The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

[JasperL]

Rewriting of history and indoctrination of education systems has also damaged the country.

Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

"Historians of the twentieth century often represent the New Deal–era United States and Nazi Germany as polar opposites. This unsettling book demolishes that orthodoxy. It carefully documents how the tradition of racist laws in the United States inspired and instructed Adolf Hitler and Nazi lawmakers in fashioning their own racist policies. Many forget that as late as the 1930s, the United States remained one of the world’s most salient models of legally institutionalized racism. Nazi lawyers closely studied Jim Crow laws imposing segregation, denying equal citizenship, banning nonwhite immigration, and criminalizing miscegenation. Hitler himself praised the United States for its record on race relations, not least for its westward expansion through the conquest and extermination of Native Americans. Whitman is admirably careful not to exaggerate the influence of the U.S. model on Nazi Germany: he recognizes that twentieth-century American southern racism was decentralized rather than fascist and incapable of inspiring mass murder on the industrial scale of the Holocaust. Indeed, Nazi jurists criticized their American counterparts for their hypocrisy in publicly denying yet locally practicing systematic racism. Whitman reminds readers of the subtle ironies of modern history and of the need to be constantly vigilant against racism."

Whitman is a flaming progressive liberal democrat so he conveniently neglects to tell you a critical aspect of all this.

"Whitman, a progressive legal scholar, is also reluctant to assign blame where it is due. He talks about “American white supremacy,” “American racism,” “American law” and “American influence on the Nuremberg Laws.”36 Surely he knows that the Democratic laws were bitterly contested under the nation’s two-party system. Yes, there were antimiscegenation laws in a couple of Republican states, but America in general didn’t do this; the Democrats did. Yet as the very title of Whitman’s book suggests, he resorts to the familiar tactic of blaming America—not the Democratic Party—for inspiring Nazi policies.

LOL, citing Dinesh D'Souza. :2rofll:

No, America in general didn't do this, white supremacist, racist southerners did, states that seceded and became the CSA for a short time before their traitorous efforts failed did this. When the CRA and VRA were passed, it was by a Democratic House and Senate, and a Democratic president, and roughly 100% of Democrats outside the south supported those bills, and roughly 100% of white southerners of any party opposed those efforts. When the Democratic party started fighting for civil rights in the South, such as when Democrat Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the military, the racist white southerners supported a racist white southern Dixiecrat candidate. Here's part of the platform of the southern racist white supremacists, opposed to Democrat Truman's and other northern Democrats' support for civil rights for blacks:

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

So Dinesh is an idiot, as always, and is either ignorant of history or a liar. Citing him is an insta credibility-killer. Might as well cite a flat earther in a science debate. He's really just that dumb and/or dishonest.

 

[akyron]

LOL, citing Dinesh D'Souza. :2rofll:

No, America in general didn't do this, white supremacist, racist southerners did.

Heh. Thanks for the illustrating example. Geography did nothing. Democrats, on the other hand, thought up, implemented, and enforced every Jim Crow and slave law.

as if dirt could jump up and enslave you...hahahah

 

[Obscurity]

Education systems should be restricted to education only; no religion, no "women's studies" and other sordid nonsense. You want your kid to learn "ideology" then take them to a private school, which gets no tax payer support, and educate them on your own dime.

Agreed.

[/QUOTE]

I'm always astounded people support the state indoctrination and cult of personality like this in public institutions. Frankly, it's grotesque.

 

[JasperL]

Heh. Thanks for the illustrating example. Geography did nothing. Democrats, on the other hand, thought up, implemented, and enforced every Jim Crow and slave law.

as if dirt could jump up and enslave you...hahahah

I didn't claim geography did anything. "Southerners" refers to people, not land.

Southerner noun
South·​ern·​er | \ ˈsə-t͟hər-nər , ˈsə-t͟hə-nər\
Definition of Southerner
: a native or inhabitant of the South
especially : a native or resident of the southern part of the U.S.

And since you clipped and ignored my argument, let me restate it for the record.

No, America in general didn't do this, white supremacist, racist southerners did, states that seceded and became the CSA for a short time before their traitorous efforts failed did this. When the CRA and VRA were passed, it was by a Democratic House and Senate, and a Democratic president, and roughly 100% of Democrats outside the south supported those bills, and roughly 100% of white southerners of any party opposed those efforts. When the Democratic party started fighting for civil rights in the South, such as when Democrat Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the military, the racist white southerners supported a racist white southern Dixiecrat candidate.

Here are the votes for the CRA of 1964:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%

For the math impaired, Democrats outside the south voted 190-10 (95%) in favor of the CRA. Southerners of both parties voted 93% against. Southern Republicans voted 100% against.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't believe it does. The same court that gave "blacks" rights (arguably stupid, since they clearly have rights as enumerated under the constitution and the amendments) also said money is speech, enabling massive graft, left and right, endlessly influencing policy against public will.

I think you miss the point of that ruling. (Note: I am arguing now as a devil's advocate, because I am also concerned about wealth affecting government).

Free expression encompasses more than just the words that come out of one's mouth.

It includes how one expresses themselves publicly in manner, dress, non-verbal cues, and even actions one takes for or against the social and natural environment one exists within.

When you wave a flag, buy a tee-shirt, contribute to a charity, or dare I say it...contribute to a political campaign; that is ALL freedom of expression.

The Citizens United decision (IMO wrongly) was based on that idea in regards to the legal fiction that a Corporation is a person.

The laws regarding corporate entities were designed to create the fiction of "personhood," thus preventing common investors from being liable personally from civil actions affecting the corporation. Like if I buy 100 shares of Telecom stock and the business fails, any debtors would want to recover fully. They would want to attach MY personal assets to the debt recovery. But since the debtor is the Corporation, the only assets at risk are those owned by the corporate entity.

The corporate fiction of person-hood limits liability to the corporate-owned assets and leaves my personal assets alone. However, I do not agree that this then also creates a REAL person. One who can then pour donations via "lobbying" into the coffers of chosen elected officials and/or their Parties at the direction of managers and/or principal stockholders of that Corporation.

So in this case I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling. However, if Congress wanted change, then they could easily amend the statutes regarding corporations to exclude this "right" from a fictional entity.

I agree in the case that it works in some cases; but not in all, and moreover, I think it works less than it doesn't work. Amending the constitution is the ultimate fix for this - but our elected leaders do not have any will to do that, now do they?

Thus we live under tyranny of a sort.

Nothing is "perfect." However, I disagree it works less often than not.

Meanwhile, Congress is not the only source of Amendments, as the States also have the power, per the Constitution. Simply review Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

So there are ways as I've already pointed out repeatedly, to check the power of a "runaway" Court system.

 

[JasperL]

Education systems should be restricted to education only; no religion, no "women's studies" and other sordid nonsense. You want your kid to learn "ideology" then take them to a private school, which gets no tax payer support, and educate them on your own dime.

It's unclear why you quoted someone butchering American history to push an ideology to claim that schools should be restricted to education only.

I don't actually agree with that - learning about religion, one's own and/or other religions, is incredibly valuable, especially given the huge role religion plays in all parts of our lives, governments, foreign relations, and more. Nor is "women's studies" necessarily "sordid." In general it's the study of women in history, a part of sociology, literature.

 

[ataraxia]

Education systems should be restricted to education only; no religion, no "women's studies" and other sordid nonsense. You want your kid to learn "ideology" then take them to a private school, which gets no tax payer support, and educate them on your own dime.

Wait, wut?

How is "women's studies" some kind of ideology? And why would it be "ideological" to, for example, teach a course on comparative religion?

 

[mrjurrs]

No. YOU are missing the point.

Just because a "majority of the population" wants something does not automatically make what they want a good thing. There has to be a way to protect the minority view, and that is where judicial arbitration often comes in.

Meanwhile, it is true that a single judge can make a ruling at the first level when the case is brought before a Court. But that ruling can be appealed, and as it goes up the appeal chain more and more Judges are called in to conduct a review and rule on it.

This is true at both State and Federal levels. In each case a ruling is made by the majority on the panel right up to the SCOTUS where a final ruling is reached.

The system WORKS because more often than not it is fair and equitable. In those instances where it appears not to be?

Well you keep saying that there is nothing that can be done. However, I have pointed out that you are wrong. Laws can be amended or created to address such situations.

In the event it is a Judge who is "faulty," then they can be removed from office and replaced.

What exactly would you prefer? Endless reviews? That every decision then go to Congress, or directly to the whole of the People to vote on? But THAT is where the real politicking is going to happen. In the kangaroo court of public opinion where decisions are easily swayed and seldom fair despite being "popular."

IMO the system works exactly as it should.

One thing you left out is that the SCOTUS can, and has, reversed itself.

 

[gdgyva]

Those in black are consistent in their pro-corporate rulings that have lead to sucha gulf between the rich and the not rich as to be laughable. One of the primary issues is money as free speech, a conundrum that is itself unconstitutional on its face; giving the rich more "speech" than anyone else is absolutely ridiculous and absurd.

I'm not sure what the founders meant by "judicial power" but the federalist papers go to great lengths to discuss the intent of the SCOTUS and how it should function. If it were a bulwark against tyranny it would not be acting as it does; then again, as Americans, we have objectively failed to live up to our founders expectations, and that, I suppose, is the actual biggest threat we face; that we have failed this experiment, and are not learning any lessons from that failure.

so i as a businessman cant use my money to give to a politician in your eyes

yet i suppose you have no issue with unions giving money to politicians do you?

tell me how that differs....

 

[Obscurity]

so i as a businessman cant use my money to give to a politician in your eyes

yet i suppose you have no issue with unions giving money to politicians do you?

tell me how that differs....

I don't agree with entities of any kind donating money to politicians. I think individuals alone should be allowed to do it.

For example, the current system allows my CEO (who despises Trump) to use the labor of his employees to donate against Trump. Friends of mine in the company are Trump fans, and are outraged; however, none of them can find another job, so by default, the income my CEO makes from the labor of his employees is being spent on speech they disagree with.

To me, entities should not have the same rights as people, nor should they have the right so "speak" since the individuals that COMPOSE the entity already has that right. By default this gives business owners and executives, presidents, etc, a secondary set of speech rights the rest of the public is not entitled to.

I disagree with that notion.

 

[Obscurity]

I think you miss the point of that ruling. (Note: I am arguing now as a devil's advocate, because I am also concerned about wealth affecting government).

Free expression encompasses more than just the words that come out of one's mouth.

It includes how one expresses themselves publicly in manner, dress, non-verbal cues, and even actions one takes for or against the social and natural environment one exists within.

When you wave a flag, buy a tee-shirt, contribute to a charity, or dare I say it...contribute to a political campaign; that is ALL freedom of expression.

The Citizens United decision (IMO wrongly) was based on that idea in regards to the legal fiction that a Corporation is a person.

The laws regarding corporate entities were designed to create the fiction of "personhood," thus preventing common investors from being liable personally from civil actions affecting the corporation. Like if I buy 100 shares of Telecom stock and the business fails, any debtors would want to recover fully. They would want to attach MY personal assets to the debt recovery. But since the debtor is the Corporation, the only assets at risk are those owned by the corporate entity.

The corporate fiction of person-hood limits liability to the corporate-owned assets and leaves my personal assets alone. However, I do not agree that this then also creates a REAL person. One who can then pour donations via "lobbying" into the coffers of chosen elected officials and/or their Parties at the direction of managers and/or principal stockholders of that Corporation.

So in this case I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling. However, if Congress wanted change, then they could easily amend the statutes regarding corporations to exclude this "right" from a fictional entity.



Nothing is "perfect." However, I disagree it works less often than not.

Meanwhile, Congress is not the only source of Amendments, as the States also have the power, per the Constitution. Simply review Article V:



So there are ways as I've already pointed out repeatedly, to check the power of a "runaway" Court system.

I 100% agree on your commentary about Citizens United, which did create an additional set of rights no inherent for a fictitious entity. However, I don't agree that the founders envisioned the court playing the role they currently play. 1803 was a blatant power grab by the court, which has despotically dictated to the legislative and executive branches, all "co-equal" branches of government (so claimed) what is and is not legal. In other words, one has more power than the others; the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter about the constitution and any interpretation thereof; I disagree with this notion, as the elected representatives of the house, and senate, as well as the president, are to be co-equal. It is not equal if the house, senate and president sign into law something the court then immediately strikes down or rewrites of its own accord. Nothing in the constitution gives them the express authority to strike down or re-write laws; judicial power commentary not withstanding.

So no. You're not point out where I am wrong, you're asserting we must have a despotic court to reign in a despotic executive/legislative. I'd argue the court, in Jefferson's perspective, is entirely too tyrannical and can and indeed does invent rights where they do not exist, and with specific rulings, enabled corporate money to comandeer congress to the point things popular with all (like ending money=speech) are never enacted into law, or amended to the constitution.