American Authoritarianism

[Laika]

I read the OP. I just think you are taking your side of controversial issues as the correct side and then calling them evidence of American Authoritarianism. I think each of those example subjects you bring out have the other side of the coin that makes the issue not so clear-cut and need to be discussed as separate subjects. Basically, I personally disagree with anti-Americanism and the claim of Authoritarianism. .

You are very welcome to argue against the OP or to add qualifications to it based on the complexity of the issues if you wish.

I really just wanted to highlight the issue and get people talking about it as I think it's important. I felt there was a danger of certain things getting left out of the media in the midst of the election cycle turning everything into a Trump vs Clinton problem.

the accusation of anti-Americanism doesn't bother me that much.

 

[Acim]

Hey everyone,

Whilst the US election campign is on going, I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus on the forum that America's drift to Authoritarianism is a bad thing. This is something that transcends the two party system and should make people think about the sort of country they want to live in.

Face it: both Trump and Clinton will not curtail the powers of the executive or work to overturn legislation which undermines Americans civil liberties. Whether Trumps Muslim immigration ban and demands for surviallance of Mosques or Clintons hawkish foreign policy credentials, the two party system has failed to address this issue.

For me, Hillary's (and Dem's) allegiance to federal regulations is more troublesome from authoritarian angle than the war stuff. Trump is running on idea that he'll cut those regulations. I consider that wishful thinking. Possible he could cut some, but states can still do the same. I do think though that he could appoint people to federal positions that won't add more, though even that is debatable. I do think Trump's appointees would add less than Hillary's.

Federal regulations do transcend the 2 party system, but I within last 3 years became hyper aware of how onerous they've become. They clearly are designed to curtail freedom, under the guise of 'protection.' Same goes with the war stuff. Can argue all of what that is pushing for (i.e. Patriot Act) under guise of 'security.'

But as much as the regulations transcend the 2 parties, I do see each side wanting their own versions of (additional) regulations. Of the ones I'm aware of (or choose to be aware of), I find the Dem ones more troublesome. Not that I think all the Pub ones are wonderful and ought to be ignored, I just think the Dem ones are more troublesome.

 

[George-ananda]

the accusation of anti-Americanism doesn't bother me that much.

Well sorry if that term is offensive to you and you consider it an allegation. Perhaps if you had just added a question mark at the end of the title, my guard wouldn't be so high.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Freedom - is a personal choice Folks -always has been... It can be attained - EASILY - Iam the living proof - totally free

No one, no where, at no time, has ever been totally free.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's obvious you're wrong. I know that because I know that.

Nah...you know I'm right.
(Dogs always fall for a politician promising treats.)

 

[sun rise]

Nah...you know I'm right.
(Dogs always fall for a politician promising treats.)

Dogs are smarter than people. They might eat the treat but they don't believe anything that's said. The only thing that matters is performance. People are dumb because they believe promises.

 

[tytlyf]

For me, Hillary's (and Dem's) allegiance to federal regulations is more troublesome from authoritarian angle than the war stuff. Trump is running on idea that he'll cut those regulations.

Please tell us which regulations (safety laws) and how that affects you.

 

[sun rise]

Please tell us which regulations (safety laws) and how that affects you.

The regulations conservatives and libertarians want to get rid of on the federal level seem to be those that ensure that the water is pure, the air is clean, safe food is sold, medicines have be effective and so forth.

There are regulations I find objectionable but those are on the state and local level but that's another discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

The regulations conservatives and libertarians want to get rid of on the federal level seem to be those that ensure that the water is pure, the air is clean, safe food is sold, medicines have be effective and so forth.

There are regulations I find objectionable but those are on the state and local level but that's another discussion.

Dogs are not only gullible, they also fail to understand what libertarians want.

 

[sun rise]

Dogs are not only gullible, they also fail to understand what libertarians want.

There are so many kinds of libertarians that the differences rival the differences between UUs and Catholics.

 

[Laika]

Well sorry if that term is offensive to you and you consider it an allegation. Perhaps if you had just added a question mark at the end of the title, my guard wouldn't be so high.

The existence of american blacksites whose prisoners are not subject to US juristiction and therefore the US constitution and the bill of rights us not in doubt.

If you want to make a case for them based on the complexity of the issues you are welcome to it.

 

[Acim]

Please tell us which regulations (safety laws) and how that affects you.

I'd go with the ones on Electronic Cigarettes recently deemed by FDA for final ruling (along with cigars). Knowing the science, as I do, and the politics - I see the regulations as both unhelpful and non credible. You might want to study up on this issue if you care to discuss this with me. FDA has so overplayed its hand on this one, it literally shows up as anti-science the position they have taken. I fully believe HRC admin will support those regulations and feel there's around 70% chance that Trump would roll them back, as there is currently grace period for next 2 years before proverbial hammer could come down. If Trump wins in November, I see Obama admin trying to force the hammer to come down sooner.

The how it affects me (and around 9 million others) is that it is without a doubt the best method, arguably ever, to greatly reduce smoking. For most (that I'm aware of), it leads to cessation. For me, it has allowed for moderation, and I know I could quit at any time (if you doubt this I very much welcome further discussion). I enjoy being moderate smoker and there is no other item in existence that allows the transition from abusive smoking to moderate/non-smoking as eCigs.

The regulations and how onerous they are have lead me to a whole lot of beliefs / updated thoughts on science and credibility of federal agencies (i.e. FDA). When HRC says "I believe in science," I find that not believable given what I'm around 98% sure is her likely position on eCigs and regulations for them. I would very much like if I'm mistaken on her position (and she too would instead want to roll back FDA ruling).

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Shadow Wolf;

No one, no where, at no time, has ever been totally free.

Of course they have - freedom is a STATE OF MIND Folks - it has nothing to do with the "outside world" and EVERYTHING to do with INNER Self realisation...Even with a loaded gun to your head you ARE still free if you CHOOSE to be and I know this directly - SELF REALISATION is the key to all things here in life for it all flows from the Mind - Self Created ALWAYS...Know Thy Self then, fully - and thereby become your OWN authority and there, in this act of Self remembering you have achieved your freedom, truly and fully....

But crucially - whilst still here in the world now, we must ACT on the inner Self realisation - actually CLAIM our free status and start thinking for the Self and following THAT guidance....This will often mean conflict with the world "out there" but as said, even with a gun to your head, thsoe who do indeed know their truth, remain free always... One of my favourite rock bands - Rage Against the Machine - have an album cover where a Buddhist monk - totally FREE CHOICE - douses himself in petrol, sets fire to himself in a Chinese public prttest about human rights atrocities.. He FREELY CHOSE to end his life in that manner to drws attention to their plight...Teh cover is the phioto of him burning, and a police officer shoots him dead as an act of mercy - the particular song -"bullet inthe head"......It just goes to show us as said - know thy Self - become fully aware of Who and What You ACTUALLY ARE (not a human body) - and this Self realisation brings UTTER FREEDOM always - such that even immediate death wil not dominate you any more...

 

[Revoltingest]

There are so many kinds of libertarians that the differences rival the differences between UUs and Catholics.

Or schnauzers & dobermans?

 

[tytlyf]

I'd go with the ones on Electronic Cigarettes recently deemed by FDA for final ruling (along with cigars). Knowing the science, as I do, and the politics - I see the regulations as both unhelpful and non credible. You might want to study up on this issue if you care to discuss this with me. FDA has so overplayed its hand on this one, it literally shows up as anti-science the position they have taken. I fully believe HRC admin will support those regulations and feel there's around 70% chance that Trump would roll them back, as there is currently grace period for next 2 years before proverbial hammer could come down. If Trump wins in November, I see Obama admin trying to force the hammer to come down sooner.

The how it affects me (and around 9 million others) is that it is without a doubt the best method, arguably ever, to greatly reduce smoking. For most (that I'm aware of), it leads to cessation. For me, it has allowed for moderation, and I know I could quit at any time (if you doubt this I very much welcome further discussion). I enjoy being moderate smoker and there is no other item in existence that allows the transition from abusive smoking to moderate/non-smoking as eCigs.

The regulations and how onerous they are have lead me to a whole lot of beliefs / updated thoughts on science and credibility of federal agencies (i.e. FDA). When HRC says "I believe in science," I find that not believable given what I'm around 98% sure is her likely position on eCigs and regulations for them. I would very much like if I'm mistaken on her position (and she too would instead want to roll back FDA ruling).

Ah, I get it. So e-cigs are going to be de-regulated by Trump? Is that his platform? Big Tobacco is the one pushing for regulations and getting e-cigs out of the picture. Why? Because they hurt profits. And I'd be more than willing to bet that it is republicans in congress responsible for the regulations on e-cigs.

 

[Acim]

Ah, I get it. So e-cigs are going to be de-regulated by Trump? Is that his platform? Big Tobacco is the one pushing for regulations and getting e-cigs out of the picture. Why? Because they hurt profits. And I'd be more than willing to bet that it is republicans in congress responsible for the regulations on e-cigs.

Again, read up on the topic and get back to me when you have a better understanding. Or feel free to start another thread if you'd like to discuss this, maybe increase your understanding.

I truly see this as it stands right now as example of American Authoritarianism