u/GShermit
The simple answer is the 1% doesn't want US to talk about it.
About three weeks ago an excellent article was posted.
It wasn't popular because it focused on how "Our government is entirely under the control of a small, wealthy elite whose fundamental interests and values diverge from those of the vast majority of the population...", instead of MSM's agenda. Definitely not what the 1% want US discussing. They've used MSM and academia to keep US divided on the Civil W
Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public. If one is in public, one's actions are visible. If one don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen.
IMHO the important thing is how people are allowing to use data collected in public.
If I do something stupid in public that's on me. If someone makes money off it, I should get a cut. If someone edits or misrepresents the information, to harm others, they should be held liable.
If authority wants to use public information gathering systems to investigate individuals, they should have a warrant.
People have a right to see what they can see in public. How that information is used can be regulated.
Personally I don't see how we have any privacy in public. If one is in public, one's actions are visible. If one don't want to be visible, one has to take measures not to be seen.
IMHO the important thing is how people are allowing to use data collected in public.
If I do something stupid in public that's on me. If someone makes money off it, I should get a cut. If someone edits or misrepresents the information, to harm others, they should be held liable.
If authority wants to use public information gathering systems to investigate individuals, they should have a warrant.
People have a right to see what they can see in public. How that information is used can be regulated.
America is becoming a plutocracy, democracy is a weapon used to fight plutocracy.
Democracy is the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country. The Powers That Be (the 1% and their politicians in this case) want to limit US to just voting rights. TPTB control voting because they own both parties.
It seems logical that the people need to use ALL their rights, not just voting, to check TPTB. Obviously TPTB will fight the people using all their rights to influence due process. They've got powerful tools, misinformation and the media (which TPTB control). TPTB will try to disenfranchise anyone who thinks differently.
TPTB know the people working together is
When people assume moral superiority it legitimizes discrimination against the the "morally inferior" side. Not necessarily a bad thing if you're dealing with criminals BUT it's very dangerous when dealing with mainstream political parties (or large groups of people in general).
The United States basically, has three political sides. Democrats, Republicans and the middle, who may vote for either. One political side assuming, the other political side is morally inferior, leads to the weaponization of government and that's always bad for democracy.
First let me say authority is necessary for society. The problem is authority is inherently...authoritarian. That doesn't make authority bad but "good masters" are still masters.
We use our rights to challenge authority and no one should tell US how we legally use our rights to challenge authority. Democracy is legally using our rights to influence authority and due process.
The Federal government has gotten too authoritarian IMHO. We need to get more imaginative in how we use our rights.
"As state and local officials increasingly clash with federal officials over immigration enforcement,^(1)
There's been lots of posts about now annoying large people are on airplanes.
I flew a lot for business and I was a large person (6'2" 300+ lbs 44" waist 58" chest). I'd always try for a window seat because no one wants me in the middle. After the first year I had enough air miles I was usually upgraded to first class.
The solution is putting the big people in window seats. So if you're in a window seat and a big guy has the center, ask if they want to change, they probably will...besides you want the big guy there, to plug the hole, when the window gets sucked out :)
It's important that we understand how Trump got elected...twice. It was a "perfect storm" scenario as several things had to happen for it to happen.
First was intolerant, Democrats, using the normal left bias of media and academia, for purity tests. Then telling people "there is no argument" and calling everyone, a deplorable person, if they tried to argue against the purity test.
Secondly, Trump is a master at using intolerance (both giving and receiving) to his advantage.
Thirdly, our nation's declining democracy and basic constitutional principles.
Last is money. To be honest money is actually first because it's always present and effects everything. AND money's influence in politics
It's important that we understand how Trump got elected...twice. It was a "perfect storm" scenario as several things had to happen for it to happen.
First was intolerant, Democrats, using the normal left bias of media and academia, for purity tests. Then telling people "there is no argument" and calling everyone, a deplorable person, if they tried to argue against the purity test.
Secondly, Trump is a master at using intolerance (both giving and receiving) to his advantage.
Thirdly, our nation's declining democracy and basic constitutional principles.
Last is money. To be honest money is actually first because it's always present and effects everything. AND money's influence in politic
I seen a lot of posts lately, glamorizing violent revolution. They seem to think because of Trump's actions we should engage in violent revolution.
Violent revolution has been needed before in human history. When a government refuses to defend the people's right's, then revolution may be needed.
BUT every lawful avenue should be tried first. We have a many rights we can use but other than voting, we haven't explored those rights much. Initiatives, juries, citizen's arrest, article V conventions...are all rights we have but to suggest we use them, brings ridicule...often from the very people supporting revolution.
They'll say how ridiculous and dangerous, legally using our rights, to in
I'm kinda ignorant on political parties policies. I do try to pay attention to the laws they pass and it seems many laws don't have the desired effects.
For example the Affordable Care Act, good intentions, similar to "Romneycare". In reality it insured businesses got paid and healthcare got more expensive.
Tax laws meant to take more from the wealthy, are filled with loopholes, that benefit the wealthy.
This seems common with many of our laws, they end up benefiting the wealthy more. When lobbyists write the bills, why would expect anything different? [https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill](https://www.npr.org/sections/i
And how could one prove it, examining the peremptory challenges?
For 10,000 years politics has been the people vs authority. It's been about the struggle, of the people, to be free and govern themselves. The people do that by using their rights.
Our rights are seldom fully defined and as rights sometimes "butt heads", they become more fully defined.
The nature of authority inherently wants to limit our rights. If we don't explore our rights, the definitions aren't done and authority will try to impose limits as they see fit. If we think authority is wrong, we can take it to court...if we can afford it.
I personally want our all rights, defined to the maximum point the people (not authority) will allow.
During a discussion recently someone here told me this. Frankly that shows a lack of understanding of the basics of capitalism. I see this often in debates with anti-capitalists. Actually we see that tactic often when someone is "anti" something. Omitting basic principles invalidates almost anything.
Competition is what makes capitalism work. Without competition, capital can accumulate exponentially. That leads to plutocracy.
It's important to understand the basics, if we don't we can't decide which economic system to use. Different markets will not always have the same capacity for competition. If there's not enough competition capitalism shouldn't be used.
Utilities, healthcare, legal
I see no reason to incarcerate non-violent offenders. Restitution, community service, counseling and homeless camps (think Civilian Conservation Corps) should suffice to rehabilitate non-violent offenders.
Violent offenders need to be separated from society until they're not violent. Also people who flee from the police will be considered violent because of the danger that imposes on society. Incarceration should include being responsible for one's upkeep and maintenance (cooking, cleaning, laundry...). No sentences because there's no release until the violence is gone.
Many of US like a little punishment, especially when the offender is an asshole but cruelty doesn't solve the problem and