Which of these do you wish would have passed?

[Anonymous]

I have here a list of amendments that have never been approved. I think 1916 and 1947 would have been amazing.

[Lliam]

I'm not crazy about any of those as they are written.

I would support the original 13th Amendment. The “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (or TONA) sought to ban any American citizen from receiving any foreign title of nobility or receiving foreign favors, such as a pension, without congressional approval. The penalty was loss of citizenship.

I would also like an amendment that prevented people with dual citizenship from holding government office.
Currently, there’s no disclosure requirement in U. S. law regarding dual citizenship when running for office, and nothing specific in conflict of interest rules when running for office as a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is a tricky subject at the best of times, bringing up questions of divided loyalty.

[Asker]

Those are definitely very interesting proposals.

[Lliam]

Thanks for the MHO.

[Agape93]

1916 or 1971

[Asker]

I think the reason 1971 didn't pass is because it is very subjective because "free of pollution" is theoretically impossible to have a concrete definition and "pollution" could be as petty as not washing your dishes. These amendments were originally meant to be a freedom from government control but an amendment like this will only increase it. Then again, we have an amendment levying an income tax.

[normalice]

1933 would solve a lot of problems.

[Asker]

I think the reason this didn't pass is because this would have to apply to government officials too.

[normalice]

Indeed, and if not them then certianly the government "unofficials" (i. e. lobbyists)

[Asker]

I am not in favor of limiting how much money people can make, especially since a million dollars was worth way more back then but I think that lobbying should be criminalized.

The problem with that is that fascist governments don't give a shit about your rights and the Fascists will keep voting for the politicians who rely on these bribes to gain control of the populace.

[normalice]

a fascist government doesn't need bribes. A rich person who doesn't do what a fascist government says to do will simply accidentally fall out of a window or drink some polonium.

[Asker]

True but fascism is just the merger of corporations and the state. Even through bribes, the state decides to work together with the corporations.

[normalice]

No, you're describing communism. Fascism exists outside of the need for an economy by just taking whatever the dictator wants. When it's limited to a country that usually involves money for the purpose of dealing with other countries, but if there is ever a world dictator that wouldn't be necissary.

[Asker]

The "merger of corporation and state" is a literal quote from Mussolini so I don't know where you are pulling that other thing from.

[normalice]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. But modern fascism is more about satisfying the primal desire for political violence than siezing the means of production.

[Asker]

Seizing the means of production is socialism, of which fascism, Nazism and communism all fall under. Remove all the philosophy behind them all and you will find that the misery it causes all fall behind state control of the means of production.

Some more than others but at the very least the state has always used the services that are provided to the average person to deliver their propaganda. Just like today where we see political agendas in things like fast food advertising and movies.

[normalice]

Again, the dictionary definitions, assuming you even have them right, aren't why the people who want each thing want what they want. For example, people who are called "socialist" want faith pay, affordable housing, etc. If that isn't the definition of socialism, that's not their problem. It is the media who decided to call it socialism. Expecting them to the subscribe to all the attributes of socialism because you decided to call something else theynwere doing socialism is just making noise.

[Asker]

Fair pay and affordable housing are extremely subjective and their solutions are being implemented in a top-down fashion (socialist policies) which has done nothing but make the situation worse.

You want fair pay and affordable housing? Then stop trying to rewrite the laws of economics.

[normalice]

I'm not going to speak to that as I'm not a socialist by any definition, and so can't argue on their behalf. It was just an example. Just want to make it clear that my not arguing doesn't mean I think your summaries of socialists are accurate, either. I simply don't know. But given your tone I'd probably assume you heard your summary from someone who is against socialism, so it's probably not an objective summary. But again, I dont know. And, more importantly, just don't care enough to look into it.

To me, the top problem in this country is one side is openly endorsing political violence. Until we can get the GOP to commit to rejecting candidates that endorse political violence, that will remain the top priority.

[Asker]

No I have heard it from both pro and anti socialism. As long as the state (be it from government organizations or through corporations) has owned something they will allow you to use out of the the kindness of their heart, there will be little to nothing you can do when they inevitably use it all against you.

That was why the US has the 2nd amendment but we are foolishly giving that away too.

[normalice]

Yeah, I've never heard of that and doubt your credibility considering your egregiously false statement on the 2nd ammendment.

[Asker]

There was a reason Hitler banned private gun ownership, at least for specific groups of people, as one of the first things he did. But ok believe whatever you want.

[normalice]

I'm aware. And it simply isn't happening in the US. We have more guns that the entire rest of the world combined.

[Asker]

That's only because the 2nd amendment was the only permit someone needed to own a firearm. Now we have a ton of laws and regulations against private gun ownership (none of them are constitutional by the way) because the totalitarians see private gun ownership as a problem.

[normalice]

Right, because mass shooters became a thing. Your right to bathe in ammo just isn't important enough to supercede kids being murdered.

Anyway, there is a long distance between "I can't walk around with two 50 cals that I can point at everyone so I don't feel scared" and "I can't have any guns whatsoever." And we are much closer to the former side of that distance..

[Asker]

We have had the second amendment since the country's founding and just within the past 20 years has school shootings been a thing. Students used to take their guns to school for gun club meetings and just recently we had mass shootings. It's not the guns.

It's a long distance but the more we push the closer we would be to actually getting there. Thats why we never should have made the journey at all. The only reason we haven't gotten there yet was because people are fully aware of why we have the second amendment.

[normalice]

No one is pushing, though. Frightened jackholes who have to be able to shoot anyone in the face who makes them nervous make it pretty much impossible to do anything sensible with gun safety laws.

[normalice]

The fact is, if it had anything to do with constitutional rights, you people would be defending the entrie constitution. The sole reason you focus exclusively on the 2md ammendment, even applauding efforts to limit the others, is because you want more political violence. There is no other explanation.

[Asker]

As a libertarian, I defend the entire constitution with some exceptions like income tax.

[Asker]

Anything that expands the power of the government where it overlaps constitutional rights makes it tyrannical, that includes gun laws.

[normalice]

Only as you interpret it, of course. And your interpretation tilts towards whatever is most likely to result in political violence. Because that's what you're actually after.

[Asker]

No actually I wanted to avoid violence as much as possible, I have weapons in the hope I never have to use them but they are there in case I need to and I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of pro-2a people feel the same.

I can see you immediately pointing to J6 but I doubt that counts because it has been confirmed that there have been at least one Antifa member there who filmed the whole thing go down and sold the footage to NBC and CNN for tens of thousands of dollars. nypost.com/.../
Also either not a single gun was brought to the riot or none was fired which you'd think is suspicious for pro-gun people right?

I don't know when it is appropriate for political violence, but the way BLM and Antifa do it is batshit insanely wrong, because they only go after civilians (kind of like a certain terrorist organization heard in current events) which makes me think they are full of shit as well.

[normalice]

Wanted? Sounds like you "wanted" to avoid violence only if Trump had won and would then order the military and police to do the violence for you, in which case you could get away with not calling it violence but policing.

But now that Trump has lost, you want political violence.

[Asker]

I still want it because violence doesn't work like it did 100 years ago. You can't just take over a building through violent means anymore.

You have to have the media backing you in order to do it. The right doesn't, the left does. That's why we have politicians like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden condemning J6 day and night comparing it to 911 while they bailed out the "summer of love" rioters despite killing people, burning buildings down and even attacked the white house to the point where Trump was escorted into the bunker on May 29th 2020. On top of that, the left has done like five "insurrections" where they invaded legislative buildings to protest some issue yet the mainstream media doesn't care.

Hell, when the mass shooting done by a trans person happened. That was the first time the mainstream media legitimately defended a mass shooter trying to claim that it was understandable after all the things trans people face. But where was the manifesto? Typically, the MSM is quick to release some parts of the manifesto if the shooter is a white male but not this time. It had to be leaked to know why and to no surprise to those who were paying attention, it was filled with hatred of white people.

I want neither side to fight. BLM, Antifa and J6 are all equally retarded and never should have happened.

[normalice]

No, the right owns all the media.

Biden condemned violence during the summer 2020 protests repeatedly, but because the right owns all the media, and dint want you to know about that, you don't. Anyway, those who committed violence during those protests were found to be mostly apolitical but with a slight overall tilt to the right, not anti-fascists. Which, again, you would know if the media wasn't owned by the right. And in any case, there is a substantial difference between individuals coming to their own conclusions about committing violence that happens to be on the same day and general area due to circumstances versus an organized funded effort to intimidate or take out a target. All that said, I'm not just dismissing you - I'm of the opinion that compromise with hate is better than mutually assured destruction. So I'm happy to hear your lies and even make believe with you that they are real, to some extent - if it helps you be less hateful - but I'm still going to call them out when the stakes are low.

But anyway, unless you are willing to commit to not supporting any political candidate that in any way condones or encourages political violence, you want political violence. You can't bothsides the bad decisions of random lunatics with the determined efforts of powerful and influential figures in the republica party. That only helps the latter avoid scrutiny. Which is, as you say, retarded.

[Asker]

>No, the right owns all the media.
Who are these right wingers you speak of? All these media empires do is shreik "orange man bad." Even Fox News does that from time to time, just not as hard as CNN does it. That doesn't sound like it is owned by right wingers to me.

>Biden condemned violence during the summer 2020 protests repeatedly

And so did the overwhelming majority of the right. So much so that they found the whole situation to be very fishy and that was why they wanted all the footage released and just by what was released so far, it did nothing but support the evidence that the feds were behind it considering two groups of people showed up on either side of the capitol building.

>Anyway, those who committed violence during those protests were found to be mostly apolitical but with a slight overall tilt to the right, not anti-fascists. Which, again, you would know if the media wasn't owned by the right.

Then why did the Biden administration bail the people who did violence oiut during the the summer of love? Why did news media like CNN call them "firey but mostly peaceful protestors" even though you could see from directly behind the guy that it was NOT peaceful? Why does the media STILL say that the violence done on the capitol were all right wingers even though that isn't true?

What side of the political spectrum their on is irrelevant. If you commit violence in the name of a political ideology (terrorism), you deserve prison.

Now we have BLM rioters getting off with a slap on the wrist and people who weren't even in DC for J6 getting 20 years for it on top of being held in jail without charge nor trial for years prior. You cannot look at this and not say that there are political motivations behind it.

>organized funded effort to intimidate or take out a target.

Oh you mean when liberals protested in front of SCOTUS judges homes to protest Roe v Wade and one even tried and failed to assassinate Kavanaugh?

[Asker]

>I'm of the opinion that compromise with hate is better than mutually assured destruction.

I agree. Furthermore, ideologies that are driven by hatred never last long because it'll eventually start growing into itself and will eventually die due to the infighting over overlaps within the ideology itself. Just look at what happened when trans individuals started invading women's sports, the possible reason why StopAsianHate died after about a month (for what I assume is to be because they found out it wasn't white people who were committing the violence, which was what they were trying to push) and this whole Israel/Palestine stuff. Now two groups on the progressive stack are fighting over who is more opressed and are facing the very same petty censorship industrial complex that they themselves set up against the right. It is quite frankly hilarious to watch.

>So I'm happy to hear your lies and even make believe with you that they are real, to some extent - if it helps you be less hateful - but I'm still going to call them out when the stakes are low.

Good that is why we have debates. People bounce ideas around to get closer to the truth. Censorship is never the answer.

>But anyway, unless you are willing to commit to not supporting any political candidate that in any way condones or encourages political violence, you want political violence.

I never did, you're making that up. I don't know of any candidate that outright supported violence, I know of many democrats who support political violence though. Nancy Pelosi (despite not being around anymore) and Maxine Waters are two of them.

[normalice]

I gotta be honest, I'm not going to read all of that. I'll just respond to the last one: no Democrat supported political violence. Trump did, though. Trump still is, in fact. But it sounds like you're not going to commit to not supporting him- because you want political violence. If you aren't going to be honest there is no point in reading the rest of your lies.

[normalice]

Ah, dammit, I read it anyway. I could go on for days about how the right owns all the media. But instead I'll just ask a question: if the right owned the media, who do you imagine would tell you?

The right only selectively condemned violence. They have now embraced it and have made pardoningnthose who committted violence on J6 central to their platform. Anyway you're moving the goalposts on that one. And no one was "bailed out" despite what the republican owned media told you to make you mad.

And the people who protested outside SCOTUS houses were nonviolent.

And yes there is a ton of infighting on the left. This is because the right owns all the media that the left consumes and the right wants infighting on the left.

[Asker]

I really don't understand how the right owns the media when they constantly kiss the left's ass. But please enlighten me on why the right would allow their own to cowtow to the ideals of their rivals.

All those filthy rich sociopaths: Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, that Bankman Freid guy, etc all work for the uniparty in congress, the UN, WEF, WHO whatever to make the average person's life miserable in the name of climate change.

>They have now embraced it and have made pardoningnthose who committted violence on J6 central to their platform.

Because those guys in particular were being held in jail ever since that event happened with no charge or trial. Even Enrique Tarrio was held in this way and then charged with 20 years after that and he wasn't even there, he was banned from DC in fact. The line has already been crossed muktiple times at that point but it doesn't stop there.

After the footage got released we now know that at least the Shaman character was innocent in all this because all he did was walk along the inside with some cops who didn't even treat him like a threat.

We also have found that there were two groups that showed up. The people from the Trump rally and the rioters, shown to be allegedly incited by Ray Epps on each side of the building and it was the people from the Trump rally who were the ones who the cops let in.

So I'm sorry if I think this is all just political theater with many many innocent lives being ruined in the process. I mean, I wouldn't wished this shit on the BLM rioters and they collectively did at least 2 billion dollars in property damage and killed at least a dozen random people who were just going about their lives.

[Asker]

>And no one was "bailed out" despite what the republican owned media told you to make you mad

Really, then explain to me why this is still going on. Ever since covid, the crime rates in the cities got infinitely worse because now the cops don't really see any point in arresting people anymore.

Just the other day some woman in Chicago got robbed by people with rifles and there was a cop right around the corner and refused to do anything about it. Your gun control laws don't mean shit if the cops don't even bother taking people down for actually fucking using them for evil.

We know they are capable of doing it. San Francisco had its place cleaned up instantly because Newsom didn't want to make his boss think that he wasn't working when he came to visit. It was the first time in who knows how long that SF looked like a normal city. They don't give a shit about you and would throw you under the bus if it benefits them politically.

>And the people who protested outside SCOTUS houses were nonviolent.

For the most part yes with the exception of the one guy who tried and failed to assassinate Kavanaugh. Even still, it is illegal to protest at the homes of the justices because it can extrajudicially manipulate them to make decisions they wouldn't make otherwise because they will feel that their lives or their families' lives are at risk (Kavanaugh definitely had a right to feel that way) but nothing happened to them. The left wing is more immune to legal consequences than the right is and this, BLM and Antifa are proof of that.

[Asker]

>And yes there is a ton of infighting on the left. This is because the right owns all the media that the left consumes and the right wants infighting on the left.

No the left did that to themselves because their idiotic ideas contradicts each other constantly. Many of them are now facing the very same "consequense culture" that they set up from the Israel Palestine thing to transgenders in women's sports.

There's infighting on the right as well, just look at Crowder and the Daily Wire for example, but the difference is that there aren't anywhere near as many threats to ruin the lives of the people because they are disagreed upon because that is the left's MO and has been that say since the 60s since they did the same thing if they found you you are in support of racial integration and the Freedom Riders.

[normalice]

The guy who "tried and failed to assasinate kavanough" did no such thing. He turned himself in before he tried.

I could go point by point through all the lies but it's clear you prefer to believe them no matter what. If the people who told you them visited you in person to tell you they lied, you would be mad they told you instead of mad you have been so easily tricked into wanting political violence.

As for the right owning the media that is the only explanation i can come up with for why the entire media continues to insist on treating the republican party like a serious party despite their open embrace of political violence. It is also the only explanation for why the country has taken such a hard right lurch. Looking at the day to day coverage it is horrifying how every second of information pushed in front of the left by the "liberal media" is of benefit to the right for the left to think, but catered to the intended liberal audience. None of that happens on the right. 100% of right wing infighting is because an influential person screwed over another influential person. And this is because the right is inherently a scam so naturally they are all out to screw over everyone. It is no surprise they catch each other in the crossfire from time to time.

[Asker]

Why would he turn himself in if he wasn't committing a crime? That sounds like failing to me.

I literally just got thorough saying that I don't want violence. If anything non-violence works far better. The establishment media does not like non-violence though. They praise the BLM and antifa rioters for burning buildings down and killing people and the only reason the media shits on J6 is because they know it was an inside job but they are tasked to make it look like it isn't. After everything that has come out about it, you can't tell me it isn't an inside job. It was even obvious from the getgo when there is footage of cops waving people in and taking selfies with the rioters.

No the reason why the country has taken such a right wing stance is because the media can't hide it anymore. They can see the economy going to shit, the people in sanctuary cities are protesting over whether or not US citizens should get priority for government handouts and the left is choosing the non-citizens, the left (and most of the right) supports stupid and pointless wars where people getting sent to die while our own government fucks over our veterans on favor of non-citizens, it is becoming more and more clear that the left and the right are mostly one in the same in congress and are tyrants.

Why else would the people go for the very person who pisses them off by going directly against their plans?

[normalice]

Because he wanted to do something he knew was wrong and realized he needed to be stopped.

And you say you don't want violence but what you do want is police to put a "its not violence when police do it" stop to liberals and democrats, because all the bullshit you heard makes you mad at liberals and democrats instead of at the bullshitters.

[Asker]

Then why did he start? He clearly had intentions to do something wrong. Since you have been doing nothing but putting words in my mouth the entire time, I'll put words into yours and say that you wouldn't be defending someone like this if this was a Trump supporter who was trying to assassinate a liberal judge.

Speaking of putting words in my mouth, you're whole thing about the police is nothing more than projection because the liberals had the exact same attitude when the police violently enforced masking, quarantining and the shutting down of small businesses but left the corporations alone during covid. All of which are clear violations of our rights.

I also have no doubt that you be in full support of the police if they also enforced the purging of the nuclear family, arresting people for having the opinions that go against leftist orthodoxy and is therefore heresy, arresting people for simply owning a gun with no evidence that they will use it for evil, to enforce the stealing of money from people who make more than you do, teaching the children that they are privileged if they are white and discrimination against them is justified, the teaching of everyone else that their problems originate from white people, the rewriting of history especially very VERY recent history, and the institution of a one-party state.

All of which they have already done so far and needs to stop ASAP.

[Asker]

Oh yeah and I am mad at the liberals because they ARE the bullshiters and many don't even realize how much their own ideologies contradict themselves like how the entire concept of gender being a social construct being a massive wrench thrown in the plans of feminism because their entire basis of their ideology is that your gender in positions of power mean more than your political party. If you can change your gender at will, then you can simply avoid said opression by men by simply not being a woman and these supposed patriarchs can simply change their gender and it won't be a patriarchy anymore because all you need to do is construct your gender as desires and off you go.

It is quite frankly hilarious seeing all of this happen in real time.

[normalice]

Yes, that's what the bullshitters told you, because they know you would never vote republican based on their policies or merits. It has to be based on anger.

In any case, what I'm not hearing from you is anything like a commitment to reject any candidate that condones political violence. Just whataboutism to basically say it's okay if the right engages in political violence because you were told (by bullshitters) the left did, too.

[Asker]

They're both awful but the liberals are far worse. I can at least see where the conservatives are coming from but for the most part they aren't that much different than liberals. They want authoritarian ideals for their ideology. The conservatives at least just want to ban some things but the liberals want to rewrite the laws of economics so that they can get their free shit, which many of them know doesn't work and makes life worse for everyone but they do it anyway.

I'm sorry but I don't see many conservatives condoning violence compared to the liberals. In fact, some of them like Tim Pool says that non-violence is better because the media is always watching and being violent gives them ammunition to shit on you all over national television while they call violence from their own side "firey but mostly peaceful."

[normalice]

No, liberals are just worse at messaging because republicans own all the media. It's easy to "see where conservatives come from" when they own all the media and can 24/7 whisper their made up grievances into your ear. Or is it shouting?

So, no commitment to reject any candidate that condones political violence. Got it.

[Asker]

The only way I can see how you would be correct is if the media deliberately showed all of these liberal talking points to show how truly insane they are and they censored right wing talking points because... I don't know. I can't quite tell what their plan is for that if it is truly what you say.

But based on what I have seen of all media outlets me left owns the majority of it becuase the democrats and the uniparty in general keep pandering to them.

[normalice]

Or, they only show the insane "liberal" talking points and censor the normal ones. Meanwhile, despite pretty much everyone being familiar with right wing talking points, they still got you thinking the opinions they repeatedly told you to have were somehow censored, even though they repeatedly tell them to you.

The plan is pretty simple. The plan is to give more money to the rich. Obviously, as a policy, this would be unanimously unpopular to both the right and the left. So the rich figured out how to make the more gullible side their defenders by making them mad at the left. That's all this is. Of course the left isn't much better when it comes to seeing through the bullshit- they just don't have the funding to produce it, so the bulk of left wing bullshit is created by right wingers who aren't trying to drive the left towards any of the lefts goals but are just trying to keep both sides toxic so they don't unite and antionette the rich. As such most of the "liberal media" is about keeping people hopeless and distracted. Only right wing media tries to unify and direct. It's unfortunate that the left is so easily distracted but I suppose that's just the nature of people in general..

[Anonymous]

I'm liking 1876

[Asker]

The latter of the 1876 possible amendment looks good too.