|
Post by betty on Jun 5, 2020 21:25:42 GMT -5
|
|
donnamb
Member
Posts: 637
Location:
|
Post by donnamb on Jun 5, 2020 21:54:12 GMT -5
I've been reading all the comments on the current unrest in our country. My observation is that the term "riots" comes with a boatload of baggage. In my lifetime, in the 60s, there were always references to "race riots". The backstory was that there would be arson, looting, and general destruction. Contrast that with coverage of Vietnam War protesters. (Well I will have to look up the 1968 Chicago protests of the political convention there.) The stigma continued even up to 1994 when I was attending law school in Newark NJ. One spring day, there was a rumor about a potential "riot". The law school shut down and sent students packing to find refuge wherever. Apparently, so did all the businesses in Newark, as I found myself on a packed train station platform and decided to take whatever train headed west and figure out what next to do when I reached the end of the line. (After all that, there was nothing to the rumor.) My son works in construction, building docks in Brooklyn, NY. Obviously, he has to do some creative driving to get to and from the work site, but, other than a few trash cans thrown into the East River on Tuesday morning, no first hand experience with damage from protests or riots. In my opinion, we and/or the press shouldn't use the term "riot" which ties into the peaceful protests. From what I see, the damage is coming from arsonists, vandals, and thieves not connected with protests.
|
|
|
Post by pi on Jun 5, 2020 22:06:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pi on Jun 5, 2020 22:08:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurleene on Jun 5, 2020 23:02:15 GMT -5
I hope the protesters keep the focus on inequality and racism and bigotry and trying to get the orange menace and his sycophants out of office. Bring attention to the bad cops for sure but tying to go too anti-cop (they are not all bad) I doubt will be a winner. It might scare away just enough moderates and independents that will be needed this election. The top cat is setting the standards that many are operating under. There is no law this guy won't break or moves he will fail to make if it keeps him and them in power. Killer cops are a problem and yes the anger and frustration are justified. But if this guy remains in office heaven help us all. If we think things are bad now.......! It is too scary to even think about. Please don't piss this opportunity away by focusing too much on defunding the police and giving HeWhoCannot amed his out. The majority of the country is not going to be for that.
|
|
donnamb
Member
Posts: 637
Location:
|
Post by donnamb on Jun 5, 2020 23:25:20 GMT -5
I live in a county in northwest New Jersey which is 94% caucasian. The other 6% maybe Asian descent, or the significant population of nursing home population.
|
|
|
Post by pi on Jun 5, 2020 23:57:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jablea on Jun 6, 2020 5:44:40 GMT -5
I’ve thought long and hard about whether to put my two cents in, but here it is. I truly don’t understand how apparently loving and caring people can listen to HeWhoCannot amed and believe in or agree with most of what he says. Don’t they hear the lies? Hear him saying something and then denying he even said it, when it’s right there for all to see? How do they reconcile comments like “You can grab them by the pussy”? How can they tolerate the reversal of regulations that are necessary (because corporations might not do it voluntarily) to preserve the environment? Do they really think that HeWhoCannot amed, a rich and privileged person with a history of cheating people, cares about them as anything other than a means to his hold on power? I don’t get it. To bring it back to Adam, I’m glad he’s speaking his mind and trying to give voice to people who haven’t always been heard. We speak different languages. For example "swamp". To you and I it means those who traded in their elected years (ie making contacts on the public dime) for green cash as a corporate lobbyist. Those who go into politics only to make themselves rich on the other side of it when they are no longer accountable to the public. So for us getting rid of the swamp might mean term limits, waiting time between elected office and lobbying jobs, campaign finance laws that retire the Citizens United ruling so that corporations can't buy elections or get insider influence as a cabinet member. All those things we may consider corruption. For the other side the swamp is all the government workers who are hired, not elected. Something is wrong with those people who can't make it in the private sector so instead they feed off the government tit while working for geological services or the IRS or the FBI. They aren't accountable to the public because they aren't political so if they aren't new with each administration they are either working for the old administration or horrors they are working for the "world government". So they want to limit government size with budgets, value private sector experience over institutional knowledge, swap out workers, and privatize anything they can like the Park Service. - And then HeWhoCannot amed got a hold of word, says it over and over, and then weaponizes it against both viewpoints. On the "pussy" business - damn Clinton for both sides being able to ignore sexual faultlines. But here I think the motive is control of the Supreme Court. Reagan's "moral majority" (which is when my DH left the republican party) and pro-lifers will move heaven and earth to stop abortions. While the left is going thru multiple "purity tests" the right has a single focus that can and will rationalize any moral deficiency, voting right infringement, environmental destruction, or authoritarian overreach.
|
|
|
Post by Jablea on Jun 6, 2020 5:58:05 GMT -5
Well I am happy my experiment created some conversation. I was interested in the suggestion for Bama to listen to Nicole Wallace, MSNBC's Republican anchor and for me to listen to Chris Wallace, a more moderate Fox anchor. That, actually, in a way is the end game - moderating. But I listen to Rachel and Bama to Tucker. If we were to listen to both and really discern if there is something to hear in what is being said by the other side that we might want to consider, it is an important step. We agree on so much. We all know a heinous crime when we see it. We all recoil from uncessary police tactics, we all want an orderly society and to be safe from criminals, we all want constitutional rights protected for everyone. So what is the problem? The hardnend partisanship is the problem. Our country was always divided into two parties. That is considered healthy but it functioned better because everyone knew they were going to have to live with situations that don't suit them in order to have other situations that do. Compromise was built into the equation. It has vanished to the point where I feel sick and inflammed listening to Tucker and Bama feels outraged listening to Rachel. But maybe there is something Tucker can say that I can hear and consider and visa versa. I don't expect to change or Bama to change but I am wondering if an open mind might move us to a more graceful middle path. Our worse enemy is a willful ignorance and denial that there is any other point of view. Educating ourselves about all sides of an issue including what other's think is a duty of of a citizen in a functioning democracy. I find it interesting that almost every country we've helped write a constitution and or develop a democratic form of government has always created a parliamentary form instead of presidential. This is an interesting article, just look at the other countries, the US is kind of a sore thumb. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_systemand some great quotes from the 1870's
|
|
happy
Member
Posts: 3,360
Location:
|
Post by happy on Jun 6, 2020 14:55:40 GMT -5
I find it interesting that almost every country we've helped write a constitution and or develop a democratic form of government has always created a parliamentary form instead of presidential. This is an interesting article, just look at the other countries, the US is kind of a sore thumb. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_systemand some great quotes from the 1870's Waving at you from Canada! Not a perfect system but allows for majority and minority governments which can both be very productive in their own ways. Our head of state is the Queen, represented by the Governor General who is appointed by the current Prime Minister for a five to seven year term and is largely symbolic. But, should Canada have a constitutional crisis, that person who is largely independent can make important decisions, with the aid of our top constitutional lawyers. People are always agitating against our system. Some don't like the idea of a monarch -- but then who do you replace as an independent head of state? Some want proportional representation -- pluses and minuses there -- but it can lead to many small parties having an oversized voice. We've had a couple of referendums on this in BC and the people have voted for the status quo. I've enjoyed your well thought out posts over the last few days.
|
|