[AdamB]

If you care to read it is accessible.

This is the modern world Newfie. Isn't there a BoobTube video we can watch symmarizing the highlights for the youngsters around here? I mean...reading? Do they even teach that in schools anymore in between participation exercises and handing out awards for showing up?

[Newfie]

I have been reading about the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. The presentation is disjointed but it reminds me a lot of our current situation.

In this late period Constantinople because even more obsessively concerned with dogmatic religious matters such as the exact nature of God and the wording of the Nicean Creed. Or at least that was the acknowledged focal point of dispute, from this vantage it sounds more like they were in a nasty internal battle for control of what was left. Like 2 tots fighting over a rag doll, they pulled it apart. In the meantime the Turks and Mongols had grander visions and were securing their ascendant empires. It is a case where the internal fighting was so intense the outside threa, common enemy, failed to unite them.

Today we have the aged political dynasties fightg over who controls what while there are outside forces which will destroy us all and these idiots can't quit squabbling.

Our outside enemies may be different; oil depletion, climate change, water, etc. But they are very real and being ignored over petty personal power grabs.

That is unlikely to end well

[AdamB]

Today we have the aged political dynasties fightg over who controls what while there are outside forces which will destroy us all and these idiots can't quit squabbling.

Don't see outside forces being America's problem Newfie. Strikes me that the internal forces might be quite sufficient all on their own.

Our outside enemies may be different; oil depletion, climate change, water, etc. But they are very real and being ignored over petty personal power grabs.

And political nonsense, reverse partisanship, the rule of law beginning to take a beating because of the deteriorating credibility and confidence in the Supreme Court, and on and on.

That is unlikely to end well

We all die Newfie. It NEVER ends well.

[C8]

Our outside enemies may be different; oil depletion, climate change, water, etc. But they are very real and being ignored over petty personal power grabs.

The reality is that democracy has a fatal flaw seldom taught in our schools- it exacerbates internal conflict. At some point, all democracies collapse from internal strife. Often, the first sign is when a democracy is forced to retreat from the holdings of its empire.

[Newfie]

Interesting thought.

How many democratic empires have their been?

[Plantagenet]

The reality is that democracy has a fatal flaw seldom taught in our schools- it exacerbates internal conflict.

Thats not a fatal flaw.......that is a strength. By having open debate and contention over political issues, democracies allow all sides of every issue to be explored and debated and fought over and then resolved.

It is dictatorships that have an innate fatal flaw. Countries like Russia under the dictator Putin or China under Xi or Germany under the Nazis are totally under the control of their great dictator, and when that dictator goes crazy, or even just makes a bad policy decision, there is no way for the system to correct it. People in Russia who are smart and brave and honest enough to oppose the Ukraine war, for example, are being arrested and harassed and beaten and jailed by Putin's toadies to suppress their views and opinions. The result is a country utterly ruled by the wishes of one lone madman....a country forced to pursue Putin's crazy policies without debate or discussion or dissent until crazy Putin leads Russia to disaster.




Consider crazy Putin's war in Ukraine and its effects on Russia. Already Putin has created an economic schism with Europe and instead turned his country into essentially a colony of China. Russia is now selling its coal, oil and other commodities to China at steep discounts to the actual world price for these items.....thats exactly what a colony does. A colony supplies cheap natural resources to its colonial masters, just as Russia is doing for China.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

The reality is that democracy has a fatal flaw seldom taught in our schools- it exacerbates internal conflict.

Thats not a fatal flaw.......that is a strength. By having open debate and contention over political issues, democracies allow all sides of every issue to be explored and debated and fought over and then resolved.

You mean, like abortion? Our democracy says it is illegal. Then our democracy says it is jim dandy fine. Then our democracy says here, it is okey-dokey. You take a step across an invisible line to over there, and you go to jail. How dare you be impregnated by your brother, now take it through gestation and raise like the object of a rapist's lust that it is.

Resolved is it?

[vtsnowedin]

The reality is that democracy has a fatal flaw seldom taught in our schools- it exacerbates internal conflict.

Thats not a fatal flaw.......that is a strength. By having open debate and contention over political issues, democracies allow all sides of every issue to be explored and debated and fought over and then resolved.

You mean, like abortion? Our democracy says it is illegal. Then our democracy says it is jim dandy fine. Then our democracy says here, it is okey-dokey. You take a step across an invisible line to over there, and you go to jail. How dare you be impregnated by your brother, now take it through gestation and raise like the object of a rapist's lust that it is.

Resolved is it?

At the ballot box.
Please not the the USA is a Republic "If you can keep it" not a Democracy. Difference being a Republic has limits on what the majority can do and protections for the rights of the minority.
Extra point if you know whose Quote that is without Googling it.

[AdamB]

The reality is that democracy has a fatal flaw seldom taught in our schools- it exacerbates internal conflict.

Thats not a fatal flaw.......that is a strength. By having open debate and contention over political issues, democracies allow all sides of every issue to be explored and debated and fought over and then resolved.

You mean, like abortion? Our democracy says it is illegal. Then our democracy says it is jim dandy fine. Then our democracy says here, it is okey-dokey. You take a step across an invisible line to over there, and you go to jail. How dare you be impregnated by your brother, now take it through gestation and raise like the object of a rapist's lust that it is.

Resolved is it?

At the ballot box.

Yeah. We did that, and everything I said above about "resolved" applies. And you might not have noticed, but the Supremes were never on any ballot I've seen in my lifetime.

Please not the the USA is a Republic "If you can keep it" not a Democracy. Difference being a Republic has limits on what the majority can do and protections for the rights of the minority.

Really? And so the value of those protections are okay to be political and therefore ephemeral?

Extra point if you know whose Quote that is without Googling it.

I guessed and then looked it up. Didn't get it right.

[vtsnowedin]

Really? And so the value of those protections are okay to be political and therefore ephemeral?

That is why there is the bill of rights that make those rights much harder to do away with with the only way being an amendment to the constitution or a deliberate misreading of the constitution.
Those misreading the second amendment have been denying inner city minority people the right to bear arms for years.

[Newfie]

IIRC the abortion fight was because it was decided by the COURTS not the ballot box. The recent ruling puts the deciding power back to the ballot box, each state gets to make their own decision.

This is not my preferred solution but the one that exists.

Similar to the EPA ruling, the court did NOT limit what the EPA can do, it limited what the President can do. And that is a good thing because Presidents can change and a new President can abolish or reverse decisions made by a previous President.

Largely the Court is trying to return the power if the Presidency back to its intended function. The problem is congress has become ineffective as a legislative body due to the party power struggles.

And least anyone forget, we have large swaths of this country under one party rule, and where that happens it is generally not good for that residents.

With such a negative show of success why would anyone want to extend single party rule? And yet it seems to be the major topic of discussion.

[AdamB]

Really? And so the value of those protections are okay to be political and therefore ephemeral?

That is why there is the bill of rights that make those rights much harder to do away with with the only way being an amendment to the constitution or a deliberate misreading of the constitution.

I see. As the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights, and it doesn't say anything in there about abortion, but it does say in the 10th Amendment that things not mentioned in the first 10 are delegated to the states. So, which unelected officials screwed over America, the ones who made abortion legal without it being mentioned in the Amendments, or those who claimed that stare decisis guided their actions...and lied about it? Hence the problem with unelected officials doing whatever they want, and it not having much to do with elections at the ballot box in either case.

Those misreading the second amendment have been denying inner city minority people the right to bear arms for years.

Who might "those" be? Those same unelected officials that you want to pretend represent citizens in our Republic?

[vtsnowedin]

Those misreading the second amendment have been denying inner city minority people the right to bear arms for years.

Who might "those" be? Those same unelected officials that you want to pretend represent citizens in our Republic?

Mostly Democrat governors,mayors and state assembly men in the Blue states. All elected.
One should remember that the Democrat party was the party of the KKK right up to the 1960's and were the ones that passed and enforced the Jim Crow laws.

[AdamB]

Those misreading the second amendment have been denying inner city minority people the right to bear arms for years.

Who might "those" be? Those same unelected officials that you want to pretend represent citizens in our Republic?

Mostly Democrat governors,mayors and state assembly men in the Blue states. All elected.

Really? So the unelected officials who allowed them to continue doing this against the rights contained in the 2nd Amendment must be more important than what governors, duly elected, did? How amazing....a cabal of unelected officials allowing Democan governors and mayors to take away our gun rights. Oh wait!! Didn't those same unelected officials just give them back again? I get so confused with this Republic stuff, and someone remind me, where on the ballots do I vote for these ultimate authorities that allow Democans to take away my rights, or recently Republicrats to take away a right women once had? It is all so confusing.

One should remember that the Democrat party was the party of the KKK right up to the 1960's and were the ones that passed and enforced the Jim Crow laws.

Yup. The Democans post reconstruction sure sucked. Right wing trolls remind us of that all the time. How about another tidbit, it was Ronald Reagan who put the country on the road to restricted gun rights because he was afraid of black folks exercising those rights. Can you believe this? America was an apartheid country through the mid 50's to 60's or so, and the instant some new rights (to folks of color) showed up, fine white Republicrats like Ronny wanted to take them away?

So maybe Ronny was in kahoots with those Jim Crow Democans? Tell me again, who do I vote for that allows either of these gangs of elected officials to take away or give me back or invent new rights that aren't in the first ten amendments to the constitution?

I'm still stunned that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't in those amendments. Guess that means they don't have much to do with what can be inflicted upon us Americans (MURIKA!! fist pump).

[C8]

I don't have a dog in this fight re: abortion but if someone really believes in democracy they should be cheering this court. On almost every decision the court is returning decision making to Congress or the states where voters can elect those who share the views of the people.

You really have to do great twists of logic to accuse this court of being anti-democratic.

You should be more worried about the liberal justices. In every decision the past 20 years they have voted to concentrate power in the hands of un-elected lower courts and federal bureaucrats. They voted that CDC bureaucrats had total and unchecked authority to prevent landlords from evicting tenets to stop the spread of Covid- that is an incredible amount of power.

When liberal justices become the majority, then you will see the end of democracy.

[Newfie]

C8,

Well put.

[AdamB]

I don't have a dog in this fight re: abortion but if someone really believes in democracy they should be cheering this court. On almost every decision the court is returning decision making to Congress or the states where voters can elect those who share the views of the people.

That strikes me as a perfectly valid view, given the current court and divisions in the US. So let it play out for awhile, and we'll see what happens. I am curious as to whether or not reasonable states, not say the rabid Qanon MURIKA!!! men rule! types, or alternatively the woke, everyone gets an A+ on tests, learn the politically current gender bending pronouns and for God's sake don't even say the word "gun", end up with an economic advantage because of having a balanced approach to how they distribute "freedoms" and "rights".

Companies relocate, business is encouraged without fear of reprisal for not toeing the local political rules, going to church on Sunday isn't mandated any more than the requirement to be Christian, etc etc.

You really have to do great twists of logic to accuse this court of being anti-democratic.

Not a claim I've made. But I would say that they are now, officially and proud of it, political. Arguably, the pendulum has swung the other way from the "let's make up new rights!" courts of the 70's.

You should be more worried about the liberal justices. In every decision the past 20 years they have voted to concentrate power in the hands of un-elected lower courts and federal bureaucrats. They voted that CDC bureaucrats had total and unchecked authority to prevent landlords from evicting tenets to stop the spread of Covid- that is an incredible amount of power.

Yup, it strikes me that there is fear at either ends of the pendulum swing.

When liberal justices become the majority, then you will see the end of democracy.

Apparently not, because that's the court from about the 70's to the beginning of this century, and democracy (sort of) is still here. I think the recent demonstration of democracy almost ending had nothing to do with the courts, but just an idiots attempt at a coup. Nothing has come close to that before, other than the Civil War. And from the southern racist contingents point of view, that was all about State's Rights, not slavery.

[vtsnowedin]

OK for today's bold prediction!!!
Expect all the blue states to remain pro choice and even strengthen their laws to that end and supporting and funding women coming in from pro life states to get around their states rules.
Expect twenty of the twenty five pro life states to find the majority of the women in their states will not allow laws that do not have exceptions for rape or incest. or travel out of states prohibitions, or restrictions on contraception methods or Plan B type drugs.
Expect pro lifers in those states to be really pissed but over ruled by the voters.
That leaves just five states, give or take a few, where really restrictive anti abortion laws remain in place past the next two or three election cycles and these states will become unimportant backwaters to American society. Also they may lose many cases where they try to restrict women's rights to cross state lines for an abortion, or to have plan B delivered by mail or prescribed by physician based on interstate commerce rules.
Republicans in red states that try to shovel against this tide will find themselves looking for paying work.

[Outcast_Searcher]

OK for today's bold prediction!!!
Expect all the blue states to remain pro choice and even strengthen their laws to that end and supporting and funding women coming in from pro life states to get around their states rules.
Expect twenty of the twenty five pro life states to find the majority of the women in their states will not allow laws that do not have exceptions for rape or incest. or travel out of states prohibitions, or restrictions on contraception methods or Plan B type drugs.
Expect pro lifers in those states to be really pissed but over ruled by the voters.
That leaves just five states, give or take a few, where really restrictive anti abortion laws remain in place past the next two or three election cycles and these states will become unimportant backwaters to American society. Also they may lose many cases where they try to restrict women's rights to cross state lines for an abortion, or to have plan B delivered by mail or prescribed by physician based on interstate commerce rules.
Republicans in red states that try to shovel against this tide will find themselves looking for paying work.

Sounds about right. Of course, that's pretty tough on POOR pregnant women who can't afford to move out of those states to evade laws that prevent, for example, travel to get an abortion. (People who aren't poor are free to move away from unreasonable states, re their laws and policies, if they so wish).

If that sort of nonsense (like preventing freedom of travel from certain egregiously backward states for a woman to decide with her doctors on her own medical treatment, which should be HER right) could be legally prevented, then I'd have no problem with a state by state approach.

And sadly, with our current system, I see no practical way to fix it. So then we have messes like how random gun control is from state to state, etc.

Somehow I don't think the founders envisioned total randomness dictated by representatives who wanted to be re-elected before honoring basic rights.

But hey, that's just me. And I'd be just as mad at the left if they try to take away, say, my right to own handguns to defend my own home (castle doctrine). So this isn't a left vs. right thing for me but rather a matter of principle. And no, I'm not "pro-abortion", I'm pro CHOICE and all for informed family PLANNING.

[vtsnowedin]

But hey, that's just me. And I'd be just as mad at the left if they try to take away, say, my right to own handguns to defend my own home (castle doctrine). So this isn't a left vs. right thing for me but rather a matter of principle. And no, I'm not "pro-abortion", I'm pro CHOICE and all for informed family PLANNING.

I'll add in free or low cost birth control access for all females of child bearing age. Knowing about it and being able to afford it can be two very different things.