American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[The Reformed American Republic]

Unfortunately, there are many who are not even eligible for military service. Even something manageable like OCD is disqualifying, and I think ADHD is in the same category.

Weirdly enough OCD is fine if you where diagnosed while you’ve been in. Same with depression. The military will allow you to serve with those conditions but won’t let you in if you had them prior to.

Which to be honest, makes no sense. The question should be whether it is manageable and if someone is able to preform military duties, not the time of the diagnosis.

[Fartsniffage]

Weirdly enough OCD is fine if you where diagnosed while you’ve been in. Same with depression. The military will allow you to serve with those conditions but won’t let you in if you had them prior to.

Which to be honest, makes no sense. The question should be whether it is manageable and if someone is able to preform military duties, not the time of the diagnosis.

It's a sunk cost thing. If you've already paid to train a person then you want work out of them.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Unless America becomes a really dictatorship, there shouldn't be a violent revolution. I'd love a monarch, but I don't want them forcefully installed given the monarchs job is to suppress such instability.

Monarchy is a lame ideology that belongs in a history book. It's a shame some countries even keep monarchs as figureheads aka glorified mascots, let alone as actual leaders.

Monarchy had kept the German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires stable, and by the standards of their times they were at least normal. It took World Wars to bring those two down.

France was stable when it was a semi-constitutional monarchy, and it made some advances in people's rights at the time, even legalizing same-sex activity. As soon as the Revolutionaries took power, a series of short governments, war, and royal dictatorship under Napoleon followed. When it became a semi-constitutional monarchy, France was stable again, until it tried to become and absolutist one. It was stable(baring one attempt) after the people installed a new King, until he started reneging on their rights and they revolted. The Republic collapsed, Napoleon III came, and he made it pretty stable, until his idiocy got in the way of things. After he was deposed, the communists nearly took power, and the Republic refused to restore the monarchy over a flag, it took years for France to be stable and competent.

Spain is another example of monarchs being useful. After their monarch was restored, they stopped a fascist coup and became a democracy. If it wasn't for his scandal's, Juan Carlos would be remembered as a good king at least. Unfortunately, now their monarchy is failing. Russia would have been stable if Tsar Nicholas II gave the parliament somewhat more power, or, even better, became a figurehead. The Kadet party, which wanted a constitutional monarchy, was popular, not to mention Russia was rapidly industrializing, to the point it scared the Germans, who were an industrial juggernaut. Unfortunately, he didn't, and after he left Russia got an unstable republic and socialism.

Brazil was a stable monarchy, and was mostly popular, except after it abolished slavery. There had to be a referendum in 1993 for the restoration of the monarchy, which showed about 38% supporting monarchy(there were a bunch of nullified votes), and many invalid votes, which means the refferendu, might've succeeded if they didn't change the date.

The UK is another example. Since the Glorious Revolution, there were no dictatorial monarchs, and since the Jacobite Wars no significant rebellions. Though this is a somewhat worse example due to the rise in terrorism. For other stable monarchies, there's Jordan, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Bhutan, and the Commonwealth states.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Monarchy is a lame ideology that belongs in a history book. It's a shame some countries even keep monarchs as figureheads aka glorified mascots, let alone as actual leaders.

Monarchy had kept the German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires stable, and by the standards of their times they were at least normal. It took World Wars to bring those two down.

Austro-Hungarian Empire? Stable? If not for WWI, it still would have collapsed eventually. WWI may have broken the camel's back, but A-H is a good example of the inherent instability of multiethnic empires.

[Picairn]

Monarchy had kept the German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires stable, and by the standards of their times they were at least normal. It took World Wars to bring those two down.

Austro-Hungarian Empire was so unstable with ethnic conflict that the Archduke planned to turn it into a federation before he was assassinated.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Monarchy had kept the German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires stable, and by the standards of their times they were at least normal. It took World Wars to bring those two down.

Austro-Hungarian Empire? Stable? If not for WWI, it still would have collapsed eventually. WWI may have broken the camel's back, but A-H is a good example of the inherent instability of multiethnic empires.

There were plans for federalization, supported by a good number in the Empire. The only ones who didn't support them were the Hungarians, who would likely have been forces to compromise eventually. And Austria had German support. Franz Josef was also liked.

[Lady Victory]

People who want dictatorships don't get to talk about shitty ideals.

Because the western world order is so much better lol. At least I can vote while the world dies and society slowly collapses!

You would prefer to be tortured by the secret police for wrongthink while the world dies and society slowly collapses?

You picked a weird hill to die on, my man.

[Lady Victory]

Monarchy is a lame ideology that belongs in a history book. It's a shame some countries even keep monarchs as figureheads aka glorified mascots, let alone as actual leaders.

Monarchy had kept the German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires stable, and by the standards of their times they were at least normal. It took World Wars to bring those two down.

France was stable when it was a semi-constitutional monarchy, and it made some advances in people's rights at the time, even legalizing same-sex activity. As soon as the Revolutionaries took power, a series of short governments, war, and royal dictatorship under Napoleon followed. When it became a semi-constitutional monarchy, France was stable again, until it tried to become and absolutist one. It was stable(baring one attempt) after the people installed a new King, until he started reneging on their rights and they revolted. The Republic collapsed, Napoleon III came, and he made it pretty stable, until his idiocy got in the way of things. After he was deposed, the communists nearly took power, and the Republic refused to restore the monarchy over a flag, it took years for France to be stable and competent.

Spain is another example of monarchs being useful. After their monarch was restored, they stopped a fascist coup and became a democracy. If it wasn't for his scandal's, Juan Carlos would be remembered as a good king at least. Unfortunately, now their monarchy is failing. Russia would have been stable if Tsar Nicholas II gave the parliament somewhat more power, or, even better, became a figurehead. The Kadet party, which wanted a constitutional monarchy, was popular, not to mention Russia was rapidly industrializing, to the point it scared the Germans, who were an industrial juggernaut. Unfortunately, he didn't, and after he left Russia got an unstable republic and socialism.

Brazil was a stable monarchy, and was mostly popular, except after it abolished slavery. There had to be a referendum in 1993 for the restoration of the monarchy, which showed about 38% supporting monarchy(there were a bunch of nullified votes), and many invalid votes, which means the refferendu, might've succeeded if they didn't change the date.

The UK is another example. Since the Glorious Revolution, there were no dictatorial monarchs, and since the Jacobite Wars no significant rebellions. Though this is a somewhat worse example due to the rise in terrorism. For other stable monarchies, there's Jordan, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Bhutan, and the Commonwealth states.

I don't give a fuck about how stable monarchies may or may not be. Rich families should not be entitled to political power because their ancestors were successful warlords, because they think God Himself appointed them, or because some bullshit "muh tradition" argument. Any power that isn't granted by an electorate is innately unearned.

[Thermodolia]

Because the western world order is so much better lol. At least I can vote while the world dies and society slowly collapses!

You would prefer to be tortured by the secret police for wrongthink while the world dies and society slowly collapses?

You picked a weird hill to die on, my man.

He supports a dictatorship by environmentalists though. Imagine a secret police arresting you for failure to recycle

[Kowani]

Manching gets dunked on again

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday called Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) voting reform compromise proposal a "federal takeover of the election system."

Host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Portman what he thought of a five-point memo from Manchin that calls for making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing for at least 15 days of early voting.

"Unfortunately, what he does is what the larger bill S. 1. does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalize it, so it's a federal takeover of our election system," Portman said. Todd questioned this characterization from Portman, pointing out that the federal government often tells states how to spend certain funds, such as money set aside for transportation.

"Well, that's true, and there's federal money provided for that. In this case, what he's saying to the state of Ohio or your state of Florida [is] 'We're gonna decide how redistricting is done. We're gonna take it away from the democracy, in effect,'" Portman said of Manchin's proposal.

"The bottom line is we should make it easy to vote in this country. We should also make it hard to cheat. I'm proud of our Ohio election system, and I think they do a very good job," Portman added. "Again, I appreciate he's trying to find that middle ground, and, who knows, maybe something can be done."

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I read Rob Portman as Natalie Portman, and went "when did she become a senator?" <.<

[Thermodolia]

Manching gets dunked on again

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday called Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) voting reform compromise proposal a "federal takeover of the election system."

Host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Portman what he thought of a five-point memo from Manchin that calls for making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing for at least 15 days of early voting.

"Unfortunately, what he does is what the larger bill S. 1. does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalize it, so it's a federal takeover of our election system," Portman said. Todd questioned this characterization from Portman, pointing out that the federal government often tells states how to spend certain funds, such as money set aside for transportation.

"Well, that's true, and there's federal money provided for that. In this case, what he's saying to the state of Ohio or your state of Florida [is] 'We're gonna decide how redistricting is done. We're gonna take it away from the democracy, in effect,'" Portman said of Manchin's proposal.

"The bottom line is we should make it easy to vote in this country. We should also make it hard to cheat. I'm proud of our Ohio election system, and I think they do a very good job," Portman added. "Again, I appreciate he's trying to find that middle ground, and, who knows, maybe something can be done."

It’s not a federal take over when the constitution allows it

[Tarsonis]

I read Rob Portman as Natalie Portman, and went "when did she become a senator?" <.<

After her term as queen was up

[The Rich Port]

Especially considering, eventually someone is going to be stuck with a shit job, no amount of "job makers" or advanced technology is going to change that.

That's just how scarcity works in general and specifically job scarcity.

But people at the top always imagine they'll be at the top forever or they can always change the government to always suit their own needs, even if it means destroying the republic in the process.

There are millions of skilled, middle class jobs unfilled in the United States.

Your narrative collapses right there.

If you want to blame someone, blame the leftist government education monopoly that has motivated, intelligent and energetic kids entering the system and twelve years later they can't write a coherent paragraph or cite the three branches of the federal government.

That means, the left has utterly failed to educate students despite having them for 7 hours a day for 12 years.

Pathetic when good jobs are left unfilled.

You mean like you?

Cuz I can write a paragraph fine and the three branches of government are executive, legislative, and judicial... So the system didn't exactly fail me in that regard.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You would prefer to be tortured by the secret police for wrongthink while the world dies and society slowly collapses?

You picked a weird hill to die on, my man.

He supports a dictatorship by environmentalists though. Imagine a secret police arresting you for failure to recycle

The ideal timeline and you know it.

Manching gets dunked on again

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday called Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) voting reform compromise proposal a "federal takeover of the election system."

Host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Portman what he thought of a five-point memo from Manchin that calls for making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing for at least 15 days of early voting.

"Unfortunately, what he does is what the larger bill S. 1. does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalize it, so it's a federal takeover of our election system," Portman said. Todd questioned this characterization from Portman, pointing out that the federal government often tells states how to spend certain funds, such as money set aside for transportation.

"Well, that's true, and there's federal money provided for that. In this case, what he's saying to the state of Ohio or your state of Florida [is] 'We're gonna decide how redistricting is done. We're gonna take it away from the democracy, in effect,'" Portman said of Manchin's proposal.

"The bottom line is we should make it easy to vote in this country. We should also make it hard to cheat. I'm proud of our Ohio election system, and I think they do a very good job," Portman added. "Again, I appreciate he's trying to find that middle ground, and, who knows, maybe something can be done."

But Manchin says they're his friends and he can work with them : (

[Thermodolia]

I read Rob Portman as Natalie Portman, and went "when did she become a senator?" <.<

She became a senator in 28 BBY duh

[Kedri]

He supports a dictatorship by environmentalists though. Imagine a secret police arresting you for failure to recycle

The ideal timeline and you know it.

Manching gets dunked on again

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday called Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) voting reform compromise proposal a "federal takeover of the election system."

Host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Portman what he thought of a five-point memo from Manchin that calls for making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing for at least 15 days of early voting.

"Unfortunately, what he does is what the larger bill S. 1. does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalize it, so it's a federal takeover of our election system," Portman said. Todd questioned this characterization from Portman, pointing out that the federal government often tells states how to spend certain funds, such as money set aside for transportation.

"Well, that's true, and there's federal money provided for that. In this case, what he's saying to the state of Ohio or your state of Florida [is] 'We're gonna decide how redistricting is done. We're gonna take it away from the democracy, in effect,'" Portman said of Manchin's proposal.

"The bottom line is we should make it easy to vote in this country. We should also make it hard to cheat. I'm proud of our Ohio election system, and I think they do a very good job," Portman added. "Again, I appreciate he's trying to find that middle ground, and, who knows, maybe something can be done."

But Manchin says they're his friends and he can work with them : (

Manchin kinda has to work and find middle ground with the Republicans, as he's from West Virginia, a state that is very solidly pro-Trump. He's a Democrat, but his constituents are two-time Trump voters and otherwise vote straight ticket Republican.

He's as liberal as you're gonna get from WV.

[Andsed]

He supports a dictatorship by environmentalists though. Imagine a secret police arresting you for failure to recycle

The ideal timeline and you know it.

Manching gets dunked on again

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday called Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) voting reform compromise proposal a "federal takeover of the election system."

Host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Portman what he thought of a five-point memo from Manchin that calls for making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing for at least 15 days of early voting.

"Unfortunately, what he does is what the larger bill S. 1. does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalize it, so it's a federal takeover of our election system," Portman said. Todd questioned this characterization from Portman, pointing out that the federal government often tells states how to spend certain funds, such as money set aside for transportation.

"Well, that's true, and there's federal money provided for that. In this case, what he's saying to the state of Ohio or your state of Florida [is] 'We're gonna decide how redistricting is done. We're gonna take it away from the democracy, in effect,'" Portman said of Manchin's proposal.

"The bottom line is we should make it easy to vote in this country. We should also make it hard to cheat. I'm proud of our Ohio election system, and I think they do a very good job," Portman added. "Again, I appreciate he's trying to find that middle ground, and, who knows, maybe something can be done."

But Manchin says they're his friends and he can work with them : (

I mean admittedly, a forcible shutdown of fossil fuel plants would be pretty based.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Manching gets dunked on again

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Sunday called Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) voting reform compromise proposal a "federal takeover of the election system."

Host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Portman what he thought of a five-point memo from Manchin that calls for making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing for at least 15 days of early voting.

"Unfortunately, what he does is what the larger bill S. 1. does, which is it takes the election system in this country and federalize it, so it's a federal takeover of our election system," Portman said. Todd questioned this characterization from Portman, pointing out that the federal government often tells states how to spend certain funds, such as money set aside for transportation.

"Well, that's true, and there's federal money provided for that. In this case, what he's saying to the state of Ohio or your state of Florida [is] 'We're gonna decide how redistricting is done. We're gonna take it away from the democracy, in effect,'" Portman said of Manchin's proposal.

"The bottom line is we should make it easy to vote in this country. We should also make it hard to cheat. I'm proud of our Ohio election system, and I think they do a very good job," Portman added. "Again, I appreciate he's trying to find that middle ground, and, who knows, maybe something can be done."

Anything short of the GOP being able to throw out 100% of votes that aren't for Trump is unacceptable to them. Joe Manchin needs to realize this.

[Thermodolia]

The ideal timeline and you know it.



But Manchin says they're his friends and he can work with them : (

I mean admittedly, a forcible shutdown of fissile fuel plants would be pretty based.

You meant fossil and not fissile right?

[Andsed]

I mean admittedly, a forcible shutdown of fissile fuel plants would be pretty based.

You meant fossil and not fissile right?

Autocorrect is a bitch.

[Heloin]

I mean admittedly, a forcible shutdown of fissile fuel plants would be pretty based.

You meant fossil and not fissile right?

Maybe the fossils will fissile out.

[Fauzjhia]

The ideal timeline and you know it.



But Manchin says they're his friends and he can work with them : (

Manchin kinda has to work and find middle ground with the Republicans, as he's from West Virginia, a state that is very solidly pro-Trump. He's a Democrat, but his constituents are two-time Trump voters and otherwise vote straight ticket Republican.

He's as liberal as you're gonna get from WV.

Joe Manchin might need republican voters, but the GOP does not need him, they don't need to negotiate with him.

[Kedri]

Manchin kinda has to work and find middle ground with the Republicans, as he's from West Virginia, a state that is very solidly pro-Trump. He's a Democrat, but his constituents are two-time Trump voters and otherwise vote straight ticket Republican.

He's as liberal as you're gonna get from WV.

Joe Manchin might need republican voters, but the GOP does not need him, they don't need to negotiate with him.

Exactly, which is why he has to work with them, or else he's out of a job.

[Lady Victory]

You would prefer to be tortured by the secret police for wrongthink while the world dies and society slowly collapses?

You picked a weird hill to die on, my man.

He supports a dictatorship by environmentalists though. Imagine a secret police arresting you for failure to recycle

My guy, it literally does not matter who is running the dictatorship. An authoritarian system cannot survive without state-sanctioned violence and terrorism to keep people in line. This is the inherent nature of a dictatorship. The only way to circumvent this is by either brainwashing the populace into total obedience to the state or by distracting them with mindless entertainment to keep them docile and apathetic. Neither of which are as effective. It doesn't matter who you put in charge and give unlimited power, they will become tyrants. They will always become tyrants. They have to become tyrants or else they won't survive. This is how authoritarian systems work and it's why they should be destroyed.