The Empire Strikes Back

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: LOL I would disagree. If I didnt we would not have much to talk about!
No he did not build a galactic alliance, that was already built. The troops were not payed for by the alliance. In fact its never been said who actually paid for the clone army but several books suggest it was actually paid for by the Sith. So in that context that army was actually an invading army, just not an overtly invading army. This was the genus of the Sith plan. They instigated a civil war and then pitted the alliance separatists against the clone troops which destabilized the entire alliance. Once this was done the clone army was turned against the rest of the republic and brought them under control as well. In effect they were a trojan horse that waltzed right into the heart of the republic.

During this time the alliance govt was still in effect but the emergency powers granted the chancellor allowed him to bring this clone army in. Once that was done and he seized power by their force he declared himself an emperor and then proceeded to dismantle the alliance govt and get rid of the representatives and in their place installed regional governors all loyal to him. So no the functional govt under the alliance looked nothing like the final empire. All this work to convert it was done after the declaration and it was backed up by the secret covert building and invasion of the clone army. Palpatine did not legally seize power. He only legally gained emergency powers. But his invading army and declaration of an empire were illegal.

As for the UN it only makes sense that its headquartered in New York since the US started the organization at the end of WWII. It was designed to be a body in which all nations join and govern international peace and security so that no empire like the Nazis could ever be created again. And of course the US acts unilaterally at points in time as its prerogative but it is done through a legislative process, not the order of an emperor. The US also has its own military under the authority of that same legislative body and even though the command in chief is the president it is also not a body loyal to the president as the clone army was. Unlawful orders will not be followed by our military as is their standing basic tenet.

That was excellent, even if it relies on non-canon material to support it. I happen to like the EU so I'll concede on the initial funding coming not coming from the Republic even though they were ordered by Sifo-Dyas. I could argue it was actually all of the following:

Dooku's vast personal fortune
Funds skimmed from the Republic's budget by Palpatine
Money taken from the Jedi budget by Sifo-Dias.
Money appropriated from the Trade Federation by Dooku
Sith funds.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/65706/how-did-the-republic-pay-for-the-clone-army

keep in mind that funding had to be ongoing and also pay for weapons, armor, and ships; all of which could not have been provided by the Kamino. If we're using EU/Legends then you have to consider how Darth Plagueis supplied the funds to build, train, and supply the Clone Army. He gained control of the InterGalactic Banking Clan.
https://www.quora.com/How-was-the-clone-army-funded

according to starwars.fandom.com The Banking Clan was subject to the Core Five, joined the confederacy, but still conducted business with the Republic before being taken over by Senator Rush Clovis which ceded control to the office of the Supreme Chancellor.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/InterGalactic_Banking_Clan

This happened prior to the empire declaration. Then if you read the article on Supreme Chancellor...
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Supreme_Chancellor

You'll see how Palpatine consolidated power well before declaring it an empire. In other words... there was a definite period in which

The conflict with the Separatists helped to greatly expand the chancellor's authority with additional wartime powers, resulting in the marginalization of the Senate as Palpatine became dictator in all but name

By 19 BBY the office of the Chancellor had appropriate power controlling the Senate and the courts, as well as the Banking Clan and the Republic Military. All that, he gained LEGALLY. The Army was a "Republic Army" and not an invading force. It was ordered by the Jedi, bankrolled by the Banking Clan. These were both manipulated into doing it of course but that's my whole point. By the time Palps actually said "empire" it was an empire in all but name. He ALREADY had control over the Senate and the Court. But once he had legal authority he didn't really need them anymore. And he was able to use the emergency powers as the final key to setting up that legal authority which is why he was never prosecuted and why the republic army continued to fight for him; with only a rebellion breaking off to oppose him. Did he really need to do that? Arguably if he never said "empire" and never replaced the Senate there may have never been a rebellion. And isn't that what I said about America? That as long as we don't say the "e" word that's is what allows us to behave like and consolidate more power than any previous empire. We simply have to be in denial for it to work.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Emergency_Powers_Act

The Emergency Powers Act was crucial to the fall of the republic because it basically said that the Chancellor could choose when the emergency was over and until it was over he didn't have to allow new elections and could make decisions without senate approval, including the decision to reorganize the republic into the empire.

My argument, Kyrin, is that the power of the Empire, which Palpatine masterfully obtained and used, was already there within the Republic and all he had to do was take the wheel, and manipulate it to the extent that he had power over the economic (banks), political (senate), judicial (courts) and military arms of the government. It was already set up to have all that power but to SHARE IT among the representatives of the different worlds. But if one person or a small group of wealthy people could use Citizens United and other levers to control politicians that's already bad. But if one of these same people became president and controlled court picks, it COULD (not saying it has already) set the stage for something worse.

HOWEVER... I don't feel the wealthy people who are obviously manipulating congress WANT to directly control the Executive necessarily because that would put too much political heat on them and the control they already have over the people who make our laws. So I'm not at all saying "yes this is clear cut and there's nothing to argue". I'm saying it is anything but clear and so was what happened to the Galactic Republic in its last days. They didn't see this coming at all. They didn't realize the Banking Clan had been infiltrated by a Sith lord. And because these pieces on the chess board appeared to be separate and having their own independent motivations, these same pieces could be moved by a small group of people. In effect, it was already an empire. They just didn't know it yet. The actual declaration was simply Sidious saying "checkmate".

Right now... whatever you think about Trump, it is clear that he's had an oddly powerful grip on Republicans in Congress. I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't see that. He doesn't have the same control over the courts and that is where the system has really proved its genius. However, it's not exactly for lack of trying which is why people like Mitch McConnell are willing to do complete hypocritical 180s on court appointments. Because it's all about power to them and if Trump has it they believe their party has it. And if their party gets control of congress, the executive, and the supreme court then as long as everyone bats for their team (which is what some believe) then there will be no "real" check and balance on Republican power.

And keep in mind that eventually Palpatine lost and was overthrown by the rebellion so further confirmation that empires in name do not work! As long as no one operating in the shadows comes out and tries to publicly grab all the power that the US has already consolidated then perhaps there will never be a rebellion and they can continue to rule from the shadows forever. In other words, as long as we feel like we have a vote we're allowed to dream the American dream of freedom even if it is limited by the interests of those corrupt elite ruling from the shadows. Cabinet and Dept heads like Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos are just like those regional governors in Palpatine's empire. So what's the difference? How close do we get to effectively exactly what happened in Star Wars before we can agree that something's wrong? And is this very debate the same reason why no one seemed to have seen it happening in SW besides a handful of Jedi? The rest probably didn't think it was possible.

A little housekeeping just to help us stay on target and keep us from getting too distracted by minor sidebars.

OP:
There will be a lot of fodder for debate and a lot of controversial aspects that people are sure to disagree with. And I want to keep a metaphorical relationship between the government in discussion, to the Empire in the Star Wars universe. If you disagree that one is anything like the other you can argue that too. And if it is similar then what is it that makes it so? What is at the heart of this empire? And what is it that continues to put it in a position to be influenced and arguably taken over by the "Sith"? Is there a Palpatine among us? How do we detect a Palpatine? If there is, are there rebels who oppose this person and can they be successful?

We have discussed whether the US can be called an empire, but I'd like to remind folks that this word was used within the context of "likeness" not "sameness". Is there a perceivable relationship between the government in question to the Empire in Star Wars. It doesn't have to be a 1:1 ration of exactness; just a similarity within the context of "could the same or similar thing happen to the US"? And if we're intellectually honest then I feel like if we're going to ask that question then you have to ask whether or not it has already "happened" or "started to happen". In other words, from someone's perspective maybe we've lost the Democratic Republic a long time ago. In someone else's perspective maybe we're starting to slide uncomfortably in that direction. Where is the truth? What is the truth?

I've reached an understanding, although perhaps tenuous, with Kyrin that I can use the word "empire" so long as we can also use the word "republic", which is cool because I do think both are true and applicable in different senses. Clearly, it has the exterior vestiges and appendages of a Democratic Republic. Internally, there are are "devices" that allow the representation of the citizens to be superseded or circumvented by financial or corporate interests. If the government represents the people how come the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer? Why is there gerrymandering? Clearly there are rules to the game but clearly those rules are being bent and broken.

So since there are still plenty of things to debate still let's start the transition to Episode II, or whether or not the "empire is striking back". This is clearly a play on words so it's not to be taken literally. Rather, it is to say that it seems that there are elements that have been lying dormant or simply moving under the radar of public consciousness, that are now feeling themselves and performing certain activities in broad daylight that play to their agenda. Perhaps they would like to be an empire more than the rest of the country does but for "whatever" reason they feel like they're in power now.

ZealotX wrote:
Right now... whatever you think about Trump, it is clear that he's had an oddly powerful grip on Republicans in Congress. I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't see that. He doesn't have the same control over the courts and that is where the system has really proved its genius..

Well I for one do not see that. In the first two years of his presidency he got a lot of push back from republicans. He failed to get the Obama health bill reformed because of it. And what we are really talking about here in Star Wars is an IMAGINARY govt. I never saw anything about the judicial branch in Star Wars and the fact that the congress would just unanimously cheer him in is a ridiculous concept, albeit one to further a story. It lacked that branch simply because that made the story good in the fact that Palpatine could take over and become emperor. That would not happen in our real life govt without a much greater effort and a great deal of force. Trump has used his powers to their fullest in his time there and they have been challenged over and over, both by the courts and by congress. The system works as it is designed.. as a republic, not an empire.

And without calling anyone Hitler, if you study the rise of the Nazi party, on which the Star Wars empire was based upon, you may start seeing some interesting similarities with today's rhetoric.

The Nazi party started as the "National Socialist German Workers’ Party"

Now the History channel's website focuses more on "German pride and Antisemitism" I would imagine that
1. These is nothing wrong with "German pride"
2. Germans were afraid of losing their jobs and began seeing Jews as a threat to those jobs.

The mere mention of Hitler and Nazis seems to come fully loaded because we all know the outcome. Hitler is forever stigmatized with evil and so we have to be careful in who we and how we associate others with that same stigma.

With that being said, I don't think the Germans intended from the beginning to be Antisemitic or commit genocide. It was more like a zeitgeist that started with a more benign position and over time the anger of seeing Jews have good jobs and the fear of them losing good jobs fused into a situation where they cared less and less what happened to those Jews.

It's not a 1:1 comparison by any stretch of the imagination but there seem to be a lot of white voters that feel like this is is their country (now) and therefore they are (if anyone is) entitled to jobs. This would be the same concern as the German Worker's party. They look around. They see black people getting a lot of jobs, especially a lot of government jobs. They see Jews making tons of money and keeping it to themselves (as commanded by the Torah). They see Hispanics crossing the border and taking jobs. And logically, even if they aren't competing for jobs working out in the fields there is a very good chance that the CHILDREN of those workers will not be working the same jobs but rather learning English in American schools and competing for college spots and jobs that either they or their children will want. And hey... it's not like there isn't a part of me that understands and sympathizes with this. Especially when they feel like we're letting people break the rules in order to be in a position to "take" our jobs in the future. Aren't we already in debt? Why should our resources help people who aren't even supposed to be here?

And if I am imagining all this then why is it that people are identifying as "white nationalists"? Let's say "white nationalists" have nothing to do with Nazis. Why do they have to be "white" nationalists? Why not just nationalists? Why be exclusive rather than inclusive? Isn't because they're not worried about black jobs and Asian jobs but just white jobs? They know KKK will never be mainstream again (like it used to be) because of it's history. They know that the Nazi party will never be mainstream again because of its history. So... "white nationalism" because "white nationalism" has no history (yet) to be ashamed of or to be shamed by. And with control of an Executive branch and even the Senate bending the knee to the MAGA agenda, which YES absolutely was the brain child of white nationalists, these people don't just have gripes and complaints. They have real power. And as long as that agenda benefits others who, may not be members of or ascribe to all the objectives of the white nationalists, there isn't resistance from those people but rather a subtle tacit approval. At the very least they'll make excuses and blame the other side. Kids in cages? Oh that's unfortunate but their parents shouldn't have bought them. We start making these arguments not realizing that we're sliding down a slippery slope towards fascism.

This, what I will call an, undercurrent has existed in this country for a long time. It's not new. Anyone who thinks it's new simply hasn't been paying attention or taking America's pulse in the right places. Many rural folk see themselves in opposition with the "rich" city folk who more and more start looking like the elites from the Hunger Games. Hillary Clinton's wardrobe did her no favors on the campaign trail. And yes, she did deserve to lose even if it Russia and Trump's popularity weren't factors. She was a "corporate democrat" and democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, are often guided by the donor class as well to the point where if corporations need something that sounds more Republican they simply Lobby the Republicans and if they need something that sounds more democratic they lobby the democrats. Trust me, there's enough blame to go around without feeding into partisan tropes.

This current of "white nationalism" wasn't new but was driven underground by the Civil Rights movement; not because blacks were involved but because whites were getting involved as well. It became a taboo to be overtly racist so racist switched to covert racism. And in many if not most cases, their racism wasn't really about hate but fear of losing their way of life; the survival of white culture and white wealth. So, imho, this is what put them into a position to "strike back"... it's not everyone, just like I doubt there was ever a 45+% of the actual citizens of the Republic who were ever in support of everything the Galactic Empire was doing (although I would have liked to see Palpatine's fictional approval numbers lol). I would imagine that most citizens of the empire didn't want it and only tolerated it because they had no choice. They were powerless to stop it because their representatives had foolishly given that power away.

But how did it happen? Saikat Mandal had this to say:

Imagine this:

You have lost a war.

You had to secede a chunk of your land to the people against whom you lost.

Your military has been greatly reduced and further increase is highly prohibited.

Your economy is in shambles and unemployment is at an all time high.

There is widespread poverty and hunger.

Out of all this you find an extremely charismatic leader who shows extreme promise to reinstate to your past glories. You find that he has galvanized the nation and has stood up against the oppressors who had trampled your nation.

What do you do at that time?

YES. Yes you guessed it right. You support that man, for he is your saviour in such times of hardship.

So by now you must have understood that once the Nazis were in power there was great support for them. Not to mention that Hitler greatly decreased unemployment, there was increase in industrial outputs, food rations were getting better.

At this time Hitler was very popular. The people simply adored him and believed that he could lead them to greatness.

Oh the irony.

Sound familiar? In my opinion, Make America Great Again means that America isn't great right now because there are struggles being experienced by a base of people that weren't struggling as much when others (like African Americans) were struggling much more. Now that they're struggling more they're looking to white nationalism and a savior, who, if given enough power, they believe will lead them [back] to greatness.

ZealotX wrote:
Sound familiar?

Oh brother.... no it does not sound familiar at all! lol You cant compare the Nazi govt to ours and just go well there ya go! were an empire. There is no such similarity. The Germans had a king just a few years before so they were already used to a monarchy. They country was completely destabilized by WWI, economy dead, military destroyed, hyper inflation, paramilitary govt parties ruled the land and they had a weak republic structure. None of this is true in the US. The saga of star wars is not only based on Nazi Germany but also the Romans, the Greeks, the Knights Templar, Richard Nixon and the Viet Nam war. So I think to cherry pick just Nazis is disingenuous.

Now you pull the race card which I think is bad form. We are not in a race war nor have we ever been no matter how much democrats try to tell people we are. Make America Great Again is not "Make White America Great Again". Thats just crap. Whites are not worried about black or Hispanic jobs. And they sure dont have the issue with immigrants that you seem to want to put forth. What is of concern is illegal immigrants and the lack of enforcement of our boarder and immigration laws. I have no idea where you got this concept of white against minorities but its just not a valid point here. People have been identifying as white nationalists since the 70s, and it is an undercurrent I agree. But it continues to be. They are not in control of the executive branch of the govt. I mean WTF are you even talking about here? The president has done more for black jobs that any other president in recent history, He has increased funding for black colleges and expanded minority job training programs. just to name a few things. Im not going to turn this into a black vs white thing...

American Imperialists are behind Trump..

Just like the Globalists were behind Hillary..

The Wolf and the Fox, and you're the hen..

Trump has swamp creatures just like Obama did..

People really aren't seeing the game of Hierarchy here.. which is why I like Anarchism.

America is an economic empire first. Politically and militarily centralized power controls and maintains that empire.. it is entirely OPPOSITE of what was intended by the Constitution..

However, the current Zeitgeist, and its current disruption, was at least two decades in the making.. first by putting the different identy groups further in their corners.. Now Black America is the face of the democratic party, backed by LBGT and (Feminaziism) lol.. While "white nationalism" was grouped with anti-globalism, the militia and men's clubs, and the Christian right in the GOP.. causing the more "liberal" repubs like the Bushes (who have their own messed up history) to forsake them (along with the anti-globalism they hate)..

The powers that be underestimated America's laziness lol they should've made it seem like he was going to win so people would be actually scared into voting like was planned.. but now they're stuck lol and the fake left and phony right are destroying each other in the process of this attempted role reversal..

The left was never meant to be the radicalized population to kick off civil unrest. The right was ready for all out civil war..

Uzima Moto wrote: they should've made it seem like he was going to win so people would be actually scared into voting like was planned.

Who exactly is "they"?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
Right now... whatever you think about Trump, it is clear that he's had an oddly powerful grip on Republicans in Congress. I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't see that. He doesn't have the same control over the courts and that is where the system has really proved its genius..

Well I for one do not see that. In the first two years of his presidency he got a lot of push back from republicans. He failed to get the Obama health bill reformed because of it. And what we are really talking about here in Star Wars is an IMAGINARY govt. I never saw anything about the judicial branch in Star Wars and the fact that the congress would just unanimously cheer him in is a ridiculous concept, albeit one to further a story. It lacked that branch simply because that made the story good in the fact that Palpatine could take over and become emperor. That would not happen in our real life govt without a much greater effort and a great deal of force. Trump has used his powers to their fullest in his time there and they have been challenged over and over, both by the courts and by congress. The system works as it is designed.. as a republic, not an empire.

Look at Lindsey Graham's statements about Trump before and after the election. That was one of his worst critics. The reason, and we can debate this if you want, that Obamacare didn't get replaced has nothing to do with opposition to Trump. It was because Trump lied. On the campaign trail Trump said he had a plan that was better. He said everyone would be covered and pre-existing conditions will be covered.

“I alone can fix it,” Trump said of Obamacare and other problems he saw plaguing the country, at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Trump repeatedly promised to repeal Obamacare “immediately, fast, quick,” and replace it with a system that would provide “great health care for a fraction of the price.” He promised to “repeal and replace” Obamacare with “something terrific” that helps people with “no money.” He also promised to “take care” of all Americans with health care.

Trump and Republican in Congress have nearly abandoned their Obamacare repeal efforts. The House narrowly passed a bill, but the Senate has failed to find a proposal supported by a majority of Republicans. Most recently, four Republican Senators announced they’d oppose a bill championed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Trump.

The Congressional Budget Office found that different versions of congressional plans to repeal Obamacare — each trumpeted by Trump in his quest to get a bill passed — would result in over 20 million people losing coverage, as well as higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs for people with lower incomes and those nearing retirement.

Even though Trump promised not to simply repeal the ACA without a replacement, he has since advocated a wide range of tactics, including just letting Obamacare fail through administrative neglect and repealing with a two-year delay and no replacement.

Trump promised to save social security and medicaid without cuts but supported bills with drastic cuts to medicaid funding in excess of $700 billion.

I just want to say, I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have something much better, but pre-existing conditions, when I’m referring to that, and I was referring to that very strongly on the show with Anderson Cooper, I want to keep pre-existing conditions. I think we need it. I think it’s a modern age, and I think we have to have it.

However the plans moving through congress from the GOP would remove protections for pre-existing conditions.

The reason its getting stalled is because there is a bipartison effort to block it because of the obvious effect it would have, even on the GOP's own constituents. There are people who would literally die. And at the same time these bills don't match the populist campaign promises Trump made. They are simply Trump concessions because "who knew healthcare was so complicated". The power Trump has is political. In other words, all of these campaign promises that speak to a MAGA agenda, are popular with the base and therefore Republicans in congress are very careful not to visibly oppose. But the way they defend Trump even when some Fox news people have spoken honestly against him? ...speaks to his power and influence.

https://thinkprogress.org/check-in-trumps-major-promises-f1bdf8a96088/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/subjects/health-care/

And yes... as I've been saying... its only thanks to the Judicial branch that the GOP doesn't seem to have absolute power. They have a majority on the supreme court and now states are currently flexing their power by challenging Roe v. Wade. Trump can't tell judges what to do and things have to circulate up to the Supreme Court. However, as we have seen in Trump's appointments of people who have pretty much auditioned for the job by filating his ego on national TV, he seeks to put people in positions who will work for his interests and be loyal to him; same as I would imagine Palpatine did with his regional governors. You can do the same thing with judicial picks if you have an organization that basically follows judges like baseball players and picks the ones who have made statements most in line with your views. The president can't stack the court completely because they have lifetime appointments but if he can replace enough he can swing the entire bench in his favor. But we have yet to see the full impact of this. What Trump is doing, seemingly at every turn, is testing the full extent of his power. He's seeing the extent of it and simply using lawyers to get around those obstacles. Apparently you CAN ban Muslims, for example. You just can't do it directly and you can't CALL IT THAT. Which is much like my previous argument about the word "empire". You can behave like one but you can't call it that and expect it to keep functioning the same. I don't think anyone expects Trump or anyone else for that matter to announce on white house lawn that they are going to reorganize America into an Empire. I think what people like myself are concerned about isn't a name or label, but how it behaves and affects people.

Trump is not America's greatest threat or her savior. I wish folks would stop sitting in that box..

Americans literally have the right to remove their Government but sit on their thumbs and vote for somebody to do it for them.. sad case.. but Americans couldn't do that, anyway. They're too impulsive and presumptuous of their own positions. Unwilling to learn to just live and let live..

What I mean by "they" in that sentence is those globalist interests that were pushing for Trump to lose..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
Sound familiar?

Oh brother.... no it does not sound familiar at all! lol You cant compare the Nazi govt to ours and just go well there ya go! were an empire. There is no such similarity. The Germans had a king just a few years before so they were already used to a monarchy. They country was completely destabilized by WWI, economy dead, military destroyed, hyper inflation, paramilitary govt parties ruled the land and they had a weak republic structure. None of this is true in the US. The saga of star wars is not only based on Nazi Germany but also the Romans, the Greeks, the Knights Templar, Richard Nixon and the Viet Nam war. So I think to cherry pick just Nazis is disingenuous.

Now you pull the race card which I think is bad form. We are not in a race war nor have we ever been no matter how much democrats try to tell people we are. Make America Great Again is not "Make White America Great Again". Thats just crap. Whites are not worried about black or Hispanic jobs. And they sure dont have the issue with immigrants that you seem to want to put forth. What is of concern is illegal immigrants and the lack of enforcement of our boarder and immigration laws. I have no idea where you got this concept of white against minorities but its just not a valid point here. People have been identifying as white nationalists since the 70s, and it is an undercurrent I agree. But it continues to be. They are not in control of the executive branch of the govt. I mean WTF are you even talking about here? The president has done more for black jobs that any other president in recent history, He has increased funding for black colleges and expanded minority job training programs. just to name a few things. Im not going to turn this into a black vs white thing...

You continue to defend as if I'm attacking or talking about all whites. This actually threatens to turn the argument into something that it was not. It was never a black vs white thing because like I told you recently, neither group is a MONOLITH. You can't speak for all whites to say what they do or do not think just as I cannot do the same thing for blacks. There are black people in different political parties, social spheres, income brackets, etc.

But to say "race card" or "race war" would be a bit irresponsible and incites a completely wrongheaded attitude that says "we can't even talk about people who are racist because someone who isn't racist may think you're talking about them." That's BS. If you're not racist then I'm not talking about you. It really is that simple. What people are afraid of, I think, it that the shoe just might fit and they are comfortable wearing it, but they don't want anyone to know they are comfortable wearing it unless that person is also wearing the same shoes. But if it's not your shoe then don't wear it and don't act like I'm trying to sell it to you. You may not think there is a racial issue deep within the republican base but even other republicans are starting to see it. Personally, I've witnessed more racist garbage coming out of people's mouths in the last two years than the last 30 combined.


(you can start 5min in)

"racism is part of what kept conservatism together" - John Ziegler, conservative republican.

I'm now going to make an assumption. I'm going to assume you understand what a dog whistle is, what it's purpose is, and how they're used in politics.

And understand the context around my perspective. You may not hear them but I hear them all the time; stories about racists who are calling the cops on black people for doing such mundane things as:
grilling in the park
parking
sleeping
lawnmowing
selling lemonade
swimming
attending a swimming party
and much more.

I personally overheard a kid tell my step son that whites were better than blacks. And in the same school district a girl on his soccer team said something racist which made him want to quit. And on the bus some kid told him and/or his sister to "go back to the plantation".

And these are kids. Kids are going to echo things they hear their parents saying. And obviously this isn't every white kid, but for every 1 kid who says something racist how many kids are simply not saying anything? 10? 20? 200? And the fact is that this area is outside the city. More rural. Racism is clearly worse in areas (some) whites identify as "their territory". This of course effects education which allows a lower standard of education in non-white communities. But hey... these policies aren't racist because they aren't labeled as such, right?

And did I mention we don't live in the South? I went to school in Alabama. I cannot even imagine what rural AL is like right now. When I was there my bosses young niece (white) pointed at me and said "you're a black man!" which was admittedly very weird to me but simply spoke to her lack of exposure to black people which then allows kids to believe anything said about black people. But she didn't dislike me and I didn't dislike her. I'm still friends with my boss on Facebook.

Look...

Either you hear the dog whistle or you weren't meant to hear it. That's how it works. Someone wisely said that MAGA points back to Ronald Reagan. That makes perfect sense.

“One perfect example – a perfect example – of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working-class Americans against brown and black working Americans in order to just screw over all working-class Americans is Reaganism in the ’80s,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an interview at the conference.

This blew a lot of people's minds. I was born in 79 so I was barely aware of Reagan's presidency. He was revered by white people so I assumed he was relatively good for everyone.

"More than any other modern U.S. president, it was Ronald Reagan who cultivated the concept of so-called reverse discrimination, which emerged in the 1970s as a backlash against affirmative action in public schooling as court-ordered busing grew throughout the country. During these years, a growing number of white Americans came to believe civil rights programs and policies had outstretched their original intent and had turned whites into the victims of racial discrimination."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/10/how-the-reagan-administration-stoked-fears-of-anti-white-racism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8fc1045f607b

Not only had I not heard this before but certain groups recently coming out started to make more sense to me. Certain white males have been ranting about being discriminated against and one only has to put two and two together.

Opponents of affirmative action found even more support among conservative officeholders. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration began to roll back civil rights protections and legally designated targets for affirmative action hires, thus bringing the politics of reverse discrimination to the White House. Under the now familiar banner of “Let’s Make America Great Again,” Reagan campaigned vigorously against affirmative action in 1980, promising voters he would overturn policies that mandated, in his view, “federal guidelines or quotas which require race, ethnicity, or sex . . . to be the principle factor in hiring or education.”

And then... it happened. All the dog whistles became audible. Finally... a president was now openly saying what they were trying to hear and accomplish for decades. The older folks already knew what MAGA meant because they heard it before.

In the absence of legal support, Reagan’s assault on affirmative action required political cunning. The president established a two-pronged approach to circumvent existing civil rights laws. First, his administration simply stopped enforcing laws of which it disapproved. Reagan’s secretary of labor, for example, implemented new federal compliance guidelines that exempted as many as 75 percent of companies contracting with the federal government from previously mandatory affirmative action programs.

And here comes Trump preaching deregulation and putting incompetent people in charge of departments he doesn't care about and wants to destroy or defund.

Second, Reagan fundamentally restructured the composition of federal courts and the government’s civil rights enforcement apparatus, which included the Justice and Labor departments and the Commission on Civil Rights. Reagan removed affirmative action supporters from their posts and re-staffed a significant portion of the DOJ and the Commission on Civil Rights with people like William Bradford Reynolds, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, who opposed existing civil rights law.

I'm quoting heavily but I think these words are far more important than my own.

In so much as Reagan cared about a civil rights issue, it was not school integration or affirmative action but rather reverse discrimination against white men. Though the rhetoric of reverse discrimination preceded the Reagan presidency and had spread considerably among affirmative action opponents in the years before his election, it was the Reagan administration that first enshrined such assumptions in policy.

The Trump administration promises to enhance these policies. President Trump has borrowed a page from Reagan by appointing Jeff Sessions, a longtime opponent of the Voting Rights Act, to the position of attorney general. Under Sessions, the DOJ promises once again to work to undermine civil rights law by vociferously opposing reverse discrimination.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/373417-jeff-sessionss-year-at-doj-is-a-year-the-civil-rights-movement-will-never
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/w47cbd/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-jeff-sessions-cracks-down-on-racism-against-white-people
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-race-schools.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-justice-department-embraces-white-grievance/535683/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-race-civil-rights/story?id=43633501

So it is possible that Trump's base will never leave him because he and his cronies have been scoring points for the MAGA agenda which was created by people like Bannon and Gorka. How much Trump has been used by people like this remains to be seen. Does everyone know exactly what MAGA means? I doubt it. But clearly the US made progress in some areas that some wish was never made and want to go back to a time before that progress. I'm sure it isn't sufficient to convince everyone. I know that. However, I hope someone thinks to themselves "hey wait, what if MAGA means something different from what I thought?" I hope someone will investigate the policies that the current administration is seeking that are linked to the policies that the Reagan administration was seeking. And then I know we wont all get there, but I hope at least some of us can agree that MAGA is ultimately a racist strategy and that is why racists are coming out of their shells, KKK and Nazis are marching and having rallies, and why David Duke endorsed Trump; that all of these happenings are not coincidence but rather providence.

I tend to view the Jedi in the fiction as being sort of 'Jiedushi' in historical China, ie legate.... official representatives with command over regional military forces and government in representation of the central administration. So I tend to view them as lateral to State Governors but more in an oversight 'Governor-General' type of role to 'represent the monarch of a sovereign state in the governing of an independent realm'. A type of part time yet powerful role.

I think it was this mechanism which Palpatine used to instill military command.... being a less Governer and more General shift by replacing the Jedi with Imperial commanders, and using the war time powers to erode the independence of those realms until it no longer existed, and could instead exist to serve Palpatine directly as Empire. He'd already engineered events to ensure the Imperial forces were big enough to achieve complete dominance once able to be in position under the guise of the trade wars.

So to shunt that over to national politics, me I view the abuse of groupthink to construct weaponised narratives for political aims is in effect fascism. A twisted form of group identity, one type being nationalism. The Nazi's used fascism under the mechanisms of socialism to channel individual wealth (work) into the hands of politically aligned industrial and political factions working under a socialist State with a fascist group identity and cause. The distinction is subtle, but its more anti-capitalist then capitalist IMO. Communism was socialism purely about the State, while Nazism was socialism purely about the fascist identity. These are both all about being against an enemy, a groupthink insular narrative. So in Hitlers Germany the Jews and foreigners etc represented the enemy to that model, and the actualization of the narrative became required to keep its momentum locally which led Hitler to push outwards which conveniently created new enemies, until it reaches a tipping point of there being too many enemies and enough to turn the tide and snuff it out in the only language it understood. The entire set of identity paradigms constructed around being a victim work on fear, which of course leads to anger, hatred and suffering.

Trump doesn't really set off those sort of alarm bells for me, but he does make some decisions I disagree with at times. He is nationalistic, so its easy to draw comparisons... but nationalism is not a bad thing necessarily. The reality is the world is full of countries who put their own interests above other nations and no single country can afford to bend over and take it up the tail pipe for moral idealism, if it wants to survive in the long run. The trade wars now don't really match the trade wars back there, as the distances are so much shorter and the concepts of regions and realms has less meaning on a planet then it does across galaxies.

And IMO these things are growing pains of an evolving system going through an era of nation states, on its way to a globalized ecozone... an Empire of Humans. If it is the reality then the quicker we get on board and deal with the damage its doing the quicker we can move forward to a more refined and efficient system of progress. Once we reach that juvenile state of deeper self awareness we can really start to unwind the inherent anthropocentrism which might be the root of all the silly identity politics and egoism that is holding us back in that era of nation states. At the end of the day I think it winds down to how government authority is being used to dictate the rights of individuals within that governments area of responsibility - an Empires governments views itself as responsible for setting the rules, while a democracies government views itself as being responsible for letting the people set the rules... ie the authorities being served by the people, versus serving the people. The confusing thing is they all claim to be serving the people - so its less about what they say and more about what they do, and its that element of surprise which is the main avenue of the cheat and liar to achieve short term success, eg Palpatine. It's just Palpatine was in a universe at a time when his big move was in an environment which gave him top level control with no enemy, well almost no enemy

Cue the regional governor generals with the skills and connections!!! The 節度 :side:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiedushi
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%AF%80
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BA%A6

Uzima Moto wrote: American Imperialists are behind Trump..

Just like the Globalists were behind Hillary..

The Wolf and the Fox, and you're the hen..

Trump has swamp creatures just like Obama did..

People really aren't seeing the game of Hierarchy here.. which is why I like Anarchism.

America is an economic empire first. Politically and militarily centralized power controls and maintains that empire.. it is entirely OPPOSITE of what was intended by the Constitution..

However, the current Zeitgeist, and its current disruption, was at least two decades in the making.. first by putting the different identy groups further in their corners.. Now Black America is the face of the democratic party, backed by LBGT and (Feminaziism) lol.. While "white nationalism" was grouped with anti-globalism, the militia and men's clubs, and the Christian right in the GOP.. causing the more "liberal" repubs like the Bushes (who have their own messed up history) to forsake them (along with the anti-globalism they hate)..

The powers that be underestimated America's laziness lol they should've made it seem like he was going to win so people would be actually scared into voting like was planned.. but now they're stuck lol and the fake left and phony right are destroying each other in the process of this attempted role reversal..

The left was never meant to be the radicalized population to kick off civil unrest. The right was ready for all out civil war..

I believe you're correct in general. The globalist/corporate agenda that Hillary represented is why I made a protest vote for the Green party candidate, Jill Stein. I hoped enough people could so the same to send a message to DNC that they're heading in the wrong direction. At the same time though I didn't want Trump to win and I'm pragmatic enough to support the lesser of 2 evils. I simply didn't in this case because I knew republicans would win Ohio. I hit the streets before when I was idealistic and it it was Bush Jr. I worked with Acorn to get the vote out in my community and ultimately it didn't seem to matter.

For people who don't vote... I understand. For people like myself who do vote I understand that too. To a certain extent it always seems like both sides are really just 2 sides of the same bad coin in the pocket of corporations representing mainly the interests of the wealthy top 2%. But voting is the only way to have any affect of the system as well.

I wouldn't say Black America is now the face of the Democratic party. Yes, they are now somewhat trying to appeal to the black vote but they actually haven't really pitched an agenda outside of progressives like Warren, Cortez, and Sanders. The black vote was taken for granted as Democrats were always the lesser of 2 evils, generally speaking, for most black voters. And at least Democrats weren't using schemes and machinations to take away black votes or delegitimize them. Now that they don't have Obama they still want the kind of turnout that helped Obama win.

ZealotX wrote: And yes... as I've been saying... its only thanks to the Judicial branch that the GOP doesn't seem to have absolute power. .

This is simply not true. Democrats control the House. I'm not sure where this turned into a bash Trump thread or a just make up anything you want and put it out there thread. Its quickly devolving into a thread I'm losing interest in though.

ZealotX wrote:
So it is possible that Trump's base will never leave him because he and his cronies have been scoring points for the MAGA agenda which was created by people like Bannon and Gorka.

I think you and I are just on two different pages and never the two shall meet when it comes to politics lol. This has gone from a discussion of empires and republics to something completely different. Let me just say that I support getting rid of affirmative action, or at least reforming it greatly because of its unfair practices. I also think deregulation is badly needed to a great degree. I think Social Security should be gotten rid of and privatized. I want the ability to handle my own money instead of big brother govt doing it for me. And social welfare programs need gutted and redone. Inducing drug testing for anyone on it to begin with. I also think we need to enforce our immigration laws and deport all the illegals and criminalize sanctuary cities. Obama care is the worst thing for this nation to ever come down the pike as well. It forces people to pay a penalty if they don't have insurance and has skyrocketed costs for others. More big brother bullcrap and claims that new plans dont include preexisting conditions is just not true.

None of these issues are easy nor will they be easily fixed. But the direction we have been going with them over the past few years is the wrong way and I for one am glad we have a man that has finally stood up as our president and said, that is enough!

Adder wrote: I tend to view the Jedi in the fiction as being sort of 'Jiedushi' in historical China, ie legate.... official representatives with command over regional military forces and government in representation of the central administration. So I tend to view them as lateral to State Governors but more in an oversight 'Governor-General' type of role to 'represent the monarch of a sovereign state in the governing of an independent realm'. A type of part time yet powerful role.

I think it was this mechanism which Palpatine used to instill military command.... being a less Governer and more General shift by replacing the Jedi with Imperial commanders, and using the war time powers to erode the independence of those realms until it no longer existed, and could instead exist to serve Palpatine directly as Empire. He'd already engineered events to ensure the Imperial forces were big enough to achieve complete dominance once able to be in position under the guise of the trade wars.

So to shunt that over to national politics, me I view the abuse of groupthink to construct weaponised narratives for political aims is in effect fascism. A twisted form of group identity, one type being nationalism. The Nazi's used fascism under the mechanisms of socialism to channel individual wealth (work) into the hands of politically aligned industrial and political factions working under a socialist State with a fascist group identity and cause. The distinction is subtle, but its more anti-capitalist then capitalist IMO. Communism was socialism purely about the State, while Nazism was socialism purely about the fascist identity. These are both all about being against an enemy, a groupthink insular narrative. So in Hitlers Germany the Jews and foreigners etc represented the enemy to that model, and the actualization of the narrative became required to keep its momentum locally which led Hitler to push outwards which conveniently created new enemies, until it reaches a tipping point of there being too many enemies and enough to turn the tide and snuff it out in the only language it understood. The entire set of identity paradigms constructed around being a victim work on fear, which of course leads to anger, hatred and suffering.

Trump doesn't really set off those sort of alarm bells for me, but he does make some decisions I disagree with at times. He is nationalistic, so its easy to draw comparisons... but nationalism is not a bad thing necessarily. The reality is the world is full of countries who put their own interests above other nations and no single country can afford to bend over and take it up the tail pipe for moral idealism, if it wants to survive in the long run. The trade wars now don't really match the trade wars back there, as the distances are so much shorter and the concepts of regions and realms has less meaning on a planet then it does across galaxies.

And IMO these things are growing pains of an evolving system going through an era of nation states, on its way to a globalized ecozone... an Empire of Humans. If it is the reality then the quicker we get on board and deal with the damage its doing the quicker we can move forward to a more refined and efficient system of progress. Once we reach that juvenile state of deeper self awareness we can really start to unwind the inherent anthropocentrism which might be the root of all the silly identity politics and egoism that is holding us back in that era of nation states. At the end of the day I think it winds down to how government authority is being used to dictate the rights of individuals within that governments area of responsibility - an Empires governments views itself as responsible for setting the rules, while a democracies government views itself as being responsible for letting the people set the rules... ie the authorities being served by the people, versus serving the people. The confusing thing is they all claim to be serving the people - so its less about what they say and more about what they do, and its that element of surprise which is the main avenue of the cheat and liar to achieve short term success, eg Palpatine. It's just Palpatine was in a universe at a time when his big move was in an environment which gave him top level control with no enemy, well almost no enemy

Cue the regional governor generals with the skills and connections!!! The 節度 :side:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiedushi
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%AF%80
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BA%A6

I have to applaud your well thought out and well laid out synopsis. My hat is officially tipped to you, sir.

Have you seen the movie "The Last Samurai"? (or the anime Rurouni Kenshin?) Also naturally "Seven Samurai" is also relevant to the Jedi in this way.

I bring this up because there is a mirroring of the government turning on the traditional samurai and replacing them with military officers with guns and technology. Jedi were treated as aged artifacts of a different time. Luke is kind of like Katsushiro to Obi wan's Kambei.

It seemed like many of the planets in the Galactic Senate had monarchs. Samurai were like knights in that the original Japanese term "saburau" referred to 'those who serve in close attendance to the nobility'. There are a lot of artistic references to the Tokugawa shogunate (or Edo period) because that was really the time when much of the role of samurai changed, becoming courtiers, bureaucrats, and administrators rather than warriors. I would say we kind of see this in Star Wars in how Jedi were sent for negotiations and how a lot of them were scholars. The samurai gradually lost their military function in exchange for more European style soldiers or "troopers" if you will. This is prior to the empire and the more fascist regime of Palpatine's empire. But to me, it's part of my argument that, this conversion... away from the Jedi and their "semi-independence" (just like many other parts of government are semi-independent) with their morals and honor codes, creates a state in which the void left by honorable men in power or sharing power (as the Jedi council did) erodes the fabric of the Republic, paving the way for the "empire" to be fully realized.

When you replace knights with soldiers... and there's no "round table" for knights to agree or disagree but rather just a machine that follows orders (which is not totally true of the US military establishment but depends on Executive selection)... it sets the stage for an authoritarian to simply command the military without allowing too much power among individual knights or samurai to avoid things like the Kyujo incident or the Satsuma rebellion.

Saigō's rebellion was the last and most serious of a series of armed uprisings against the new government of the Empire of Japan, the predecessor state to modern Japan.

This actually reminds me of the attempted arrest of Palpatine

The officers killed Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order to the effect of occupying the Tokyo Imperial Palace (Kyūjō). They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they ultimately committed suicide. As a result, the communiqué of the intent for a Japanese surrender continued as planned.

and order 66 replaced seppuku. But getting the Jedi out of the way was a necessary step in assuming absolute power. I believe that knights and samurai were basically done away with in order for the state to have more direct control of the military and perhaps there were benefits to the people in doing so but I'm not sure those benefits outweighed what was lost. Instead of having a military check and balance the US says "arm yourselves so you can have your own militia" as if such a thing could ever counter the might of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. etc. And in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution I don't think they foresaw the kind of technology the government would have, paid for by tax payers, but which tax payers themselves could not afford. So just like with the Galactic Republic and the Troopers it commissioned... who could really stop them?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: And yes... as I've been saying... its only thanks to the Judicial branch that the GOP doesn't seem to have absolute power. .

This is simply not true. Democrats control the House. I'm not sure where this turned into a bash Trump thread or a just make up anything you want and put it out there thread. Its quickly devolving into a thread I'm losing interest in though.

Did I say "Trump"? Or did I say "GOP"?

Because if the two are the same then I feel like you're making my point for me. And the only reason why Democrats now control the House is because of a referendum on the current administration.

So it seems I was correct about what the MAGA agenda is. However, I'm not assuming that you're in favor of the MAGA agenda because you're racist. And I'm not going to ask you or put you in a position in which you would need to defend yourself against being racist. I do believe that the MAGA agenda is rooted in racism, but I'm going to leave room for people to agree with parts of it without being racist themselves. If you would like to stop here, having involved your own personal political beliefs which are relevant to this thread, you may do so without any penalty from me. If you would like to continue I'll do my best to shield you personally but I will continue to relate the key political positions and policies of the MAGA agenda to racism.

This isn't to say that there aren't any inequities or room for improvement in the current system as it relates to domestic policy or that all of these domestic policies only target minorities as there are obviously more whites on welfare than there are blacks. But from my perspective it seems like a lot of people just don't care what happens to people on public assistance or their families. If they can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then oh well. Meanwhile, more and more of the jobs are being outsourced or taken over by computers and robots, websites and mergers. By becoming more efficient we make more money for people who are already rich while taking away jobs. And sometimes the people in the cross-hairs of this turn on each other instead of working together.

So let me ask you, but feel free to decline to answer, how would you reboot welfare and other social programs in the US without disenfranchising minority groups? And does your position account for the reasons that place people (in general) as well as minorities (specifically) in a position to have to use these resources. In other words, it is clear that racists want the same thing you do so how do you propose something that doesn't accomplish their agenda while still being in the best interest of the entire country, including minorities? Isn't it possible, that if racists want the same thing that you do, and we don't know which is like you and which is like them, then how do we know that the people selected to do what you want isn't really like them (racist) doing more what they want instead of what you want?

Because I would support reforming certain programs as well so that they are helping people get off the programs without putting them in a worse position. Kicking people off these programs would not only add to homelessness and poverty which breeds crime, but would also unfairly harm innocent children who have no control over what their parents do. But this might require spending more money, not less, on these programs. And if people can get jobs but the jobs they can get cannot cover the expenses for their family then they have no incentive to take those jobs. So if you do not increase minimum wages and things like that you're making welfare programs the obvious choice for basic survival. Want more people to work? Provide free child care. Create public childcare facilities and hire welfare recipients to watch and kids without penalty to their benefits. Sound unfair? Well it would be if it didn't often take 2 jobs in this economy in order to achieve a decent standard of living. Single mothers are therefore impacted the most and many of them aren't receiving adequate child support. And raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If you do that plus provide free child care that will go very far in getting people off welfare for good. Ontario Canada (which already has free healthcare and free college education) will be offering free child care from 2 and a half to kindergarten, year round, for free. You would think these other countries are broke from all these programs but they make up for it in other ways. The UK pays for 15 hrs/wk for child care ages 3 and 4. I was paying a sitter $15/hr to watch my kids after school only 2 days a week. That was $90/wk. These costs add up to the point where people get trapped.

You also stated that you didn't want "big brother" doing things for you and you would rather privatize social security. But it's curious because then you said that people on welfare should be forced to undergo drug testing. So I'm confused. Where is the line that big brother shouldn't cross? Should poor people not have the same rights as you and I? I did undergo a mandatory drug test when I started officially but I don't have to keep taking tests in order to get my pay check. However, I feel like company policies really shouldn't extend to whatever you do outside of business hours. You know... freedom and all.

And when the poor get money from the government should the government decide how they can spend it? Doesn't that restrict their freedom beyond what the government was created to do? I understand a lot of these things are reactions to corruption. But corruption happens everywhere and in every class of society. We have regulations on industries as a result of finding corrupt practices. Remember the whole Enron scandal? What about predatory lending? Why do we need to deregulate the rich but either add regulations to the poor or cut them off completely? And... do you really trust your private insurance company with your health? You do realize, don't you, that they don't actually want to pay for anything. Whether or not they have to depends on competition in the market and regulations. And even with both of those, before Obamacare, a lot of people were dying because of insurance companies not paying out. Any reason to deny a claim they would deny it.

If you want to say the cost (of saving lives) is too high, I'm not unsympathetic. However, the cost would be much lower if the insurance companies (and their overhead) were removed from the equation. But nobody wanted to go that far and so we have universal healthcare lite. We're still involving insurance companies who want to make a profit on top of what the hospitals and drug companies are making. And those insurance companies have every reason to jack up prices more than they need to in order to make the legislation unpopular. Why? Because they're making less profits because they have to pay out much more than they did before... you know... when they were allowed to let people die.

Obamacare was a step in the right direction but everyone knew it was just a step. These systems are far too big to turn on a dime and people were afraid the government couldn't handle it. And there's good reason to believe that. At least initially. The next logical step would be a government option that would force other insurers to be more competitive. Some insurers have a virtual monopoly in their current markets. Erasing those boundaries will help but that's only now a consideration because initially the fear was that too many insurance companies wouldn't be able to compete so it was a measure to protect them. Once the price tag of protecting them became clearer people started caring less about them which brings us closer to our current situation. Do you protect insurance companies or patients? Do you protect drug companies giving kick backs to doctors? Or patients?

It is the corruption in these systems that cost us extra money and private insurance has millions of dollars to spend just on lobbying the government because they can afford to do so with all the money they get from people paying into the system. On the other hand, Medicare is extremely popular and that is why a lot of people want Medicare for All. But taking something away just because it costs money is a little ridiculous. Hospitals cost more money than a sick person who needs it can afford. Do you know what it costs to spend the night at a hospital? On average around $10,000 for 5 days. Having a baby, on average, costs around $8,000. This is only made possible by many people paying into the system when they don't need the services. And young healthy people weren't needing the services so they weren't buying insurance. If the only pool of people paying into the system are high risk for actually needing services then its going to be expensive.

So the problem with Obamacare was how do you get young people to pay. Either way, the money has to come from somewhere. And with unregulated private institutions there will be times when they'd rather file chapter 11 than to actually pay out. No pre-existing conditions was a rule they made exactly so they wouldn't have to pay. And you could die. They rewarded employees for letting people die. On the other hand, the more people are paying the less each person would have to pay. So if you could simply raise taxes by a small income based percentage then the financial impact would be spread out while being less of a burden on the rich while shouldering more of the burden. This wasn't something private insurance companies were doing better. They simply weren't paying the more expensive bills and were deciding who should live and die based on what it would cost to save them. Compared to that I'll take any system. And that's why, with all its flaws, Republicans cannot simply get rid of Obamacare. And they don't have a better idea that doesn't involve killing people or expanding the universal healthcare system. And that's why Trump said "who knew healthcare was so complicated"?

It is by a slim margin that poor people in this country are able to survive as it is. Higher costs of living, inflation, overdraft fees, higher interest rates for lower credit scores... There are a lot of hidden gotchas and catch 22's that don't really offer a way out of the economic position people of different walks of life find themselves in. What if you add in costs of childcare, taking care of sick family members, sending money to family members in need or in jail.

Do people always spend their money wisely? No. Absolutely not. But I'll also be the last person take someone's right to buy stupid stuff because that stupid stuff is what helps them cope with poverty and with other issues that weigh on their psyche. A lot of people don't do drugs for recreation. They're in pain. Maybe they started with painkillers and a doctor's note but got addicted to them and the street alternatives are less expensive. There are a thousand ways to lose your money while, if you have a surplus of money there are a thousand ways to use that money to gain more. That's our system. And it simply works best for those who already have vs the have nots.

Social programs started as reactions to the inherent hardships of society. I mean, I'm lucky I had homeowners insurance when the tornado took my roof off. What if I didn't? What kind of hole would I be in right now? What if I suddenly lost my job? How much of a hole would I be in if I couldn't replace it quickly enough?

As much as I would love for it to be different, the last two years have taught me how much racial bias still exists in country and how much we're teaching it to our children. If the kid who says "white people are better" grows up to be in charge of hiring for a company then it is unlikely he will choose to hire black people for any job other than menial work. If the kid who said "go back to the plantation" grows up to be a mortgage loan officer then maybe black people don't get that loan because he finds some excuse not to approve them. If the girls on the soccer team who said something racist grows up to be the insurance agent who determines whose procedures get paid for then may black people don't get those procedures. The reality is that whites do not have to worry about not getting hired based on these biases. If anything they're more likely to be hired by people holding these biases. This is why Affirmative Action is necessary. If you think it's not necessary then you do not know the white people who have these biased views and who would discriminate happily without hesitation, simply based on the color of my skin.

And what they don't realize, when they don't hire us or when they don't promote us because they think we're not capable or they don't trust us because they think too many of us are criminals, they're actually adding to an environment that makes it harder for black people to survive without turning to criminality and actually increasing the likelihood that more will be criminals. It's still not necessarily fair. People can still discriminate. They simply risk being found out and risk legal liability. And if there is an incentive then at least the incentive competes with the bias. How do we make it fair without a carrot or stick? The honor system? That's not good enough. I could have been born white and you could have been born black. Why should that make any difference? And if it does then it's wrong and there should be some kind of remedy. Because what if you lived in Jamaica with its 0.2% white population and no one would hire you?

ZealotX wrote: Did I say "Trump"? Or did I say "GOP"?

Yes and the house is controlled by the DNC. I fail to see the relevance of the distinction?

ZealotX wrote: So it seems I was correct about what the MAGA agenda is. However, I'm not assuming that you're in favor of the MAGA agenda because you're racist.

Once again I must ask, how have you inferred that the MAGA agenda is racist from my comments or that it is even inherently racist by any means? And you say you will not judge me but it seems you are by making this very statement. You are calling the MAGA agenda racist and my support of it infers that I am racist as a result. I find this incredibly troubling and problematic.

ZealotX wrote: But from my perspective it seems like a lot of people just don't care what happens to people on public assistance or their families. If they can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then oh well.

That’s not what I said nor is it what I believe. But I do believe that those that do have that capability should be held accountable to be doing everything possible in accomplishing this.

ZealotX wrote: So let me ask you, but feel free to decline to answer, how would you reboot welfare and other social programs in the US without disenfranchising minority groups?

Disenfranchising?? What are you even talking about here? Your focus is so far off the mark here Im not sure how to respond. As has been stated many times here, none of these problems are easy to fix nor are there any perfect solutions. However one of the biggest stumbling blocks is this idea of disenfranchising, like these programs are a right and not a privilege. They need to stop being treated like they are an implied right. That is MY and YOUR money they are using because the Govt has decreed it to be so.

ZealotX wrote: In other words, it is clear that racists want the same thing you do so how do you propose something that doesn't accomplish their agenda while still being in the best interest of the entire country, including minorities? Isn't it possible, that if racists want the same thing that you do, and we don't know which is like you and which is like them, then how do we know that the people selected to do what you want isn't really like them (racist) doing more what they want instead of what you want?

I could care less about the racist agenda. I care about the American agenda of betterment. If the racists want betterment and that betterment is in line with America’s betterment then who cares if their agenda is met at the same time. None of the things I cited above that I believe in as political goals are racist. However if the racist agenda happens to be in line with those things then so what. Im not here to deny racists valid political agendas just because they have a fucked up worldview in other areas.

ZealotX wrote: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If you do that plus provide free child care that will go very far in getting people off welfare for good.

People make this mistake all the time. Minimum wage jobs and living wage jobs are not synonymous. The minimum wage standard was not meant to be a living wage so much as a means to break sweatshop labor standards. Now that is not to say that adjustments may not need to be made here. Many states have increased their minimum wage and there is legislation proposed to now tie it to the consumer price index so it adjusts as inflation adjusts. However taking this too far would actually be detrimental to the work force in the end because it would force small businesses to hire less, and would shut many out of the workforce.

ZealotX wrote: You also stated that you didn't want "big brother" doing things for you and you would rather privatize social security. But it's curious because then you said that people on welfare should be forced to undergo drug testing. So I'm confused. Where is the line that big brother shouldn't cross? Should poor people not have the same rights as you and I? I did undergo a mandatory drug test when I started officially but I don't have to keep taking tests in order to get my pay check. However, I feel like company policies really shouldn't extend to whatever you do outside of business hours. You know... freedom and all.

Freedom of the individual but not freedom of the business is what you are advocating here. It’s inconsistent. Many businesses do regular drug testing on an ongoing rate. The airline industry is one of the largest that does this. So does the military, a Govt organization! You have the freedom to join the military or not and you have the freedom to be an airplane mechanic or not – just like you have the freedom to be on welfare or not. But if you choose to do those things you must comply with the requirements of that job. If you are on welfare well I see no difference. In fact it’s even worse for them because now they are using MY money to live and I absolutely want that money used for positive things and not on drugs. So no, they don’t get the same freedoms as the rest of us that are making our own way. Not fair you say? Well tough, life’s not fair is it. If I’m taking care of them I want some assurances it’s being used correctly. If I see a homeless man on the street begging for money, he does not get money from me. I will put him to work for pay or I will go get him a big mac and a job app from McDonalds. He gets what he needs not what he wants to go buy booze and I assure that by my actions.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Yes and the house is controlled by the DNC. I fail to see the relevance of the distinction?

You made it a point of contention that Trump did not have control over republicans in congress. In this separate instance I was making reference to the power that the GOP had and you responded as if I said Trump. So either they are separate and Trump doesn't have substantial influence over them or they are the interchangeable which would mean Trump DOES have substantial influence over them. It was a small point. Not a big deal.

ZealotX wrote: So it seems I was correct about what the MAGA agenda is. However, I'm not assuming that you're in favor of the MAGA agenda because you're racist.

Once again I must ask, how have you inferred that the MAGA agenda is racist from my comments or that it is even inherently racist by any means? And you say you will not judge me but it seems you are by making this very statement. You are calling the MAGA agenda racist and my support of it infers that I am racist as a result. I find this incredibly troubling and problematic.

You may be skimming, which is perfectly fine, but I did say I'm not assuming that you are racist. I clearly laid out parallel tracks for being in favor of the MAGA agenda. You may like certain aspects of it and not be racist while others, as I made clear, love the same aspects because they're racist. I inferred the MAGA agenda is racist, not because of your comments but due to the connection between the original MAGA of the Reagan administration and the Southern Strategy. This also exposes the detestable genius of the GOP strategy of using dog whistles that even their own voters cannot hear. If you're racist you hear the racism and agree with it. If you're not racist you don't hear the racism and agree with it based on more conservative values. At the same time racists may or may not truly have conservative values but are reacting to the fear and anger surrounding their own socio-economic survival.

And yes, I am absolutely calling the MAGA agenda racist. However, unless you invented the MAGA agenda (or coauthored or cosponsored) then I'm not calling you racist at all. Please try to understand. There was a time when racists could be open and honest and publicly say what they wanted to happen to black people. When that time ended it's not like they stopped being racists and its not like they gave up on any political aspirations. They didn't stop being sheriffs or business owners. They never stopped being racists or making decisions based on their racial biases. So when racists put forth policy positions they're not going to call them "racist policies" just like Palpatine would never announce "hey we're now an empire" until he could successfully get away with it. So no one is going to say "my policy is racist". It's simply going to benefit who is was designed to benefit and hurt who it was designed to hurt. They put all kinds of lipstick on that pig and sell it like it's miss Piggy. It comes with a more intelligent argument because it has to. It has to have an excuse/justification in order to pass as legislation or even executive order. You saw what happened with the Muslim ban. You can't call it a muslim ban! Once they changed it somewhat and stopped calling it what it is then it was able to pass through the courts. Am I making sense?

You don't put someone like Jeff Sessions on the case if you don't have a racist agenda. If you invite 10 racists to a birthday party and there are 12 people there it is more likely that a couple of non-racists are at a racist birthday party. I mean... come on. Trump didn't ask to see Bush's birth certificate, just Obama's.

Not every republican is racist but many of them benefit from gerrymandering strategies which the court, not me, said were targeting black people with laser like precision. And it's very easy to see MAGA supporters on youtube and other venues who are CLEARLY racist and not really hiding how they feel or what they think about black people. Racist supporters don't necessarily make the thing racist. However, racist authors absolutely DO. And when all this is framed with the context of white nationalism and you got republican congressmen, like Steve King, talking about

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”

So no, this is not made up, manufactured, me just playing the race card, or anything else you'd like to think. They are making their positions more obvious and less covert because they believe their man is in the white house. And you may not think he's on their side but he's not going to tell the world that he is and they understand that. Trump takes great pains to point out that that he has black supporters "look at my African American over here. Look at him" but meanwhile says to Michael Cohen that black people are too stupid to vote for him. And yes... racists tend to think they know what's best for black people.

ZealotX wrote: But from my perspective it seems like a lot of people just don't care what happens to people on public assistance or their families. If they can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then oh well.

That’s not what I said nor is it what I believe. But I do believe that those that do have that capability should be held accountable to be doing everything possible in accomplishing this.

I don't make personal attacks, Kyrin. I'm well aware how to do it though. If I were talking about you I would reference your name. If I say a lot of people I'm literally talking about "a lot of people". Including you in that group would be an indirect personal attack. Again... I'm not making any assumptions about you personally. You have the benefit of my doubt. Therefore, I feel no reason and have zero motive to attack you. Besides, I'm very much against personal attacks on this forum. A lot of people simply do not care what happens to people. They (not you) want to enforce immigration more strictly and even cross the legal line over into kicking out asylum seekers (which is legal) without really asking why these people are coming. They (not you) want to separate families as a TACTIC to make people scared to come here. But according to reporting some of the people coming are saying "food wont grow here" and they are literally dying from starvation which is the same thing that happened to a number of white immigrants. Between food shortage, a bad economy, and terrible gang violence, it almost doesn't matter what you do to these people. As long as they can survive it's better to come here and even live in a cage, than to stay.

(cont'd)

ZealotX wrote: So let me ask you, but feel free to decline to answer, how would you reboot welfare and other social programs in the US without disenfranchising minority groups?

Disenfranchising?? What are you even talking about here? Your focus is so far off the mark here Im not sure how to respond. As has been stated many times here, none of these problems are easy to fix nor are there any perfect solutions. However one of the biggest stumbling blocks is this idea of disenfranchising, like these programs are a right and not a privilege. They need to stop being treated like they are an implied right. That is MY and YOUR money they are using because the Govt has decreed it to be so.

um...

right = a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

If a person is given these benefits can we not assume that they met the legal qualifications and are entitled to public assistance? You can call it a privilege if you want but who gets to have that privilege? And... how do you know the people using these programs are treating them as a right beyond their legal entitlement? I get it. Because many poor people are on drugs a lot of people (which could include yourself) believe they are misusing public funds.

Here's what's interesting:
OBAMA cut food stamps by $8.7 Billion

Do you know what's in the 2014 Farm Bill?

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap#2014

You cannot buy wine, beer, liquor, cigarrettes or tobacco with SNAP benefits. It's already the law and Obama did that.

ZealotX wrote: In other words, it is clear that racists want the same thing you do so how do you propose something that doesn't accomplish their agenda while still being in the best interest of the entire country, including minorities? Isn't it possible, that if racists want the same thing that you do, and we don't know which is like you and which is like them, then how do we know that the people selected to do what you want isn't really like them (racist) doing more what they want instead of what you want?

I could care less about the racist agenda. I care about the American agenda of betterment. If the racists want betterment and that betterment is in line with America’s betterment then who cares if their agenda is met at the same time. None of the things I cited above that I believe in as political goals are racist. However if the racist agenda happens to be in line with those things then so what. Im not here to deny racists valid political agendas just because they have a fucked up worldview in other areas.

The reason you should care is because a racist is not going to create, implement, or enforce legislation like you would. So if you let them do it they're going to use it to screw over black people. Any power you give them that might possibly have a negative effect on black people, they will make sure that it does. If they pass a law that says kittens must be saved from trees they'll find a way to exclude black cats. ...because they're racist. They don't have valid political agendas. Racism is their agenda. Law and Order is a perfect example. Trump brags about being able to shoot someone and get away with it. Of course not, but rich people get away with a lot because they can just pay their way out of situations. Whites also sell drugs just as much if not more than black people. Yet, white cops have been documented saying that they go after minority communities. And the prosecution of crack vs cocaine has pretty much admitted to have been racist. So the point is, I don't agree with crack either but when racist people are the ones making the laws and policies and handling enforcement it tends to become a weapon against whoever they see as their enemies.

ZealotX wrote: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If you do that plus provide free child care that will go very far in getting people off welfare for good.

People make this mistake all the time. Minimum wage jobs and living wage jobs are not synonymous. The minimum wage standard was not meant to be a living wage so much as a means to break sweatshop labor standards. Now that is not to say that adjustments may not need to be made here. Many states have increased their minimum wage and there is legislation proposed to now tie it to the consumer price index so it adjusts as inflation adjusts. However taking this too far would actually be detrimental to the work force in the end because it would force small businesses to hire less, and would shut many out of the workforce.

I didn't say they were. If they were you couldn't raise one to be in line with the other. So you're correcting a mistake I didn't make. The argument about hiring less people is illogical and is an argument pundits make who are supported by rich people. The fact is that if you cannot do 1 job for a living wage then you have to work 2 or get public assistance. Walmart has been criticized numerous times for having their workers on public assistance. The fact is that companies don't care about workers. They care about regulations; especially ones that require them to pay hefty fines. If a person works 2 jobs then that's another job that can't be filled by someone else. All they're doing is trying to shift the burden to other companies. And if those workers work 1 job and take public assistance then workers are paying for that instead of the companies refusing to raise wages. And because the companies lobby congress they get away with these arguments about how hard its going to be for them (to be fair). Boo hoo. They make enough profits to pay more. When their CEOs are making millions of dollars a year they can afford to pay more. They just don't want to.

ZealotX wrote: You also stated that you didn't want "big brother" doing things for you and you would rather privatize social security. But it's curious because then you said that people on welfare should be forced to undergo drug testing. So I'm confused. Where is the line that big brother shouldn't cross? Should poor people not have the same rights as you and I? I did undergo a mandatory drug test when I started officially but I don't have to keep taking tests in order to get my pay check. However, I feel like company policies really shouldn't extend to whatever you do outside of business hours. You know... freedom and all.

Freedom of the individual but not freedom of the business is what you are advocating here. It’s inconsistent. Many businesses do regular drug testing on an ongoing rate. The airline industry is one of the largest that does this. So does the military, a Govt organization! You have the freedom to join the military or not and you have the freedom to be an airplane mechanic or not – just like you have the freedom to be on welfare or not. But if you choose to do those things you must comply with the requirements of that job. If you are on welfare well I see no difference. In fact it’s even worse for them because now they are using MY money to live and I absolutely want that money used for positive things and not on drugs. So no, they don’t get the same freedoms as the rest of us that are making our own way. Not fair you say? Well tough, life’s not fair is it. If I’m taking care of them I want some assurances it’s being used correctly. If I see a homeless man on the street begging for money, he does not get money from me. I will put him to work for pay or I will go get him a big mac and a job app from McDonalds. He gets what he needs not what he wants to go buy booze and I assure that by my actions.

It's not inconsistent. Companies should have the right to require workers to abide by their rules while they're on the clock. When I go home I should be free because I'm employed not ENSLAVED. You must see the difference. And no, it's not really a choice if every company does it. Can I simply choose to NOT work? If that's a choice I'm free to make then you should be fine with me living off your tax dollars. But if I can't and there are consequences to simply not having a slave master then I have no choice but live under those conditions. And people buy products from my company. Their money becomes the company's money just like your money becomes the government's money. So who gets to decide what to do with that money? If the company's money becomes my money then I get to decide what to do with it. If the government is giving me money for specific purposes then that's what it should be used for. Fortunately, thanks to Obama, this is already the case. You already have assurances so what else are you looking to change in your desire to gut the system?