Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, TheScorpionKing said:

 

You hate the United States, I get that.

You hate the Unite States military, I get that.

You want all the freedoms of the United States without making any sacrifices. I get that.

You want all the privileges of a first world nation, but you don't want any of the responsibilities. I get that.

But you are still living in the United States.  I don't get that. 

they didn't say they hated the US, or the military.

 

they are pointing out legitimate problems with our military. whether you like it or not, the military is (and has been for ages) biased against women. we weren't worthy to serve, i guess? something about being weaker, or that our "female issues" would get in the way... and women are treated terribly when they are sexually violated at the hands of other servicemembers. (actually iirc the military has trouble with sexual assault reporting, and getting people to care about it, across the board - male, female, and nonbinary individuals).

 

why should women serve, or even want to serve, when the military treats them like that? i'm female, and i certainly don't want to serve in a military that stands for that. how can i respect that kind of an institution?

 

note that i said nothing here of disrespecting individual servicemembers, although i absolutely would not respect servicemembers guilty of war crimes or violence towards fellow servicemembers.

 

also, it costs a great deal of money to move just within the same town/city. moving out of the country is a whole host of other expenses and troubles. poor people are the least likely to be able to move, because we just can't save the money to do so on a regular basis when survival where we are now takes everything. (this is also why people want minimum wage increases.) 

 

also, it is our rights and freedoms that grant us this ability to criticize the places in which we live. (we have the right to free speech! just not freedom from consequences.) otherwise we would be in a dictatorship. you can praise or criticize this country as much as you want. i tend to be critical, because i see a lot that can be improved.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, StormBirdRising said:

"I'm a lawyer. I make good money." I never said that.  Purpledragonclaw inferred that when she was harassing me about being in the upper echelon and not knowing what it was like to be in the lower echelon, and that I was middle class, and in other words, she couldn't find a cohesive response to my post so she chose to attack me personally, in an attempt to make it seem like I was living in some ivory tower out of touch with reality, with the sole purpose of discrediting my posts. Although that is a good example of how fake news works. One person says something that has no basis in fact, and then another person repeats it and then another person picks it up and then before you know it  everyone is saying "well it must be true, I read it on the internet".

Well, if you read what is after the part you quoted, I totally wrote that the good money part was inferred from what you posted about health care. You yourself stated that you had to pay 1400$. However, you cannot be made to pay more than a certain percentage of your pay. I don't know what percentage it was for you, but if I infer from what we have here - around 1/6 of our pay - you don't make little money. Adding to that that you have to travel a lot for work, which you also stated - that's not something you make your interns or low-wage workers do, is it?

 

On 4/16/2020 at 4:49 PM, StormBirdRising said:

You have stated that before, that you knew someone who had lost their home because they couldn't pay their medical bill. I am an attorney and I work with about 50 other attorneys.

(Quote is from this very thread, page 83). 

 

So, exactly who is spreading wrong information on here and blames others for creating "fake news"? You, like your most beloved president, managed to contradict yourself.

 

Edited by olympe

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, TheScorpionKing said:

 

You hate the United States, I get that.

You hate the Unite States military, I get that.

You want all the freedoms of the United States without making any sacrifices. I get that.

You want all the privileges of a first world nation, but you don't want any of the responsibilities. I get that.

But you are still living in the United States.  I don't get that. 

I never uttered the phrase "I hate this". Though, I am extremely angry.

 

Sacrifice comes in multitudes of different forms. Not just military service.

Infinis hit much of the nail on the head already concerning what I've been expressing.

 

To address the rest, what responsibilities am I shirking? It's definitely not military service because that isn't a responsibility not a requirement for living in any first world country (news flash, USA isn't the only first world that exists).

I work (although the pandemic has put me out of a job, as well as the rest of my household). I pay my taxes. I vote in the elections that I can. I follow street laws when I drive or walk (yes, pedestrians have to follow street laws too). I take classes at my local University which each have their own list of things to tackle.

So, tell me, what first world responsibilities do I not want, since you seem to know so well? (That's rhetorical, by the way, and I don't truly want your answer because you've clearly shown that you couldn't possibly understand something outside of yourself.)

 

Infinis also pointed out the inability to move cities, let alone countries.

I don't have a passport; can't afford one. Can't leave the country without one though. So, even if I move out of my current city, I am practically trapped within the USA unless I cross a border illegally.

I live with my parents because I don't earn a living wage that can even afford an $800/month rent for a studio apartment

I currently don't have work (as already mentioned) because the start date of my Food Service job has been indefinitely postponed. All I have, for a month or two of bills, are the fumes of the meager savings I was able to build up from my previous job that I worked for two years in (warehouse shipping, but not Amazon). I'm 26 and that's the first time I was able to save anything. But my savings have been dipped into more than a few times in the last two years because of emergencies and household needs. 

 

Want to know what's even funnier? My intended college degree is so I can become a high school teacher. Which is, news flash, another underpaid, low-wage job. But I'm not going in it for the money (or lack thereof, honestly). I'm going for it because I care about the education of children. I care about their futures and the future of the world. Not just the USA.

 

I have no interest in the military because I don't trust an entity that won't ensure my safety from fellow service members or higher ranking officials. I have no interest in the military because I have no desires to learn how to kill fellow human beings. I have no desires to join US forces and invade other countries, starting a myriad of wars and destabilizing a plethora of civilizations because (white) people in our country still think they're superior to (brown) people in "less developed" countries. 

This country hasn't defended crap in generations. It's only started war after war. And I have no intentions of ever helping it slaughter millions.

 

Last question, also rhetorical, related to your compulsory enlistment, Scorpion:
What about those who are religious and violence goes against their practices?
My parents are Christians and it goes against their god's teachings, against the teachings in the Christian Bible, to commit violence and/or kill another human being. It goes against the Christian God's teachings to pick up a gun (or a sword) because a gun means that you are living in fear, when God says that you must live in love. 

Ponder on that.

Edited by ValidEmotions

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, StormBirdRising said:

 

I'm not a political person, even though there is nothing wrong with being political. I don't apologize for not bashing the President like you bash him.  He is an American Patriot like me, I've said that before. It's no secret and I am proud of it.  Doesn't make me political. Just makes me an American Patriot.

 

I don't judge anyone. I don't attack anyone. I am not a snowflake or a sheepocrat or a sheepublican, I don't like my country bashed and I don't like my President bashed. I don't like lies told about my country and my President. I have just as much right to post in this forum as you have. Expressing my opinion is not an attack. It's expressing my opinion.

 

"I'm a lawyer. I make good money." I never said that.  Purpledragonclaw inferred that when she was harassing me about being in the upper echelon and not knowing what it was like to be in the lower echelon, and that I was middle class, and in other words, she couldn't find a cohesive response to my post so she chose to attack me personally, in an attempt to make it seem like I was living in some ivory tower out of touch with reality, with the sole purpose of discrediting my posts. Although that is a good example of how fake news works. One person says something that has no basis in fact, and then another person repeats it and then another person picks it up and then before you know it  everyone is saying "well it must be true, I read it on the internet".

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. You can't post in a thread about American politics, continuously espouse just Trump's point of view without showing a balanced perspective, and then claim to not be a political person. Trump is president, and you love him, and that's fine. Trump is now a politician. You are being very political.  

 

2. Please read the first two sentences of your second paragraph and then read the fourth sentence of your last paragraph. You are doing the very thing to me you just said you don't do. You're contradicting yourself. When I post rebuttals to your arguments, I'm not harassing you. There's nothing wrong with being middle class, either. However, your home, work, and neighborhood environments all work to create a bubble around yourself, and this is true of everyone. Sometimes it's hard to see outside that bubble and understand what others go through. And that's why it's good to talk to people outside your sphere of influence to understand what others feel. Believe me, I'm not trying to discredit you. I'm trying to help you see that there are people in this country who don't make as much money as you do, who struggle to get by (thank you for your stories @Infinis and @ValidEmotions!) I highly recommend you read their posts, where they voluntarily acknowledged that they were part of the lower echelon in America I referenced.

 

And to your last two sentences in that second paragraph, you're attacking me. I'm debating you. There's a difference. I'm debating you using posts you provide in this thread, and rebutting them with my own experiences and research. 

 

3. I notice the posts made to show you what it's like to struggle in America you haven't responded to at all. The ones written in response to my post you reference. I guarantee you they're not fake news, and just because you disagree with the very real facts stated in this thread does not mean they are fake news.  I have never attacked you personally. I did, however, imply that you were out of touch with the reality of how hard it is to make ends meet for many Americans. Your posts come off that way. You might not intend for them to, but they do. Things in this country are not great for everyone. Instead of claiming that I'm attacking you, you could try to help me understand how I'm wrong without devolving into personal attacks yourself, or claiming what I and others say is fake news. As ValidEmotions pointed out, you use gaslighting tactics a lot in this thread. 

 

I know many lawyers that work in all areas of the law. It pays well. There is nothing wrong with being a lawyer. But it does set you apart from your waiter or cashier in terms of income level, which is one of the points I was making. And all of my responses to you are quite cohesive. A lot of research and time goes into them. 

 

 

Edited by purpledragonclaw

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ValidEmotions said:

 

 It's definitely not military service because that isn't a responsibility not a requirement for living in any first world country (news flash, USA isn't the only first world that exists).

 

 

I agree with everything you say - but - actually Austria, Sweden and Norway have compulsory military service, and Switzerland also does for men only.

 

Just for the record.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

I agree with everything you say - but - actually Austria, Sweden and Norway have compulsory military service, and Switzerland also does for men only.

 

Just for the record.

Ah, thank you for the correction on that. 

Share this post


Link to post

I like to be as accurate as possible, so I check things.

Share this post


Link to post

Israel also requires military service for two years from their citizens, I remember it being mentioned when Jordan and Lebanon boycotted Wonder Woman because of Gal Gadot's military service for Israel. 

 

I remember the closest we came to it coming back was the Iraq War, because people were worried it would return. Bush Jr. and John Kerry actually covered it in one of their debates, that it wasn't coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Israel also requires military service for two years from their citizens, I remember it being mentioned when Jordan and Lebanon boycotted Wonder Woman because of Gal Gadot's military service for Israel. 

Oh! I think I remember bits about that, actually. 

 

The Iraq War... was/is just a mess and I'm certainly glad no one was forced into serving for that. Honestly, it isn't at all right/justified to make citizens pay with their lives for the erroneous mistakes of our leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ValidEmotions said:

Oh! I think I remember bits about that, actually. 

 

The Iraq War... was/is just a mess and I'm certainly glad no one was forced into serving for that. Honestly, it isn't at all right/justified to make citizens pay with their lives for the erroneous mistakes of our leaders.

 

That's exactly why I object to military service. If people want to join in this kind of nonsense, it should be voluntary. Conscription is criminal. So is interfering in countries where we have no business being in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

I agree with everything you say - but - actually Austria, Sweden and Norway have compulsory military service, and Switzerland also does for men only.

 

Just for the record.

 

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

That's exactly why I object to military service. If people want to join in this kind of nonsense, it should be voluntary. Conscription is criminal. So is interfering in countries where we have no business being in the first place.

 

Might I add while Austria has compulsory military service (only for men, but women can enlist voluntarily), we DON'T send any conscripts into an active warzone, those assignments are absolutely voluntarily. For the "normal" soldiers anyway, not sure about the special forces, but those are professional soldiers and one of the best trained SF-soldiers in the world. All foreign assignments were and are either peacekeeping or advisory missions.

Conscripts are usualy deployed as border patrol or other support assignments (at the beginnign of the corona crisis they helped out in warehouses because of all the panic buying).

But one of the most important assignments are desaster operations. Be it storms or floodings, wildfires, avalanges or heavy snow like last years Winter, the young boys usually work endless hours for actually very little pay...

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting - the listings I found say MILITARY, which to my mind means available for war - but you know better, being there !

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country,and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works.

Such a right is provided in the constitutions of numerous states, and in documents reflecting norms of international law. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:

  • "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
  • "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Some people and organizations advocate an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries.

 The freedom of movement is restricted in a variety of ways by various governments and may even vary within the territory of a single country. Such restrictions are generally based on public health, order, or safety justifications and postulate that the right to these conditions preempts the notion of freedom of movement.

 

Posted here since this was off topic where it was posted. Try again SBR. Clearly your not a Constitutional Lawyer, not that I am either, but this was really really easy to find. And the rights of movement is regulated with criminals all the time by the government/state legal system. The CDC should they choose to are capable of locking everything down and restricting our movements as well, that is a right they have.

(And somehow all Californians are healthier/better than what, everyone in the rest of the country? Don't make me laugh)

also I refuse to truly engage you when it is clear your looking for a fight. 

 

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[70] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[71][72]

 

Whether you are or not, I know the constitution is open to interpretation. There are generally 2 types of Constitutional lawyers/judges written word, or spirit of the word(law). Not that you fit either. And I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Trump has his people in the Supreme Court. I know a lawyers job is essentially to spin the law to fit their narrative. To convince or sway those needed to win their case. And rulings can be overturned with the right lawyer and judges, cause in the end it's still people making these judgements and you need them to believe your the one who is right. That your so called logic is the one which is accurate but different judges will side differently.I

 

you think your belief in your rights as you  interpret them will protect you from this disease I hope your never proven wrong . I'm done responding to you.

 

And don't ever call me sweetie again.

Edited by AngelsSin

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

57 minutes ago, AngelsSin said:

Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country,and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works.

Such a right is provided in the constitutions of numerous states, and in documents reflecting norms of international law. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:

  • "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
  • "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Some people and organizations advocate an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries.

 The freedom of movement is restricted in a variety of ways by various governments and may even vary within the territory of a single country. Such restrictions are generally based on public health, order, or safety justifications and postulate that the right to these conditions preempts the notion of freedom of movement.

 

Posted here since this was off topic where it was posted. Try again SBR. Clearly your not a Constitutional Lawyer, not that I am either, but this was really really easy to find. And the rights of movement is regulated with criminals all the time by the government/state legal system.

also I refuse to truly engage you when it is clear your looking for a fight. 

 

Oh yes I am, Constitutional Law is my wheelhouse. There are already thousands of lawsuits filed against the Federal Government, each State Government, Municipalities, individual Mayors and Town Councils, etc.  for restricting individuals and groups freedom of movement, and violations of their civil rights as delineated in the Constitution. The verbage I used in filing these lawsuits for clients, for businesses, for religious organizations, etc.,  but especially for the OC beaches, was "arbitrary and capricious". Some Governors were very selective in their closures, but especially in their attempted closure of the OC beaches. Governor Gavin Newsom's uninformed decision to try and close the OC beaches was politics at its worst. Can't be done without repurcussions, and he knew it when he tried to do it, and he really knows it now. When it comes to American politics, never underestimate what a good attorney can do in preserving civil liberties and the Constitutional Rights of all Americans.

 

One should never fall into the trap of trying to prove something Constitutional without the benefit of case law; it always ends in failure. There was a reason the Federal Government did not lock down the Country, and Governors did not lock down their States, and did not broadly restrict travel, besides being impossible to enforce, it would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

 

In the past few weeks hundreds of businesses deemed "non-essential" by Governor Gavin Newsom, including restaurants, bars, and gyms, have opened in defiance of his orders to remain closed. Many have posted 8 foot and 10 foot copies of the US Constitution on their doors and on their walls. Many have added additional American flags and flags with "Don't Tread on Me" to the exteriors and interiors of their places of business. They continue to operate their businesses and to exercise their Constitutional rights.

 

Edited by StormBirdRising
added text

Share this post


Link to post

Commerce above health.  So sad.

 

90806692-887684575025043-8784292797130735616-n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Commerce above health.  So sad.

 

90806692-887684575025043-8784292797130735616-n.jpg

 

Well, if we are posting memes now to show our feelings about American politics, here's one I like better, it's how I feel. Nobody, not Donald Trump, not anybody needs to tell us Americans we need to get back to work and back to our lives. It is who we are, it is what we do.

trump 7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

He does, doesn't he !

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, StormBirdRising said:

 

Oh yes I am, Constitutional Law is my wheelhouse. There are already thousands of lawsuits filed against the Federal Government, each State Government, Municipalities, individual Mayors and Town Councils, etc.  for restricting individuals and groups freedom of movement, and violations of their civil rights as delineated in the Constitution. The verbage I used in filing these lawsuits for clients, for businesses, for religious organizations, etc.,  but especially for the OC beaches, was "arbitrary and capricious". Some Governors were very selective in their closures, but especially in their attempted closure of the OC beaches. Governor Gavin Newsom's uninformed decision to try and close the OC beaches was politics at its worst. Can't be done without repurcussions, and he knew it when he tried to do it, and he really knows it now. When it comes to American politics, never underestimate what a good attorney can do in preserving civil liberties and the Constitutional Rights of all Americans.

 

One should never fall into the trap of trying to prove something Constitutional without the benefit of case law; it always ends in failure. There was a reason the Federal Government did not lock down the Country, and Governors did not lock down their States, and did not broadly restrict travel, besides being impossible to enforce, it would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

 

Please give me specific case laws that back up your assertions here. I'm asking for case laws and precedent that specifically back up what I've quoted here.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 10:29 AM, purpledragonclaw said:

 

Please give me specific case laws that back up your assertions here. I'm asking for case laws and precedent that specifically back up what I've quoted here.

 

It's done. The OC beaches are open. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution win over tyranny again. And now, after working 18 hours on and 6 hours off,  I'm done briefing cases and writing Amicus Curiae briefs, and pleadings, until the next assault on the Constitution. And I am so ready for that.

 

We live free or die in the OC, and our beaches are our symbol of freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, StormBirdRising said:

 

It's done. The OC beaches are open. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution win over tyranny again. And now, after working 18 hours on and 6 hours off,  I'm done briefing cases and writing Amicus Curiae briefs, and pleadings, until the next assault on the Constitution. And I am so ready for that.

 

We live free or die in the OC, and our beaches are our symbol of freedom.

 

Congratulations. I looked over the guidelines for re-opening and am glad that Gov. Newsom didn't just allow them to re-open, that there are rules in place. I notice a fair number of beaches are still closed since they don't meet the guidelines yet. At least a compromise could be reached between the counties and the state that benefited all concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/11/2020 at 9:04 PM, purpledragonclaw said:

 

Congratulations. I looked over the guidelines for re-opening and am glad that Gov. Newsom didn't just allow them to re-open, that there are rules in place. I notice a fair number of beaches are still closed since they don't meet the guidelines yet. At least a compromise could be reached between the counties and the state that benefited all concerned. 

 

Hopefully everyone will continue to wear their masks and social distance at the beaches. They are all open here in the OC and they opened Los Angeles beaches today. The parking lots are still closed, as are the restrooms, it has to be that way to minimize contact. As long as everyone continues to act responsibly we will continue to have our beaches back, and some semblance of normalcy. Life in the OC, no matter what we do for a living, it is all about the sand and the surf for us. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2020 at 1:33 AM, StormBirdRising said:

The parking lots are still closed, as are the restrooms, it has to be that way to minimize contact.

In other words: Everyone who doesn't live five minutes away from the beach will pee and/or poop in the sea. Or into the sand. Great news! And a great way to spread that darn virus... Because it's in people's intestines, too.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, olympe said:

In other words: Everyone who doesn't live five minutes away from the beach will pee and/or poop in the sea. Or into the sand. Great news! And a great way to spread that darn virus... Because it's in people's intestines, too.

This is so true.  If the beaches are open, then the bathrooms should be, too.  (I do think it's probably too soon to open the beaches.)

Share this post


Link to post