US Politics: Burning Down the Country

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

39 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 I think I would like to see about four things off the top of my head; 1) Get rid of the current voting system so there is more than one party. If this requires moving to more a parliamentary system, then I would be fine with that. 2) Put term limits on Supreme court justices. And maybe get rid of the current political appointment system all together. 3) Get rid of the electoral college. 4). Limit political spending. I'm a pretty big free speech guy, but I think the Supreme Court went off the rails with this, just being oblivious to how money distorts our political discussions with junk.

But, I don't see any of this literally or figuratively burning things down. I see it more as making things work better. Of course selling this stuff to the American public would be difficult, but it probably has a better chance than saying "hey vote for me, I gonna burn shit down. And after that? Well I have no fuckin' idea."

I’m with you on all of these.

[Fragile Bird]

Hey, Trump is going to declare Antifa a terrorist organization.

Bet you feel safer already!

[karaddin]

Moving to a multi party system without changing first past the post would make things worse, so if you really want to head in that direction make sure you change that too.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 I think I would like to see about four things off the top of my head; 1) Get rid of the current voting system so there is more than one party. If this requires moving to more a parliamentary system, then I would be fine with that. 2) Put term limits on Supreme court justices. And maybe get rid of the current political appointment system all together. 3) Get rid of the electoral college. 4). Limit political spending. I'm a pretty big free speech guy, but I think the Supreme Court went off the rails with this, just being oblivious to how money distorts our political discussions with junk.

But, I don't see any of this literally or figuratively burning things down. I see it more as making things work better. Of course selling this stuff to the American public would be difficult, but it probably has a better chance than saying "hey vote for me, I gonna burn shit down. And after that? Well I have no fuckin' idea."

Hmmm... I don't think the US has that much of an institutional problem tbh. I mean sure, things could use a bit of tweaking, but the main problem is essentially ideological.
By that I mean that the dominant ideology promotes competition. Between individuals, between groups, between nations... etc. Competition (by opposition to cooperation) is seen as natural, healthy, desirable...
On some level, Trump is the embodiment of this ideology. His constant references to "winners" and "losers," his pitting various groups against each other, his mocking political opponents... Trump embodies unabashed individualism, the ultimate success of the white alpha male.
That he is successful despite being stupid and coarse is an asset, an inspiration to all those who can identify with such personality traits.

The problem isn't institutional, it's educational. It's not that everything material needs to be "burned down," but most of the underlying principles of the dominant ideology should be.
Starting with the idea that men can be "free." Seven hells, the only men who are "free" are those too dumb to know otherwise.
How is it surprising that people don't want to wear masks or stay home during a pandemic if they are taught that they are "free" ?

[Darth Richard II]

Some Karen is screaming at me on facebook about how ANTIFA is a white supremacist group and I just have to share that because if I don't I think my brain will literally just die.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'm honestly shocked that it took this long into Trump's term for this all to happen. 

All the rhetoric coming from all the Dem mayor's and Governor's offices is still status quo supporting, equivocating bullshit, hoping that this will all settle down.  This keeps happening because of 1) racism 2) there are have been no real reforms to the role of police in this country.  

That's the entire point of blaming "outside agitators"; the hope is that once this burns out the police can say that they trimmed out the losers and that it wasn't their community that resisted them, so everything is back to normal.  Everyone can "save face" in a "return to normalcy".  It's all kicking down the road for the next asshole to deal with.

We need massive policing reforms.  Massive disarmament of the police.  Not sure how any of this really happens.  I like the idea of the defunding movements, in our system municipal departments live and die by $, kick them in the nads, kick them in the bank accounts.  

 

 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

 I think I would like to see about four things off the top of my head; 1) Get rid of the current voting system so there is more than one party. If this requires moving to more a parliamentary system, then I would be fine with that. 2) Put term limits on Supreme court justices. And maybe get rid of the current political appointment system all together. 3) Get rid of the electoral college. 4). Limit political spending. I'm a pretty big free speech guy, but I think the Supreme Court went off the rails with this, just being oblivious to how money distorts our political discussions with junk.

But, I don't see any of this literally or figuratively burning things down. I see it more as making things work better. Of course selling this stuff to the American public would be difficult, but it probably has a better chance than saying "hey vote for me, I gonna burn shit down. And after that? Well I have no fuckin' idea."

My issue with voting for people who might begin this is that they're stuck in the current system and it is so corrupt, how can you possibly change things in a meaningful way? Look at how bad it goes just trying to get a stimulus package passed. Meaningful change would have to come from an acknowledgement that the system is broken, but since people aren't likely to agree, I'm not sure what the next step is. I suppose electing better people in is a start, but we've been supposedly taking this approach for a long time.

I do think your four things are a good start. Tell me, how do you effectively implement a multi party system that doesn't just end up having two come out on top of all the rest?

[dbergkvist]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

We need massive policing reforms.  Massive disarmament of the police.  Not sure how any of this really happens.  I like the idea of the defunding movements, in our system municipal departments live and die by $, kick them in the nads, kick them in the bank accounts. 

Every last one of them have to be fired and banned from working in the business ever again. They have already shown that they have no intention of allowing any kind of oversight and you can't obtain oversight by giving them new directions, as they'll just ignore them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I have many issues with Antifa, but the dude who called neo-Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us" good people too does not have any authority to call anyone a terrorist. 

That's why in part we run a no Jared's club now, and the plural loophole is gone. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

Every last one of them have to be fired and banned from working in the business ever again. They have already shown that they have no intention of allowing any kind of oversight and you can't obtain oversight by giving them new directions, as they'll just ignore them.

I agree with this. I remember my great uncle telling me that they ought to not give police officers guns, but instead a box of tools. Their job becomes to patrol their areas and provide service and help to the people in their community. I always loved this idea, but consider trying something like that with the war minded cops we currently have. It wouldn't work. Like, this is the kind of pep talks and training they get. You can't undo that kind of bullshit.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm honestly shocked that it took this long into Trump's term for this all to happen. 

All the rhetoric coming from all the Dem mayor's and Governor's is still status quo supporting, equivocating bullshit, hoping that this will all settle down.  This keeps happening because of 1) racism 2) there are have been no real reforms to the role of police in this country.  

That's the entire point of blaming "outside agitators"; the hope is that once this burns out the police can say that they trimmed out the losers and that it wasn't their community that resisted them, so everything is back to normal.  Everyone can "save face" in a "return to normalcy".  It's all kicking down the road for the next asshole to deal with.

We need massive policing reforms.  Massive disarmament of the police.  Not sure how any of this really happens.  I like the idea of the defunding movements, in our system municipal departments live and die by $, kick them in the nads, kick them in the bank accounts.  

 

 

 

The statements about "trust us, we'll really fix it this time!" just goes to show how little they really care about fixing the problem.

If shit wasn't getting burned down, no one would really care about it.

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I do think your four things are a good start. Tell me, how do you effectively implement a multi party system that doesn't just end up having two come out on top of all the rest?

My main reason for thinking that more parties might be better, and this just a hypothesis at this point, and probably needs some empirical verification, cough cough @DMC, is that it might tamp down extremism, particularly right wing extremism. I think there is evidence that people often get their opinions from party leaders or party elite than just having their own opinion. In short, some people adopt opinions because of rank tribalism.If there was more than just one party, some people might gravitate to parties that are less extreme.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I imagine that you definitely need to get rid of fptp in order have a multi-party system at all.  And, like Simon suggested, it's kind of tough to vote your way out of this.  Minneapolis is pretty much a Dem controlled municipality, isn't it?

[dbergkvist]

29 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

My issue with voting for people who might begin this is that they're stuck in the current system and it is so corrupt, how can you possibly change things in a meaningful way? Look at how bad it goes just trying to get a stimulus package passed. Meaningful change would have to come from an acknowledgement that the system is broken, but since people aren't likely to agree, I'm not sure what the next step is. I suppose electing better people in is a start, but we've been supposedly taking this approach for a long time

The solution to the problem that people don't agree is simple: split the country. That way, each side would get their own separate country that they can reform in whatever direction they want. I'm not saying that this solution is always applicable every time a country has lots of internal disagreements, but it is applicable to the US. You just need to look at a map about which state voted for what presidential candidate for the last 200 years to see that.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... I don't think the US has that much of an institutional problem tbh. I mean sure, things could use a bit of tweaking, but the main problem is essentially ideological.
By that I mean that the dominant ideology promotes competition. Between individuals, between groups, between nations... etc. Competition (by opposition to cooperation) is seen as natural, healthy, desirable...
On some level, Trump is the embodiment of this ideology. His constant references to "winners" and "losers," his pitting various groups against each other, his mocking political opponents... Trump embodies unabashed individualism, the ultimate success of the white alpha male.
That he is successful despite being stupid and coarse is an asset, an inspiration to all those who can identify with such personality traits.

The problem isn't institutional, it's educational. It's not that everything material needs to be "burned down," but most of the underlying principles of the dominant ideology should be.
Starting with the idea that men can be "free." Seven hells, the only men who are "free" are those too dumb to know otherwise.
How is it surprising that people don't want to wear masks or stay home during a pandemic if they are taught that they are "free" ?

I would submit that you don't change opinion by just giving lectures. You need to get elected. You need to get policy done. And that policy needs to work for people. I think there are probably a number of cases in US history where policies that were once controversial became less controversial and become accepted as a normal part of American life, like Social Security and the ACA and so forth.

I'm of the belief you get people to change, most of time, by series of small nudges rather than by huge shove in the back.

One problem with the US government its hard to get shit done, even if Democrats get a majority and the presidency. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I imagine that you definitely need to get rid of fptp in order have a multi-party system at all.  And, like Simon suggested, it's kind of tough to vote your way out of this.  Minneapolis is pretty much a Dem controlled municipality, isn't it?

The DFL has extremely high support in Minneapolis and St. Paul. And while imperfect, they are not the problem. 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, Trump is going to declare Antifa a terrorist organization.

Bet you feel safer already!

Trump feels that people who are explicitly against fascists are his enemies. Don't really need to connect the dots, do we?

 

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I agree with this. I remember my great uncle telling me that they ought to not give police officers guns, but instead a box of tools. Their job becomes to patrol their areas and provide service and help to the people in their community. I always loved this idea, but consider trying something like that with the war minded cops we currently have. It wouldn't work. Like, this is the kind of pep talks and training they get. You can't undo that kind of bullshit.

It turns out Hunter S. Thompson was incredibly prescient when he ran for Sheriff of Aspen in the 70s. Besides legalizing drugs and kicking out the land developers, he said cops should be unarmed:

Quote

The Sheriff and his Deputies should never be armed in public. Every urban riot, shoot-out and blood-bath (involving guns) in recent memory has been set off by some trigger-happy cop in a fear frenzy.

 

[Fez]

The problem with reform is that you need to stick with it; even when the voters disagree. And I don't know how you do that. Obama did institute some policing reforms via executive order. Not a huge number, but there were some. Trump has reversed every last one of them. And it was entirely within Trump's authority to do that, using the same powers that Obama had used to put them in place in the first place.

Getting reforms done via legislation makes it a bit harder to reverse, but still not impossible. And there's always the risk that SCOTUS will strike down the law anyway. Which brings back the most important point of all, even though people are tired of hearing about it. It's all about the Supreme Court!

There has been a conservative majority on the Supreme Court since 1981, when Potter Stewart retired and was replaced by Sandra Day O'Conner. There's always been a few flashy big cases where liberals win, but for 40 years in hundreds of decisions that no one except lawyers remember conservatives have slowly undermined our institutions and civil society. For instance, you think if the courts hadn't been slowly expanding qualified immunity protections for police officers for the past few decades, that said officers would be so quick to resort to violence?

And that's why 2016 was the greatest political tragedy of my life thus far, and will likely stay near the top for the reminder. It was the chance to finally end that and have a liberal majority that could start undoing the damage. That was the chance for real change, rather than just trying to stem the bleeding like Biden will do (best case).

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The DFL has extremely high support in Minneapolis and St. Paul. And while imperfect, they are not the problem. 

My point is that electing Dems, just voting blue no matter who, keeps worse people out of office but it doesn't do fuck all for lots of stuff.

[Rippounet]

31 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I would submit that you don't change opinion by just giving lectures. You need to get elected. You need to get policy done. And that policy needs to work for people.

Sure. It's not mutually exclusive.

But I might argue that the role of the ideal politician is in fact to lecture, both on the campaign trail and once elected. It's part of the job.
A good president would have explained who were the "fine people" in Charlottesville and why. A good president would have explained why it was responsible to stay home and wear masks during a pandemic.
A good president leads by explaining to their people that the world is a complicated place and that it takes more than simple (simplistic) words and ideas.

But of course, the media should also do their fucking job. It's not just giving accurate information (though Fox News isn't even capable of that), it's not just trying to be unbiased... It's explaining, investigating, showing, educating. Always putting things in perspective, giving the greater picture, seeking the truth but being honest when it is not evident... Again, no simplism...

We're far away from anything ideal atm.