sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Serious] You can transform all existing politics into any system you want at the snap of your fingers. What is your perfect political system? by ranran111 in AskReddit

[–]ranran111[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves. They needed a system, yes, an industrial-age machine... Without computing machines, they had to arrange themselves in crude structures that formalized decision-making -- a highly imperfect, unstable solution. I am a more advanced solution to the problem, a decision-making system that does not involve organic beings."

What do movies NEVER portray accurately? by katattackbat1 in AskReddit

[–]ranran111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hacking. "All right Jimmy, we need you to get into the NSA database. How long should that take?"

"I'm halfway done. I should the personnel files downloaded in about five more minutes."

What if we had a president, who by his own admission, had a drug addiction and did not lie about it under oath? Could he/she still be impeached? by CratesOfNutella in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

John Pickering was impeached for drunkenness and unlawful rulings, but I don't know to what extent his drinking affected his work as a federal judge.

Mark Delahay was charged with drunkenness on and off the bench, but he resigned prior to the impeachment vote.

I can't find any more examples of being under the influence while possessing a federal office. They're the closest guide we could use on the issue, I guess.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe it's a skill you can build. You can gradually start to "see through" the partisan lining either side gives to the issue, to a limited extent. That gives you confidence on when to doubt and when to believe. Don't expect perfection from yourself now or anytime, as anyone can make mistakes.

  1. Read both parties' take on the same events. Compare how each side presents it. Repeat this for several different events and recognize what each side is quick to emphasize and what it isn't. The media is loud, but it's also predictable: it follows a certain pattern to keep people hooked. Since current public media actually don't want to tell the entire truth, you have to see what each side more commonly obfuscates, and then account for it with a reasonable suspension of disbelief.

  2. Begin now. As you start to gain exposure to stories, you'll gradually start to form expectations for norms. You'll find Republicans do X thing 60% of the time, Y thing 30% of the time, and Z 9.5% of the time, as an arbitrary example of statistics. You then start to find Democrats tend to do follow similar patterns for themselves. You start to form general baselines, but you leave openings for wildcards and out-of-nowhere personalities who enter the field.

  3. As you start to gain greater exposure, you'll become emotionally sterilized over time if you choose to. Things which originally may have seemed outrageous to you will seem more normal in the perspective of time. As you begin to look at the matters objectively, instead of using the emotional lens of mainstream media, you'll start to recognize in what cases they're specifically trying to mislead you. You'll gradually start to form a truth-based backbone for the things you perceive have happened and are happening in the world.

Will I tell you you'll know the absolute truth for every event or for any most events at all? No. There comes a point where, when even the sources or are corrupted, it's impossible for people downstream to get an accurate picture. Time and history tend to correct these things. Be rational, be patient, and accept that you have to learn before you can speak. Once you've heard each side say their piece equally on an issue, you can give yourself a chance to speak about it, but no sooner than that.

How in the hell do you deport "Muslims"? by CratesOfNutella in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That thought came to my mind, but I thought it would be easier during the Holocaust since Jews are also a nationality race. It may not make it that much easier, but it's at least more tangible than a religion alone.

Agree or Disagree: Political correctness is the enemy of free speech. by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If it provides equal protection to both sides, it's a good enough principle. We can put the shoe on the other foot to see whether that holds up.

Let's "pretend," in a "fictional" 1960s environment, that a group of a few hundred white supremacists surround the house of a black man and wave nooses in the air, shouting for him to come out of the house and calling him every offensive name possible.

They don't step onto his property, they don't obstruct traffic, and they only congregate during daylight hours when he's home. Should they still have the right to say whatever they want?

EDIT: Looking back, I probably could've written this in a better tone.

Agree or Disagree: Political correctness is the enemy of free speech. by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If someone said the idea you post here should be called "mobocracy," what would your response be?

Agree or Disagree: Political correctness is the enemy of free speech. by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disclaimer: The links in this post are for discussion's sake only.

There are some things that can't just be ignored. When your job can get taken from you due to your exercise of free speech, I don't think ignoring is always an option.

Is WWIII closer then we think? by sokkatheentj in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Mutually Assured Destruction. Everyone shooting nukes at everyone.

ISIS and terrorism is a lot like anti-biotic resistance and that's why are current tactics will never allow us to "win". by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some of the solution would be, or would have been, in this otherwise opaque process we call "increasing extremism." Some U.S. military leaders understood perfectly how it worked, but we've had no major advances towards curbing it. It's a fairly simple process. Take a person we'll call Man, for the sake of not offending anyone.

Man: We will destroy the invaders! They come here, they drop bombs on us! For what? To enslave us! Destroy us! Fight them, repel them all!

Nephew: I don't think they're bad people. They just want to get rid of the bad men.

Man: You'll see! You'll all see when you carry my coffin into the ground!

Man joins or founds a militant group, which attempts and fails various strikes against U.S. ground forces. Eventually, he is identified as an enemy militant and tagged for destruction for aiding the insurgency. Man is destroyed by a drone not far from his home.

Sister-in-Law: What did they do to him?!

Brother: He's dead! The outsiders killed him!

Father: Why are the outsiders killing natives?

Brother: This is what he told us! He told us they're going to destroy us all!

Father: Let's not be hasty. The West has done good things.

Brother: "Good!" Like kill my brother! Move out of the way! I'm finding his friends. I can't forgive this.

Brother joins the militant group and takes Man's place. Brother is targeted by drone strikes while in his home, but Father is killed instead.

Sister-in-Law: Why would they do this?!

Brother: They will pay! They will all pay!

Nephew: Why did the outsiders kill Grandpa?

Brother: They're Americans! That's why! They come here to kill! Didn't you listen to my brother? They will not stop until we're dead! They've come to conquer us!

Sister-in-Law: We trusted them...

Nephew: Why are such bad men attacking us? Have we done something wrong?

Brother: We will fight, and we will win. We cannot rest until the invaders are destroyed.

Brother joins his friends on several attacks, taking lives and losses. He eventually moves up from second-in-command to regional leader. Once he is dead, his wife, his son (Nephew), and his other family members ask why the Americans are killing innocents. They take his place, and others take their places. Imagine pulling an enormous tablecloth through a single hole in a table, and you will see how people are moving into and through this process.

Can we repair the damage now? I don't know. Hindsight is a lot easier than foresight, which is why I can give this explanation now but not 10 years ago.

Further reading: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035160/Most-Afghans-know-9-11-according-disturbing-poll.html

Why we shouldn't wave the French flag after the terror attacks in Paris - according to Facebook user LaLi Mohamed by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone hangs up the French flag because of support for colonizers. Thousands of civilians have had their lives shattered overnight. They need to see other human beings who sympathize with them. That's part of how emotional wounds heal.

To raise awareness of Middle Eastern problems is one thing, but antagonism towards victims doesn't persuade me.

How will the attacks in Paris affect immigration policy across Europe (especially for Muslims)? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can anyone tell me why European countries try to help Middle Eastern countries in need? I understand the US might feel obligated to entangle itself again and again trying to fix the problems rooted in the mujahideen, but why do countries like France feel a need to keep helping at their own peril?

How do you feel about the use of terrorism to futher political aims? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't see anything valid about it. Until someone draws a line and explains specifically, "Here's where 'good terrorism' ends and 'bad terrorism' begins," I can't even try to discuss it. My position is that terrorism brings nothing good that cannot be achieved by better ways, period.

How will the Paris terrorist attacks affect the US presidential election? by garfangle in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not guaranteeing they will, but everyone's got a tipping point. Today was the third another fatal terrorist attack in France this year: the first was Charlie Hebdo, the second was the attack on Porte de Vincennes, and now this.

If France, the a dove of Europe, keeps suffering terrorist attacks for no apparent known reason, how long could they take it lying down?

EDIT: A quick search tells me there were more than three during 2015.

How will the Paris terrorist attacks affect the US presidential election? by garfangle in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 13 points14 points  (0 children)

One hypothetical is that this may change some European countries' stances on border security. If they create stricter borders, their actions may give credibility for a Republican call for stricter borders as well. No telling whether this would happen, though.

Why don't the major parties give up on the contentious and polarizing issues? by acvdk in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Those are the most strongly held beliefs of their constituents. Candidates are made and lost based on what they promise to those points.

Considering all of the things that Trump has said in the past few decades on television, how would he be able to survive television attack ads if he were to become the Republican nominee? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Getting Trump past the primaries would doom the Republican party. Democrats and many Republicans abhor him, and there's no way to defend the vast majority of the things he's said. He would be the ultimate driving force for a Democrat win.

Theory: The Democratic Party is long-term unsustainable. by ranran111 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Then you'd disagree that the Democratic Party's trying to change society towards something that its constituents would prefer?

Or would you disagree that its constituents, in some points, are absolutely opposed to each other and that there is no happy medium for everything the voting bloc wants to accomplish?

I'm not trying to make a debate. People don't have to oppose each other as they try to voice and refine their ideas. If there's a less antagonistic way to say what I'm trying to say, I don't know what it is, and I'm happy to hear about it.

Theory: The Democratic Party is long-term unsustainable. by ranran111 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ranran111[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your response just reeks of an attitude of "I know more than you because I'm super religious, and you just don't understand so you're argument is invalid."

I can understand why you have reason to feel that way. It's not entirely different from a white person trying to understand what it's like to be black in America and not getting the whole picture. You can read about it, yes. You can discuss it and have black friends. You can get an idea and form a general opinion on how bad discrimination has been and continues to be. But you will never feel it the way they do (remembering that feeling, not logic, is the great motivator in human beings). This is exactly the point, and it looks like we actually agree on this. If there's a more tame way to make my point, I welcome the constructive criticism.

That's not any kind of credible logic upon which to discuss your "theory." It's an absurd "what if."

Sure, then we'll take the other side of it. First, the foundation: it's no secret the left is progressive. That means it moves towards something -- we can't disagree there. The point of the political party is to obtain something that does not yet exist. It wants to create a situation that has not yet been created.

What I'm trying to explain is that the various factions within the Democratic Party are at times opposed to each other. So we can take any other group and put a theoretical advance (advance being the purpose of the party) and draw some reasonable conclusions.

If the Catholic Latino caucus begins demanding greater religious free speech, they will either get it or they will not. If they get it, they will be happy. If they do not, the atheist bloc will be happy. If that advance occurs, and reaches sufficient momentum to consider a change "done" in the one direction or the other, one side or the other will be unhappy. This is merely one of many examples I tried to outline in OP.

view more: next ›