Jump to content

Volphied

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Volphied

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Country
    Slovakia

Contact Methods

  • Steam
    Volphied

Recent Profile Visitors

2,431 profile views
  1. This "gradual expansion of the franchise and rights" was brought by cataclysmic events, that each time threatened to completely destroy the US. For many Americans, the brutal years of the Civil War could only be described as an collapse of the idea of a one united nation, and the US was mended back together only through violence and occupation. The Reconstruction was then seen as an collapse of the old order for many Southerners, and the violent end of the Reconstruction and its replacing by Jim Crow was seen as a collapse and backsliding of rights for the freed slaves. FDR's policies helped improve the life of many millions of (white) Americans... but this was only done after the economy already collapsed due to the Depression. Black people were given the right to vote and segregation was removed... but again only after civil order collapsed into violent riots. And there's a fine line from the election of Trump to the Souther Strategy of Nixon. The history of the US is the history of how it struggles to deal with its original sin. I sincerely hope so. But if Trump gets to nominate two more monsters to the SCOTUS (and there's a very high chance he might be able to) and the country backslides on all of the voting related issues, the chance of a violent revolution to remove an obviously broken system will dramatically increase. Again, it works fine and has stood the test of time if you're white. One of the revealing things about Trump's election was hearing many black people talk with amusement about the terror many white liberals felt. They were quick to point out that for black Americans, the system almost never worked for them. Trump was just one more white racist president in a long history of racist president. White liberals are afraid now only because there's now a president who will treat many white people the same way previous president solely treated blacks: by making their vote worthless through gerrymandering, by threatening violence on them from his supporters, by passing rights that will rob them of their rights. We'd still have McConnell's and Ryan's and Pence's. On the other hand, an actual smart and non-shit person would be denied just because he didn't hold an office before. I actually know of at least one non-US President who never held office before being elected, yet has so far acted like a mirror image of Trump. Basing your government on unwritten "traditions" is a terrible flaw. Half of the stuff Trump is doing right now would be impossible to do had the US not were clinging on all these traditions. And there's no guarantee that they will be eventually patched the same way term limits were. The way Washington was "weary and frustrated by slavery" (a term actually used by American historians), reminds me of how McCain is today "worried and disturbed" about the excesses of Trump's rule. The Civil Was his direct legacy, caused by his unwilingness (or fear?) to bet his universal approval on pushing for the abolition of slavery. Any adult slave who resided in Pennsylvania for more that six months became free, so Washington deliberately sent slaves out of the state to circumvent the law. "Washington developed a canny strategy that would protect his property and allow him to avoid public scrutiny. Every six months, the president’s slaves would travel back to Mount Vernon or would journey with Mrs. Washington outside the boundaries of the state. In essence, the Washingtons reset the clock. The president was secretive when writing to his personal secretary Tobias Lear in 1791: “I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington.” This is a very proto-Trumpian view of how laws work. This ignores the fact that many of those civil wars and consolidations of power were either caused by US interference; or began as a reaction to US domination. In essence, those US presidents had a dim view on democracy and the "handing of power" outside of the US. With Platt Amendment in place, Roosevelt pulled the troops out of Cuba. This action was met with public unrest and outcries for annexation, with reasons ranging from "U.S. interests" to "dominant white race". The Indianapolis News said, "It is manifest destiny for a nation to own the islands which border its shores." A year later, Roosevelt wrote "Just at the moment I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth. All that we wanted from them was that they would behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we would not have to interfere."
  2. But the same can be said about America. Or are we pretending that a democracy that banned women, poor people and slaves from voting was a proud period of American history? For America it took a bloody civil war to realize that slavery is bad and massive civil unrest to realize that maybe black people should be allowed to vote (and this is still not understood in many US states). Oh, and there's yet ongoing controversy over whether their lives matter at all. So I hope you understand why many people believe that there's no hope in improving the situation without first tearing down the whole system. Hey, you said so much when you in another post said that "we're probably not going to get full racial, economic, etc. justice any time soon, but we can move a little bit closer by establishing a new normal." Could you elaborate on why you think so? Why you think that some nations shouldn't copy US system? (For the record, I'm of the opinion that NO nation should have the US system, but I've never heard anyone say that the US system is somehow nation specific) Honestly, I feel that many Americans have an overly romantic and idealized view of George Washington. Yes, he was a humble man full of virtue... as long as you weren't one of his runaway slaves. Washington was obsessive about getting back the thieves who dared to steal their bodies and run away with them. Simon Bolivar on the other hand considered slavery to be "the worst human indignity". So I'd say that Bolivar was a better man than Washington. And the millions of enslaved people of both North and South America, would agree too. For them, being a slaver wasn't some small detail that can be ignored. Having absolute power over human beings is what a true "powermonger" looks like. Anyway, how's the first meeting between Trump and Putin going? Welp. How soon until we learn that Trump handed over to Putin both Eastern Europe AND Alaska? Guess someone should inform the FBI.
  3. Uh, No? Trump has not become an establishment Republican, nor has Bernie become an estabilishement Democrat. They can't since their supporters would have eaten them alive if they did it. Modern Germany has. Why do you continue to compare Modern USA to Weimar Germany? Do I compare Modern Germany to Robber Baron era America? But those Germans never said that Germany was always a beacon of Democracy. Where are you coming up with this? Honestly, maybe instead of getting, as you said, pissed at some Germans for not liking Americans, you should try to understand why they might dislike Americans. My theory: to them, Trump represents the quintessential "ugly American". Germans have a good reason to be right now proud of what society they built. After the wall fell, other countries outright lobbied against uniting the two halves of Germany, citing Prussia, Weimar and nazis as reason. They were proven wrong. Even Bill Clinton is saying the same. But the Presidential system is much worse when it gives one party full power from the Congress to the Presidency. After the US was established, it went on to export its political system to South America. Almost all South American countries mimic not the parliamentary systems of post 1945 Europe, but the Presidential system of Modern USA. And the 20th century in South America was marked by these presidential systems imploding into dictatorship. And no, they didn't all fall to tanks and coups.... there were dictatorships created by free elections that put into the Presidential palace a populist who hated the press and judges. It's called democratic backsliding. And the US is experiencing it right now. Please watch this video that explains it better than I can in this post Also, this video came up before The President of the United States of America made this tweet
  4. The US has only barely recovered from the 2008 economic downturn, and now Trump threatens to start another one. How long do you think will the US system survive increasing inequality? Work within the system? Yes, they adopted the Republican and Democrat label, but that's only because they realized that the US system makes it outright impossible to win under a third party banner. But saying that they "work with the system" is a stretch. Both Trump and Sanders are infamous for attacking their party colleagues; the primaries were especially vicious. They both see themselves as anti-establishment and so do their supporters who loath almost all other Republican/Democratic politicians. Which is why it's worrying that partisanship is now spreading to state levels too. In the last decade there's been a dramatic increase in states where only ONE party dominates. Republicans are very close to being able to call a constitutional convention. We'll see who's correct once the vote on AHCA actually happens. May I ask you why you even brought up Weimar the first time I mentioned Germany? When I posted that poll I was detailing the view of current living Germans in current modern Germany on current modern USA. Why was you first reaction to criticize them for a system almost none of the polled people experienced? It almost seems to me that you know that if the US system was compared to Germany's, the US would lose. So you had to travel in past to refute parliamentarism. So alright, I'll agree with you that Weimar in the 1920's was a worse system that the US in 2010's. Yet, I have to say that the Germans managed to overcome their crisis years better. You don't see many German politicians claiming that the swastika is "heritage, not hate". I also find it interesting how you repeatedly mentioned the fact that Weimar jailed opposition politicians. Didn't the US also jail socialists and anarchists from the beginning of the 20th century? Eugene V. Debs even ran for US president from his jail cell. I can't answer this as good as the people who actually work with data and polls, so I'll just leave this link and a very small excerpt: https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/ What was the relative importance of economic peril to voting in 2016 compared to several different types of racism and racial animus exhibited by voters? The answers can be found in the comprehensive American National Election Studies pre- and post-election survey of over 4,000 respondents, which we analyzed to explore the impact of racism and economic peril on 2016 voting behavior. The results are clear, and move a long way towards settling this debate. Our analysis shows Trump accelerated a realignment in the electorate around racism, across several different measures of racial animus—and that it helped him win. By contrast, we found little evidence to suggest individual economic distress benefited Trump. The American political system is sorting so that racial progressivism and economic progressivism are aligned in the Democratic Party and racial conservatism and economic conservatism are aligned in the Republican Party. [...] Our final set of results put an even finer point on the dubious nature of 2016 analyses that emphasize white economic anxiety. For one, as shown above, Latinos and African-Americans scored higher on our economic peril scale than did whites. Any analysis of the role of economic anxiety during the 2016 election that fails to consider the experience of Latinos and black people can only be called misleading. When we model the factors that predict whether someone expresses economic anxiety, we find that Republicans have significantly lower levels of economic anxiety compared to Democrats and Independents, and that there is no significant difference in economic peril between Clinton and Trump voters. Most importantly, as shown in the chart below, the two strongest predictors of white economic anxiety are attitudes towards immigration and black-influence animosity. Among a typical white person, anti-black and anti-immigrant attitudes feed negative perceptions of personal economic hardship. Not only is there no effect of income or economic anxiety for white people on Trump support once racial attitudes are taken into account, there is strong evidence that these racial attitudes cause economic anxiety rather than the other way around. A result that is consistent with earlier research by Michael Tesler, the influential scholar of race and politics. We'll see what the final score is after Trump's first term is over.
  5. No offense, but Germany has done much, much more to atone for their past crimes than the US. The US is yet to pay reparations to the many millions it abused just inside of US borders. Instead, it wallows in its delusions of "American exceptionalism" which strangles any possibility of introspection or humility. Yes, the American system survived the Civil war,....... by denying minorities voting rights until the latter half of the 20th century. And some would say they're still being denied in many US states. But it's not just voting right. You mention the economic depression. Did you know that the only reason Americans accepted the New Deal was because FDR made it clear that it would only help white people? Please, read this article, before you continue to argue that Germany should shut the fuck up You're mistaking "stable" with "healthy". Stability can be achieved by repression and indoctrinating the population that they're living in the best possible system, and that change is harmful, if not outright impossible. From the outside, nothing about the US appears stable. Your system elected a loathed, corrupt and crazy president by a minority of votes who's supported (or at least tolerated) by a congress of likewise loathed people elected thanks to gerrymander and voter suppression. Political extremism is on the rise, and Trump was a "whitelash" against the first black president. You only have to fail at it once. I don't believe that Trump, McConnell and other GOP sycophants will allow to lose their power without breaking more "traditions". They will certainly pull every trick they can think of. And I know for sure that Trump will refuse to accept his loss in 2020. What will happen then? I don't think it's inevitable for it to crash and burn. I do however think that the possibility for this to get worse still exists. Just like you mentioned Democrats in 2008, I could mention Republicans in 2004. Many people thought that was the worst that could happen. But instead we're seeing the GOP nominating increasingly horrible people.... and still getting them into the Congress and the White House. I worry there's no bottom to it.
  6. Painting an entire nation with the same brush is unfair. That I agree. But I don't entirely agree with the "distinguish between the people and the politicians". The US is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Yes, there's voter suppression, and gerrymandering. But the sad fact is that almost 63 million Americans saw what Trump represented and still pulled the lever for him. Whether they did it because they identified with him, or because they just wanted to send a "fuck you" to Washington DC, is irrelevant. Americans already once before re-elected Dubya, leading to newspapers in Europe outright calling them stupid. Now there's a million times worse person in the White House. Is it really that surprising that some might have lost faith in American people? I don't agree with them, but then, I also don't believe that they're "unreasonable". They're still much more reasonable than the more than third of Americans that still support Trump. They're definitely more reasonable than the 83% of white evangelicals who today support a President that is guilty of all seven deadly sins (seriously, try to think of one that doesn't fit Trump entirely). You know what I find unreasonable about America? That there is absolutely no way to announce snap elections for the highest office in the land. The impeachment process is useless if the congress is held by his party, and even if it were triggered, the succession order right now is depressing. From Europe to Asia, snap elections are considered an important part of the democratic process. South Korean held snap presidential elections just this May, after removing a corrupt president from office. But in the US, you're stuck with Trump for 4 years, and even if he were miraculously removed, the presidency would just go to his lackey. In Europe, if politicians tried to take healthcare from an entire nation, millions would stream into the streets and the government would lose a vote of confidence and dissolve, triggering snap elections. There's no such system in the US. Americans are often proud of how their country was the first modern democracy. But that also means you're now stuck with the beta version of democracy, while the late-comers had the chance to fix or discard what didn't work. And the way the US system is constructed makes any change extremely difficult, if not outright impossible. This means that America is sleepwalking into another bloody civil war; the only way out of this increasingly unbearable gridlock. The latest NRA ads are outright calling for it.
  7. Friendly communities are also increasingly alienated. Here's the latest example:
  8. You mention refugees, but if I'm reading the decision correctly, this partial ban also affects tourists and visitors. Getting documentation is already a byzantine process and this ban just gives a convenient excuse to deny them. Also, I don't trust the border controls not to fuck up. People who have a right to visit even with the partial ban in effect are still in danger of being targeted by overzealous and ignorant border agents and pressured to return.
  9. The big issue people have with Trump's ban from the start is how it bans people on the basis of their religion. Which is something completely different from the Cuban policy. And yes, it's a religious ban, Trump said so on twitter and lower courts used those tweets to block his ban. It was already ridiculous to see how some Trump officials tried to imply that Trump's Muslim ban is somehow identical to policies enacted by Carter or Obama, so can we please not do the same thing?
  10. BREAKING: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-block-partially-lifted Oh boy. I can already see it. "In a landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling..." EDIT: Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch wanted to reinstate the entire ban, not just most of it, before the three month SCOTUS recess begins.
  11. Fixing a packed SCOTUS will be extremely hard, you can't just fire Trump's picks. They're there for life, which means that future Democratic administrations will be instead busy trying to ensure that the now strongly conservative SCOTUS won't keep erasing anything even vaguely liberal. This happened once before. FDR had to fight with a horribly conservative SCOTUS that was aggressively undoing his New Deal. Ultimately, FDR won this battle only because he served for more than twelve years; long enough to appoint eight of the nine Justices.
  12. Lately there have been terrible rumours going around about Justice Kennedy planing to retire. He is known to be somewhat against gerrymandering, which of course means that if he really does retire, the GOP will replace him with another ultra-conservative of the Gorsuch/Scalia variety. If that happens, gerrymandering will remain a fact of America for many more decades.
  13. While America is distracted by the shooting, Turtle McConnell is working hard to repeal Obamacare Many thousand Americans will soon die. But their lives don't matter as much as the life of one shot congress critter. Once Republicans finally kill the social contract, violent outburst from desperate people will become a daily occurrence. Bet the GOP will be acting shocked.
  14. "The Case of the Pirate Princesss" was one of my fav storylines from the reboot. But then again, It's hard for my to find a Sonic Universe story that I disliked. I prefered it more to the main comic. Blaze is one character that is stuck in limbo. We even got a cover with her and Bunnie! But I don't think I'll ever be able to read that comic book now. This depresses me so much. But not as much as the loss of the story set in Studiopolis. Whyyyyyyyy. The story and world was finally becoming interesting after an awkward start post-reboot. Goddamnit.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.