American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

They wouldn't jump on it.

Republican led expansion of the security state in the last few decades has principally been focused on any sort of external enemies - radical islamic terrorists, the CCP, or the Soviet Union and affiliated comintern groups if you go back far enough. This has gone as far as extra-legal wiretapping and data collection, and occasional flare ups of travel restrictions to certain middle eastern countries. If they were to put in a motion, it would likely be aimed at foreign manufactured cars rather than all vehicles. The Democrats have a different moral calculus - they are primarily focused on dealing with any imagined or real internal dissent, usually labeled under the vague terms of white supremacism or fascism. They also generally think it is a bad idea for the average citizen to own a car. It is far more likely for Democrats to introduce a law that allows for easily controlling the movement of the internal US population because they tend to agree that such a thing is worth potentially stopping a few drunk driving deaths per year.

[Mjmd]

I'm not sure I want to unpack all that, but your first sentence for this purpose is the important one. Again, in politics a party isn't going to sign onto a bill for a small part of it (that I still can't find) if the other much larger part isn't something they can agree with. So saying "party x supports or doesn't support whatever issue that is in bill but is only a small part of it because of larger part of bill" is just not going to happen. IE your whole first post is irrelevant because without a statement of some kind saying "democrats voted no because of that reason" we have to assume that their actual stated reason "this bill cut funding for a lot of things we care about" is the more valid one.

[Miguelito]

They wouldn't jump on it.

Republican led expansion of the security state in the last few decades has principally been focused on any sort of external enemies - radical islamic terrorists, the CCP, or the Soviet Union and affiliated comintern groups if you go back far enough.

And the civil rights movement,  drug users (famous we couldn't make it illegal to be black or against the war quote), students, and ffw to today, trans people,  drag queens,  women travelling for abortion or receiving pills in their mail,  BLM, Antifa,...
From my (outside) perspective,  republicans seem remarkably unconcerned about external competitors,  save a few remaining neocons who can't be happy without bombing some place from time to time.

[greenline]

They wouldn't jump on it.

Republican led expansion of the security state in the last few decades has principally been focused on any sort of external enemies - radical islamic terrorists, the CCP, or the Soviet Union and affiliated comintern groups if you go back far enough.

And the civil rights movement,  drug users (famous we couldn't make it illegal to be black or against the war quote), students, and ffw to today, trans people,  drag queens,  women travelling for abortion or receiving pills in their mail,  BLM, Antifa,...
From my (outside) perspective,  republicans seem remarkably unconcerned about external competitors,  save a few remaining neocons who can't be happy without bombing some place from time to time.

Populist reaction against "woke" trends only gained steam around 2020. Even then, the populist wing of the GOP is still a decisive minority in the legislature and the bureaucracy. They can get concessions from the Neoconservative branch by acting as a veto vote, but this is a far cry from the myriad of fictional articles put out warning of a theocratic fascist takeover of US politics.

Go back during the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement and you will see reactionary forces arguing for the policies by decrying the Civil Rights protestors as being full of Soviet funded communist groups and against the Vietnam war. While there was a great deal of overlap between Soviet sympathizers and the Civil Rights people, this would prove irrelevant, since they kept going strong well after Reagan eventually had his victory over the Soviet Union itself.

[BING_XI_LAO]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments...opriately/
Caption: A baby seal lying on its belly with a baby chick sleeping on top of it lying down, on a beach, with nothing else around, viewed from above

The American religion of worshipping blacks is reaching new heights of absurdity. Admittedly, it's an astroturfed religion forced on the population by the oligarchy, few people actually believe in it, but everyone has it shoved down their throats, even in other Western countries.
(will read and reply to thread properly sometime, if anyone responded to my earlier posts, kinda busy tho and just wanted to plonk down this hilarity before I forgot)

[Mjmd]

Now mind you I literally just read the comments, but I think this might be a case of you taking your bias with you. Its nor "worship". From the comments its looks like its a programming issue. IE they were trying NOT to inadvertently be racist and ended up in the opposite (a lot of programs are, see image recognition which often fail to recognize darker faces). Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence.

[greenline]

AI generation programs tend to hiccup in bizarre and unpredictable ways. If I was going to offer up definite ways in which the secular American civil religion worships its black population, I would point to such things as the 1619 Project, the 'Black Nap Movement', or the ridiculous George Floyd murals that were painted in the American section of Kabul.

[Mjmd]

I think its always dangerous to assume some movement or magazine articles ect represents a whole. Its like saying American civil society supports nazis and the kkk or all Republicans do ect. Its just not true. Don't fall into such traps.

[greenline]

I think its always dangerous to assume some movement or magazine articles ect represents a whole. Its like saying American civil society supports nazis and the kkk or all Republicans do ect. Its just not true. Don't fall into such traps.

The people who support those things are a minority, but they are an organized minority in the elite class of the bureaucracy and academia, which means they get to foist their unpopular policies on the American populace regardless of what they may desire. Not a rosy picture, but such is life.

[Mjmd]

Good thing our democracy wasn't recently undermined in large part due to a cable network not wanting to lose ratings. In general I recommend logic. Emotion exists, but its important to know emotion vs logic.

I'll also note a large number of high school history books are compliant with the standards in states like Texas not making them not the greatest history books ever. There is definitely a balance between not telling history and over emphasizing parts of history (or making it up) like that 1619 project (from what little I've read I just heard about them today). Academia is hardly dominated by one ideology and for that matter nothing really is. Again, I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming one group or thought represents a whole because they were told it does without actually looking around.