Reforming Democracy

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So, according to Eric The Pipe unless you're a soldier and looking like Wesley Snipes you're not going to survive very well in anarchy. Well, with experts like these......

[Mictlantecuhtli]

*sighs* People and their stereotypes.


I am white and skinny but I'm also a guy that knows how to use a knife severing through skin, flesh, muscle, and bone.

I'm the type of guy I could tell you which place is the fastest through the cerebral cord to cut through in order to get instant paralysis on the thing in question being dissected.

I'm the type of guy that likes rifles and shooting from long distances where there are certain nightscopes that shoot just as good at night as they would during the day.

I'm the type of guy I like reading and studying on poisons. You want to know what an interesting subject is? Neurotoxins.

Still think the skinny white guy doesn't amount to much?

I'll get to your other points at a later time.

Qualifying you are white and skinny with "but I'm also a guy that knows how to use a knife severing through skin, flesh, muscle, and bone" and the rest in this context, in my mind serves to actually reinforce the stereotype Eric_The_Pipe was referring to. I find that usually this type of person is very easily prompted to respond with the same type of awkwardly grandiose language and incorrect nomenclature as the above quote.

Skin, flesh, muscle and bone? Why stop there, why not include tendons and ligaments? Cerebral cord? Instant paralysis? It doesn't really sound like you are a physiology buff, though I suppose you don't have to be to sever a spinal cord, though the 'best' location all depends on what you are trying to paralyze exactly. Shooting from long distances where there are certain nightscopes that shoot just as good at night as they would during the day? Wha?? I can show you my shooting medals and awards, can you show me yours? I suppose you don't have to be an avid shooter or competitive shooter, but it certainly helps.

It sounds like you want to sound like you know what you are talking about, but I'm really not seeing it in your language.

Oh look, another self described expert. It's amazing how they pop out of the woodwork on the internet.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

So, according to Eric The Pipe unless you're a soldier and looking like Wesley Snipes you're not going to survive very well in anarchy. Well, with experts like these......

I was wondering what angle you would respond with. I do agree that my authority on anarchy is pretty limited, AS SUCH A THING HAS NEVER FUCKING OCCURRED!!

Humans invariably form coalitions, as that is quite often the best way to get things done, and the moment they do, they will attack those they can. Human history is full of murder, most of the skulls we find in caves have been bashed in, in one way or another. Humans have never lived in anarchy, so yes, my authority is pretty limited.

To point out the flaw with your specific comments, I said the first person I had come across that actually seemed like he could survive was big, black, smart and well trained. The black part is optional, as is the big, though you need a hell of a lot of smarts and training to make up for big. What I was asking was, if you had any of these. I have yet to see that you do, but, I'm no authority.

[gib]

Nope, just guy. Probably horribly atheist (the kind that isn't just atheist, but needs to tell non-atheists why they are wrong...) But, it's fun and marginally informative. The one on getting paid had a great idea that needs to be put into practice...

Oh, so it is a reference to the Biblical Adam, but from an angry atheist.

Hmmm... so this mistaken idea is being used as a political ploy?

Jah, which is probably why it gets so much precision from me.

How would such a ploy unfold? Would they say "You want democracy? We'll give you democracy. Oh, and by the way, democracy is just mob rule, so that's what you're getting."

I think he believes in democracy, honestly believes, its all the rage in the school system... Actually overheard someone saying what we need is more democracy in the middle east. I just about started throwing things...

Well, for what its worth, unless a person is educated in these matter, I think that most people, when they use the word "democracy", have in mind something like your presidential electoral system--a system in which the people periodically vote for their leaders.

Do you think there's many people who actually want mob rule?

So, we vote in small precincts, think a 6 block radius, and we vote for a delegate to go to larger sections and vote for other delegates, who then go and vote for the final delegates... Who are actually the people that vote for president...

Holy shit, that's like 3 layers of delegates!

That's what I love about you guys. The states are like a miniature of the world. It's like a laboratory in which you can experiment with different political systems. Observe what happens in Colorado with their 3 layered voting process. Observe what happens in Wyoming with their political system (Whatever the hell it is). See what works, what doesn't. And with 51 states, you get several orders of magnitude faster rate of learning experiences, as opposed to how long is needed for a single nation to go through the same trials and errors, the same mistakes and achievements, all on its own. The US system *could* be used to draw lessons about politics in general, which might be applicable globally, but I don't think anyone's doing that.

What do you find the results are like living in a 3 layered system?

It depends. I did a report recently, did the work to figure out that the Speaker for the House, easily the second most powerful person in the country, only needs 50%+1 of the House (that of the house, not population at large) to get elected. Elected for what? To be the House Speaker? The only other requirement is that they qualify to be president, because they are third in line. That is a surprising amount of power for someone that only needs 218 people. While, so far, every single time they've been a member of the house (something that needs more votes, but a pathetically small percentage of the population to get elected), that is not required.

Interesting, but how does that answer my question:

"Yes, but what else can a government aim for than pleasing the largest group of people?"

Sure. Or I can work on only correcting the statement when its relevant and you can call it whatever you want...

Well, then I think I'll stick with democracy.

That sounds just awful. Not the watching CNN on vacation, I do things like that, relying on an other country for anything.

Yeah, well, that's where the world's at right now.

I don't know if we're relying on American media for anything, just pointing out the fact that we get American media. The consequence is most people in the industrialized modern world end up knowing a hell of a lot more about what's going on in American politics than any other arbitrary country. I just think it's worth keeping in mind.

If it helps, only half the country agrees with this idea, the conservative half would tell you all your effing crazy. Take care of your own shit, trade with us, but leave us alone otherwise. The heart of Conservatism is the desire to be left alone. Its just unfortunate that so many don't understand that's all we want, hell, even the stupid, racist parts of the party, ultimately come from this very place.

Don't worry, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just trying to justify why we're focusing on American politics in this thread even though the general goal is a bit more broad than that.

To tell you the truth, there's another reason I'm focusing on America. Part way through this thread, I became convinced that the American Constitution was a good model to follow if one's goal was to contrive a kind of "improved" system compared to the ones we have today. So the model is specifically American, but the question was how generalized could we make it.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Jah, which is probably why it gets so much precision from me.

How would such a ploy unfold? Would they say "You want democracy? We'll give you democracy. Oh, and by the way, democracy is just mob rule, so that's what you're getting."

Yes, except we say, see at the end of each sentience. As in:

You want democracy, see? We'll give you democracy, see. Oh, and by the way, democracy is just mob rule, see, so that's what you're getting! See.

ha.

Usually its more along the lines of, well (such and such thing) is not what democracy is! We need more, not less. And (such and such) (person, thing or law) is the answer to our problems...

Then I say, "It's not a democracy..."

I think he believes in democracy, honestly believes, its all the rage in the school system... Actually overheard someone saying what we need is more democracy in the middle east. I just about started throwing things...

Well, for what its worth, unless a person is educated in these matter, I think that most people, when they use the word "democracy", have in mind something like your presidential electoral system--a system in which the people periodically vote for their leaders.

Except the parts that make America great are often the undemocratic parts. Protection of free speech is not democratic, neither is the judicial system. Democracy doesn't provide freedom, most places don't need democracy, they need restrictions on the government... I.E. a constitution.

Do you think there's many people who actually want mob rule?

If you ever want to see people that do want Mob rule, got to a college. I had a lovely incident just a couple weeks ago... Or, look up and read some of the pieces by Kat Timpf, she writes for National Review (and other things). She writes almost exclusively on shitty things going on at colleges all over the U.S. I stopped reading because I found it too depressing. To many stupid kids that want exactly that, mob rule, largely because they think they are right, mostly because they are surrounded by people that agree with them... Mob rule is depressing... Its the crowd screaming "KILL HIM" as he expresses a different point of view. (Or was the case a couple weeks ago, "Hit him!" to the driver of a truck.

When President Obama said, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," what exactly did you think he meant? It's the same with the line, "get on the right side of history." As if history had sides, even if far too often, historians do. The "right side" is the mob side, whatever the general public thinks at that time in history...

So, we vote in small precincts, think a 6 block radius, and we vote for a delegate to go to larger sections and vote for other delegates, who then go and vote for the final delegates... Who are actually the people that vote for president...

Holy shit, that's like 3 layers of delegates!

That's what I love about you guys. The states are like a miniature of the world. It's like a laboratory in which you can experiment with different political systems. Observe what happens in Colorado with their 3 layered voting process. Observe what happens in Wyoming with their political system (Whatever the hell it is). See what works, what doesn't. And with 51 states, you get several orders of magnitude faster rate of learning experiences, as opposed to how long is needed for a single nation to go through the same trials and errors, the same mistakes and achievements, all on its own. The US system *could* be used to draw lessons about politics in general, which might be applicable globally, but I don't think anyone's doing that.

The problem, all to often, comes in the form of believing that because it works on the smaller scale, it'll work on the larger scale...

What do you find the results are like living in a 3 layered system?

This is the first time I've really explored it. It's complicated, and, odd... Before that, I had no idea... So, I'm not sure how to answer that.

It depends. I did a report recently, did the work to figure out that the Speaker for the House, easily the second most powerful person in the country, only needs 50%+1 of the House (that of the house, not population at large) to get elected. Elected for what? To be the House Speaker? The only other requirement is that they qualify to be president, because they are third in line. That is a surprising amount of power for someone that only needs 218 people. While, so far, every single time they've been a member of the house (something that needs more votes, but a pathetically small percentage of the population to get elected), that is not required.

Interesting, but how does that answer my question:

"Yes, but what else can a government aim for than pleasing the largest group of people?"

It was an example of government not needing to please the largest group of people. It is actually one of the smallest groups of people.... Though I suppose that depends on the numbers you are counting.

Sure. Or I can work on only correcting the statement when its relevant and you can call it whatever you want...

Well, then I think I'll stick with democracy.

Huzzah!

That sounds just awful. Not the watching CNN on vacation, I do things like that, relying on an other country for anything.

Yeah, well, that's where the world's at right now.

It is very strange to hear about it that way. The U.S. just sees our declining power.

I don't know if we're relying on American media for anything, just pointing out the fact that we get American media. The consequence is most people in the industrialized modern world end up knowing a hell of a lot more about what's going on in American politics than any other arbitrary country. I just think it's worth keeping in mind.

One of my favorite writers suggests this is why we get so many comedians from Canada, that standing outside, looking in, does wonders for perspective. Also, I've heard some of the foreign media, its not very good at reporting on the U.S... Just keep that in mind...

If it helps, only half the country agrees with this idea, the conservative half would tell you all your effing crazy. Take care of your own shit, trade with us, but leave us alone otherwise. The heart of Conservatism is the desire to be left alone. Its just unfortunate that so many don't understand that's all we want, hell, even the stupid, racist parts of the party, ultimately come from this very place.

Don't worry, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just trying to justify why we're focusing on American politics in this thread even though the general goal is a bit more broad than that.

Just trying to inform.

To tell you the truth, there's another reason I'm focusing on America. Part way through this thread, I became convinced that the American Constitution was a good model to follow if one's goal was to contrive a kind of "improved" system compared to the ones we have today. So the model is specifically American, but the question was how generalized could we make it.

It depends. If you go to the roots of the U.S. Government, it could be great spread quite far. Though, obviously, there is some silly shit 3/5ths and all that, but all "rights" being negative, limits on government, instead of on people. That's the good stuff, and why the U.N. is a Easter Bunny Rabbit. Sweet Chocolate by appearances, but ultimately hollow on the inside. The closer the "rule" is to the people it is ruling the better off everyone is, because after you vote that one man can't marry another man, you have to go outside and look him in the eye...

If however, government is a far away entity, that rules from on high, deciding what is good and what is bad, you only get disaster.

(Today I think my responses were more dramatic, or romantic, one of those ick words anyway.)

[gib]

Yes, except we say, see at the end of each sentience. As in:

You want democracy, see? We'll give you democracy, see. Oh, and by the way, democracy is just mob rule, see, so that's what you're getting! See.

ha.

Usually its more along the lines of, well (such and such thing) is not what democracy is! We need more, not less. And (such and such) (person, thing or law) is the answer to our problems...

Then I say, "It's not a democracy..."

God, people listen to the fine print way too much.

Except the parts that make America great are often the undemocratic parts. Protection of free speech is not democratic, neither is the judicial system. Democracy doesn't provide freedom, most places don't need democracy, they need restrictions on the government... I.E. a constitution.

I agree with that, but insofar as we define democracy as voting for stuff (leaders, laws, etc.) I think the parts of America that are democratic are pretty good as well. For example, voting for your President (even if it's done through delegates) keeps the President on his toes. Not only is he being scrutinized by the opposing parties, but he is drawn from the people and will one day return to the people. This really dampens the tendency for power to go to the President's head, like you might see in a monarch positioned in absolute power for life. It preserves the sense of "I'd better play nice, or else," which is totally absent in totalitarian systems.

If you ever want to see people that do want Mob rule, got to a college. I had a lovely incident just a couple weeks ago... Or, look up and read some of the pieces by Kat Timpf, she writes for National Review (and other things). She writes almost exclusively on shitty things going on at colleges all over the U.S. I stopped reading because I found it too depressing. To many stupid kids that want exactly that, mob rule, largely because they think they are right, mostly because they are surrounded by people that agree with them... Mob rule is depressing... Its the crowd screaming "KILL HIM" as he expresses a different point of view. (Or was the case a couple weeks ago, "Hit him!" to the driver of a truck.

Shit, what did the driver say?

Don't tell me those college students actually call that democracy?

When President Obama said, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," what exactly did you think he meant? It's the same with the line, "get on the right side of history." As if history had sides, even if far too often, historians do. The "right side" is the mob side, whatever the general public thinks at that time in history...

No kidding. Essentially, any President could have said what Obama said.

The problem, all to often, comes in the form of believing that because it works on the smaller scale, it'll work on the larger scale...

That's a good point, but I think eventually it would be attempted anyway--I mean, if we're assuming the lessons we learn from observing American politics at the State level will be available globally, then it's only a matter of time before other countries try it within their own political contexts (assuming they like the results they see).

It was an example of government not needing to please the largest group of people. It is actually one of the smallest groups of people.... Though I suppose that depends on the numbers you are counting.

True, but that's a single office within government. I was referring to the government as a whole.

It is very strange to hear about it that way. The U.S. just sees our declining power.

Oh yes, we see this too (and not just from reading Joker's thread ). But you're declining from a very high level of power, and you're still pretty high. This is what makes it so scary. It's like watching the collapse of a world government, and wondering what's going to happen to your children in 20 years.

I wonder how much that power is sustained because the world is watching you?

One of my favorite writers suggests this is why we get so many comedians from Canada, that standing outside, looking in, does wonders for perspective.

We also really like our commedy clubs.

Also, I've heard some of the foreign media, its not very good at reporting on the U.S... Just keep that in mind...

Yep, always do.

It depends. If you go to the roots of the U.S. Government, it could be great spread quite far. Though, obviously, there is some silly shit 3/5ths and all that, but all "rights" being negative, limits on government, instead of on people. That's the good stuff, and why the U.N. is a Easter Bunny Rabbit. Sweet Chocolate by appearances, but ultimately hollow on the inside. The closer the "rule" is to the people it is ruling the better off everyone is, because after you vote that one man can't marry another man, you have to go outside and look him in the eye...

If however, government is a far away entity, that rules from on high, deciding what is good and what is bad, you only get disaster.

(Today I think my responses were more dramatic, or romantic, one of those ick words anyway.)

Sounded kind of creative and more fluid, maybe a bit poetic.

Good stuff, Erik!

[zinnat]

Gib,

In case you are not aware, I was a little busy with our friend Iamb.
I will reply tomorrow.

with love,
sanjay

[Eric_The_Pipe]

God, people listen to the fine print way too much.

Probably.

Except the parts that make America great are often the undemocratic parts. Protection of free speech is not democratic, neither is the judicial system. Democracy doesn't provide freedom, most places don't need democracy, they need restrictions on the government... I.E. a constitution.

I agree with that, but insofar as we define democracy as voting for stuff (leaders, laws, etc.) I think the parts of America that are democratic are pretty good as well. For example, voting for your President (even if it's done through delegates) keeps the President on his toes. Not only is he being scrutinized by the opposing parties, but he is drawn from the people and will one day return to the people. This really dampens the tendency for power to go to the President's head, like you might see in a monarch positioned in absolute power for life. It preserves the sense of "I'd better play nice, or else," which is totally absent in totalitarian systems.

There is quite a bit to say about the greatness of democracy, it does a great job of increasing the amount of supporters needed in order to get and remain in office. This changes the power dynamic from pleasing a small group to pleasing the larger group... Read Dictator's Handbook for a great description on why.

If you ever want to see people that do want Mob rule, got to a college. I had a lovely incident just a couple weeks ago... Or, look up and read some of the pieces by Kat Timpf, she writes for National Review (and other things). She writes almost exclusively on shitty things going on at colleges all over the U.S. I stopped reading because I found it too depressing. To many stupid kids that want exactly that, mob rule, largely because they think they are right, mostly because they are surrounded by people that agree with them... Mob rule is depressing... Its the crowd screaming "KILL HIM" as he expresses a different point of view. (Or was the case a couple weeks ago, "Hit him!" to the driver of a truck.

Shit, what did the driver say?

The female driver asked them to stop screaming it at her... Which was a nice change from the nonsence that was going on... The amusing point was when one person started screaming, "Who's college is this?!"

I couldn't help myself, before anyone could yell out, "Our college," which is what I am guessing he was looking for, I yelled, "AHEC!" (a-heck) Which is the name of the company that owns Auraria Campus. Which is were the colleges are placed. No one laughed (at least as hard as I did) and it sorta killed the mood the guy was going for.

Don't tell me those college students actually call that democracy?

No, they call it Justice, as in social justice. The guy they had a problem with was a Christian (of some denomination) that comes to the campus pretty regularly to tell us how we are all going to hell. I got no problem with him, even as I ignore anything he says...

When President Obama said, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," what exactly did you think he meant? It's the same with the line, "get on the right side of history." As if history had sides, even if far too often, historians do. The "right side" is the mob side, whatever the general public thinks at that time in history...

No kidding. Essentially, any President could have said what Obama said.

True enough, "Make America Great Again!" is a perfect example... And it makes me shiver inside with anger.

The problem, all to often, comes in the form of believing that because it works on the smaller scale, it'll work on the larger scale...

That's a good point, but I think eventually it would be attempted anyway--I mean, if we're assuming the lessons we learn from observing American politics at the State level will be available globally, then it's only a matter of time before other countries try it within their own political contexts (assuming they like the results they see).

True.

It was an example of government not needing to please the largest group of people. It is actually one of the smallest groups of people.... Though I suppose that depends on the numbers you are counting.

True, but that's a single office within government. I was referring to the government as a whole.

Which is largely made up of people who don't get elected, but instead sorta fail upwards. Government jobs are notorious for waste on a massive scale, we are currently having porn problems, with quite a few watching (and probably other things) on the clock...

It is very strange to hear about it that way. The U.S. just sees our declining power.

Oh yes, we see this too (and not just from reading Joker's thread ). But you're declining from a very high level of power, and you're still pretty high. This is what makes it so scary. It's like watching the collapse of a world government, and wondering what's going to happen to your children in 20 years.

My current prediction is that there will be another civil war within the US. With Scalia's death, the balance is off, and if the wrong person gets in, it'll intensify the problem. The people that won't feel represented or safe from the slow progression of rights reduction, are also the ones with all the guns... Almost by definition... If they do something stupid, like block people from owning guns, they'll quickly find not only a very well armed revolt, but quite a few law enforcement on the side of the gun owners.

I wonder how much that power is sustained because the world is watching you?

There got to be more to it than that, we still have quite a bit of economic power. China practically relies on us for their economy, let alone all the trade we do everywhere else... But, ultimately power fades, particularly as fuck-tards attempt to make us more like other places in the name of social justice (see above).

One of my favorite writers suggests this is why we get so many comedians from Canada, that standing outside, looking in, does wonders for perspective.

We also really like our comedy clubs.

Good places to drink and watch hockey? ;-p (according to my stereotype book, that is all Canadians do.)

It depends. If you go to the roots of the U.S. Government, it could be great spread quite far. Though, obviously, there is some silly shit 3/5ths and all that, but all "rights" being negative, limits on government, instead of on people. That's the good stuff, and why the U.N. is a Easter Bunny Rabbit. Sweet Chocolate by appearances, but ultimately hollow on the inside. The closer the "rule" is to the people it is ruling the better off everyone is, because after you vote that one man can't marry another man, you have to go outside and look him in the eye...

If however, government is a far away entity, that rules from on high, deciding what is good and what is bad, you only get disaster.

(Today I think my responses were more dramatic, or romantic, one of those ick words anyway.)

Sounded kind of creative and more fluid, maybe a bit poetic.

Good stuff, Erik!

Thanks.

[gib]

The female driver asked them to stop screaming it at her... Which was a nice change from the nonsence that was going on... The amusing point was when one person started screaming, "Who's college is this?!"

I mean, what did the drive say to warrant a threat of "hit him" (or her)?

No, they call it Justice, as in social justice. The guy they had a problem with was a Christian (of some denomination) that comes to the campus pretty regularly to tell us how we are all going to hell. I got no problem with him, even as I ignore anything he says...

Ok, that answers my question.

Which is largely made up of people who don't get elected, but instead sorta fail upwards. Government jobs are notorious for waste on a massive scale, we are currently having porn problems, with quite a few watching (and probably other things) on the clock...

They're watching porn in the White House?

^^ How do you like them tax dollar going to good use?

My current prediction is that there will be another civil war within the US. With Scalia's death, the balance is off, and if the wrong person gets in, it'll intensify the problem. The people that won't feel represented or safe from the slow progression of rights reduction, are also the ones with all the guns... Almost by definition... If they do something stupid, like block people from owning guns, they'll quickly find not only a very well armed revolt, but quite a few law enforcement on the side of the gun owners.

Well, if you do plunge into a civil war over gun rights, the anti-gun advocates are going to have to pick up a few guns in self-defense or lose the battle very quickly.

Only difference this time would be that you guys now have machine guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and atomic bombs. Not to mention threats from abroad to perpetually surveillance.

Good places to drink and watch hockey? ;-p (according to my stereotype book, that is all Canadians do.)

Almost all.

[gib]

Ok, I got it!

I figured out why I have these qualms with the term "democracy":

Actually democracies--in terms of the literal/original meaning of the word--have absolutely nothing to do with voting.

If a democracy is defined as majority rule, then you could imagine a society in which black people outnumber white people (or all other races), and if they decided they were going to rule over the country and just suppress any white man's grievances or differences, then that would be a democracy. Notice that nobody voted for this, and the black community who would be in power would have no reason to limit their term--they would be there for life (and many, many lives). <-- That's a democracy.

It's essentially any society in which government outnumbers civilians.

It's the implication of "majority rule" that voting and limited terms need not apply that I was missing. Now that I thought about this scenario, I can completely agree that an actual democracy is not what we want.

Still, however, making important political decisions in a democratic fashion is still the preferred way to go in many circumstances. I realized, after considering the above scenario, that the question really ought to be: majority rule on what subject, on what policy? If it's a question of who the President should be, then by all means, take a democratic approach. If the question is what legal bill to pass, sure, do it democratically. But the point is that it should be a means for decision making--or to be more precise, it should be employed in the decision making process before groups are formed (groups that voted yea or groups that voted nay) as opposed to identifying groups first (which ever counts as the majority) and then move on to decision making (within that group).

This seriously limits the scope in which the democratic approach ought to be used, and when you think about how limited it is in America, you quickly realized how little ground there is to calling America a democracy.

I also realized that the democratic aspect of American politics is already embedded in the term "constitutional representative republic." <-- There is no need to tack on the term "democratic" to this already cumbersome phrase since the democratic aspect of American politics is determined by the constitution. Therefore, the "constitutional" part of this phrase already implies the democratic aspect (at least in America).

[Eric_The_Pipe]

This seriously limits the scope in which the democratic approach ought to be used, and when you think about how limited it is in America, you quickly realized how little ground there is to calling America a democracy.

I also realized that the democratic aspect of American politics is already embedded in the term "constitutional representative republic." <-- There is no need to tack on the term "democratic" to this already cumbersome phrase since the democratic aspect of American politics is determined by the constitution. Therefore, the "constitutional" part of this phrase already implies the democratic aspect (at least in America).

I would think the Constitutional part is the opposite of democracy, because it is ruling through law, not man. As Scalia put it, "The Constitution is not a living organism. It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

The best parts of our "Democracy" are the anti-democracy bits.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Which is largely made up of people who don't get elected, but instead sorta fail upwards. Government jobs are notorious for waste on a massive scale, we are currently having porn problems, with quite a few watching (and probably other things) on the clock...

They're watching porn in the White House?

^^ How do you like them tax dollar going to good use?

I don't know that there is specific detection in the White House, but, government facilities, yes.

I have a mix of feelings. On one hand I'm pissed, wasting good tax money... On the other hand, at least they aren't interfering with peoples lives... If I could have every congressman watching porn and masturbating instead of passing one more shitty law, I just might consider it worth it... Its why I never bitch about President Obama playing golf.

My current prediction is that there will be another civil war within the US. With Scalia's death, the balance is off, and if the wrong person gets in, it'll intensify the problem. The people that won't feel represented or safe from the slow progression of rights reduction, are also the ones with all the guns... Almost by definition... If they do something stupid, like block people from owning guns, they'll quickly find not only a very well armed revolt, but quite a few law enforcement on the side of the gun owners.

Well, if you do plunge into a civil war over gun rights, the anti-gun advocates are going to have to pick up a few guns in self-defense or lose the battle very quickly.

Supposing they don't have all the tax money and attempt to pay the military to do it for them... Either way, yes, It'll work out bad for everyone.

Only difference this time would be that you guys now have machine guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and atomic bombs. Not to mention threats from abroad to perpetually surveillance.

Now you understand why I'm so pro-second amendment... Though I should note, this is a prediction, not something I'd put any faith in. I'm not stock-piling goods for when the revolution comes or anything. I'm not crazy pants, just a little off...

Good places to drink and watch hockey? ;-p (according to my stereotype book, that is all Canadians do.)

Almost all.

Except the ones that come to The U.S. to tell jokes about the U.S.?

[gib]

I would think the Constitutional part is the opposite of democracy...

I mean that the Constitution stipulates the manner in which Presidents shall be elected, and also representatives and laws. <-- That's the part everyone's calling democratic.

I don't know that there is specific detection in the White House...

Oh, they'll find it... they'll find it.

I heard that Monica Lewinsky was brought in because Clinton's internet was down for the day.

Except the ones that come to The U.S. to tell jokes about the U.S.?

They tell jokes about the US in the US?

Rude.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

I would think the Constitutional part is the opposite of democracy...

I mean that the Constitution stipulates the manner in which Presidents shall be elected, and also representatives and laws. <-- That's the part everyone's calling democratic.

And this is why I keep saying, we are not a democracy, lol. It just gets so confusing.

I don't know that there is specific detection in the White House...

Oh, they'll find it... they'll find it.

I heard that Monica Lewinsky was brought in because Clinton's internet was down for the day.

Except the ones that come to The U.S. to tell jokes about the U.S.?

They tell jokes about the US in the US?

Rude.

Eh, the one people the U.S. loves to laugh at is the U.S. Even the ones you'd think take shit to seriously will make fun of themselves (the people that laughed hardest at redneck jokes are the rednecks.) Progressives love with outsiders come in and point out how much the U.S. sucks, though that's largely because they like to pretend they are not included.

Hell, nerd jokes (as a huge nerd I should know) are mostly about making fun of nerds... It was from a Canadian I first heard the term frost-back, he was my boss, and was making fun of himself.

[gib]

Hey Americans! How's everyone enjoying BLM? Everyone locking their doors? Getting out of town? Thinking now's the time to move to Canada?

I couldn't help but to post here again just to say I told you so.

But the latest news is that the police are finally cracking down on the violence, starting by the arrest of this guy:

commander red.png (49.64 KiB) Viewed 978 times

He calls himself Commander Red (Matthew Banta), an ANTIFA ring leader who happens to be as white as they come. He also looks a bit like the Joker from the GOTHAM series:

joker.png (95.06 KiB) Viewed 978 times

...so even if our beloved ILP Joker isn't taking the reigns in these riots (not that I'm aware of anyway), at least a Joker is. I would have thought our Joker would have been first in line to partake in the anarchy you guys are now enduring but I guess since it's a leftist/communist anarchy that declares itself "anti-fascist", that leaves Joker diametrically opposed to it.

So anyway, why is this breakdown of the American social fabric not spilling over the boarder? I guess different histories. ANTIFA and BLM can be traced back to police brutality. Police brutality can be traced back to police being so used to black violence and crime that they develop a prejudice against blacks (in the sense that they instinctively expect blacks to be more violent and criminally inclined--enough to be veeery trigger happy). Police are used to black violence and crime because blacks in America are disproportionally violent and criminally inclined. Blacks in America are disproportionally violent and criminally inclined ever since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty was brought about because of the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act marked the conclusion of segregation and unequal treatment of black people under the law in the United States. And finally, the segregation and unequal treatment of black people under the law in the United States was a result of black people once being slaves in America and being granted their freedom but not civil rights. We didn't have that in Canada. Therefore, the chain of events which lead to ANTIFA and BLM in the U.S. of A. never unfolded like this in Canada, and therefore Canada today enjoys a riot-free harmonious peace between all its citizens of every color.

Would anyone say the riots breaking out in all the major cities across your nation have grown to the level of a civil war? Surely not as disastrous as the one you underwent from 1861 to 1865, but a enough of one to be calls "The Second Civil War"... perhaps?

[promethean75]

If I lived two hundred years ago Id'a been able to predict all this with almost mathematical precision... and I suck at math, btw.

What you have are the growing pangs of an economic system coming to the slow realization that it produces systemic conflict. In this case - what I call 'the great neegrow question' - we have a nation that took the proper steps in its inception to guarantee the disaster to come which we are now experiencing. In the simplest terms you have a capitalist nation that imports slaves without any foresight into the challenges later to come when those slaves begin the fight for civil rights. But granting these civil rights does nothing to change the conditions responsible for producing... and I should say 'sustaining' the neegrow problem in ermerica.

We simply have a situation where I am only able to say to capitalism 'look at the mess you made' and then stand back and watch it unfold.

[gib]

Have you read Thomas Sowell, Promethean?



According to Tom, the black community in American was doing fine until the 1960s when they very rapidly dropped significantly in terms of economic standards and morale and rose in crime. His point is that you can't just blame it on slavery. Lyndon Johnson's reforms are a much more direct cause.

[WendyDarling]

According to Jesse Lee Peterson, a black man who grew up picking cotton on an Alabama plantation under Jim Crow laws, he says the same thing as Thomas Sowell. Back then black communities provided for themselves with their own everything from schools, churches, stores, banks, to a black wall street as well and their families were in tact with both a mother and father under the same roof, predominantly even married. However, feminism didn't help to strengthen the family unit either.

[WendyDarling]

So Giblet,

I've read this thread somewhat and need to ask a three part question to keep this thread going. What are the three big flaws in American democracy?

My guesses:

1. Who counts the votes seems relevant
2. Corrupt politicians
3. ?

[gib]

So Giblet,

I've read this thread somewhat and need to ask a three part question to keep this thread going. What are the three big flaws in American democracy?

My guesses:

1. Who counts the votes seems relevant
2. Corrupt politicians
3. ?

Hey Wendy!

You don't have to keep this thread going. It died a long time ago and I wish not to resurrect it. The only reason I posted in this thread recently is because the current events in your country have progressed exactly as I foresaw since I last touched this thread, and I had to post a "I told you so" post.



Three biggest flaws in American democracy?

Hmmm... why don't we say...

1. Inability to reign in incremental encroachments of power.

2. No safeguards against advances in psychological technologies used to manufacture voting behavior.

3. No safeguards against advances in information technologies used to invade privacy.

^ Just off the top of my head.

In other news, civil war seems imminent:



I would consider an order on Trump's part to march on the rioters and squash them as officially the "Second Civil War"... although this will proly be quick and easy.

Interesting times, Wendy, interesting times.