American Politics Discussion Thread

[T-hawk]

Bob, cursing at people is not befitting of a moderator.

[Bobchillingworth]

It's okay T-Hawk, he gave his permission first. I'm sure the self-described edgelord who defines "real Americans" as White Americans, sympathizes with the publisher of the "Daily Stormer", and advocates murder appreciates your white-knighting though.

[Boro]

now... Imagine if people treated "rule of the people" (lit. democracy) as collective responsibility for the actions of the leadership.

It'd surely make everyone very interested in keeping the leadership (state organizations) in check, lest the fallout hit them as well.

[Jowy]

It's a few years old now, but here's a condensed video on "how to recognize a fascist":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4BVGPkdzk

You will recognize many talking points that have been brought up in this thread.

[Serdoa]

When they start restricting rights which do not contribute to fighting the pandemic. The restrictions in the article sound reasonable and of course for most people there is an easy way to get rid of those restrictions. Just get vaccinated.

For comparison the inmates of concentration camps did not have a way to get out of the camps.

But I think we do no longer need to discuss this. It's clear that we have fundamentally different opinions on this topic and we won't change those. So why should we waste both of our time for this.

Reasonable, like opening restaurants to those with booster-shots and excluding them from testing while those unvaccinated are completely banned from visiting these? (And let me add: How long before data is presented that unvaccinated and non-boostered are much more likely to get Covid, based on test results - which all the boostered are being excluded from while Omicron has a higher chance to be asymptomatic?) 

Reasonable, like passing regulations based on "infection rates of the unvaccinated are 16x higher" when those have proven to be simply wrong numbers? 

Reasonable, like decoupling restrictions from any incidence or hospital admission numbers and basing them on the believe that it could become worse?

Reasonable, like an expert board giving recommendations for further restrictions and mandatory vaccination but not disclosing the data their recommendation is based on?

I would also point to several court cases which have been lost by the state, for example in Lower Saxony, because the restrictions could not be proven to be contributing to fighting the pandemic. 

Lastly, the statement "Just get vaccinated" is very ignorant. Restrictions are only acceptable if they are having an actual impact on infections or can at least be reasonably be expected to - "just get vaccinated" is not a solution, it is instead telling people to submit to authorities no matter if their 'regulations' make sense. That is for several (e.g. 2G in retail, no testing for boostered) not the case - yet we do have those regulations. Why? Just to annoy unvaccinated people as much as possible to 'force' them to get vaccinated. If your boss acted like that at work it would be considered mobbing/bossing and would actually be punishable by law.

I am vaccinated, I would urge especially the elderly to get vaccinated. But I am strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations, to exclude certain groups from testing (esp. just to get 'better' numbers) or to forbid demonstrations if they are against those restrictions. That is not lawful, that is not helping deal with this pandemic.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Sorry for going too hard with the edge with my last post, I appreciate it if I'm still allowed to post here. Now that I've been warned I have a better grasp of where the line is drawn in these parts, and I respect the right of the mods to decide.
Hopefully you've noticed that I haven't insulted any other posters (I think), even if I managed to be very offensive in other ways. I hope Mjmd writes up that defense of democracy post later, since I did want to spark some argument and debate alongside the shitposting.

who defines "real Americans" as White Americans, sympathizes with the publisher of the "Daily Stormer", and advocates murder appreciates your white-knighting though.

I shouldn't argue with a moderator after trolling and being warned - but I kind of have to say I don't see myself as outright advocating murder!

For example in the Kazakhstan protests it would appear that certain elements went to weapons arsenals and put those arms to use in short order, at which point a military reaction is appropriate from my point of view. And even if's not moral to shoot without warning on protests, even those mixed with shadowy armed forces, it seems like Putin/CSTO/Xi Jinping/Tokayev feel such a measure is the best choice for pragmatic reasons.

[Bobchillingworth]

now... Imagine if people treated "rule of the people" (lit. democracy) as collective responsibility for the actions of the leadership.

It'd surely make everyone very interested in keeping the leadership (state organizations) in check, lest the fallout hit them as well.

It'd certainly be preferable as a general principle if people living in democracies took their responsibilities as voters more seriously, but the practical consequences of decisions made by an incompetent and/or corrupt government are typically inescapable regardless of accountability.

[Charriu]

When they start restricting rights which do not contribute to fighting the pandemic. The restrictions in the article sound reasonable and of course for most people there is an easy way to get rid of those restrictions. Just get vaccinated.

For comparison the inmates of concentration camps did not have a way to get out of the camps.

But I think we do no longer need to discuss this. It's clear that we have fundamentally different opinions on this topic and we won't change those. So why should we waste both of our time for this.

Reasonable, like opening restaurants to those with booster-shots and excluding them from testing while those unvaccinated are completely banned from visiting these? (And let me add: How long before data is presented that unvaccinated and non-boostered are much more likely to get Covid, based on test results - which all the boostered are being excluded from while Omicron has a higher chance to be asymptomatic?) 

Reasonable, like passing regulations based on "infection rates of the unvaccinated are 16x higher" when those have proven to be simply wrong numbers? 

Reasonable, like decoupling restrictions from any incidence or hospital admission numbers and basing them on the believe that it could become worse?

Reasonable, like an expert board giving recommendations for further restrictions and mandatory vaccination but not disclosing the data their recommendation is based on?

I would also point to several court cases which have been lost by the state, for example in Lower Saxony, because the restrictions could not be proven to be contributing to fighting the pandemic. 

Lastly, the statement "Just get vaccinated" is very ignorant. Restrictions are only acceptable if they are having an actual impact on infections or can at least be reasonably be expected to - "just get vaccinated" is not a solution, it is instead telling people to submit to authorities no matter if their 'regulations' make sense. That is for several (e.g. 2G in retail, no testing for boostered) not the case - yet we do have those regulations. Why? Just to annoy unvaccinated people as much as possible to 'force' them to get vaccinated. If your boss acted like that at work it would be considered mobbing/bossing and would actually be punishable by law.

I am vaccinated, I would urge especially the elderly to get vaccinated. But I am strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations, to exclude certain groups from testing (esp. just to get 'better' numbers) or to forbid demonstrations if they are against those restrictions. That is not lawful, that is not helping deal with this pandemic.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying that mistakes are being made. Important are from which standpoint they are being made. Honest mistakes will inevitable be made as they are being done in every crisis. This is mainly because you often have to make decisions without all the information and as often in these cases you can only choose between two wrong things. Then there are mistakes done with good intentions like some of the examples you posted. Yes, those are not ok, but there is a process for this in place, which you also mentioned (the judical system). Importantly though these mistakes are not being done to grab more power and never let it go again, which is T-Hawks argument here. Then of course there are the last sort of "mistakes" being done, in decisions to grab more power for oneself and disguising them as mistakes. But honestly and don't see that in my country (Germany) and even then we have a functioning court system, we have free press investigating those things and we can still vote.

TL:DR Mistakes are being made and have to be corrected. What I am denying is T-Hawks position that government is evil and out to get you, for which there is no evidence here.

[Mjmd]

I had decided not to intervene in Covid topic because its pretty played out, but this also touches on Democracies in general. For good or ill people in Democracies tend to want the government to do "something" in a crisis. Even if it doesn't make sense, the government usually has to show they are at least trying.

[BING_XI_LAO]

-prior bullshit statistics of the pandemic threat, namely "died with covid"

Conspiracy theory about doctors worldwide in every country making up numbers.

Anyway probably not gonna engage in the vaccination talk after this. Everyone who could be persuaded to get it have taken it.

The question is whether you are amenable to logical persuasion, not whether others are.