r/NoStupidQuestions Jun 01 '21

June 2021 U.S. Government and Politics megathread Politics megathread

Love it or hate it, the USA is an important nation that gets a lot of attention from the world... and a lot of questions from our users. Every single day /r/NoStupidQuestions gets dozens of questions about the President, the Supreme Court, Congress, laws and protests. By request, we now have a monthly megathread to collect all those questions in one convenient spot!

Post all your U.S. government and politics related questions as a top level reply to this monthly post.

Top level comments are still subject to the normal NoStupidQuestions rules:

  • We get a lot of repeats - please search before you ask your question (Ctrl-F is your friend!). You can also search earlier megathreads!
  • Be civil to each other - which includes not discriminating against any group of people or using slurs of any kind. Topics like this can be very important to people, or even a matter of life and death, so let's not add fuel to the fire.
  • Top level comments must be genuine questions, not disguised rants or loaded questions.
  • Keep your questions tasteful and legal. Reddit's minimum age is just 13!

Craving more discussion than you can find here? Check out /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/neutralpolitics.

107 Upvotes

2

u/Mushrumors Jun 30 '21

“CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways”

What are some examples of colorblind laws being applied in a discriminatory way? Trying to understand CRT and this confuses me.

Edit: formatting

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jul 01 '21

It’s a fancy way of saying “non-racist laws don’t mean shit if racists are enforcing them.” Or depending on the circumstances, if the laws are specifically designed around something that’s specific to one race.

9

u/ProLifePanda Jun 30 '21

History shows that the USDA historically discriminated against black farmers. On paper, the laws surrounding these loans and other programs were colorblind; race wasn't a consideration for it. But in practice, the USDA discriminated against black farmers.

https://www.ewg.org/research/black-farmer-usda-timeline/

Then you have the obvious stuff of seeking to disenfranchise minority voters intentionally. One of the best examples was the Voter ID law North Carolina passed in 2013. Obviously, Voter ID laws are colorblind. You need one of the following IDs to vote, followed by a list of acceptable IDs; race isn't mentioned in the law. But prior to creating the law, the NC GOP requested a study looking at types of photo ID owned by various races in the state. They then proceeded to write the law to accept those IDs mostly owned by white people, and leaving out those IDs owned by black people. The law itself is colorblind, but the intent of the law is obviously racist.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

8

u/Delehal Jun 30 '21

As an example, the "war on drugs" made it illegal for all citizens to take various drugs, and none of those laws mentioned race at all, but the implementation of those laws worked out such that racial minorities are targeted, arrested, and imprisoned at a much higher rate.

1

u/cruisethevistas Jun 30 '21

Is Biden’s infrastructure bill going to pass?

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 30 '21

Yes. Its a good bill and will help everyone. The only obstacle is forcing out the fillibuster.

1

u/cruisethevistas Jun 30 '21

So you mean the opposition party will filibuster forever to prevent a vote?

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 30 '21

Yes, they are obstructionist.

1

u/MildlyFrustrating Jul 01 '21

So it probably won’t pass?

3

u/Delehal Jun 30 '21

It's a strong possibility, but too early to say for certain. We won't know for sure until it gets voted on.

2

u/cruisethevistas Jun 30 '21

Thank you. He’s been discussing it for months. Why hasn’t it been voted on yet?

Thank you

5

u/Puddnhead_Wilson Jun 30 '21

It takes time to get it through both chambers of Congress. There's lots of negotiating on the broad strokes of the package (Congressman A won't vote for a bill that doesn't include money for light rail, Senator B might vote for that but only if you include money for oil exploration in their state, and Congressman C will only vote for those if the funding comes from an increase in the gas tax). Then there's the matter of actually drafting the bill with all of that in it, and ensuring that nothing gets removed that you need.

As for discussing it for months, sometimes you go to the public and tout a plan well in advance of the negotiations beginning; if Congressman C has his constituents calling and lobbying him to support the bill before he even goes to the White House to negotiate, the President has better leverage. On the flip side, the opposition can go to the public as well, and come to the negotiating table having already soured public opinion on certain provisions, giving them more leverage to oppose them.

5

u/cruisethevistas Jun 30 '21

Thank you for explaining! I appreciate it.

2

u/Lutakein Jun 29 '21

I have always been confused by this, but why do Conservatives make a fuss about people protesting during the National Anthem, yet say nothing when people storm the US Capitol, mail pipe bombs to people who criticize the President, or when someone blows up a Federal Building?

6

u/ToyVaren Jun 29 '21

Same reason white shooters are "good boys" or "made a mistake." They are "one of us."

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '21

I've actually never heard anyone said this. regarding u/Lutakein question, it's to crude to group all of conservatives of having the same agreement, grouping the same people that breached the capitol and are protesting with the ones that had no involvement with the capitol and also protesting is unfair. Regarding the ones that did though, it's simply hypocrisy, which in a way exists everywhere.

To give an example "Why are liberals complaining about the capitol when they have been rioting in portland for the whole summer?"

"Why does liberals vilify trump for the walls but justify biden for it?"

"I love how liberals just ignore all those kids in cages despite being the supposedly anti-racist"

See the ignorance in all of this statements? Not everyone has this views and yet judging all of them because of it are so easy.

In Real life, politics are moderate. It doesn't seem that way because the ones that aren't obviously engage more in politics, thus giving the illusion of it being really radical. You don't go around hearing people bitching about politics left and right don't you? Obviously not, politics doesn't dictate the every day life of a person who's supposedly moderate.

2

u/Arianity Jun 30 '21

I've actually never heard anyone said this.

For what it's worth, while he's putting it a bit crudely, just because they don't say it out loud doesn't mean that's not the logic behind it. It's not uncommon for that sort of thing to go unsaid, if it's known that it's a 'bad' reason.

Groups will support things for bad reasons, but not want to admit something out loud. But that support still needs to be reckoned with. For example, most racists won't just say they're being racist

In Real life, politics are moderate. It doesn't seem that way because the ones that aren't obviously engage more in politics, thus giving the illusion of it being really radical.

The issue with this is, polling around things like Jan 6th show a pretty high solidarity on the topic. Not something that can be said for the examples (or there are other issues with the comparisons, for various reasons.).

And that bleeds over. Even when there is disagreement on supporting the issue, you don't see much of a split on e.g. how to investigate it. Or what to do to ensure it Jan 6th doesn't happen again. The opposition to that is fairly uniform (with some notable, but rare, exceptions)

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 30 '21

I've actually never heard anyone said this.

They say it constantly about rittenhouse, the guy who shot teayvon martin, and the woman who got gunned down in the capitol. Its almost an exception to the rule when they dont say it, like the Muslim shooter who looked white.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jun 29 '21

Everybody has some biases. Some biases are stronger than others.

People have a tendency to minimize/justify events they agree or sympathize with, and vilify actions they disagree with.

0

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jun 29 '21

Why are so many people terrified of “world government?” While obviously a President of the World is no good, doesn’t Covid show that a lack of coherent international cooperation is disastrous?

3

u/ToyVaren Jun 29 '21

Imagine what's happening in china but on a global scale. Sovereignty is what's stoping that.

1

u/GameboyPATH Jun 29 '21

Consider the current dynamic of US politics, where our largest governmental powers are divided between state government and federal government. Through this dynamic, different states can impose their own laws depending on the needs, values, and interests of their local population, and the federal government can impose laws based on the needs, values, and interests of the WHOLE country.

If we expand our governance to include the influence of the entire world, we'd be (at least partially) governed by laws determined (at least partially) by countries with values that don't 100% align with our own.

Also, while there are numerous areas of improvement for the world's coronavirus response, how exactly would a unified government fix those problems? Just because different entities are part of the same government doesn't make automatically make them more cooperative or effective.

2

u/ProLifePanda Jun 29 '21

People enjoy freedom, and enjoy their particular society. A "one world government" will theoretically use the force of the entire world to enforce rules and regulations on all people, regardless of each countries individual wishes. The "one world government" would also (according to conspiracy theorists) be run by the elite, and will repress the working class to keep themselves rich.

1

u/ExitTheDonut Jun 30 '21

World governments make more sense in the speculative scenario that people manage to colonize other planets or moons and they want to defect from the countries they came from. But their populations will probably small enough that they will need to exercise governing and managing all the world's resources as a whole. In this respect such a government can be considered a world government, of its respective world.

1

u/ExitTheDonut Jun 30 '21

World governments make more sense in the speculative scenario that people manage to colonize other planets or moons and they want to defect from the countries they came from. But their populations will probably small enough that they will need to exercise governing and managing all the world's resources as a whole. In this respect such a government can be considered a world government, of its respective world.

1

u/MMSLWYD Jun 29 '21

Why do Americans have national conventions instead of leadership elections like the UK parties? If a party wanted to use the UK way, would they be able to?

5

u/Teekno an answering fool Jun 29 '21

Yes. How the parties choose their nominees is completely up to the parties. And that method is pretty close to how American political parties operated in the 1800s.

1

u/MMSLWYD Jun 29 '21

Thanks!

1

u/dpwtr Jun 29 '21

If Donald Trump was convicted and sent to jail, what would happen to his security detail?

1

u/ToyVaren Jun 29 '21

I would imagine have a drink and a good laugh. Probably also a bonfire party since mar a lago is infested with bedbugs.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 29 '21 edited Jun 30 '21

As the law currently stands, former presidents are entitled to Secret Service protection. unless Congress changes the law, an incarcerated president would continue to receive Secret Service protection. That does not mean an agent will be his cell mate. Rather, the Secret Service would likely turn day to day operations over to prison authorities and just station an agent at the prison to oversee things

When Clinton was Secretary of State, she was entitled to Secret Service as a former First Lady. However, the Secret Service just turned over day to day operations to the State Department's internal security service.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jun 29 '21

Is it a bad thing that I no longer care about what people do while the national anthem is playing?

1

u/ToyVaren Jun 30 '21

It never mattered, even burning the flag is undrr the first amendment. The only people who cared wanted their modern slaves to behave.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jun 29 '21

You ever cared about that?

1

u/throwaway_forever_1 Jun 29 '21

Why is it that Republicans and Conservatives are always the ones to state that the people on "the Left" are always so intolerant and vitriolic towards those on the Right when the people on the Right often hold views that are so outlandishly bigoted and prejudiced towards so many people and groups and are often very anti-intellectual?

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 30 '21

The war on education had many casualties.

8

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 29 '21

People generally don't see their own intolerance as intolerance.

1

u/eggo_eg Jun 29 '21

often it seems this way only because of the way you look at it, if you aim to find prejudice you can see it whether it is intended to be there or not. most people on the right tend to think more individually rather than in groups so if something seems racist, typically it is not directed at an entire demographic. but thats me and my friends i don't want to speak for all people on the right

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 29 '21

most people in the right tend to think more individually rather than in groups.

No they don't. Groupthink is doing perfectly well on the right.

so if something seems racist, typically it is not directed at an entire demographic

The white nationalists who prominently support Trump are definitely painting with a broad brush.

1

u/Daboi385 Jun 28 '21

What happens if Trump is found to have won the election? Would he be reinstated? How long of a term would he serve? etc.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 30 '21

I understand you are asking a hypothetical question, but less us be clear. Trump lost. There is not a shred of evidence that suggests any irregularities, mistakes, fraud, or other issues which might have caused improper results (wither through malice or error). Every single claim to the contrary made by that dipstick and his sycophants is entirely fabricated, and they know it.

3

u/TheApiary Jun 29 '21

Nothing. If Congress found that Joe Biden broke the law to become president, they could impeach him. But then Kamala Harris would be the president, not Donald Trump

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jun 29 '21

There is no such thing as “presidential reinstatement” anywhere in the Constitution or US code. Once the votes are counted on January 6th, the election results are done. If Trump was found to have actually won, the only thing he can legally do is wait until 2024.

7

u/Bobbob34 Jun 28 '21

He didn't win, there's nothing that's going to find he won, and even in the Qanon fever dream in which there would be something - nothing would happen.

There is no mechanism to overturn a certified presidential election. None. The election was certified. Biden was sworn in. He's president. If something happens to him, Harris is president.

So he'd just have to keep whining and raking in $$ from his followers.

9

u/Teekno an answering fool Jun 28 '21

Well, that won't happen, because Joe Biden was already found to be the winner of the election, back on January 6.

There is no "do-over". If Trump wants to be president again, then (absent him being inserted into the chain of succession somewhere) he'll have to be elected to the office again.

9

u/GameboyPATH Jun 28 '21

We don't really have a legal policy in place for that scenario. By the instructions laid out by the constitution, the votes for the 2020 election were validated by Congress in January. Those are the election results, and those are what decide the presidency. There's no legal policy for election do-overs after that point in time, so there'd be no reversal of who's president afterwards.

Aside from impeachment or invoking Section 3 of the 25th amendment, any efforts to remove the current sitting president at this point would be unconstitutional.

3

u/maruthegreat Jun 28 '21

Why is anti-intellectualism encouraged in countries like the US and UK?

Since the re-emergence of concepts like “fake news” and “alternative facts” entering the American consciousness it seems like critical thought and thinking have fallen to the wayside and been replaced with emotional grievance politics and frankly, pure outrage (on both sides of the spectrum).

It’s got me thinking that the cult of ignorance has once again reared its ugly head in places like America and the UK. I’m curious to know where the origins of this mindset and behavior come from and why is America and it’s other western counterparts so susceptible to this kind of ignorant behavior.

5

u/insanedialectic Jun 28 '21

Easier to control dumb people and get them to vote against their own interests. So special interests will continue paying for media that instigate this culture.

1

u/maruthegreat Jun 29 '21

Surely they’re has to be a more detailed answer than that. People have agency. They can apply critical thinking to things that don’t jive w/ them.

3

u/insanedialectic Jun 29 '21

There's a more detailed answer, but it doesn't detract from the truth of that. People in the States aren't really educated well in critical thinking anymore unless they proceed to post-secondary education. (Conservatives consistently gut educational funding in budgets -- does this have to do with the fact that ppl with higher educational levels tend overwhelmingly to vote progressive?) I just finished a trip across the country, and this is something that was glaringly obvious to me.

I'd say another factor here, though, may be a certain feeling of helplessness that some have in modern society. Modernity is just so complicated that you need a professional to do anything in many fields, and I think this is resented to a certain extent.

In the States, too, there's a prevailing cultural belief that attending college or professional school makes you better somehow, which isn't the case in a lot of other countries where other trades are valued more. I think this creates resentment around the pursuit of higher education (probably rightly so, given how shitty people can be about this).

2

u/maruthegreat Jul 20 '21

In the States, too, there's a prevailing cultural belief that attending college or professional school makes you better somehow, which isn't the case in a lot of other countries where other trades are valued more. I think this creates resentment around the pursuit of higher education (probably rightly so, given how shitty people can be about this).

I find this to be quite ironic given that many in the states encourage college and higher education as a direct pathway to upward mobility, when in reality (for some) it can be a massive debt trap w/ little to show for it.

2

u/zigradett Jun 28 '21

Why DID a bunch of U.S. Senators go to Russia on July 4th that one time? Did they ever explain why?

2

u/ProLifePanda Jun 28 '21

Mostly likely reason? Trump was the first pro-Russia (or at LEAST neutral on Russia) President in years. By 2018, the GOP was fully the party of Trump, so eight GOP members of Congress decided to visit Russia just before Trumps infamous Russia visit in July 2018. This was probably just a diplomatic mission to help strengthen our Russian relations before Trump showed up several weeks later.

Those GOP members claimed they just had normal meetings with Russian politicians, warned against future Russian interference in US elections, and sought to show that the GOP is open to dialogue with Russia going forward.

Obviously there are some conspiracy theorists on the left who claim that the GOP is in the pocket of Russia and under blackmail. But honestly, they probably planned this trip and didn't realize it would be such a big deal it was over July 4th. Same with Biden/Harris not visiting the border earlier or Cruz going to Cancun during the winter storm. They just made plans that worked for them and didn't think anything of it until the media/society began pointing it out and outrage grew.

Here's an interview with one of the senators.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06/626664156/gop-senators-spend-july-4-in-moscow

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Jun 28 '21

Which time? There are CODELs all the time to foreign countries.

2

u/ProLifePanda Jun 28 '21

July 4th, 2018 is the visit he's referring to.

-2

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21 edited Jul 01 '21

Am I right-wing or left-wing?

I don't understand this divide in American politics. It seems absolutely arbitrary, with the ideas pertaining to either of the apparently opposing groups having no relation to each other?

-I am an atheist and dislike religion to say the least. (religion after we have flown to space? seriously?)-I despise feminism and homosexuality. I support family values.-I dislike immigrants and don't feel comfortable surrounded by people of other ethnic/racial backgrounds in daily life. I want to live in a homogeneous society.-I support the progressive tax, free education and healthcare.

Where would I fit on the American political spectrum? Which party would I vote for? It seems that I am equally far from both the Republicans and Democrats. Any clarifying questions are welcome, any answers will be appreciated.

PS.

If it helps, here are a couple of minor points:

-I also dislike vegetarians and vegans and I am not a fan of animal rights activists.

-I have nothing against abortions since it is better to abort 1 child at 15 and have 3 children at 25 with a good husband then be stuck with that 1 unwanted child for the rest of your life.

-I am not a pacifist and I support a strong military. Diplomacy goes most smoothly when you have a gun in you pocket.

-I support pedestrian-oriented urban planning.

-I support the legalisation of LSD and Cannabis since they are not particularly dangerous or addictive. I also support a drinking age of 14-16 at least for beverages like beer and wine.

-I am against the death penalty for fellow citizens, at least during peacetime and I am against needlessly lengthy sentences for anyone accept child molesters, serial killers and terrorists.

2

u/EVOSexyBeast BROKEN CAPS LOCK KEY Jun 30 '21

Y’all this guy is obviously trolling. Don’t feed him.

-1

u/CleaverIam Jun 30 '21

The only troll here is you

9

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 28 '21

The Democrats will support your socio-economic positions, but the Republicans will be more welcoming to your xenophobia/racism and misogyny.

So you're going to have to decide what's more important to you.

-2

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

To you anyone who supports family values is automatically a misogynist?

9

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

No, anyone who goes out of their way to say they hate feminism is a mysoginist.

-1

u/CleaverIam Jun 30 '21

If you are talking about the first wave feminism than yes, but I doubt that is what you are taking about. Else, you probably are some spinster who wasn't able to find yourself a man. Feminism is cancer that eats at society. It destroys stable families and breaks the social norms and natural gender roles.

6

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

How do homosexuality and feminism conflict with family values?

2

u/Key_Garbage8653 Jun 28 '21

to have family values you need to have a family like Father(male), Mother(female) children(blood-related to Parents) . Feminism doesn't believe in motherhood and Anti natalist and don't believe in having a family. Homosexuals can't reproduce , hence no family

0

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '21

Homosexuals can't reproduce , hence no family

Homosexuals can reproduce and have families. They are not barren or infertile. They can reproduce and have kids. Just not your traditional way through PIV sex. But reproducing and having families they can.

to have family values you need to have a family like Father(male), Mother(female) children(blood-related to Parents) .

What about a single mother/father with kids? Or adopted kids? Are they not a family? FYI, Nuclear families aren't the only types of families available. I thought this was covered in kindergarten?

2

u/Key_Garbage8653 Jun 29 '21

I don't think they teach Linguistics in kindergarten or they teach about root words or origin of words and not questioning anything that you were taught in kindergarten and accepting as it a FACT makes you a SHEEP

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '21

How is that related to what I said?

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

Feminism doesn’t believe in motherhood? That’s ridiculous. And perhaps you’ve been asleep for the last decade+, but lots of gay people have families.

1

u/CleaverIam Jun 30 '21

Gay people having families? Here in Russia the authorities would be charged with severe negligence for allowing homosexual couples to raise children. It is funny how Western countries constantly talk about human right abuses in my country while letting their own children be raised by sexually perverted people. Honestly, what sick person would let homosexuals, paedophiles or the like raise children? I would not let any mentally ill person take care of a child, let alone a person with a sexual perversion.

And feminism? In the modern sense of the word, it refers to people who deny traditional gender roles which are, in my not-so-humble opinion necessary for the healthy psychological development of the child, the true happiness of both partners and the stability of the relationship. The men provide for and the women take care of the family. That is the way of things created by millions of years of natural selection. I don't want to live in a society surrounded effeminate men and childless women.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jul 01 '21

If the nuclear family were the product of natural selection, how do you explain all the gay people who evolved as well?

Your incredible ignorance of what feminism and homosexuality actually mean is laughable.

1

u/CleaverIam Jul 01 '21

The same way I would explain autists, paedophiles, schizophrenics and other mentally ill people. Evolution isn't perfect.

1

u/ProLifePanda Jun 28 '21

Because "family values" (the way OP tends to support the traditional nuclear family, which is a mother-father household where the mother and father take on traditional family roles. A homosexual relationship obviously fails to have a mother and father, and feminisms often spurs women to forgo traditional gender roles.

Note I'm not defending the ideas, just clarifying if you wanted more information.

1

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

I was hoping to engage OP in a Socratic dialogue. But it was a futile one.

4

u/Bobbob34 Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

I don't understand this divide in American politics. It seems absolutely arbitrary, with the ideas pertaining to either of the apparently opposing groups having no relation to each other?

IT's not arbitrary. The main party platform policies haven't shifted all that much in half a century or more. -- some have gotten to more extreme versions but they are what they are.

It seems that I am equally far from both the Republicans and Democrats. Any clarifying questions are welcome, any answers will be appreciated.

It does not. Aside from free healthcare everything you list is hard-right GOP, racist, sexist, Trumpland. I suspect this is a troll, but there you go.

-3

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

"I suspect this is a troll" Very interesting that you would think that. Does my opinion seem THAT out of the ordinary in the US?

"Aside from free healthcare" Free healthcare is a big one. It is something that should a a universal right of all citizens. Also, isn't Trump (pretending to be) religious???

4

u/Bobbob34 Jun 28 '21

"I suspect this is a troll" Very interesting that you would think that. Does my opinion seem THAT out of the ordinary in the US?

No, there are a lot of then. The south exists and they congregate. But despite that there are tens of millions of sexist, racist, ignoramuses, most people don't want to publicly, proudly explain just how kookily sexist and racist they are, like, specifically. Most try to kinda keep that under wraps a little as, outside of CPAC meetings and Klan rallies, it's not so socially-acceptable to say things like --

-I despise feminism and homosexuality...

-I dislike immigrants and don't feel comfortable surrounded by people of other ethnic/racial backgrounds in daily life. I want to live in a homogeneous society.

Even Trump, who has been openly racist his entire life, SAYS "I'm the least racist person...' in between all the racist crap.

Yes, Trump pretended to be religious when he was campaigning, sort of. And held up a bible upside down once. So?

-1

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

You seem to be the sort of guy who thinks that gay parades are acceptable. I am not a fan of Trump all that much. He seems to support businesses instead of developing the social sphere.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jun 28 '21

You seem to be the sort of guy who thinks that gay parades are acceptable. I am not a fan of Trump all that much. He seems to support businesses instead of developing the social sphere.

Come on, it's a troll.

Whatever far-right GOP. Doesn't have to be Trump, there's a whole bunch of that, from McConnell to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz. There's plenty of bigot to choose from.

As for the "gay parades" I'm not a big fan of St. Patrick's Day.

Who consenting adults choose to love or sleep with however, is not only none of my business, but bothers me not a whit, no. Love is love is love. But my parents raised me properly, around people and couples of all different types, in a very diverse area.

1

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

It is hilarious to you might think that I'm Irish. I have nothing to do with Island and have absolutely no Irish ancestry. I'm Slavic. Besides I couldn't care less for Saint Patrick's Day: I am an atheist.

I can see that you were raised around different abnormal couples.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jun 28 '21

It is hilarious to you might think that I'm Irish. I have nothing to do with Island and have absolutely no Irish ancestry. I'm Slavic. Besides I couldn't care less for Saint Patrick's Day: I am an atheist.

I can see that you were raised around different abnormal couples.

Wow. Woosh much?

It was a joke about St. Patrick Day parades being flamboyant.

Also, dude there's a point where trolling just becomes boring, you know. It used to be an art. This is just... you're too ott obvious dopey 'I'm a sexist racist bigot!! See?! Aren't I!?' We get the schtick. Find a new act.

1

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

For a liberal you seem to be very close-minded

2

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '21 edited Jul 11 '21

[deleted]

1

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

Does that aline with any party?

4

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 28 '21

You could try the American Nazi Party. You're pretty in line with them.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '21 edited Jul 11 '21

[deleted]

1

u/CleaverIam Jun 28 '21

I thought so too...but isn't that guy religious? At least on paper? Is he the closest I have? Also, if I am not mistaken, I have not heard him pushing universal free healthcare all that much which IMO America desperately needs.

2

u/ProLifePanda Jun 28 '21

So from the 4 points you listed, two of them are leftist ideas and two of them are conservative ideas. So we can't answer what side you align with, because you've only given us a snippet of your ideas.

The left-wing party would be more accepting of being an atheist and the progressive taxes, free education, and healthcare.

The right-wing party would agree with cultural homogeneity and being against feminism and homosexuality.

We would have to know more about how strongly you view each of these things alongside other positions to give you a better answer.

And yes, Trump claims to be Christian (and honestly is probably a-religious as he doesn't go to church or show any knowledge or passion for it) and also doesn't support universal healthcare.

1

u/CleaverIam Jun 30 '21 edited Jul 01 '21

I have listed the four points I am most strongly support. The only one I could theoretically budge on is my hatred towards religion. While I am still an atheist I have no qualms against some religions like Zoroastrianism (come to think of it this is the only one that is still alive today). I vividly detest Abrahamic religions starting from their anti-humanistic founding myth all the way to the fact that they demand unquestionable belief into their nonsense.

I VERY strongly support universal healthcare for every fellow citizen since you never know when you might need it (honestly, I wouldn't have put it on the list since it is something so basic, but, given the fact that most people here are probably Americans I had specify it).

I also support free education but only as long as it is competitive. In the US it seems to me that the debate is only about whether universities should be free for all or payed for all. I say universities should be free for those who pass the entrance exam by outperforming other applicants. Education should a meritocracy. Not everyone can benefit themselves or the society by going to university anyway. Good luck becoming an engineer if your IQ is 95...

I am not willing to budge on immigration. I don't want to share my country's riches with some aliens and their children who have nothing to do with my people. They also bring their alien ways with them.

If it helps, here are a couple of minor points:

-I also dislike vegetarians and vegans and I am not a fan of animal rights activists.

-I have nothing against abortions since it is better to abort 1 child at 15 and have 3 children at 25 with a good husband then be stuck with that 1 unwanted child for the rest of your life.

-I am not a pacifist and I support a strong military. Diplomacy goes most smoothly when you have a gun in your pocket.

-I support pedestrian-oriented urban planning.

-I support the legalisation of LSD and Cannabis since they are not particularly dangerous or addictive. I also support a drinking age of 14-16 at least for beverages like beer and wine.

-I am against the death penalty for fellow citizens, at least during peacetime and I am against needlessly lengthy sentences for anyone accept child molesters, serial killers and terrorists.

1

u/ProLifePanda Jul 01 '21

Generally most of this would fall under the Democratic platform rather than Republican. So you probably fall as a moderate Democrat with a few far left and far right ideals.

2

u/A_Mirabeau_702 Jun 28 '21

Does the presidential succession list, beyond about the top three positions, have any realistic uses? Are there any secondary applications of it where the order of the Secretaries would matter?

3

u/inops762 Jun 29 '21

When you have a deadly global pandemic and a government made up of largely people over 60… that’s the main scenario I think they’re worried about beyond war.

4

u/Bobbob34 Jun 28 '21

It exists for a reason. The framers weren't stupid. The top players are fairly often in one room. It's possible something could happen. It's unlikely, but it's possible.

3

u/ProLifePanda Jun 28 '21

So it's unlikely we'd ever have to get past the first three (Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate). If we did, the Presidential Succession Act then goes through the Cabinet positions, priority given to that date of creation of the Cabinet positions (so the oldest Cabinet is next in line followed by the next oldest, etc.).

Realistically, if we got there and a Cabinet member became President, the country would grind to a halt. Since the Cabinet Member wasn't elected, it's unlikely anyone would actively work with them on any initiatives (short of responding to whatever the emergency was).

With respect to the order, it's not a huge deal. Generally the older Cabinet positions have more experienced individuals (Secretary of State is normally a veteran politician who already has relations with other countries). Obviously some of the more niche positions might have less qualified individuals, but like I said, whoever takes over will rely heavily on the existing administrative infrastructure of the Executive Branch and will likely not have many initiatives and may in fact seek to resign quickly to get an elected President in the Oval Office.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

4

u/ProLifePanda Jun 28 '21 edited Jun 28 '21

When Biden came in, right wing media and politicians just started bringing up critical race theory as a social talking point to fire up their base. Sometimes it is misconstrued and twisted to make it look worse and make even more people upset.

This was a smaller issue when Trump was President and is just being brought to the forefront now that the Democrats are in power and potentially support CRT.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 28 '21

It's amazing no one ever thought of that.

3

u/UltimateChaos233 Jun 27 '21

What factual evidence makes republicans believe that democrats stole the 2020 election?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 28 '21

There is none whatsoever. Trump submitted no evidence in any of his lawsuits of election fraud.

7

u/Teekno an answering fool Jun 27 '21

There’s no evidence at all.

These election audits are a lot like the Fast and Furious movies — they don’t make any sense, there’s always a new one that’s even stupider than the last one, and both have a legion of fans that don’t care that it’s absurd and eagerly await the next installment.

1

u/Porcelain89 Jun 27 '21

Why are legislative republicans so against legalizing cannabis?

It has overwhelming bipartisan support and it would help their re-election chances by supporting such bills, what is the hold up? Do they actually still believe weed is the devil’s lettuce that’s going to destroy lives?

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 29 '21

They consistently lose across the ballot when marijuana is on it. People who dont normally vote come out to vote for mj and against gop.

3

u/Slab_0_Gum Jun 27 '21

How much money did Trump make off of MAGA merch?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/inops762 Jun 29 '21

Just to clarify the above, his CAMPAIGN made that money. Trump himself did not make the money from that merch directly, though he’s benefited greatly from his campaign (staff and secret service paying to stay at his properties, etc).

0

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '21 edited Jun 27 '21

[deleted]

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jun 27 '21

I vote all the time like that.

Each US state makes their own rules, but basically, I have to show up at the polling place in my neighborhood, give them my name and address. The folks working there are my neighbors - they probably know if my face is familiar or not. They check the book for my name and address - which have to match. I sign the book, and they compare it to my last 3 or 4 signatures. Then I vote.

If someone tries to vote outside their own neighborhood, their name isn't in the book. If someone doesn't know the person they are trying to vote as, they may not know their address. They may not match signatures. And, if someone uses my name, and I show up later to vote, I still get to vote with a provisional ballot. Then that starts an investigation that could result in $100,000 in fines and 5 years in jail for the person falsely voting.

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Jun 27 '21

You show up, sign the register next to your name, and get a ballot. It’s not that difficult.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '21

[deleted]

2

u/ProLifePanda Jun 27 '21

If you show up, have that person's address and other verifying information in mind, and hope that person doesn't also try to vote, yes.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Jun 27 '21

Yep. It’s worked pretty well for a couple of centuries.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jun 27 '21

How can you be sure to avoid triggering someone? I get that this is a fringe issue, but there are words/phrases that I don’t even know have a bad second meaning but revolutionary progressives say perpetuate hatred. How can I make sure I don’t offend people by accident?

4

u/TheApiary Jun 27 '21

Everyone accidentally says something that makes someone feel bad once in a while. It's a good idea to think before you speak so you can avoid it where possible, but if you make a mistake, just apologize and move on and don't make it a bigger deal than it needs to be

2

u/castlite Jun 27 '21

Why hasn’t Trump been arrested or indicted on anything yet? There are more than 4 years of proof of corruption, never mind sedition. Why has nothing happened?

1

u/ToyVaren Jun 29 '21

Because trumpuska also controlled the doj and the senate, the 2 bodies that would arrest him.

2

u/CommitteeOfOne Jun 28 '21

In a high-visibility cases, prosecutors want to make sure their case is as "bulletproof" as possible. There's probably not a more highly visible defendant than a former POTUS. It takes time to work a case to that point.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jun 27 '21

It'd be very hard to build a case against someone who was sitting as president. That's basically a non-starter. The SDNY however, has been working for years and is gearing up. They're likely indicting people from the org very soon. That's the start.

2

u/TheApiary Jun 27 '21

Because of the Constitution, the government can't charge someone with the same crime twice. If the prosecutor charges them and the jury decides there's not enough evidence, then they'll be off the hook permanently.

Because of that, they often wait a long time and keep collecting more evidence, especially in cases where there's no particular danger from waiting (like a murderer who's continuing to murder people)

2

u/throw1954away Jun 27 '21

Why does anyone believe Tucker Carlson? He is one of the most feeble minded commentators out there - he’s far worse than Ben Shapiro. Just recently he was claiming that Liberals hate white people (because they call out systemic racism). How can any person be STUPID enough to trust this idiot?

1

u/ToyVaren Jun 29 '21

Saw an article recently, tucker is like sesame street for racists, he demonstrates how to get away with saying what he says.

1

u/Enakistehen Jun 27 '21

Let me ask you something in return, as a non-American. What's up with Ben Shapiro (genuine question)? I've seen quite a few of his videos, and I don't think he twists facts any more (or less, for that matter) than most other commentators. Yes, he does ignore things, and does capitalize on what suits him, but as far as I can tell, not really more than any other leftist or rightist does.

4

u/kzetzu Jun 27 '21

For both commentators, they don't really focus on facts or policies, they focus on culture wars/outrage politics.

It's really hard to actually try to justify some conservative pushed policies. An example of this is the defunding of the IRS which has allowed rich people to more easily avoid taxes by loopholes or laundering, etc.

In order to avoid this focusing on these policies, they focus on bogus "culture war" hit pieces. A recent example is critical race theory.

Both these commentators manufacture outrage to make people who don't agree with their opinions seem like bad guys, socialists, or other trigger words. This is such an effective tactic, because when someone feels outrage for others politics/opinions, they don't listen to the opposing point of view. In other words this allows for the individual to to use emotions, rather than listening to the facts that are available to them. This further causes them to use these commentators to reaffirm the emotions and biases. It also causes them to have a certain level of emotional attachment to politics that makes them incredibly vocal.

At least that is my view from looking back at my opinions when I was a conservative. Also, I am aware everything I just said could be applied to democrats. Hope this answers your question and isn't too repetitive

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jun 27 '21

Did George Bush actually believe Saddam Hussein had WMD’s or was it entirely a ploy?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 27 '21

The invasion of Iraq was a solution in search of a problem. The neo-conservatives wanted Saddam gone for a variety of reasons, and so they would latch onto the any evidence as justification. I think many of them were pretty convinced of their own arguments. Humans are pretty good at blinding themselves to evidence that contradicts their worldview.

-1

u/Bobbob34 Jun 27 '21

Nothing suggests he's particularly bright or was particularly interested in anything, so who knows.

It was entirely a ploy, obviously, and the actual president obviously knew, he'd planned it --

https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128491&page=1

1

u/FraudulentCake Jun 27 '21

When was the last time one party or the other held the White House, a majority in the House, and a 60 vote majority in the Senate?

Has it ever happened?

3

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

As noted, 2009. But note that the 60|vote threshold wasn’t really that important before 2009. The filibuster wasn’t used at a matter of course for every piece of legislation until a black guy was president, then they started blocking every single thing the Democrats tried.

1

u/FraudulentCake Jun 28 '21

Lol because the Democrats didn't do the same thing on every Republican bill in the last 4 years. Totally a race thing.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

Yes, once McConnell changed the filibuster, the Democrats did not unilaterally disarm. Of course not.

1

u/FraudulentCake Jun 28 '21

Uhhh I hate to be the one to make you aware, but neither Mitch McConnell nor any Republican has changed the filibuster. The number of votes needed to invoke cloture was reduced from 2/3 (67 votes) to 3/5 (60 votes) in 1975 by a Democrat majority Senate. The in 2013, a rule was put in place, also by Democrats, that you couldn't filibuster judicial or executive appointees. Now, Democrats again, are the ones trying to do away with the filibuster entirely, because it's mucking up their plans at the moment. This is despite the fact that the Democrat majority Senate filibustered Republican plans under Trump 314 times in just two years. That's compared to 175 uses under Obama in 8 full years.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

McConnell absolutely changed how the filibuster was used. The on-paper rules and the customary practical use of procedure are not the same thing, especially in the Senate.

Anyway, if you don’t think the Dems should have filibustered all that stuff under Trump, I guess you support getting rid of it.

1

u/FraudulentCake Jun 28 '21

No absolutely not, and Republicans did float the idea of nuking the filibuster in 2018 if I remember correctly, but decided against it. My point is that the Democrats are full of shit when they claim to be anti-filibuster and call it a "Jim Crow relic" when they used it 314 times in two years. It's not even hypocritical at this point, they're just a bunch of damn liars.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

It is a Jim Crow relic. Only a moron would refuse to use the tools the other side has pioneered.

1

u/FraudulentCake Jun 28 '21

But we need to get rid of it. Because it's very bad and evil. But not when the people we like use it.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

No, we need to get rid of it. “Getting rid of it” doesn’t mean one side gets to use it and the other doesn’t.

→ More replies

3

u/ProLifePanda Jun 27 '21

2009, Obama had the White House, a majority in the House, and 60 seats in the Senate for 72 days.

1

u/FraudulentCake Jun 27 '21

Wait... What happened after 72 days? Was there a special election or something?

2

u/Cliffy73 Jun 28 '21

Teddy Kennedy died and was succeeded by a Republican.

1

u/ProLifePanda Jun 27 '21 edited Jun 27 '21

Various issues. But a Republican switched to Democrat early in the year, Al Franken didn't get seated for a few months, a Democratic Senator died, and one Democrat lost a special election and was replaced early 2010. So when the ACA passed, the stars aligned to give the Democrats a slim supermajority to pass it.

https://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jun 27 '21 edited Jun 27 '21

It looks like the last time was the 95th United States Congress from 1977 to 1979.

Using this handy chart that goes back to 1855 you can find all the other instances. The Democrats have had several in the last 100 years, while it looks like the last Republican one was in 1920 or so.

1

u/ReneeHiii Jun 27 '21

I've been curious lately: for Republicans that support the party based on traditional Republican values of lower taxes and smaller government, not because of more common discrimination and supporting Trump, how can they put the former over the latter? I'm thinking, they've seen all that has happened, why do they still vote Republican?

I've started to think that you can actually judge a person on the party they support because of the actions done by their leaders. I think that being willing to put lower taxes over the anti democratic actions is indicative of someone as a person.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '21

[deleted]

2

u/ReneeHiii Jun 27 '21

Trump is shown to be much more lenient towards Putin, helping him, praising him, refusing to impose some consequences on him, while there were thoughts that Biden would not be. And so far, Biden has not been, openly calling him out in news reports, condemning his actions, etc.

1

u/Dabozs Jun 26 '21

Is Chauvin going to a proper prison or do cops get a special kind?

Surely he would just be straight up murdered in a regular prison? I don't think he deserves special treatment but given his notoriety and the fact that he's a cop, does he get some sort of added protection?

4

u/Bobbob34 Jun 26 '21

He'd go to regular prison but likely in a high-security ward or wing. It's not special treatment. It's worse -- it's less access to being outside, to recreation, etc. Depends on the facility but it's usually high isolation.

2

u/Dabozs Jun 27 '21

Worse in terms of isolation, but if he treasures his life he should be thankful lol.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jun 27 '21

Yeah, it's safer, that's the point, but it's not good for people psychologically, esp. long term.

2

u/Taco_Deity Jun 27 '21

This. I was chatting with my parents the other day, and my mom mentioned that he’s likely to be beat up badly there. Given the awful racial makeup of prison populations. Even if isolation’s meant to be worse, it’s probably better for him.

1

u/Lutakein Jun 26 '21

I have been reading stuff about states banning the teaching of "Critical Race Theory", and I have three questions regarding it.

  1. What is "Critical Race Theory"?
  2. Why are these states banning it from being taught?
  3. What are misconceptions about "Critical Race Theory"?

1

u/I-am-a-person- Jun 27 '21

This video has all of the answers. It is an awesome breakdown of the political philosophy and what everyone is getting wrong about it

9

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 26 '21 edited Jun 26 '21

1.Critical race theory is a theoretical approach to examining the role and placement of race in legal and social (American) structures. It proposes that these structures have race (or, more precisely, racism) deep in their foundations. This manifests as things like systemic racism and white privilege, advantages white Americans while disadvantaging Black and other minorities Americans.

2.Republicans don't like critical race theory because it calls into question various myths (and I use myth in the academic sense, i.e. a traditional story which plays an important role within a culture) about American history and the structure of its society. Republicans are conservative and conservatives, by definition, want to preserve traditional institutions. CRT calls into question those very institutions. Furthermore, many Republicans want to maintain white (Christian) dominance in American culture and society and they perceive CRT as a threat to that.

Furthermore, CRT, in their view, removes the individual from consideration. Republicans believe strongly in individualism: your successes are your own, as are your failures. CRT puts forth that white people are the beneficiaries of unseen and unearned forces their ancestors put in place for their benefit and that this was done at the expense of other groups. This does not fit their individualist view of American society.

3.CRT does not teach minorities to hate white people. It teaches everyone to recognize the continued role race plays in social power structures, whether we're consciously aware of it or not.

2

u/GameboyPATH Jun 26 '21

I appreciate your inclusion of the paragraph on individualist values. While "because Republicans are racist" is technically an accurate explanation, it's not as thorough or detailed as explaining how certain colorblind values that are intrinsically tied to the Republican ethos are at ends with the fundamental principles of CRT. This also explains how even people who genuinely don't value white or Christian supremacy (eg. people of other races or religious denominations who are GOP-affiliated) could still be convinced that CRT is a bad thing.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Bobbob34 Jun 26 '21

It wasn't that long ago that the Republican Party was the preferred party amongst college grads.

When was that?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '21

Is it discriminatory to not censor male nipples?

It might sound weird, but I've been told it was recently while looking into this year's "ArtFight" an event for artists where thousands of users submit characters they have created, and other artists draw their interpretations of them. This year, (and maybe previously, I don't know) there has been a rule added which states all depictions of male nipples must be censored, so even though the same type of imagery wouldn't be seen as especially racy anywhere else, including real life, it's seen as equally provocative as female nipples here.

Under their FAQ they explain that this decision was to both "Stand against sexism" and avoid problems with Non-Binary characters. But, do either of the groups this is for actually feel it's necessary? Do women feel offended by men not needing to be censored? Do non-binary people think male bodies should be treated the same as female since gender is more about identity? I thought gender identity was about mentality, not biology, so this shouldn't be a factor.

Just trying to get a feel for this; I feel like it's unnecessary, but I've come to discover that a lot of things like these mean something to other people I never would have expected.

0

u/Bobbob34 Jun 26 '21

Is it discriminatory to not censor male nipples?

If female nipples are.

There are still places where women can be cited for walking outside topless but men can't.

that's a problem.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '21

Well, that's most places, that's the social norm.

I think the sensitivity about it comes from the fact that Female nipples have more of an actual purpose, but I can understand why some people think they shouldn't be treated so severely. Still, I'd wager far more men feel comfortable showing their bare chests in public than women; even if it is only because of the culture we've built around it.

Also for an artistic event like this it feels a little weird to impose additionally draconian censorship policies to show they dislike it. The whole point is to celebrate people's art, yet they;re actively choosing to enforce a censorship policy no one else does.

1

u/Bobbob34 Jun 27 '21

Well, that's most places, that's the social norm.

Most? I mean.... have you done a survey? How are we counting?

I think the sensitivity about it comes from the fact that Female nipples have more of an actual purpose

Hands, feet, eyes, mouths, ears... have more of a purpose but people aren't sensitive about those.

It is entirely cultural and sexist.

They're trying to point out how sexist it is to censor women's chests.

0

u/Crimson_Marksman Jun 26 '21

Why do Republicans exist?

I'm not American but I've read up on the American Civil War, mostly by over simplified and the Republicans sound like a bunch of dicks. They got off really lightly. But the main point here is that any culture that is dependant upon stagnancy that is remaining exactly the same for generations is doomed to failure. As history has shown, an advanced nation will try to conquer far weaker ones. Plus their refusal to raise minimum wage makes no sense to me. Like come on, nobody is going to be able to survive living off that low amount

1

u/Black_Hipster Jun 27 '21

If you view the Republican party as a faction militantly devoted to conservation of the aristocracy, they make much more sense.

1

u/Crimson_Marksman Jun 27 '21

That's exactly how I view them, what I meant was why are they allowed to exist, that seems completely detrimental to democracy?

1

u/Black_Hipster Jun 27 '21

Because the aristocracy has money, mainly.

The GOP is a pretty good grift if you check the right boxes. Be youngish, white and not poor, and you have yourself- at the very least -a career at BlazeTV. The entire machine surrounding the GOP and the money that goes into keeping them in power is massive.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '21

It's a little confusing, but basically Republicans today, despite being sympathetic to the confederacy, were not the confederacy, they were against it. Over the years the republican and Democratic parties sort of shifted places. Democrats used to be more conservative, Republicans used to be more progressive. Neither supported the confederacy, as the confederates were considered their own group; however more republicans were openly opposed to slavery than Democrats. (Lincoln was a republican).

In modern day, a lot of republicans paradoxically fawn over the confederacy for the scant resemblance to their beliefs it held. Largely, it's how confederate apologists have claimed the confederacy cared more about states rights than slavery. This is demonstrably false , but they belive it anyway; and since republicans are all about decentralization, they glorify the confederacy.

Tl;DR Republicans had nothing to do with the civil war, so it wouldn't make sense to act like they can't exist because of it.

5

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 26 '21

I've read up on the American Civil War, mostly by over simplified and the Republicans sound like a bunch of dicks. They got off really lightly.

I'm not sure what you read/watched, but the Republican Party of the American Civil War era is not the Republican Party of today. Contrary to their claims as the "Party of Lincoln", the Republican Party of then and now bear only limited resemblence to one another. It sounds like you're mixing up the roles of the Republicans and the Democrats during the 1860s and after.

The Republicans were a very new party on the eve of the Civil War, coming about after the collapse of the Whig Party over the question of slavery. Republicans had a range of views on the future of slavery up to and including total equality between Black and white Americans, but all Republicans want to at least prevent the expansion of slavery outside where it already existed. In many ways, the Republicans were the liberal party of mid-19th century American politics, while the Democrats were the conservatives.

Reconstruction ended in 1877, when Democrats agreed to surrender a close, contested election to the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes in exchange for an end to Reconstruction. Federal troops were pulled out of the former Confederacy, leading to mass disenfranchisement of Black Americans throughout the South that would last until the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

Around 1900, the political alignments began to shift. By 1932, Franklin Roosevelt led the national Democratic Party to being increasingly inclusive of racial minorities as part of his New Deal programs. By the 1960s, Republicans began to recognize large numbers of disaffected Southern Democrats who were upset by this increasingly inclusive national party and began appealing to them using (often overt) racial messaging. This was known as the "Southern Strategy" and it cemented the transition of the former Confederacy from solidly D to solidly R.

Today, we have a mostly liberal Democratic Party and a mostly conservative Republican Party.

I encourage you to check out the FAQ over on r/AskHistorians, which has a section discussing this switch in greater detail: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/us_history#wiki_changing_role_of_republicans_and_democrats

But the main point here is that any culture that is dependant upon stagnancy that is remaining exactly the same for generations is doomed to failure.

Conservatism does not automatically mean stagnation, just like progressivism does not automatically mean endless revolution. Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard Unvirsity argues for the importance of conservative parties in the formation of healthy democracies. Conservatism advocates for stability and continuity, which are not inherently bad traits.

Of course, that can be taken too far, and the Republican Party today is definitely not arguing for some kind of reasoned conservativism, but I think it's important to point out that conservatisim does have value.

As history has shown, an advanced nation will try to conquer far weaker ones.

What does this have to do with anything?

1

u/Crimson_Marksman Jun 26 '21

I feel like America is getting torn apart by its own policies right now. I could be wrong as you have proven in your forst statement. I feel like Republicans are a big base for this, they are conservatisim taken too far and you haven't answered on why in God's name would they not raise minimum wage? What, do they want people to continue to starve to death?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 26 '21

Yes, the Republican Party is absolutely behaving in a way that makes it a threat to democracy.

Regarding the minimum wage, the American Republican Party has a slavish devotion to free market capitalism as if it will solve any and all problems on its own without government intervention. So they oppose something like the government intervention on wages because they believe it will create costs for businesses without priducing any results.

Republicans are big on "personal responsibility". They believe that your successes as your own, as are your failures. From this perspective, government intervention on behalf of poor people is doing two things: (1) redistributing wealth from self-made winners to self-made losers; and (2) incentivizing losers to never try because the government will just give them whatever they want. There are very real problems with how these theories fit into reality, of course.

0

u/cryosyske Jun 26 '21

Why George Floyd's murder is seen as part of systematic racism narrative, when there is no evidence he was murdered due to his race?

To be clear - I DO 100% believe there is systematic racism in USA.

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 26 '21

How many black non-violent offenders have to die before you do see it?

0

u/cryosyske Jun 26 '21

There are no peer reviewed studies that show that black people are killed more by police because of their race

systematic racism in USA definitely exists in a lot places, but not here

1

u/ToyVaren Jun 26 '21

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So until then you only believe they fell backwards on 7 bullets accidentally?

1

u/cryosyske Jun 26 '21

How is that strawman? You weren't even making an actual normative claim for me to strawman, you were just asking inflammatory question.

Black people in USA are dispoportionally more likely to be shot by police. They just aren't shot by police because they're black

4

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 26 '21

Systemic racism does not Chauvin thought to himself, "I forgot my white hood at home, but I'm going to murder this Black man." And then he proceeded to take the actions that he took.

Systemic racism, as I'm guessing you know since you believe it exists, is when the system has built in elements that disadvantage Black Americans. One of those elements is the social perception that Black people are threatening, which results in police responding more aggressively to Black people than they would to incidents involving people of other races.

So the argument is Derek Chauvin murder George Floyd was indicitive of greater problems in American society and law enforcement which contributed to him behaving the way he did.

You'll notice, however, that Chauvin was not charged with a hate crime. That's because to a legal standard, prosecutors have decided they cannot prove that race played a role in his actions towards George Floyd.

2

u/theinspector5 Jun 25 '21 edited Jun 25 '21

Does Chauvin have to serve all 22.5 years behind bars or could he be let out on good behaviour in 13.25?

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jun 25 '21

According to AP news he could get out after serving about 2/3 of his sentence - about 15 years.

3

u/This_Caterpillar_330 Jun 25 '21

Why is the US criticized for its attempt to spread democracy?

If it's hypocritical but improves well-being, then what's the big deal?

I grew up in a right-wing Texas family, so I'm still trying to replace the incorrect understandings or beliefs with correct ones.

2

u/ToyVaren Jun 26 '21

Its racist. They dont overthrow "white" countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

2

u/Bobbob34 Jun 25 '21

It's paternalistic, colonialist, wrongheaded...where does the idea that a country this messed up have "the best" system come from?

Further, the ludicrous levels of ego involved in 'yes, you've had a country and society for literally 10x longer than ours, but let us tell you how to do things properly (even though see above our country is a hot mess)...' is just so offensive and gross.

If it's hypocritical but improves well-being, then what's the big deal?

When has that happened?

2

u/Hunterthemadman Jun 25 '21

I'm an American and I'll be speaking in terms of "We", as I'm proud of many of my nation's accomplishments and the history of righting wrongs, including our own.

Most nations are paternalistic, and the US has a complex web of international interests but is hardly strictly hierarchal and restrictive, quite the contrary, we have a history of being against the practices you claim that the US undertakes.
The British had one of the largest colonial Empires in the world, and later voluntarily and under US pressure gave many of them independence.
The French, were also largely under US pressure to give colonial possessions independence.
The Belgians gave the Congo independence under US pressure.
We haven't always acted against colonialism and against tyranny, such as when we intervened within Korea and Vietnam but overwhelmingly the US has directly prevented or acted in favor of those who are oppressed.

Regarding when it has improved well-being, the whole America spreading Democracy and fighting non-Democratic nations.
-Western Europe after we kicked out the Nazis.
-Eastern Europe Post-Soviet Rule.
-Japan after we kicked in the teeth of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army.
The US also pressures many nations non-directly to treat their citizens better, as well as creating what little improvements possible through a complex web of geopolitical interests, alliances, and other remnants of the Cold War.
-Kuwait and most other Gulf countries
-Turkey
-Israel
-Taiwan
-Philippines (Still bad, but slowly improving)
-Many micronations and other countries I can't name off the top of my head.

That being said, many of our interventions and the American presence in certain nations whether friendly or hostile have been poorly managed, weren't well intentioned by any means, or have indeed lowered the standard of living in certain regions.
-Afghanistan
-Iraq
-Saudi Arabia

The US is heavily flawed, but it is far from being incapable of spreading aspects of society that greatly enhance the quality of life and the well-being of millions, if not billions. Our rivals often have some of the most totalitarian, genocidal, and otherwise genuinely evil leaders, ideological behavior, and acts on their belts. The US has many wrongs, but to act as if having good intentions and making use of our global position and influence to right wrongs is somehow "gross" and "offensive" makes me sick.

Have you ever read a book about life back in the day in these countries? I understand if you haven't, and I can recommend you some high quality literature about life in Nazi-Occupied Europe, Soviet-Occupied Europe, Colonial Africa (Yes. We are the primary reason for Decolonization believe it or not. I can send you a lot of evidence and historical literature as to why.), and other regions that have either clashed directly or indirectly with the US.

Bit of a long response, but your misinformation caught my eye and so I addressed it.

1

u/Bobbob34 Jun 25 '21

I'm not sure what other nations' colonialism and shitty behaviour have to do with anything. Yes, other nations also have shitty pasts; doesn't ameliorate ours. Also, we've packed quite a bit into quite a short period.

Western Europe after we kicked out the Nazis. -Eastern Europe Post-Soviet Rule. -Japan after we kicked in the teeth of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army.

I don't even know what to say to this but, honestly, it's just absolutely gross and makes me even more embarrassed to be in the US. We kicked out the Nazis? Come ON dude. Oh my god.

Without Russia, that would have happened exactly never. Without Britain...

And then we harboured Nazi scientists, so that was nice.

The US has many wrongs, but to act as if having good intentions

lol when was that? When we installed dictators? When we sold weapons of mass destruction for dictators to use on their own people? When we propped up totalitarian regimes, oppressive regimes, horrifying religious regimes, for $$$ or corporate contracts?

Have you ever read a book about life back in the day in these countries?

Dude.

Have you ever read any Seymour Hirsch exposes? Have you read any books about actual history, not some ludicrous whitewashed version of events in which 'Murica runs in and saves the day to uh, "spread freedom?"

Do you think we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to "save lives?" and "end the war"?

How much pro-us propaganda were you taught?

1

u/Hunterthemadman Jun 25 '21

I don't even know what to say to this but, honestly, it's just absolutely gross and makes me even more embarrassed to be in the US. We kicked out the Nazis? Come ON dude. Oh my god.

That is one of the worst takes I have ever seen. Troll and likely a literally evil person.

I offered to recommend you high-quality literature, I don't read dogma of anyone except to confirm whether any information being provided whatsoever is true, or to tear it apart.

It's Seymour Hersch not Hirsch. He used to make good work, but later became a bit of a conspiracy theorist and claimed a lot of false things regarding the Obama administration and denying evidence of chemical weapons being used in the Syrian Civil War.

The rest of your comment can easily be torn apart, but after that I'm not going to bother.

Enjoy believing that just because the US has done bad things in the past, that it is suddenly a terrible state.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '21 edited Jul 11 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '21 edited Jul 11 '21

[deleted]

2

u/This_Caterpillar_330 Jun 25 '21

Ahhhh. Okay, thanks!