Is anyone else scared?

jayem said:

Strictly speaking, Pres. Obama is half black. As is our Vice President-elect. It took a while, but the US is taking steps toward the time when the race of a chief executive is totally a non-issue. Which is more than Europe has done. Have any of the EU nations had a black, or mixed race President or PM?

Click to expand...

Given that Europe is about 2% black, no unsurprisingly. Ireland recently had an Prime Minister of Indian origin, however. The UK has had a number of Asians in the second most powerful role, although none have made it to the PM job yet. Currently of the top 4 jobs in the UK government, 2 are filled by people of Asian descent. I don't know about the other countries around Europe.

Kentonio said:

Given that Europe is about 2% black, no unsurprisingly. Ireland recently had an Prime Minister of Indian origin, however. The UK has had a number of Asians in the second most powerful role, although none have made it to the PM job yet. Currently of the top 4 jobs in the UK government, 2 are filled by people of Asian descent. I don't know about the other countries around Europe.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Lord Mayor of London is also south asian and King Henry VIII was an obese man.

JackRT said:

I believe that the Lord Mayor of London is also south asian and King Henry VIII was an obese man.

Click to expand...

As I recall, the Lord Mayor is mostly a ceremonial office. It only applies to the City of London. Which is a 2 square mile district of Greater London. It’s the financial center of the UK. But it has it’s own mayor and police force. A city within a city. Imagine if Wall Street was considered to be a separate city surrounded by the rest of NYC. Weird, but that’s the tradition. The person you’re thinking of is the Mayor of London. Who’s the chief executive of the entire greater London region and has far more political authority. That’s Sadiq Khan. Who was born in London to a British Pakistani family. And is a Muslim.

Henry VIII was fat. But he had 6 wives. And he wore a cool codpiece.

Aldebaran said:

What does that prove? Blacks are a minority, so they're going to be in the minority in the Senate as well.

Click to expand...

What does that prove? Black Americans make up 13% of the population. In the history of the US going as far back as 1790 the percentage has been as high as 19.3% (1790) and never below 9.7% (1930). Yet despite making up between 10-20% of the US population, they have only ever had 10 senators. Out of 1984 in total.

Even now when you seemingly imagine racism is a thing of the past, they only have 6% of senate seats despite making up 13% of the population.

High Fidelity said:

Taxpayer money has and always will go towards some things that individuals disagree on.

I imagine a lot of people are against the U.S. intervening around the world militarily and would rather their tax dollars weren't going towards munitions dropped on foreign lands.

Should we stop taxpayer money going to the military?

If you're prepared to cut welfare and rely on charity, which is a very common argument, then why not try that with the military first. I'm sure given how charitable Republican voters appear to be if they're prepared to absorb billions in social security government spending themselves that they wouldn't mind funding the military too.

Click to expand...

Funding the military is in our Constitution. The continued debate on the helping vs. hurting of the Welfare State comes down to Constitutionality as well as feasibility. In our Preamble, the verb is promote whereas in Article I Section 8 it says provide for the "General Welfare"...now what that means is debated and still not clearly defined by case law (in some cases it's in the context of the welfare of the states, in others it's the people of the states, etc etc). In either sense, the verb provide for the "defence" is in both sections. Clearly, it is the duty of a federal government to defend the country from it's enemies via funding of a federal military. The debate of how much funding is necessary to achieve adequate security is one worth having.

Anyway, I'm not scared...but genuinely concerned regarding this election and it's outcome either way.

If Biden does win, I think he is surely to be used to usher in some very socialist and authoritarian agendas; or to be shoved aside and let Harris take his place to do what she really wants to do.

If Trump wins, especially under such media outpouring of congratulation for Biden's purported "win" that the rioting we've experience over the past 6 months will look like an episode of Mr. Rogers by comparison. Could it be a full blown attempt at a real revolution? I hope not!

98cwitr said:

If Biden does win, I think he is surely to be used to usher in some very socialist and authoritarian agendas;

Click to expand...

He has won and thinking a centrist Democrat with a narrow house majority and a Republican senate is going to implement socialism, or much of anything, is delusional.

Aldebaran said:

It was interesting how businesses had to board up their shops in preparation for riots on election day, but then they took the boards down when it looked like Biden was going to win. It goes to show who we really need to be afraid of.

On election day, I was a poll worker. I commented to a fellow worker there how I hoped the rioting won't be too bad. She seemed offended at that and said, "It wouldn't be those on the Left who would do that! It's the Trump people that would riot!".

Well, we didn't riot. But if Trump wins his legal battles for the presidency, just watch what happens, and who does the rioting. It will be the same folks who did it recently under the banner of "black lives matter", who I doubt are "Trump people".

Click to expand...

He’s currently 1-28 in terms of his legal battles and the one he did win was fairly minor. I wouldn’t waste much energy on hoping for the courts to save him, especially as Giuliani is mostly just embarrassing himself daily by this point.

Aldebaran said:

Would you rather discuss the riots? Ok, let's talk about BLM and the riots they started and how many people died as a result. Let's talk about their threats of riots if Trump were to win the election (and how they no doubt will do it again if Trump wins in court).

Click to expand...

Yes, I know you’re eager to discuss the riots. It’s an opportunity for you to place yourself morally above the people who are pushing for human rights. You don’t do much to that end yourself, but at least you’re not destroying property and brawling in the streets, right? Their cause can’t be noble because they’re breaking things to advance it.
Everything you’re saying about the BLM movement was also said about MLK and the civil rights protests back in the 1960’s. Conservatives need some new material. You keep finding yourselves on the wrong side of history.

Aldebaran said:

Am I wrong to assume that black people would rather be known for their actions and character rather than their skin color? Yet black people make "history" by simply doing something while black now.

Click to expand...

This question came out of nowhere and I must again point out the contempt it exudes. Social, economic, and political achievements are more momentous and remarkable when black people make them because they generally start out in life with fewer advantages and opportunities than the mean of the overall population. Uphill battles are harder to win than level ones. Therefore, when a black person reaches a historical level of achievement, it’s ostensibly a sign that either the playing field is beginning to level out, or the black achiever is a truly remarkable person (usually it’s some combination of the two), both of which are worth celebrating more than the banal continuation of white high achievement.
Just like you, I yearn for a day when no mention of skin color is made when someone succeeds. The sooner we can even the playing field, the sooner this will happen. Funny enough, that’s what BLM and the left at large are pushing for. It’s bizarre that you’re so staunchly against them.

Aldebaran said:

Also, we have TV shows now vowing to make sure at least 50% of their cast members are "of color" now. Pointing out the wrongness of this is now racist.
CBS Vows 50 Percent of Its Reality-Show Contestants Will Be People of Color.

Click to expand...

What’s wrong with it, exactly? Do you want big government to take over a private business’s casting decisions?

Aldebaran said:

Well, you're the one who just asked me why I didn't address the riots.
You can sit on your moral high horse talking about pushing for human rights, as if scoring a free TV and pair of sneakers from the local Walmart you're looting counts toward that. Or is it more in line with the hair salon your "human rights" people burned down? Or the old guy they smashed the skull in with a brick? Hard to tell.

Click to expand...

You picked riots out of a long list of things I had addressed that weren’t your obvious racism. If you don’t want to talk about them anymore, you can pick another topic. Meanwhile, if you’re concerned about private losses and civilian casualties, welcome to the fight, comrade. Here on the left, we believe poverty is a main cause of social ills such as theft, looting, and riots. In order to minimize poverty (and thus these social ills), we believe it is important to invest collectively in education, healthcare, and other public assets. People don’t riot if they feel they can be effectively heard by other means.

Aldebaran said:

Now it's you who's showing them contempt. Why are you so eager to place black people at a lower standard and expect less of them unless they have white people holding their hand?

Click to expand...

The only contempt I have is for people like you, who pretend that the economic playing field is already level, effectively preventing themselves from ever becoming class-conscious. You’re in the way of those of us working to make the world a better place.

Aldebaran said:

What's wrong with it is that people are being chosen or rejected based on the color of their skin. But I'm glad you mentioned MLK earlier. He's the one who dreamed of a day when we wouldn't be doing such things. Now we're doing them and actually bragging about it as if it was suddenly noble.

Click to expand...

Appearance is a completely valid criterion by which to determine casting. Or would you rather a movie be made about MLK, played by a white man?

Aldebaran said:

Quit listening to what the MSM tells you. I heard the press conference that the Press didn't want you to hear (and Facebook even censored people for trying to carry it in their newsfeed). Plenty of evidence was presented, but the Press lied about it.
Wait until it gets to the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Which particular claim do you think is going to reach SCOTUS?

ximmix said:

Trump as we all know can't handle losing, what damage do you think Trump will cause out of spite until January?

Click to expand...

Most all the world might well be scared. They have no assurance of anyone watching out for their good, for their welfare, based on reliable testimony - one day they are fine, the next day poof, gone. (without any regard nor knowledge of usa politics, etc) .

Whenever anyone finds the peace and the joy of God's Kingdom, poof!, no more fear nor anxiety... probably rarely seen in most places, but always true.