Authoritarianism

Nope, wrong. It removed the language preventing affirmative action. And allowed for the federal guidelines regarding the use of affirmative action to be used.

The proposition just erases equal protection from the California constitution. As far as the state would be concerned, discrimination by race would be legal. It is no longer enforceable by state officers or state courts. Any violation of federal law would need to go through federal courts, which is a lengthier and more difficult process.

Federal guidelines, nonetheless, still allow for discrimination for gender and race and are far weaker than the California law. The few Federal hoops in place for a university would just require them to say that they found someone else equally likely to benefit from the program and they are free to discriminate against someone by their race.

Why do this if they didn't want to discriminate by race? They did this specifically to discriminate by race and gender, as argued themselves.

Again, affirmative action is very complex. Certainly still in place federally and in all but 8 states, of course, with limitations.

Racial discrimination being legal in all but eight states just means that racism is bad. Your folly is to conclude that because racist laws exist that racism must be okay. This is no justification at all. Racist laws have existed for hundreds of years. They are still bad.

Now what all this has to with Authoritarianism, I’m not sure.

It has everything to do with it. Democrats were slavers and started the Civil War and are still dividing the country with race and identity politics. They are responsible for the Trail of Tears, opposed Women's Suffrage, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Law, promoted the Jim Crow Laws, and created the KKK. They were always on the wrong side of history. They were always the villains of American society, although they deny it, attempt to hide their past, and claim that their opponents are actually doing what they do.

Today they promote critical race theory in schools, promote racism with Black Lives Matter, enable racial rioting, and on and on. Same party, different time. It is no coincidence that the Democrats of today are associated with discrimination and division like the Democrats of the past. Discrimination, division, and persecution of certain groups are all hallmarks of authoritarianism.

Don't know what goes on in Tom's mind,  but he seems impervious to reality.

Beware of political parties who are actively trying to restrict voting rights.   Especially those parties who encourage and condone violent storming of the Capital trying to stop the certification of an election.

Now the question that only Tom can answer,  what political party am I referring to? 

Are you sure you're a Trump supporter?

Americans are so binary

If you're a repug you must think 'x' and if you're a dem you must think 'y'

It evades their logic if a repug could think differently to their group think and vice versa

So dumb

This is actually true in a great number of countries... but way to lean into nationalism in a debate about authoritarianism.

Quote from: Stash on October 07, 2021, 07:30:34 PM

Nope, wrong. It removed the language preventing affirmative action. And allowed for the federal guidelines regarding the use of affirmative action to be used.

The proposition just erases equal protection from the California constitution. As far as the state would be concerned, discrimination by race would be legal. It is no longer enforceable by state officers or state courts. Any violation of federal law would need to go through federal courts, which is a lengthier and more difficult process.

Oh for god's sake, no. 209 in the 90's was sort of a crafty way of getting rid of affirmative action. Again, affirmative action is a highly debate-able construct. I get that.
16 removed the language that prevented affirmative action and defaults to the federal guidelines regarding affirmative action.

It was a complex prop that a lot of Californians didn't fully understand.

Again, from your link:

"Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use affirmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.[/i]"

It's a matter if you were for reinstating affirmative action policies or would prefer to remain without them. Lot's of people thing AA is racist, lots of people thin barring AA is racist. When the fact of the matter is really how one wants to handle equity/equality issues. Again, very complex.

Quote from: Stash on October 07, 2021, 07:30:34 PM

Quote

Now what all this has to with Authoritarianism, I’m not sure.

It has everything to do with it. Democrats were slavers and started the Civil War and are still dividing the country with race and identity politics. They are responsible for the Trail of Tears, opposed Women's Suffrage, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Law, promoted the Jim Crow Laws, and created the KKK. They were always on the wrong side of history. They were always the villains of American society, although they deny it, attempt to hide their past, and claim that their opponents are actually doing what they do.

Ok, let's take a perfect example of how through your cherry-picking chicanery you completely miss the forest for the trees. The 1964 Civil Rights Law.

It wasn't a Democrat versus Republican thing. It was a Southern versus Northern States thing. Not to mention it was started by JFK and pushed very hard by LBJ.

Here's a breakdown of the vote (Take note of how "Northern" & "Southern" States are defined):



Notice anything jumping out at you in RED?

By region
Note that "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[32]

See this:

House
Northern: 90% Yes
Southern: 92% No

Senate
Northern: 92% Yes
Southern: 95% No

Lastly:

House
Southern Democrats: 91% No
Southern Republicans: 100% No

Senate
Southern Democrats: 95% No
Southern Republicans: 100% No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

See, a Southern versus Northern thing through and through - Not a Rebub versus Dem thing. Pretty clear. If you actually want to call out a party, curious too that 100% of Southern Republicans in both chambers voted NO. At least a few Dems in the South were a YES. Can't say that for the Southern Repubs, now can we?

Quote from: Shifter on October 07, 2021, 09:05:00 PM

Americans are so binary

If you're a repug you must think 'x' and if you're a dem you must think 'y'

It evades their logic if a repug could think differently to their group think and vice versa

So dumb

This is actually true in a great number of countries... but way to lean into nationalism in a debate about authoritarianism.

Well over here many people hold views that align with Liberal, Labour and Green parties. And no one is like 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality.

For example if a repug says something slightly progressive, they are disowned and called RINOs.

I guess the fact that Australians are less religious and that many people who identify with religion don't actively 'practice' it (eg going to church every Sunday) is another reason we are more chill and less fundamentalist

Oh for god's sake, no. 209 in the 90's was sort of a crafty way of getting rid of affirmative action. Again, affirmative action is a highly debate-able construct. I get that.
16 removed the language that prevented affirmative action and defaults to the federal guidelines regarding affirmative action.

It simply doesn't matter what the racist intentions were. Does affirmative action involve discrimination of people by their race?

If yes, then it is racist.

It wasn't a Democrat versus Republican thing. It was a Southern versus Northern States thing. Not to mention it was started by JFK and pushed very hard by LBJ.

It was Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Law. It doesn't matter that they were mostly southern Democrats. They were Democrats. The Democrats stood in the way of racial equality.

Your "southern Democrats" who worked against civil rights included then-Senator and future-President Lyndon B. Johnson who worked to remove protections from the civil rights laws:

Johnson is noted as watering down civil rights laws here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07343468909507929?journalCode=uctp20

While the Civil Rights Rights Act of 1957 failed to provide adequate protection for black voters, its passage reflected the intensity with which President Eisenhower could function–contrary to popular and uninformed opinion–as a master politician. Despite his political skills, however, Eisenhower met his match in Majority leader Lyndon Johnson. The Texan's capable and forceful leadership was essential in securing passage of the Civil Rights Act. At the same time, Johnson was responsible for the elimination of the bill's most effective provisions. The watered-down version that was finally passed reflected Johnson's desires more than Eisenhower's wishes.

Johnson is also noted as watering down laws here:

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-Civil-Rights-Act-of-1957/

Under the direction of Senate Majority Leader and future President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the House bill which removed stringent voting protection clauses.

Your excuse making of the 'southern Democrats' is mirrored by USA Today, who admits that the Democrats stood in the way of racial equality -

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact-check-democrats-hold-senate-filibuster-record-75-days-1964/3228935001/

It is true that the Democrats hold the record for the longest filibuster. But there are a couple of aspects of the exact claim that are false or misleading. It wasn't 75 days long; it lasted only 60 days. And there should be a distinction made in exactly who was blocking the bill. The majority of Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act were from Southern states; some Democrats in non-Southern states did support the bill.

The filibuster ended with a 14 hour long speech by Senator Robert C. Boyd, an exalted cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, who later became Democratic Conference secretary (1967-1971), whip (1971-1977), and leader (1977-1989).

If the racist southerners were somehow a scourge on the otherwise good ethics of the Democratic party, why didn't the party disavow them? Why not kick out the racists who filibustered the law? Why didn't the party break in two? To the contrary, the racists were given a pass and Johnson and Byrd went on to become leaders of the Democrat Party.

A ranking member of the KKK and a filibusterer of the Civil Rights Act became a leader of the Democrat Party.

Incredible!

Lyndon Johnson himself experienced subsequent success in the party and among Democrats, became President, passed the Civil Rights bill, and is quoted as continuing his tirade of racism.

From the earlier video posted on the last page:



The source in the corner of the image says it comes from Ronald Kessler, Inside the White House, 1995, p.33. His championing and passing of a civil rights act does not appear to be too genuine if he was doing it so that blacks would vote Democrat.

The following is a recording of Lyndon Johnson complaining about too many n*****s voting in Texas:



If a significant portion of your party is racist then you are complicit as well. The behavior of the Democrat party members is an incurable stain on it, regardless of who the bad actors are.

I would be embarrassed if a significant portion of an organization I was a part of wanted racism or had a history of racism. I would not associate with that organization. By joining the Democrat party you complicity choose to turn a blind eye and associate with a party who stood for slavery, sexism, and racial inequality. Rather horrendous.

Lyndon Johnson, the Civil Rights hero:

The Intolerant, 'Tolerant' Party -

 https://books.google.com/books?id=whE6DwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA29&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most of America still is racist. So WTF is your point?

It simply doesn't matter what the racist intentions were. Does affirmative action involve discrimination of people by their race?

If yes, then it is racist.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.  Or, in this case, fight racism with racism in order to help level the playing field.

Equality is dumb because not everyone is on the same level.

Quote from: Stash

Oh for god's sake, no. 209 in the 90's was sort of a crafty way of getting rid of affirmative action. Again, affirmative action is a highly debate-able construct. I get that.
16 removed the language that prevented affirmative action and defaults to the federal guidelines regarding affirmative action.

It simply doesn't matter what the racist intentions were. Does affirmative action involve discrimination of people by their race?

If yes, then it is racist.

Whatever, you're never going to get it. Only the daft and Fascists see things in black and white. This is a gray scale of balancing equity/equality against discrimination across races. You have no idea how nuanced the world can be. Good luck with that.

Quote

It wasn't a Democrat versus Republican thing. It was a Southern versus Northern States thing. Not to mention it was started by JFK and pushed very hard by LBJ.

It was Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Law. It doesn't matter that they were mostly southern Democrats. They were Democrats. The Democrats stood in the way of racial equality.

Again, yeah it does matter. And anyone who thinks it wasn't a Southern versus Northern thing and races toward a Dem versus Repub thing is, well, an idiot and can't see the numbers in front their face.

House
Northern: 90% Yes
Southern: 92% No

Senate
Northern: 92% Yes
Southern: 95% No

House
Southern Democrats: 91% No
Southern Republicans: 100% No

Senate
Southern Democrats: 95% No
Southern Republicans: 100% No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Do you not see the numbers in front of you or are they too complex for you? It looks like you can only choose blindness or idiocy. Pick your poison.

Tom is an authoritarian.
Prove me wrong.

Tom is an authoritarian.
Prove me wrong.

You watch out, as A sTorM iS cOmING

I should be authoritarian right now 

Tom Bishop is correct on all his points. Affirmative action was the start of reversed racism and now of course under Biden we have a full blown racial socialism. I hope you folks are smart enough to understand what I mean by racial socialism.

Anyways of course the left is the most authoritarian with biggest dictators being Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao and the rest of Communist party dictators. Today the liberal America is the most authoritarian, starting with cancel culture and now with parents being labeled as domestic terrorists. Under Biden speaking against the state is basically illegal. With the help of facebook and other social media liberal have achieved total ideological supremacy and control over the population. People are getting fired from their jobs just because they exercise free speech. We don't even have too many comedians or comedy movies anymore because liberals banned humor. America is rapidly becoming a dictatorship and anyone who argues against this is a damn fool.

I totally agree with you, New Earth.

How do we stop this?

At this point I believe only the second American revolution will stop this which I do not see happening soon. We tried voting and look what the left did? They took our votes and threw them in the big garbage can and gave the election to Biden LOL

At this point I believe only the second American revolution will stop this which I do not see happening soon. We tried voting and look what the left did? They took our votes and threw them in the big garbage can and gave the election to Biden LOL

I think you mean a Civil War.

Tom Bishop is correct on all his points. Affirmative action was the start of reversed racism and now of course under Biden we have a full blown racial socialism. I hope you folks are smart enough to understand what I mean by racial socialism.

Anyways of course the left is the most authoritarian with biggest dictators being Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao and the rest of Communist party dictators. Today the liberal America is the most authoritarian, starting with cancel culture and now with parents being labeled as domestic terrorists. Under Biden speaking against the state is basically illegal. With the help of facebook and other social media liberal have achieved total ideological supremacy and control over the population. People are getting fired from their jobs just because they exercise free speech. We don't even have too many comedians or comedy movies anymore because liberals banned humor. America is rapidly becoming a dictatorship and anyone who argues against this is a damn fool.

I'm not sure those people would be considered "left".  While Communism is considered very left, communism and dictatorships are not one in the same.  One is an economic system, the other is a form of government.
You also failed to include people such as Musilini, Hitler, saddam hussain, the Ayatollah in Iran, Erdoğan, etc...

https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/
Here's a neat list of dictators.  You'll notice most are in Africa and the middle east.  Which are not communist.

At this point I believe only the second American revolution will stop this

You want to kick the British out?  Again?!?

Well, I'm down for it.  How does one start this revolution?

At this point I believe only the second American revolution will stop this

What exactly does that look like?

Do the red states secede from the blue states and ethnically cleanse the liberals?

Or do the rural areas secede from the major cities?

Would it a reasonable compromise if Joe Biden offered to relocate conservatives to a place more in line with their values, like maybe Afghanistan?

Stop asking questions and make sure your bayonet is sharp.

I was listening to Russian political program the other day and most expert there agree that U.S. states will secede in a near future. I also agree with this, I honestly don't see any other way. Even small states like Vermont now has strong independence movement, I'm not even talking about huge movements like Texas and California. And its not only conservative states that want to secede, liberal states do too, like in the case of California, they no longer want to be living in the same country with Tennessee or Alabama. This country is too divided politically, economically and socially, as a matter of fact much more then before the Civil War. Like I said I do not see a bloody revolution happening on a national scale precisely because the nation is not on the same page. But yes in the next 10 years you will see U.S. split into at least 7 different countries or even more.

States may not get along but even the most staunch repugnican is not going to secede from America. It would be economical suicide and only lead to worse outcome for the residents

You'd need a new currency, passport and establish trade relationships with a country who would not hold you in high esteem - even if the seceding was legal.

What about defense? You'd need your own defense force - hardware too. How much of all the fighter jets and naval destroyers, tanks etc belong to the 'new country'? How much can you be self reliant? With industry, fuel, oil and food production?

For a state to secede would not be legal. I imagine America (if states did this) would immediately sanction them. And threaten any other country with sanctions if they traded with them. Basically make life so impossible to be their own country, they would give up or not even attempt it

The new country might also lose a fair chunk of its populous as they go to where the grass is greener.

So while the repugnicans talk tough, they will never follow through with it because it would be suicide. They are just pandering to the lowest common denominators, stirring up rage to drum up votes from plebs who dont know shit about how their own country works

Eh... If enough states band together to seceed, it could work.  Especially if it was done peacefully.

The problem is that after all is said and done, importing would become an issue.
Ex: Texas has lots of cows but not so much wheat.  Or technology firms.  So all that would need to be imported snd if they have to get it from the "enemy" well... Expect high tarrifs with a massive cost increase. 

Secession is probably not an option no matter what. Lincoln's reasons against allowing secession probably still hold somewhat true today:

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:

1. Physically the states cannot separate.
2. Secession is unlawful.
3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.
4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.
5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm

A really interesting Op-ed in the New York Times, circa 1860!:

Why not let South Carolina Secede?
"There are just two ways in which secession or disunion can be effected; -- one is by Revolution, which involves war as a matter of course; and the other is by an amendment of the Constitution. As that instrument now stands, peaceful secession is impossible, -- not because it would contravene any specific provision or prohibition which it contains, but because it would abrogate and emasculate the entire Constitution. For if one State can secede peacefully, another may -- and till may. One may go because her slave property is not protected; another because her cotton manufactures are not protected; a third because the national debt weighs too heavily upon her, -- and so forth. For any reason they may choose to allege, or for no reason at all, all the States would be at perfect liberty to sever the bonds which hold them together, and dissolve the Union into its original elements. This is absurd. No construction of the Constitution which permits such a proceeding has any basis in common sense."
https://www.nytimes.com/1860/11/13/archives/why-not-let-south-carolina-secede.html

The thing about secession is that it isn't red state vs blue state.  It's the major cities vs the countryside.  So if say Utah were to secede and presumably join the New Confederacy then I'm sure all the hillbillies would be all for it but Salt Lake City which is majority Democrat would have something to say about it.

If you somehow could put together states that were all red or all blue then you'd have another problem where for some reason a lot of professions skew sharply in one direction or another. 

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

For example, soldiers tend to skew republican.  But the engineers that make their equipment are usually democrats.

Precisely, and natural resources too. California has been tempted to carve out (Secession) and/or carve up (multiple states) for decades. The last I remember was a 6 state initiative:



But the proposed coastal states get their water and agg from the proposed central & northern states. Shipping and tech all comes from the coastal states...Not to mention all of the good weed would have to come from Jefferson State due North...A mess for sure.

This is a great article that sort of gets to the authoritarianism on the left https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/that-one-side-would-like-to-utterly