basic church lineages that claim apostolic succession
The eastern Orthodox tradition
The Roman Catholic tradition, which traces to the original church
The western Protestant tradition, which traces from the Roman Catholic church
I know of only two protestant traditions that make the claim, Lutheran and Episcopal
Created:
Calvin CoolidgeThat's cheating.
Well some days you get tired of whippin' everybody.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Calvin Coolidge
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
George Washington
Created:
Posted in:
The little girl was obviously asking for it.
I would sooner come to his defense than imply such an accusation toward the man whom the deck is stacked against. I simply haven't watched the footage and have no reason to.
Created:
-->
@Reece
Maybe? I mean they might need to perceive power dynamic at some point as a perquisite to their worldview. This has nothing to do with demographics.
Racism isn't necessarily offensive. It's necessarily stupid. Every racist I have interviewed has been able to trace back to some kind of fear or an inferiority/superiority complex.
That is irrelevant in practice. They'll click back to reality eventually after talking for awhile and respecting them without disrespecting yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
By the way, I think it's a fantastic article. I read it before I went to sleep last night.
Since #ALM started as a counter-protest to racism, there's naturally going to be different perspectives. Some people probably mean no disrespect, and people like me live in the knowledge that I would be perceived differently than I intended to come across if I wasn't just the one who listens to people who spend half their day on the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
Everyone knows he is inappropriate around women and weird around children.
It's weird that someone is probably getting paid for that headline. I don't see much point in watching this.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've noticed people who manage to hold office in a district that leans opposite of their party tend to be fiscally responsible. They've been in decline for decades, then the democrats were railed against during the Trump administration. There's not too many people like Jon Tester left.
Created:
Posted in:
They talk about it to play the "fiscally responsible" card.
Do these people still exist? Please, do tell. I wanna know about them!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Where is the evidence that cutting taxes without considering expenditure has a positive effect on employment?
To me it's totally unintuitive. I imagine that an increase in productivity has a relationship with money getting in the hands of people who improve the economy. So, tax cuts in line with cutting wasteful programs will seem to have a positive effect relative to the assumptions of the previous administration.
If you accrue debt it is going to have a negative impact on how efficiently the government can spend money, so you better have a competent investment strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
A cop murders someone and I see these people are talkin about the damn social media slogan...and their sense of community is often distorted, a conflation with identity.
Unless you are running for office, your slogans are pretty much worthless. Maybe if you put up enough signs the rioters will spare you. Is that the idea?
You need to physically speak to people in your community for any genuine change to take place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
That guy nobody knows who drives the huge diesel pickup is still waving his Trump flag around this weekend.
Created:
Posted in:
They expect you to explain how your welfare is going to bring talent and industry to a small town most people have never heard of that has been in decline for 20 years.
All the working class cares about is the part where you get to the word "export". That's why if you look at a map down to the county level you will see rural areas, which racists might overlook as "white blue-collar", getting more and more energized long before Donald Trump came along.
They want a lower cost of living and infrastructure that gives the market a chance to correct. Imports are great for incentivizing talent into big cities and devastating to rural areas.
Created:
Posted in:
It's beeeeaaaauuutifuuuullllll
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
If they ever get their revolution we might as well surrender to Canada and start recycling the monster trucks.
Canada was right. We were wrong. It's time to hoist a white flag over Old Glory and ask nicely. Just get it over with.
The world doesn't need a free country, and it'll go on fine without. There's no point in continuing this failed experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
According to the philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, conservatism and progressivism ought to go hand in hand.
Say that Joe Biden is a devout Catholic. He seems like a conventional American to me. He drives an old corvette. He has a shotgun and says you should to.
Would you say that he is a conservative or that he campaigned on one of the most progressive platforms in history?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
So I would be a conservative atheist?
A quick answer to the question: No, that's not particularly indicative of conservatism. Conservatism is not simply a traditional philosophy. It is political.
God isn't realReligion is harmful
Religious outlook - Apolitical
Pro Gambling (let idiots waste their money, not my problem)Abortion is immoralTrans men are womenBLM (blue lives matter)ALM (all lives matter)
Societal outlook - Apolitical
Putting the general statement on abortion aside, this is a list of pretty uncontroversial things.
Free marketSend illegal immigrants backPro Gun rights
Here is a list of inherently political issues. Sending illegal immigrants back is really just rule of law on it's face. It's non-ideological.
Most people who want governments to respect an individual's right to bear arms might be called liberals. If you are tolerant of ideas, understand the concept that rights may be respected rather than instituted by government bodies, and you respect individual property rights, than you have something in common with liberals. Liberalism is a philosophy that promotes the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality. In the US which was founded in the age of enlightenment, conservatism is basically a subset of liberalism, Some people confuse the matter using "liberal" as a colloquial reference to distinguish advocates of "New Deal" economics (modern liberalism) over what might be argued to be an undervaluing of things that conservatives concern themselves with equal weight in consideration of institutional integrity such as: family, education, community relations, charity etc...
I think this is a pretty good explanation for liberalism taken from Wikipedia.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.
Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free trade and free markets. Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights.
Note the philosopher John locke is mentioned. "Enlightenment" thought is so influential in the United States, that the Supreme Court will occasionally reference his work. In the 13 colonies of the United States he was an inspirational figure to those who decided the language in the Declaration of Independence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Maybe the next president will learn not to hire an AG who thinks marijuana is worse than the kkk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
In the US, conservatism is basically a liberal philosophy. Conservatives expect common people to be generally adept at contributing to society. What is conservatism to you?
Can you be conservative if you don't observe both a church and state?
What do you have that is worth conserving?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
It's not really a question of compatibility, so much as whether there is any sort of evolutionary theory at all. There are no biology books in the Bible. Being taught in grade school that evolutionary theory was inspired by fossils and the studies in the time of Charles Darwin, I never would have imagined the authors gave it much thought. However, natural selection seems an intuitive principle that they would have been familiar with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It is not possible to have a reasonable conversation with someone who believes you are incapable of rational thought.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can name every president of the United States who had slaves and say to my knowledge whether it was through inheritance. I'm not sure what the implication is here.
You can still go to Mount Vernon and see how he lived in his latter years if you would like.
Created:
According to pew research 26% of the voting population are reliably Republican, and the Democrats are sitting over 30%.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Unless the efforts are well organized it wouldn't normally make too much of a difference. Assuming people are doing it for both parties, you'd think it would tend to make democratic districts more blue and rebublican districts more red, with a slight edge to the democratic party overall.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I have witnessed voter fraud and it's encouragement from political organizers, so it's hard for me to understand how people can see security measures as a threat to democracy.
I don't have any conspiracy theories for you o.0
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe she wouldn't have been as good a sidekick, but I think Elizabeth Warren makes a better VP candidate than Kamala Harris.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I haven't ever had much use for the terminology in conversation with people.
An assertion that God has deserted you or vice versa might at least be based upon some sort of rationalization.
A lack of belief has no philosophical utility, yet you are still begging the question of how you came to assume you are in the absence of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Kamala reminds us all what the radical left wants for America.
This looks like a classic "equal opportunity" bit to me. She says that we need some change for people to naturally "end up at the same place" but you can watch both characters working hard to get from the bottom to their goal on top of the mountain. Before it was unfair but now they've received the same reward after climbing the same way.
Its the sort of image people would lay out for school busing, vouchers, etc...
I don't understand why everyone is acting like they want to be cutting a mountain down, when really they're just trying to fill in the pit...like Leslie Knope
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages.No you don't you fucking go forage for food like every animal does. You don't wait for a fucking hand out, and you don't have to work for anyone.you don't seem to understand. Working is not a handout. But people need to work or face financial ruin. If no employers are offering good wages, then you have no chance at improving your financial situation. That isn't a fault in workers, that is a fault of companies leaving their wages stagnant for decades while the costs of living for their employees rise year after year.
If your wages don't rise then wouldn't it follow that someone else has to be comfortable paying more for the prices to go up? 1% of the population in the top income bracket isn't causing the price of bread to go up substantially. Your trade probably has an excess of labor relative to demand.
Created:
Posted in:
There's another one with Joe Biden talking that outlines a bunch of cash payout schemes before ending with "the rich pay more and YOU benefit"
I guess the creeps he hired think I'm a cut throat, and they must have saved the healthcare ads for the bleeding hearts.
Created:
I would rather vote for a guy like George Washington who didn't want to be president than someone who has always wanted to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Ten years or so after the Articles of Confederation were ratified, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution under president George Washington if I recall correctly. He had to lead a militia himself to subdue a riot induced by the introduction of a whiskey tax. The federal government did not meddle in affairs of the individual back then, and for the first 90 years the bill of rights was only applied against Congress. There was no income tax, no IRS, no entitlements, no bureau of Indian affairs, no environmental protections, no secret service. Politicians dueled against one another. They didn't filibuster like they do now. The notion that Congress would mainly concern itself with arms in the context of a militia shouldn't really come as a surprise, since that was one of the few things they had business in.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
In the context of firearms "bearing" means to burden yourself with a loaded weapon and accoutrements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Bearing arms is open carry. It therefore should be legal in all 50 states. Make America armed again.
It was once customary that a man who who walks up to an establishment hiding a pocket pistol would be viewed with suspicion. In certain settings, a man holding a rifle would be seen as honest and accustomed to carrying himself as a trustworthy individual.
Today, the opposite is the case in many jurisdictions. People who carry concealed handguns are among the most trustworthy, and if you walk up to an establishment holding an uncased rifle you would be viewed with suspicion.
The main thing in terms of the constitutional principle is that people have a legal means of bearing common arms. There is no universal formula.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It was just as easy to buy a rifle or even a handgun in the United Kingdom not all that long ago as it is in the majority of the United States. They just have a different culture, and didn't fight for their rights. "Gun control" as people currently understand it is a political phenomenon of the 20th century.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed"
What do you think of the phrase "security of a free State"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
All of the states did have discretion over slavery
I messed this part up really badly. I mean the original states did, but its historically inaccurate since the fed was passing laws like the Missouri Compromise which mandated that some states entering into the Union be free and allowed others to have slaves.
Anyway, what's your take? You've said a few things, but not really talked about the statues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
My family did not immigrate through the south. I don't really have much interest in the statues people have erected in the southern states, or any real say in the matter. I have never seen the confederate memorabilia being used for educational purposes except on the news.
All of the states did have discretion over slavery until the emancipation proclamation, which was only a wartime initiative that applied to the rebels. That's how it was. Ironically, the Union States had slavery longer as a legal institution than the southern states, and the fire eaters contributed greatly to the abolitionist cause when they decided not to show up at all for their constituents. Republican abolitionists were considered "radical" by many prior to the civil war, which proved correct when they gained control Post-War. They radically changed the constitution of the United States that you take for granted today.
1. The 13th amendment is the reason states do not have discretion over slavery.
2. The 14th amendment is the reason that the supreme court considers states differently than it did prior to the civil war through the Incorporation Doctrine.
3. It is still not established by what means a State may secede from the Union, but if the Civil War settled anything it is that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.
You have a different relationship with the government than the people who fought in the civil war did. Obviously state "rights" are at the heart of secession. In this day, all 50 states may demand extradition from one another, and the federal law applies equally to all of them, more or less. That was not necessarily the reality prior to the civil war. To be honest I've never put much thought into justifications for secession so I haven't read any confederate declarations. Considering myself a citizen of the United States I'm more concerned with avoiding such ambitions.
Once the rebels declared independence, the militia of South Carolina fired on Fort Sumpter, one thing lead to another and Abraham Lincoln proceeded to invade each state. We had the bloodiest war in American history until General Lee surrendered the army of Virginia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But statistics (and the manipulation thereof) is a major weapon atheist activists try to use to suggest atheists are more intelligent, educated, more moral/less likely to be incarcerated, have a better understanding of religion, more peaceful,.......and even know the bible more.
No one has ever spoken this way towards me or around me. Everyone considers the faith to be "good" or at least having an unusual propensity for charity and clear headedness.
Created: