Time to call it quits?

The United States: Salvageable or Too Far Gone?

  • Our nation is strong, we will get through this together and work past our differences.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Our divisions are too deep, best to dissolve the Union peacefully while we still can.

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Total voters
    18

roscoe

Active member
The primary factor that is pushing us toward civil war is undiluted democracy.
Pure democracy translates into 'who gets thrown off of the island today', 'who should we silence now', 'who should be robbed of all that they possess - for social justice'.
Pure majority rule is equal to mob rule,
It's the most dangerous and addictive drug... .

Yes, 'tyranny of the majority', as John Adams put it. The US Constitution is largely written to avoid that very problem, which is inherent in parliamentary democracies.

But I don't see why you think it is suddenly an issue. There are several events in US history that expanded democracy:

1. 15th Amendment - gave former slaves the right to vote
2. 19th Amendment - gave women the right to vote
3. Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and similar acts from 1957 and 1960) - blocked the former states of the confederacy (or any state) from preventing blacks from exercising their franchise to vote (poll taxes, 'literacy' tests, voter intimidation, etc., were common in the former Confederacy from 1877-1965).

I would argue that these were all legitimate (and vital) expansions of voting rights, and proper extensions of democratic rule in the US. (although I am sure there are still plenty of people who would prefer the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was never passed, and maybe a few on the 19th Amendment).

There are still three independent branches of government and still an electoral college, so as far as I can see, the institutions to prevent tyranny of the majority are still in place. What makes you think this has changed?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
The primary factor that is pushing us toward civil war is undiluted democracy.
Pure democracy translates into 'who gets thrown off of the island today', 'who should we silence now', 'who should be robbed of all that they possess - for social justice'.
Pure majority rule is equal to mob rule,
It's the most dangerous and addictive drug... .

Would you care to explain this in more depth? I'm honestly confused about what point you're trying to make. We still have a system of elected representative to legislate. So what do you mean by "undiluted democracy"?
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
We are not really being led by a government right now.
Our leaders are the social media and the press.
These leaders are currently going through a series of purification cycles that are excluding an ever-growing percentage of the population while empowering a steadily-shrinking body of Those That Cannot Be Questioned.
This never ends well.
 

roscoe

Active member
We are not really being led by a government right now.
Our leaders are the social media and the press.
These leaders are currently going through a series of purification cycles that are excluding an ever-growing percentage of the population while empowering a steadily-shrinking body of Those That Cannot Be Questioned.
This never ends well.

You are talking about social media? In many ways it isn't real - I don't use it at all and I am a successful scientist (although younger scientists do tease me about it).

However, there is no doubt that there is an intellectual marketplace out there. If conservatives want to compete, they will have to sell their message.

I would hope that you understand that it is the nature of conservatism to always be resisting the changes in society. Liberals at one time merely wanted to outlaw slavery, but the debate over that has moved on. Then it was women's vote - conservatives resisted that as well. Then desegregation, then they resisted gay rights. Etc. That is the very definition of (social) conservatism. Sometimes, as in the 1980s, conservatives slow the tide, but it inevitably moves on.

This is one of the big problems with conservatism - it doesn't really have a vision of the future (although some do fantasize about some sort of apocalyptic future where simple strength reigns). This is why conservatives love those alternative history books where the Confederacy won the Civil War - it is a place where they can relive fantasies of a conservative paradise where time has stopped (although conservatives do like antibiotics, I am sure!).
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I don't know where you got the idea that I am a conservative.
I am a skeptic in strong training to be a cynic.
I doubt the aims and goals of all sides of the arguments regarding the restructuring of our various societies.
I am very skeptical of the goodness and mercy of those on the left because their words so rarely match their actions and their goals don't seem to mesh with the real needs of their fellow man.
I'm a tad less harsh on most conservatives because so few are actually trying to achieve anything and are thus easier to outmaneuver.

Right now I'm seeing the left promoting good things for bad reasons.

The promotion of civil rights for groups that have a history of being downtrodden is good, politicization of the concept of race is bad. There is only one race of humans. and minor ethnic adaptations are irrelevant.

Finding effective and efficient low-polluting alternate energy and resource sources is good, spreading panic over global warming/cooling/climate change is bad. The tiny temperature increase that may have come from petrochemical usage is supposed to cause a huge increase in water vapor in the air which is supposed to cause runaway global temperature increases.
But - every time that alternate energy or resource sources emerge, those on the left seem determined to shut them down. It's like they want the ordinary folks to freeze in the dark.

I expect this behavior from most of the Conservatives, as they are mostly concerned with their bottom line.
Liberals are supposed to be different... .
When the Progressives start showing that they want mankind as a whole to progress then I may start siding with them.

In the meantime, I say, "A pox on both of their houses."
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Finding effective and efficient low-polluting alternate energy and resource sources is good, spreading panic over global warming/cooling/climate change is bad. The tiny temperature increase that may have come from petrochemical usage is supposed to cause a huge increase in water vapor in the air which is supposed to cause runaway global temperature increases.
But - every time that alternate energy or resource sources emerge, those on the left seem determined to shut them down. It's like they want the ordinary folks to freeze in the dark.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that water vapor is responsible for global temperature increases, but that is incorrect. The cause is excessive gases - known as greenhouse gases - such as CO2 and Methane, which trap heat in the troposphere. Small downwards trends in average global temperature are what causes ice ages. So you can imagine what small upwards trends do when the planet is not currently in an ice age.

The reason for pushing fear about it, is that the consequences of one generation's carbon emissions are barely noticeable to that generation. But the increase in CO2 content within the atmosphere compounds over generations. It would be nice if everyone would attempt to understand the science, but most people simply won't bother. Hence using fear as a motivation.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I've heard an amazing array of theories about the cause of Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change, most of which have little in common. The one that I referred to above is the firs one that I heard back in the late 1970s, just after the panic-mongers retired "The Great Coming Ice Age". I guess that they couldn't figure out how to profit from that one.

Apparently, some folks have figured out how to profit from Climate Change. In fact, it appears that they've pretty much used it to get a good bit of control over the world's means of production of most critical goods... .
Take that, Karl Marx.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
I think that, when compared to vulcanism, forest fires, natural decomposition and all of the other sources of carbon dioxide, man's contribution is pretty small potatoes.
We have a thread about climate change going on here, I gave up but maybe you would like it.


As far as the union dissolving , I doubt it would happen. Who would pay for all the nonsense and keep the gears turning without conservatives? World doesn't run on lattes and beautiful solar energy. Runs on sweat, blood and fossil fuels- reality is a bitch.

Once you run out of other people's money (or if you never got anyone else's money) , you start to obtain conservative values . in all honesty, I've never met a good , honest and wholesome person who claimed to be a Democrat - but I'm sure they do exist. Certain issues matter more than others but some of the most celebrated aspects of the left are ghoulish and extremely disturbing , there's no coming together on certain things. I don't expect to.

If things do get sideways I'm sure the democrats will lose again, but there's no reason to even talk about it. No one wants to kill or be killed. No one wants to see America fall. I'm a patriot and a proud conservative , the only thing that's important to me is seeing OUR nation prosper and OUR children have a nice place to live. Not war and destruction. That doesn't do anyone any good. We are all more alike than we think, there's no shortage of enemies across this globe. Maybe we can find one to demonize so we can all come together a little bit.

Be well friends.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I think that, when compared to vulcanism, forest fires, natural decomposition and all of the other sources of carbon dioxide, man's contribution is pretty small potatoes.
That's some great thinking you did there. Too bad it's wrong thinking and counter to scientific evidence.

It does speak to a larger problem though. Too many people just make up their own "facts", or ignore facts completely in favor of concepts that fit their beliefs. Unfortunately, these people are everywhere and believe all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. And they believe this nonsense so strongly that when then presented with evidence proving the nonsense to be wrong, they label the truth a conspiracy and continue believing utter horse $#*&.

If only everyone would fact check what they hear before passing it along to the next person.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
-There are no "scientific facts", only theories that have not yet been disproven.
When scientists start talking about facts that cannot be questioned, I know that they are talking about their faith in their religion.

Ask Galileo.
Yeah, did you notice how I didn't put the words 'science' and 'fact' in the same sentence? Go look again.

But that's a good strategy; to make it appear that my argument is flawed by claiming I said something which I did not say. Too bad it didn't work, this time.
 

Howland937

Active member
If only everyone would fact check what they hear before passing it along to the next person
But who fact checks the fact checkers? I'm not a scientist and have never played one on TV, but it's easy enough to find scientists (or teachers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc) with differing opinions and explanations for the same problem. When the "experts" can't agree, who can rightly expect us laypeople to all get on the same boat?
far as the union dissolving , I doubt it would happen. Who would pay for all the nonsense and keep the gears turning without conservatives? World doesn't run on lattes and beautiful solar energy. Runs on sweat, blood and fossil fuels- reality is a bitch.
One only needs to look around the world at countries who've experienced civil war in modern times. That should give a decent indication of what would happen right here, should we ever find ourselves in one.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
But who fact checks the fact checkers? I'm not a scientist and have never played one on TV, but it's easy enough to find scientists (or teachers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc) with differing opinions and explanations for the same problem. When the "experts" can't agree, who can rightly expect us laypeople to all get on the same boat?

When you do your own research, you broaden your own understanding of a subject. There is not always a definitive answer, but attempting to find one is much better than simply believing the first thing you're told without at least questioning it.
 

wiscoaster

Active member
I'm going to give it a couple years before I decide because I first want to see what happens with:
1) Voting & election reform - things are happening on the state level to combat voting fraud and political corruption.
2) SCOTUS election fraud cases pending - if they show a little judicial backbone and actually take one.
3) 2022 elections & resulting legislative balance of power - fair and honest elections should result in a red tsunami.
4) Upholding the Bill of Rights - our best weapons for keeping the nation strong and united.
 

Howland937

Active member
When you do your own research, you broaden your own understanding of a subject. There is not always a definitive answer, but attempting to find one is much better than simply believing the first thing you're told without at least questioning it.
I do try to research in order to make an informed decision/opinion, no matter what the discussion is. My point being that this approach is limited by the accessible information the experts have put forth. If the information is conflicting, as it often is, we're left making decisions based on either emotion or SWAG.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I do try to research in order to make an informed decision/opinion, no matter what the discussion is. My point being that this approach is limited by the accessible information the experts have put forth. If the information is conflicting, as it often is, we're left making decisions based on either emotion or SWAG.
True. But even when that is the case, a greater understanding of the subject matter and available evidence can lead a person to two logical conclusions.

The first is that a single source cannot be blindly trusted to provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the subject in question.

The second is that there is no definitive answer, which means we should be willing to accept and assess knew information if/when it is available. And in the mean time, keep an open mind about the subject.
 

roscoe

Active member
-There are no "scientific facts", only theories that have not yet been disproven.
When scientists start talking about facts that cannot be questioned, I know that they are talking about their faith in their religion.

Ask Galileo.

Science does not speak of facts, only data, hypotheses, and theories.

The unmentioned factor is the stakes. If we are wrong about global warming one one side (if we err on the side of responding to something that is not there), we have made a few unnecessary accommodations, and maybe lose some jobs. If we fail to respond to something that is there, we face a major catastrophic ecological disaster with the potential for millions of deaths.

It is like gambling. If we might lose $500 on a roll of dice, that is one thing, but if we might lose our houses, that is another. The stakes of failing to respond to climate change are pretty big.
 
Top