What is the biggest threat to America from the following list?

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The biggest threat to America is Americans.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Simple question, what is the biggest threat to America from the following list?

If you feel something else is a bigger threat than are any of these, please reply with your thoughts but still vote in the poll from the ones mentioned.

Thank you.

There is no reason not to simply have an "Other" option. A poll can have up to 10 choices.

Anyone who does not vote for MAMA is part of that group.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes.

Believing in free and fair elections and the rule of law does not necessarily mean direct democracy for every issue, no. We elect representatives to decide many issues for us, and have a Bill of Rights to ensure that people can decide some things for themselves.

That's about the most generic name imaginable for (what I'm assuming is) a ballot initiative that you're pissed off about. It has probably been the name of literally dozens of ballot measures. So you're going to need to be a little more specific than just saying a single-digit integer and having everyone instantly know what you're talking about.

You can Google prop 8

 

[The Mark]

A corporation running America for profit would be far better than Trump.

Maybe.
All too often the most profitable route involves harming people though.

 

[Gatsby]

You can Google prop 8

This one?

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So the voters passed a law and the courts struck it down as unconstitutional. What's the problem?

 

[Surrealistik]

Simple question, what is the biggest threat to America from the following list?

If you feel something else is a bigger threat than are any of these, please reply with your thoughts but still vote in the poll from the ones mentioned.

Thank you.

China, obviously.

 

[ecofarm]

Maybe.
All too often the most profitable route involves harming people though.

Trump wants a regime for the world.

 

[The Mark]

Trump wants a regime for the world.

He isn't the first, and probably won't be the last.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This one?

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So the voters passed a law and the courts struck it down as unconstitutional. What's the problem?

Well you don’t see a problem with unelected government juntas invalidating democratic elections?

If that’s the case democracy is not a value to you

 

[post]

Was the rejection of prop 8 by the left “subversion of democracy”

Yes or no is a sufficient answer.

Well you don’t see a problem with unelected government juntas invalidating democratic elections?

If that’s the case democracy is not a value to you

It was a rejection of tyranny of the majority, the very thing the SCOTUS is supposed to protect against.

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...
; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8] .."

 

[Mika-El]

If you feel something else is a bigger threat than are any of these, please reply with your thoughts but still vote in the poll from the ones mentioned.

Thank you.

None of the above. I feel the biggest threat to America is fellow Americans with guns.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It was a rejection of tyranny of the majority, the very thing the SCOTUS is supposed to protect against.

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...
; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8] .."

You can either say democracy is a core value and it should be how political issues are decided or you can say that the government should be a minority one which supersedes the majority (which I believe) and in that case our only disagreement is degree.

 

[post]

You can either say democracy is a core value and it should be how political issues are decided or you can say that the government should be a minority one which supersedes the majority (which I believe) and in that case our only disagreement is degree.

Our system is a republic intended to protect against a tyranny of the majority.

How Alexander Hamilton Fought the Tyranny of the Majority | Essay | Zócalo Public Square

The struggles of America’s cultural outsiders to be included in the country—in the face of disparagement, exclusion, or punishment—are as old as the

www.zocalopublicsquare.org

"..Today, Hamilton’s experience defending Loyalists in New York should remind us of two different things. First, for centuries American “insiders” have cleverly and cruelly used law as a tool to exclude, punish, and justify their fears of “outsiders.” And, second, that the law can be used, as Hamilton employed it in his post-war practice, to protect even an unpopular few from a powerful majority.

Hamilton did not resolve the persistent tension at the heart of the American experiment in self-government: Should the popular will in our democracy trump the protections of transcendent law grounded in nature, due process, and constitutional principles? But he set an early precedent that defined the country. To be American is to keep up the fight for certain transcendent principles so that they will always prevail over the prejudices of any era.

KATE ELIZABETH BROWN"

 

[Bear5131]

Yes.

Believing in free and fair elections and the rule of law does not necessarily mean direct democracy for every issue, no. We elect representatives to decide many issues for us, and have a Bill of Rights to ensure that people can decide some things for themselves.

That's about the most generic name imaginable for (what I'm assuming is) a ballot initiative that you're pissed off about. It has probably been the name of literally dozens of ballot measures. So you're going to need to be a little more specific than just saying a single-digit integer and having everyone instantly know what you're talking about.

Everyone know about Prop 8 and realized we are farther then from democracy as possible. The people took a vote and said no, the losers had to run to the courts to get the people's will overturned

 

[Bear5131]

This one?

2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So the voters passed a law and the courts struck it down as unconstitutional. What's the problem?

Don't tell us we are a democracy we are sick of MSNBC saying it 30 times an hour.

 

[The flaming lib]

The idiot in the White House.

 

[post]

Don't tell us we are a democracy we are sick of MSNBC saying it 30 times an hour.

You "conservatives" make a strong argument for doing away with the electoral college which has masked
the condition of the G.O.P., a party whose presidential candidates, despite having won the popular vote only once in the 1992, 1996. 2000, 2004,
2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections, have managed to nominate to Supreme Court seats, five consecutive white Roman Catholic
Justices.

 

[Gatsby]

Well you don’t see a problem with unelected government juntas invalidating democratic elections?

If you are making a general point that our federal courts hold too much power relative to the amount of democratic legitimacy they have, I agree. Co-signed.

Seems odd to apply that logic to a specific ballot initiative to take rights away from people though. The most democratic solution possible would be to let each individual person decide whether they want to get same-sex married.

If that’s the case democracy is not a value to you

No one is an advocate of absolute democracy on every random issue. That's why we have elected representatives and a Constitution. And it's super-obvious that the reason you are muddying the waters by conflating the two is because you want less democracy, not more. So this whole argument is made in bad faith. Because you don't even believe the point you are making.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Internal.

 

[post]

If you are making a general point that our federal courts hold too much power relative to the amount of democratic legitimacy they have, I agree. Co-signed.

Seems odd to apply that logic to a specific ballot initiative to take rights away from people though. The most democratic solution possible would be to let each individual person decide whether they want to get same-sex married.


No one is an advocate of absolute democracy on every random issue. That's why we have elected representatives and a Constitution. And it's super-obvious that the reason you are muddying the waters by conflating the two is because you want less democracy, not more. So this whole argument is made in bad faith. Because you don't even believe the point you are making.

You relieved my concern the "conservative" posts in this thread are incoherent, thank you. Mendacious, yes, incoherent, no...

They also make a strong argument against the tyranny of the minority of the McConnell weaponized U.S. Senate in which
Wyoming's 90 percent white, tiny xenophobic population neutralizes the influence in that body of California's vast, 63.5 percent
other than white population.

 

[TurtleDude]

The far right wing's attempts to subvert/destroy democracy in the US is by far the most serious threat the country is currently facing.

if you think Biden is doing a good job and the creeping cancer of collectivism is to be welcomed, I can see how you think that way

 

[trixare4kids]

who are the elites

Seriously, you don't know?

 

[post]

if you think Biden is doing a good job and the creeping cancer of collectivism is to be welcomed, I can see how you think that way

Collectivism - "the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state."

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

federalreserve.gov

Opinion | In Praise of Smoke and Mirrors​

If we need creative accounting to invest for the future, go for it.
www.nytimes.com
OPINION
PAUL KRUGMAN
Aug. 5, 2021
"...On the surface, Republican demands should have made agreement impossible. G.O.P. senators were adamantly opposed to tax increases. They also blocked proposals to give the I.R.S. resources to crack down on widespread tax evasion — a stance that even cynics like yours truly found a bit shocking. What kind of party more or less openly aligns itself with wealthy tax cheats? ..."

The kind of party that would target anything and anybody in its constant effort to divert attention away from discussion
of issues that most concern the party's wealthiest political donors..."

How Peter Thiel Created a $5 Billion Roth IRA Account - Ubiquity​

Wondering how to turn $2,000 into $5 Billion? PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel was lucky, but Ubiquity helps regular Americans maximize wealth with 401(k)s.
www.myubiquity.com
Dylan Telerski / 22 Oct 2021

"..Back in 1999, the Clinton administration blocked Americans making over $110,000 per year from using the tax-free accounts and capped annual contributions at $2,000. Thiel was running a months-old startup venture, earning a modest $73,263 salary that came with a large stock grant. He bought a stake in PayPal with 1.7 million shares at $0.001 per share. Within a year, the value of Thiel’s Roth had shot up from $1,664 to $3.8 million. He made other savvy investments in Facebook and Palantir Technologies Inc that made him a billionaire.

A decade after the Roth was created, the Congress under President George W. Bush allowed a limitless “backdoor” Roth conversion of traditional IRAs to Roth accounts, regardless of one’s income. The option was created as a short-term way to raise tax revenue. Investors had to pay income tax at conversion time, but they’d benefit from tax-free growth and distribution. Investment gains in Roth IRAs are never taxed and Thiel won’t have to pay taxes when he takes the money out, as long as he waits until he is 59.5 years old to withdraw..."

TIPRA and Roth IRA: What You Need to Know About the Law That Legalized Backdoor Roths​

TIPRA continues to help the wealthy avoid paying taxes on investment gains, but President Biden aims to put a stop to this.
www.investopedia.com
Published March 25, 2022

"The Tax Increase and Prevention Reconciliation Act (TIPRA) of 2005 has generated plenty of controversy since it was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2006. One of the legislation’s boldest moves was to lift income restrictions on individual retirement account (IRA)-to-Roth IRA conversions, starting in 2010, which paved the way for the so-called backdoor Roth IRA. This gives high earners a way to access the benefits of tax-free growth on retirement investment gains.1

In late 2021, congressional Democrats almost found a way to close this loophole as part of President Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) plan. The sweeping economic recovery and social welfare bill passed the U.S. House but stalled in the U.S. Senate. For now, higher earners can continue funding their Roth IRAs in 2022 even though their modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) should theoretically exclude them from being able to do so.23 .."

 

[post]

Continued from my last post...

if you think Biden is doing a good job and the creeping cancer of collectivism is to be welcomed, I can see how you think that way

Super-Rich Americans Feel Relief as Tax Hikes Are Canceled ...​

https://www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › super-ri...
Dec 20, 2021 — Democrats had designed a $1.75 trillion bill aimed at narrowing the widening wealth gap by enhancing tax credits for children and low-income ...

 

[I'm Immemorial]

"Rouge v. Rogue"