If one effort is to get people to think how their actions impact themselves and everyone else, and there are consequences (life threatening or some form of punishment). Then why limit that to just driving.
Also, if the issue is an attitude of "no fucks given", then they seem just as severe to me because then they might take their "no fucks" on to the road.
For now, not Republicans. Republicans (the politicians) don't care about individuals, despite what they claim, and they downright disagree with the rest of your position behind closed doors.
If we can change our voting system, then maybe I can give you better advice. Until then, game theory suggests voting Democrat.
> proud white Americans
Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.
> Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.
I cannot argue with any of this, and highlights some of my flawed thinking. I guess I thought of "white americans" as an abstraction of Americans of European decent. So I guess, I don't know the proper way to convey "Someone who is proud of their European heritage, and proud of being an American."
Do you agreed with 100% of everything that the extremist of the Democratic (>insert proper political affiliation here<) side believe in? I suspect you would agree with most of the core philosophy but may disagree on some of messaging and actions by extreme groups.
Fair. But to say something as bold as understanding someone's political motivations, and ideology based on how politicians behave doesn't seem like good faith effort to understand the other side.
Legitimate question, would it be viewed as "not extremist" if it came from another group such Libertarians, or SJWs?
Whataboutism isn't attractive. The extreme groups in the Republican party steered Congress (2010-2018, via the Freedom Caucus) and steer the Executive through Trump. That has not happened with the modern Democratic Party.
So it's Whataboutism when trying to point out others' hate? Maybe it was a bad attempt, but it was a question to show that both sides are capable of doing horrible things to each other. And that the extremists of any group probably aren't the best at accurately representing the majority's philosophical thinking. Both sides deserve the hate. I'm okay with talking about the hate, but can we be intellectually honest and say both sides have made mistakes.
That in itself doesn't necessarily mean ill intent. Someone who knows what to go after can be very useful, if they chose to utilize that knowledge.
Also, the IRS is big, the commissioner does not decide cases, however it issues policy memos, which have a large influence on enforcement. And these are usually public and or can be FOIA-ed.
So all in all, their pick is very much a political ally, and that he/she happens to be a tax specialist is just a convenient factor. (So that the man is fit to deal with IRS stuff.)
> IMO War between taxman and rich is not entirely off table in future.
Except I fear being labeled "rich" as someone in the top 1% globally but making 85k a year in the US. If you want a Russian Revolution, where the farmers were the "rich", that's how you get a Russian Revolution.
If I had to guess what OP is trying to say, what is "american", is that maybe you should have been afraid of the government before it got to this point. Which means it's possible to be better prepared by knowing your rights.
> Surely that kind of "show of force" could only be justified in response to a credible threat?
Justified, of course not, but have you ever encountered bored cops, or bullies? No matter where you go, there are always corrupt individuals, and unfortunately some of them are in positions of authority.
I don't have any knowledge one way or another, but is this true? I guess it seems like we can afford healthcare just fine, but allocating money to healthcare/education/etc is a different problem.
Agreed. I personally view Daylight Savings as being horrid for mental health reasons, and I have plenty of friends and family that feel the same. There is no hope for any of us to change that. So from my view point, if we can't discuss an issue as simple as Daylight Savings, then there's little hope for bigger issues.
Also, from a "peasants" view, we want to change, but getting that translated to actual change through the system seems impossible. It doesn't help there are legitimate differences on what solutions even looks like.
They arbitrarily removed SSRI-caused (i.e. NOT latent bipolar) as a subtype in DSM-V. The only reasoning behind this that I could find was a decision by a "round-table" of experts. Most other changes in related categories were substantiated by much more.
Also, if the issue is an attitude of "no fucks given", then they seem just as severe to me because then they might take their "no fucks" on to the road.