How does the World view America these days?

[zlemflolia]

28 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I knew it was bad, but I did a quick google and man, it's really bad at the municipal level. Like shockingly bad.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/11/in-the-us-almost-no-one-votes-in-local-elections/505766/

I wonder why.  Maybe because voting isn't strictly defined at the federal level as something which requires complete 100% accessibility and awareness even if someone needs to request a voting aid to come to their house and help them vote or for their ballot to be mailed to them and picked up at their mailbox

[chenGOD]

10 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

I wonder why.  Maybe because voting isn't strictly defined at the federal level as something which requires complete 100% accessibility and awareness even if someone needs to request a voting aid to come to their house and help them vote or for their ballot to be mailed to them and picked up at their mailbox

Why would the federal government dictate what municipalities do in terms of voting? That's not the role the federal government plays. Your own constitution's tenth amendment lays that out quite clearly - the Federal Government can only do what the Constitution says it can do. This is a principle that's been held up by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.

The Federal government is a large, unwieldy bureaucracy. Making it responsible for things like municipal budgets, providing emergency services, or determining how cities use green spaces would grind a country the size of the US to a halt.

[zlemflolia]

4 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Why would the federal government dictate what municipalities do in terms of voting? That's not the role the federal government plays. Your own constitution's tenth amendment lays that out quite clearly - the Federal Government can only do what the Constitution says it can do. This is a principle that's been held up by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.

The Federal government is a large, unwieldy bureaucracy. Making it responsible for things like municipal budgets, providing emergency services, or determining how cities use green spaces would grind a country the size of the US to a halt.

the federal government has every right to require states to meet certain minimum requirements when it comes to the right to vote.  this does not mean the federal government would run it, which would be bad and be a central point of failure

[chenGOD]

4 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

the federal government has every right to require states to meet certain minimum requirements when it comes to the right to vote.  this does not mean the federal government would run it, which would be bad and be a central point of failure

It literally doesn't. There is no right to vote enshrined in the Constitution.

https://www.fairvote.org/reform_library#right_to_vote_amendment

Quote

Congress is powerless to set national standards

At present, Congress can take no action to formally help improve voting standards across the nation. While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which passed in response to the voting fiasco of the 2000 presidential elections, does establish some standards including a provisional ballot, states are not required to follow these policies. The only way to ensure that every vote is counted and that electors follow the will of the people of their state is to create a constitutionally protected right to vote. The Right to Vote Amendment will give Congress the authority to protect the individual right to vote and oversee voting policies and procedures to ensure that elections are fair, accurate and efficient.

 

[zlemflolia]

33 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

It literally doesn't. There is no right to vote enshrined in the Constitution.

https://www.fairvote.org/reform_library#right_to_vote_amendment

 

they have the power to begin the process to make an amendment

[prdctvsm]

[ignatius]

"A tale of two protests"

[dcom]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

It literally doesn't. There is no right to vote enshrined in the Constitution.

This is one of the most bizarre US things I've come across - the requirement to register to vote; from my point of view, it seems more like a pre-planned way to disenfranchise people without means to register and limit the ability to vote to those capable of getting registered, the humongous leaks of voter registrations during the past years notwithstanding: millions of people have had their PII (personally identifying information), their voting history and whatnot leaked and most probably abused because the registrars' complete lack of operational security know-how.

I remember Deee-Lite's Vote Baby Vote because in 1992 I turned 18 and thus became eligible to vote and I had to do some actual research in a library to understand that in the US you have to register to be able to vote; in Finland, everyone of age (currently 18) is eligible to vote (with just a couple of exceptions, like being under guardianship or a ward of the state) - even prisoners have the right and get to vote without exception - the fact that millions of people in the US are not eligible to vote because they're in prison or not able to register to vote because of a criminal record is perplexing.

In Finland vote secrecy is absolute and it's rather unusual for people to divulge the person they voted; party affiliation is usually announced, but even that is something that a lot of people want to keep to themselves, especially those older than my generation (X). Our elections are direct, even the presidential vote.

Edited June 4, 2020 by dcom

[Silent Member]

Yeah, it's the same here. I didn't even know the US elections were rigged like that. Bizzare indeed.

[zlemflolia]

NSFW

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gw86ju/a_few_years_ago_a_police_officer_shot_and/

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Zeffolia

[zlemflolia]

End Qualified Immunity!

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-supreme-court-end-qualified-immunity-0303c9ae-36e1-4574-a409-d71b8f85386b

Government officials act like laws don’t apply to them. Because of qualified immunity, they don’t.

The Supreme Court created qualified immunity in 1982. With that, the court granted all government officials immunity for violating constitutional and civil rights unless the victims of those violations can show that the rights were “clearly established.”

What does that mean? It requires a victim to identify an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, or a federal appeals court in the same jurisdiction that precisely the same conduct, under the same circumstances, is illegal or unconstitutional. If none exists, the official is immune.

If you’ve ever wondered why government officials don’t seem to care about your rights, the Constitution or the law, qualified immunity is why.

Government officials are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard. We, the people, expect them to operate at a higher standard. Qualified immunity is not something that should exist.

Government officials should have no concern about qualified immunity if they don’t infringe on citizens rights or the laws of our land. If government officials break our laws, or deprive citizens of their rights, they should be held accountable. 

End qualified immunity.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Zeffolia

[dingformung]

12 hours ago, Psychotronic said:

I worked for Bertelsmann / Arvato before... hate those fuckers.

They printed Nazi propaganda during the war. Don't wanna get into details here but I once successfully sued them, was satisfying

11 hours ago, chenGOD said:

The President has zero power over municipal police forces. What would you suggest the President do to prevent members of municipal police forces from committing extrajudicial murder?

He could make it mandatory for states to have a task force that deals with racism in the police and he could make it mandatory to make this a topic in police training. The training has to be changed in order to change the occpupational profile of this job. Less rambo, more friend and helper. Racism is not only a political problem of course, so a lot of work gas to be done by the society itself. A better education system can help the societal discurse. The president could pursue respective reforms

[dcom]

The Great American Breakup (B. Duncan Moench @ Tablet Magazine)

Quote

Political scientist Louis Hartz accurately described the United States’ underlying cultural hyperindividualism. Is the next logical step the dissolution of the centralized federal state to become more like the EU?

It’s time to face facts, America: We’re a backward, dysfunctional, angry, anti-intellectual mess. Not just Trump, cable news, or Twitter but the whole freakin’ culture. While our cities burn in America’s latest “race” riots, the COVID-19 death toll continues to rise. Some of our citizens dance on top of police cruisers, while others frolic on prematurely opened beaches, gyms, and hair salons—convinced they can build up “herd immunity.” They come to this conclusion from a quick reading of the same 30-word Facebook post as our commander in chief, who asks aloud if it’s safe to drink bleach and—come on—admit it: Listening to his more-than-likely demented Democratic Party opponent try to form coherent sentences makes drinking bleach seem like a palatable alternative.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by dcom

[goDel]

Great read! The quote you posted doesn't do it justice though, imo. It ironically reads like any other "30-word Facebook post". Without any hint of self-reflection. But again, it doesn't do it any justice.

The TLDR version: US is too hellbent on independence, so it might be better to move towards a union of states. Similar to the EU. 

Or my interpretation: the US sucks at governing the US.

Not saying I agree. But it's an interesting read nonetheless.

[dcom]

1 minute ago, goDel said:

Great read! The quote you posted doesn't do it justice though, imo. It ironically reads like any other "30-word Facebook post". Without any hint of self-reflection. But again, it doesn't do it any justice.

You're right, so I added the lead as well, because the cultural hyperindividualism is mentioned.

[auxien]

7 hours ago, chenGOD said:

I knew it was bad, but I did a quick google and man, it's really bad at the municipal level. Like shockingly bad.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/11/in-the-us-almost-no-one-votes-in-local-elections/505766/

Quote

The Portland State report estimates that voters ages 65 and older have 22 times greater electoral clout in Dallas than adults aged 18 to 34—less than 2 percent of whom voted for mayor in 2015.

Quote

Even in Portland ... Older voters (aged 65 and older) in relatively white neighborhoods had 33 times the voting power as Millennials.

it's truly dismal. and they're referencing mayoral elections....i imagine the numbers are even more pathetic in the more random elections without even a mayoral race to turn people out: things like voting for sheriffs, local police commissioners, state representatives, coroners, judges, etc.  ...i've seen turnout reports on some of these in small/rural areas of literally just dozens of people, maybe a hundred total voters or so. 

5 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

they have the power to begin the process to make an amendment

our elected officials don't generally have the power or political capital to do anything without their constituents demanding and supporting it. protests are one way of demanding it, but we have to be out there supporting the right ideals by voting, turning out votes for elected officials who will listen to the people.

schools should be teaching our children how and when and where and why to vote. not just that they can vote, but that they should vote. that they must vote. it's hard to get kids to care about this, but it's a thing that has to happen, that has to be figured out.

 

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

He could make it mandatory for states to have a task force that deals with racism in the police and he could make it mandatory to make this a topic in police training. The training has to be changed in order to change the occpupational profile of this job. Less rambo, more friend and helper. Racism is not only a political problem of course, so a lot of work gas to be done by the society itself. A better education system can help the societal discurse. The president could pursue respective reforms

without state/local support, any presidential pushes would likely never pass, or if they did they'd be hobbled and weak and unsupported and would ultimately fail. 

[auxien]

37 minutes ago, goDel said:

it might be better to move towards a union of states. 

that's literally exactly what we are. 

i mean, i get what you're saying, but that sort of change would be so massive it's nigh impossible. i'd argue it could be good in some ways, i see the possible benefits of such a thing (i haven't yet read the article tho, have seen other similar proposals and have personally thought through some of it in the past), but the costs to get there would be huge and would not happen any time soon. maybe if America's status as a world leader truly falls off sharply some radical changes like that could happen....until then, nope.

[goDel]

30 minutes ago, auxien said:

that's literally exactly what we are. 

i mean, i get what you're saying, but that sort of change would be so massive it's nigh impossible. i'd argue it could be good in some ways, i see the possible benefits of such a thing (i haven't yet read the article tho, have seen other similar proposals and have personally thought through some of it in the past), but the costs to get there would be huge and would not happen any time soon. maybe if America's status as a world leader truly falls off sharply some radical changes like that could happen....until then, nope.

easy there. don't shoot the messenger. it's the conclusion of that article dcom posted.

The strong point of that article was the way it summarised American culture and it's impact on the way US is, or isn't, governed.

I don't think it will happen though. Simply because of ... well, remember that discussion between Cuomo and McConnel a couple of weeks ago? NY is a net payer, keeping the Kentucky's above water. You can't just stop those financial connections. Ironically, the discussions in the EU are similar, but come from the opposite side. As the countries with weaker financial positions want better access to money. (it's more nuanced, of course...)

[Limo]

It’s more nuanced for the US as well. Some states may be (vastly) richer than others, but part of that wealth comes from selling resources extracted from the poorer states.

Probably not an insignificant part either.

[joshuatxuk]

7 hours ago, ignatius said:

"A tale of two protests"

 

 

[chenGOD]

4 hours ago, dingformung said:

He could make it mandatory for states to have a task force that deals with racism in the police and he could make it mandatory to make this a topic in police training. The training has to be changed in order to change the occpupational profile of this job. Less rambo, more friend and helper. Racism is not only a political problem of course, so a lot of work gas to be done by the society itself. A better education system can help the societal discurse. The president could pursue respective reforms

The president could recommend, but he or she cannot on their own make that happen. It’s doubtful the federal government could do that, as most policing is the responsibility of the states and municipalities. The US is a weird political construct in terms of the delegation of powers, and states’ rights are an important part of any discussion for the US. 
We have some of that in Canada as well, with provinces and territories having a considerable amount of legislative and regulatory power. 
It made sense in a pre-internet world for countries the size of Canada and the US, but this separation of powers really needs to be re-examined.
As part of that, all politicians should be made to read “Imagined Communities” and demonstrate they understand it.

[ambermonk]

53 minutes ago, joshuatxuk said:

 

 

Shit like this makes me ashamed as an American white person.

[goDel]

47 minutes ago, timbre monke said:

Shit like this makes me ashamed as an American white person.

What am I looking at? Not sure what you mean. 

Most important thing I've noticed is: where did that women go!? And: hey, these guys are in "normal" police outfits instead of those semi enforced army nonsense. That's a ...positive....?

[Silent Member]

That's a Karen protest

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Gocab
They want haircuts, an end to 5G, social distancing and vaccines. Nothing happens because they're white / Trump supporters

[Nil]

I have no clue what that video was about either, could you guys provide some context please ? Thanks !