Group Leader
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
- Messages
- 710
there! you nailed it. Thanks to 8 years of Obama and Biden. Bye America, Welcome China~
Remember to vote the left if you want America to be the runner-up, yes, the runner-up.
The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
there! you nailed it. Thanks to 8 years of Obama and Biden. Bye America, Welcome China~
Remember to vote the left if you want America to be the runner-up, yes, the runner-up.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
@Richman
@Tamerlane
Woah man, just the princess have her delusions about a Native American Wakanda that could've been.
But damn, I'm glad that original comment didn't sit right with others as well as with myself. I could practically feel the bitterness coming out of my screen when I read:
@firelight
Yo man, have you been to the doctor lately? I think you should get that checked out.
@Tamerlane
But damn, I'm glad that original comment didn't sit right with others as well as with myself. I could practically feel the bitterness coming out of my screen when I read:
The moral standards when it comes to past atrocities is baffling at times. As you said, no group of people in the history of the world is free from bloodshed that would be nearly unthinkable by today's standards.
@firelight
Me neither brother.
@Tamerlane
Furthermore, just because all "successful" (by what standard?) civilizations did the same does not make it ethical or moral to do so, unless you subscribe to a fascist dogma concerning might making right as nation states plow their way through other nation states.
For one last note,
(Merged a separate response into one, so this is response to your second post.)
And yet for all that knowledge you're not able to formulate why lambasting someone whose people were destroyed to found the country they dislike. Also, contrary to what you formulate here.
Isn't possible to do that AND for @2SpiritCherokeePrincess to continue living on the land given to her people because of the Colón v. U.S. Department of State court case resulting in the ruling that, desiring to renounce citizenship, while simultaneously choosing to wish to stay on US soil (yes all Native American reservations are still beholden to the US government) is not allowed. Thus, this would be tantamount to "cutting off the nose to spite the face" for what the actual base problem is, requiring them to leave both the US and any Native Lands. Though as an American I suppose you also don't have a good concept of "native soil" being important to any degree.
Furthermore, just because all "successful" (by what standard?) civilizations did the same does not make it ethical or moral to do so, unless you subscribe to a fascist dogma concerning might making right as nation states plow their way through other nation states.
For one last note,
Even if it were the diseases that killed them, European settlers did make an active attempt to spread said diseases. To wipe the bloody hands of those who slaughtered due to a technicality isn't really something to aspire to, but again, this seems to be the typical attitude towards a dominate culture that needs both moral and martial superiority to keep it's rhetoric in place.
(Merged a separate response into one, so this is response to your second post.)
This isn't unique to the American system, if anything this befalls all Democracies, where the majority become the most valuable to asset to increase the quality off as far as tax revenue and earnings. Then again, for all your measures, most contemporary international systems currently measure the US at doing it's job of "developing it's citizenry's full potential" as pretty catastrophic on measures of freedom, economic mobility, or even happiness.
Successful? Compared to who? The golden age of the US market was immediately after WWII that stole all of Europeans greatest minds in the interim and left the European manufacturing base in desolate ruins. While this certainly did lead the US to be the most powerful economic force and most prosperous in the short term, I don't think that's do to the American idea being successful as much as the Americans being developed and NOT getting blown to bits in WWII. Even then, it's current state is a far cry from the current situation where West Taiwan is currently holding the most political sway in it's sphere, not even allowing the UN to recognize Taiwan and making bold territorial claims.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@Bigtiddyoneesan
Hopefully it's not Elizabeth Warren roleplaying her fantasies
Sins of the father do not pass to the sins of the son. Also, pretty sure the Indigenous tribes of the Alaskans were more affected by what the Russians did to them (because they were the original colonizers) than the Americans given Alaska was bought by the US in 1867 by, what was referred to at the time, Seward's Folly, as there were basically no Americans there because, you know, Canada. Hence why it went into martial law for a little bit considering the nation was uneasy from the late civil war.
Sins of the father do not pass to the sins of the son. Also, pretty sure the Indigenous tribes of the Alaskans were more affected by what the Russians did to them (because they were the original colonizers) than the Americans given Alaska was bought by the US in 1867 by, what was referred to at the time, Seward's Folly, as there were basically no Americans there because, you know, Canada. Hence why it went into martial law for a little bit considering the nation was uneasy from the late civil war.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
@bigtiddyoneesan
Don't worry bro, I have hot chocolate in my hand, cures everything.
Don't worry bro, I have hot chocolate in my hand, cures everything.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@Chrona
First point is an ad hominem, so I'll ignore it.
Secondly, Colon v US Department of State specifically refers to citizens who renounce their citizenship whilst still wanting to have citizenship in a US territory, the person in question wanted to remain a resident of Puerto Rico because he believed it should be a sovereign nation, but the government said he could not do that. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) states that just because an Indian territories are bound to the federal government, it means they are not bound to state laws and are still considered "sovereign." Although the US did pass the Indian Citizenship Act that makes all people born on reservations citizens, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone who renounces their citizenship but is still a part of the tribe couldn't still live in their borders. It's a grey area, but I think it passes. Even then, the point I was trying to make was that it seemed hypocritical that you would not consider yourself an American, hate the Americans as a whole, yet still engage in the privileges awarded to its citizens, like having your cake and eating it, too.
Thirdly, if you set up a moral standard no one can subscribe to, what is the point of the moral standard? If you hold everyone, or even just one nation, to an absurdly high moral standard that no nation can ever hope to meet, then you've essentially thrown in the flag. International relations are all about power dynamics between countries, where nations will try to negotiate terms that only seeks to benefit themselves in the long term, either through trade, diplomacy, or, worse of all, war, each country ultimately is concerned for itself and what will allow for its own prosperity, or to impose certain universal standards in order to prevent actions that are deemed to be crimes against human rights that do not benefit anyone because of Mutually Assured Destruction as a principal.
A nation cannot plow through other nations within the modern geo-political landscape because of Nuclear Weapons, along with things like NATO assuring that any aspiring empires will be quickly squashed as they try to invade and conqueror and more powerful nations like the US, Russia, Britain, etc. all join forces to stop their attempts to change the power dynamic. It was directly set up so something like Hitler invading Poland could never happen again, as all the people allied to the most powerful forces within the UN would put a stop to it.
As for your last note on my last note:
My argument was not that the Europeans did nothing wrong to the indigenous peoples, or that there were not war crimes and unethical processes committed by people against the American Indians. (I named a bunch, especially with the Spanish, not to mention the British gave out smallpox blankets during the Seven Year's War to crush the French Native Allies) Rather, I was pointing out that, unlike other genocides, most horrifically the Holocaust, the US was not engaging in a systematic extermination of the Native Americans or putting in place policies to completely wipe out their culture en masse to all of the nations. Rather, most of the Natives were already dead by the time the United States gained its independence, leaving a very sparsely populated continent with a series of scattered tribes that were in no shape to unify or go against it. I was pointing out how the US treated them more ethically than other empires or countries did historically given similar positions of power, such as Rome, which is often compared to the US because of it as a global Hegemony only rivaled during its height by the Han Chinese. We don't view the Romans conquering the tribes of Italy, Gaul, or destroying Carthage so utterly that nothing could grow on its soil because they sewed the soil with salt as we do the US which did nothing that compares to the scale and brutality the Romans committed to forge their empire. Especially because most of the death and destruction would have happened before the US became a nation, especially due to the mass death from disease.
That's demonstrably not true of all democracies. Ancient Athens, Rome, and the many other pre-Enlightenment republics of the world had no interest in universal suffrage or equality under the law. It is only because of the US's influence that so much of the modern world is built on Democracy because of its control over things like the UN, and its post-WWII rise as a global power that spread its values everywhere. Europe did have its share of influences from the Enlightenment in Britain and France, but most countries until very recently were still Monarchies over there, with Russia still having serfs and feudalism until a few decades before the first world war.
Finally, your nation of success is very skewed given that you ignore that there's plenty of failed societies that have arisen over the years all over Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. A nation like China, which you cite, is dependent on the US to buy its goods in order to keep its economy going as if the US was able to become completely self-sufficient, the Chinese's industries would collapse under their own weight. You must judge the success of nations relatively, and based on a myriad of factors, that, when you combine them all together, the US still is consistent excellent in due to the system in place. For instance, when you consider quality of life in the US compared to other countries and factor in the US's size, population, and wide array of cultures and geography that each have their own needs and drives, it's definitely fairly objective to say that the system is functioning, especially because most people have their nutritional needs met, mortality rates are low, and the US has been spear-heading innovation for the last century or so. (First to put a man on the moon is a pretty big accomplishment if you ask me, and a good indication of a functioning society if the government can afford to do that and its people are well-feed, experiencing less crime and poverty than any previous period in human history, etc.) I'd tell you to read a book called Why Nations Fail, or Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I don't think you'd be able to understand the arguments given how much you've missed most of my points.
First point is an ad hominem, so I'll ignore it.
Secondly, Colon v US Department of State specifically refers to citizens who renounce their citizenship whilst still wanting to have citizenship in a US territory, the person in question wanted to remain a resident of Puerto Rico because he believed it should be a sovereign nation, but the government said he could not do that. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) states that just because an Indian territories are bound to the federal government, it means they are not bound to state laws and are still considered "sovereign." Although the US did pass the Indian Citizenship Act that makes all people born on reservations citizens, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone who renounces their citizenship but is still a part of the tribe couldn't still live in their borders. It's a grey area, but I think it passes. Even then, the point I was trying to make was that it seemed hypocritical that you would not consider yourself an American, hate the Americans as a whole, yet still engage in the privileges awarded to its citizens, like having your cake and eating it, too.
Thirdly, if you set up a moral standard no one can subscribe to, what is the point of the moral standard? If you hold everyone, or even just one nation, to an absurdly high moral standard that no nation can ever hope to meet, then you've essentially thrown in the flag. International relations are all about power dynamics between countries, where nations will try to negotiate terms that only seeks to benefit themselves in the long term, either through trade, diplomacy, or, worse of all, war, each country ultimately is concerned for itself and what will allow for its own prosperity, or to impose certain universal standards in order to prevent actions that are deemed to be crimes against human rights that do not benefit anyone because of Mutually Assured Destruction as a principal.
A nation cannot plow through other nations within the modern geo-political landscape because of Nuclear Weapons, along with things like NATO assuring that any aspiring empires will be quickly squashed as they try to invade and conqueror and more powerful nations like the US, Russia, Britain, etc. all join forces to stop their attempts to change the power dynamic. It was directly set up so something like Hitler invading Poland could never happen again, as all the people allied to the most powerful forces within the UN would put a stop to it.
As for your last note on my last note:
My argument was not that the Europeans did nothing wrong to the indigenous peoples, or that there were not war crimes and unethical processes committed by people against the American Indians. (I named a bunch, especially with the Spanish, not to mention the British gave out smallpox blankets during the Seven Year's War to crush the French Native Allies) Rather, I was pointing out that, unlike other genocides, most horrifically the Holocaust, the US was not engaging in a systematic extermination of the Native Americans or putting in place policies to completely wipe out their culture en masse to all of the nations. Rather, most of the Natives were already dead by the time the United States gained its independence, leaving a very sparsely populated continent with a series of scattered tribes that were in no shape to unify or go against it. I was pointing out how the US treated them more ethically than other empires or countries did historically given similar positions of power, such as Rome, which is often compared to the US because of it as a global Hegemony only rivaled during its height by the Han Chinese. We don't view the Romans conquering the tribes of Italy, Gaul, or destroying Carthage so utterly that nothing could grow on its soil because they sewed the soil with salt as we do the US which did nothing that compares to the scale and brutality the Romans committed to forge their empire. Especially because most of the death and destruction would have happened before the US became a nation, especially due to the mass death from disease.
That's demonstrably not true of all democracies. Ancient Athens, Rome, and the many other pre-Enlightenment republics of the world had no interest in universal suffrage or equality under the law. It is only because of the US's influence that so much of the modern world is built on Democracy because of its control over things like the UN, and its post-WWII rise as a global power that spread its values everywhere. Europe did have its share of influences from the Enlightenment in Britain and France, but most countries until very recently were still Monarchies over there, with Russia still having serfs and feudalism until a few decades before the first world war.
Finally, your nation of success is very skewed given that you ignore that there's plenty of failed societies that have arisen over the years all over Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. A nation like China, which you cite, is dependent on the US to buy its goods in order to keep its economy going as if the US was able to become completely self-sufficient, the Chinese's industries would collapse under their own weight. You must judge the success of nations relatively, and based on a myriad of factors, that, when you combine them all together, the US still is consistent excellent in due to the system in place. For instance, when you consider quality of life in the US compared to other countries and factor in the US's size, population, and wide array of cultures and geography that each have their own needs and drives, it's definitely fairly objective to say that the system is functioning, especially because most people have their nutritional needs met, mortality rates are low, and the US has been spear-heading innovation for the last century or so. (First to put a man on the moon is a pretty big accomplishment if you ask me, and a good indication of a functioning society if the government can afford to do that and its people are well-feed, experiencing less crime and poverty than any previous period in human history, etc.) I'd tell you to read a book called Why Nations Fail, or Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I don't think you'd be able to understand the arguments given how much you've missed most of my points.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2020
- Messages
- 45
@Tamerlane
Yeah, with the worst coronavirus growth rate, and BLM setting half the nation on fire. America sure is a shining example of success.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@BrapEbony
Yes, because the issues of the current year in a nation that has been on an uphill trend for the last 100+ years means that somehow it hasn't been overall successful especially because it's the WORLD HEGEMON.
Basic Nirvana fallacy, especially because my point is big picture and yours is myopic. It's not going to be flawless, but it's certainly far less flawed than other superpowers have been in the grand scheme of things
Yes, because the issues of the current year in a nation that has been on an uphill trend for the last 100+ years means that somehow it hasn't been overall successful especially because it's the WORLD HEGEMON.
Basic Nirvana fallacy, especially because my point is big picture and yours is myopic. It's not going to be flawless, but it's certainly far less flawed than other superpowers have been in the grand scheme of things
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
@BrapEbony
@kasajizo
>Politico
Word of advice, don't trust Politico's polls/predictions. They could show me exactly what I want to see (Gary Johnson landslide victory) and I still wouldn't believe them.
Fact of the matter is, these things go either way, and we won't know until it's over.
^https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVp7Vok1C4s
@kasajizo
>Politico
Word of advice, don't trust Politico's polls/predictions. They could show me exactly what I want to see (Gary Johnson landslide victory) and I still wouldn't believe them.
Fact of the matter is, these things go either way, and we won't know until it's over.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
- Messages
- 3,140
The Native American situation was another blight on the pages of history, but consider this. For the longest time America was considered a cultural melting pot, in which many cultures and creeds all came together, foresook their past cultures and languages all for the opportunity to become Americans. Americans were governed by the principals set forth in the Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
A Representative Republic that empowered the citizens to choose the representatives that made of the Legislative bodies that created laws to protect the rights of the citizens, executive branch representatives sworn to preserve and protect the rights and sovereign status of the citizens, and to enact the statutes set by the law, and the Judicial branch of government to interpret the law to ensure the laws created by the Legislature do not infringe on the rights of the citizens, and to settle disputes between the people, and these governmental branches.
When the country was founded the citizens were assumed to be possessing of a strong moral and religious conviction that ensured the wants and pleasures of the people were based on the Judeo christian belief in God , and the golden rule that we should treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated ourselves. The bill of rights falls short , and becomes inadequate when used by a ungodly nation that believes the statement "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a free pass to engage in the pursuit of any and all secular and carnall pleasures that encroach on and exploit the rights of others! Unless there's a real revival, and return to a swampless government model that returns to the country's founding principles the Republic will one day collapse.
It can't be denied the interactions between the settlers, the native occupants of North America, and the government, was a dark spot in the country's history that has no easy means towards resolution. If the president issued a executive order that granted the Native Americans full rights of citizenship anywhere with in the country, would they be content to assimilate into the diverse group that now occupies the nation, or will they prefer to group together and recreate the culture of the past?
I've heard of instances where individuals who have spent their whole life in captivity, or incarcerated sometimes become so accustomed to that lifestyle they lose themselves when given the chance to live a life governed by their own free will, and in extreme cases die in misery for the lack of the chains that they once took comfort in. Will the Native Americans be able to thrive with the legal freedoms afforded by the bill of rights outside the territory they've been placed on, or will they end up like the many homeless on the streets of the cities unable to find purpose, and where they fit into society as a individual?
I don't know. But I do know as long as the Republic known as America stands, and continues to live according to the framework set up by it's founders, while shunning the tyranny of Communism, and Fascism, the opportunities afforded by such a system can create a better life for any who are willing to put in the effort needed to grow and prosper, like so many before who found their own niche in life, and career of choice when the government, and societal restrictions & roadblocks are eliminated, and the path to their full potential is wide open. There's nothing we can't accomplish when we put our mind into it!
@tamerlane 😊
A Representative Republic that empowered the citizens to choose the representatives that made of the Legislative bodies that created laws to protect the rights of the citizens, executive branch representatives sworn to preserve and protect the rights and sovereign status of the citizens, and to enact the statutes set by the law, and the Judicial branch of government to interpret the law to ensure the laws created by the Legislature do not infringe on the rights of the citizens, and to settle disputes between the people, and these governmental branches.
When the country was founded the citizens were assumed to be possessing of a strong moral and religious conviction that ensured the wants and pleasures of the people were based on the Judeo christian belief in God , and the golden rule that we should treat our fellow man as we would want to be treated ourselves. The bill of rights falls short , and becomes inadequate when used by a ungodly nation that believes the statement "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a free pass to engage in the pursuit of any and all secular and carnall pleasures that encroach on and exploit the rights of others! Unless there's a real revival, and return to a swampless government model that returns to the country's founding principles the Republic will one day collapse.
It can't be denied the interactions between the settlers, the native occupants of North America, and the government, was a dark spot in the country's history that has no easy means towards resolution. If the president issued a executive order that granted the Native Americans full rights of citizenship anywhere with in the country, would they be content to assimilate into the diverse group that now occupies the nation, or will they prefer to group together and recreate the culture of the past?
I've heard of instances where individuals who have spent their whole life in captivity, or incarcerated sometimes become so accustomed to that lifestyle they lose themselves when given the chance to live a life governed by their own free will, and in extreme cases die in misery for the lack of the chains that they once took comfort in. Will the Native Americans be able to thrive with the legal freedoms afforded by the bill of rights outside the territory they've been placed on, or will they end up like the many homeless on the streets of the cities unable to find purpose, and where they fit into society as a individual?
I don't know. But I do know as long as the Republic known as America stands, and continues to live according to the framework set up by it's founders, while shunning the tyranny of Communism, and Fascism, the opportunities afforded by such a system can create a better life for any who are willing to put in the effort needed to grow and prosper, like so many before who found their own niche in life, and career of choice when the government, and societal restrictions & roadblocks are eliminated, and the path to their full potential is wide open. There's nothing we can't accomplish when we put our mind into it!
@tamerlane 😊
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2018
- Messages
- 156
@bigtiddyoneesan that's not the point, there's no poll there in attached image that's a realtime count for the election day. And I don't think my viewers (gonna stream it on youtube anyway) could read that small text under every states there written as "politico predicts", and we all know it's only based on 2016 election, solid-likely-lean-tossup-lean-likely-solid.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,061
It's insane that you guys still watch/read """"""""""""news"""""""""""""" after all this.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
@Tamerlane
Literally right after I hit post I remembered this and wished I would've inserted my man Jeb in there.
@kasajizo
I thought your pic was highlighting Illinois and California, emphasizing the likeliness of a Dem win in Illinois (as well as the big gains from always Dem California). Was that not the purpose?
@Kanami-chan
Predominantly independent sources, maybe like twice a week, yeah. I would make an 'edgy' joke about the use of punctuation marks around the word news, but I'd probably get modded, so I won't.
Literally right after I hit post I remembered this and wished I would've inserted my man Jeb in there.
@kasajizo
I thought your pic was highlighting Illinois and California, emphasizing the likeliness of a Dem win in Illinois (as well as the big gains from always Dem California). Was that not the purpose?
@Kanami-chan
Predominantly independent sources, maybe like twice a week, yeah. I would make an 'edgy' joke about the use of punctuation marks around the word news, but I'd probably get modded, so I won't.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
I was going to say this, but simpler, since it isn't my country, I don't think I really have a say about it.
However, if you compare it to my country (Mexico), we've had the same situation for 100 years, since the Revolution, the gov has been pretty lackluster, some were decent, some were bad and some were a hidden dictatorship, one party "winning" all the elections for 30 years straight, our own war on drugs, the cartels which have settled their roots so deep, it is impossible to erradicate them now by force, poverty and more poverty, racism, crime, poor education (even if it has been slightly solved), those things were consistent.
With our new president, who is literally the embodiment of "reject humanity, return to monke" (the dude has devolved a lot of progress in so many areas, fuckin' hate him, he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, jesus christ, I want to rant so hard about all the shit he's done and undone), things are starting to change for the worst, I don't think there has ever been a worse president ever in our history. Anyways, let's forget all that with another party.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,061
@bigtiddyoneesan truth is an edgy joke, huh? Shit is really bad in your country if that's the case.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
- Messages
- 3,140
@Kanami-chan Your right, we no longer have impartial news sources in America, just socialist democrat propaganda broadcasters.
- Status
Similar threads
