Don’t threaten me with a good time.
What we see from the outside, is that a lot of people (poors, rednecks, trailer park people, etc) voted for him to gut ObamaCare, not knowing they were on it too… All those people don’t want to pay for others healthcare even if they themselves don’t pay a penny in taxes and get them for free.
They liked the Affordable Care Act, they just didn’t like Obamacare.
I remember seeing articles about this, that people were shocked to learn that the ACA was the same as ‘Obamacare.’
Exactly.
BUT THAT AINT MUH TEAM
That’s right, because obviously Obamacare was Black Medicine.
Da Voodoo strong wif dis one.
It’s even worse than that
If you were chatting with them and you used the proper name “Affordable Care Act” or ACA to describe Obamacare they would immediately think it is a dog whistle for communism and that it was just a way for liberals to rebrand Obamacare. Their entire universe is backwards, inside out, and upside down.
Osho was right. Successful democracy relies on the people’s collective intelligence. Unfortunately, some demographics are running on a deficit of intelligence and/or factual information.
It starts with the school system. When the schools break down society does too.
It starts with the press. The reason they have the first amendment is to maintain a well-informed populace. And they fucked it up.
They’re still fucking it up! If it was doing what it’s supposed to do people would be freaked out because it would be so different from the propagandized sludge we get now.
That sure is part of it too, but an education system that helps people digest the news in a healthy manner is essential to actually consuming the news. Being able to see the bias and value different sources of information is a cornerstone of the media landscape.
Absolutely. I just think that the news media are perfectly aware how to reach all kinds of audiences and that a certain baseline of honest, unbiased-as-possible information is accessible to any adult who just fell off the turnip truck.
That is, we shouldn’t need, as such, to “learn” how to understand it.
Also helps when you don’t blast an entire generation with lead exposure.
Lead is the bee’s knees I tell you
Schools and media
Just out of curiosity, I asked chatgpt how a hypothetical 2nd amendment might have been written if it focused on ensuring the US has a robust public education system:
If the U.S. Founders had decided to focus the Second Amendment on ensuring a robust public education system, it might have been written in a way that reflects the values of education as a fundamental right and necessary for the maintenance of a free and democratic society. Here’s a hypothetical version of how such an amendment could have been worded:
Second Amendment (Hypothetical):
“A well-educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to receive a quality public education shall not be infringed. The government shall ensure the establishment and maintenance of a public education system that is free, equitable, and accessible to all citizens, providing the knowledge and skills necessary to participate fully in the democratic process and contribute to the common good.”
This hypothetical amendment echoes the structure of the original Second Amendment but replaces the focus on a “well-regulated militia” with a “well-educated populace,” emphasizing education as a cornerstone of a secure and free society. It also includes the government’s responsibility to maintain an equitable and accessible public education system.
Kinda interesting to think about.
And to continue the thought experiment:
——
If the Second Amendment had focused on ensuring a robust public education system rather than the right to bear arms, it would have fundamentally altered the course of U.S. history in several ways. Below is a thought experiment exploring how such a shift might have influenced various aspects of society:
1. Education as a Constitutional Right
- Immediate Impact: With education enshrined as a constitutional right, there would have been an early and sustained national effort to establish and maintain a robust public education system across the country. This might have led to more uniform and higher-quality education from the earliest days of the Republic.
- Long-term Impact: Over time, disparities in education quality between different regions, particularly between wealthy and poor areas, might have been less pronounced. The federal government would likely have played a more active role in funding and regulating public education, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their background, had access to a quality education.
2. Social and Economic Development
- Economic Growth: With a strong emphasis on education, the U.S. would likely have seen more rapid advancements in technology, industry, and the sciences. A more educated populace could have driven greater innovation and economic growth, potentially making the U.S. an even more dominant global economic power earlier in its history.
- Social Mobility: Education as a constitutional right would likely have increased social mobility, giving individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds greater opportunities to improve their circumstances. This might have reduced income inequality and helped to create a more equitable society.
3. Civil Rights Movement
- Earlier and Broader Reforms: The focus on education could have accelerated the civil rights movement by empowering marginalized groups with the tools needed to advocate for their rights. If education had been a protected right, efforts to desegregate schools (as seen in Brown v. Board of Education) might have been pursued more aggressively and with greater success earlier in U.S. history.
- Integration and Equality: A constitutionally guaranteed right to education might have led to more integrated and equal schools earlier, potentially reducing racial and social tensions and fostering a more cohesive society.
4. Political Culture
- Informed Electorate: With education as a constitutional right, the electorate would likely be better informed and more engaged in the democratic process. This could lead to more thoughtful and effective governance, as voters would be better equipped to understand complex issues and hold their leaders accountable.
- Civic Education: The emphasis on public education would likely include a strong focus on civic education, fostering a deeper understanding of the Constitution, the government, and citizens’ rights and responsibilities. This might lead to a more active and engaged citizenry.
5. National Priorities
- Education over Military: The shift in focus from the right to bear arms to the right to education might have led to a different national priority structure, with less emphasis on military preparedness and more on building a knowledge-based society. The U.S. might still have a strong military, but the cultural and financial focus on defense might be less pronounced.
- Budget and Policy: Federal and state budgets might allocate more resources to education, possibly reducing funding for other areas, such as defense or law enforcement. This could have resulted in a more peaceful domestic environment with less emphasis on policing and incarceration.
6. International Influence
- Global Education Leadership: With education as a constitutional right, the U.S. might have positioned itself as a global leader in education, exporting its model to other countries and playing a significant role in international education policy.
- Soft Power: The U.S.'s commitment to education could have enhanced its soft power, building influence around the world not just through military might but through cultural and intellectual leadership.
7. Gun Culture
- Different Second Amendment: Without the Second Amendment focusing on the right to bear arms, the U.S. would likely have a very different relationship with firearms. Gun ownership might still be prevalent, but without constitutional protection, there would likely be stricter regulations, and the cultural significance of guns would be diminished.
- Public Safety: This could have led to lower rates of gun violence, fewer mass shootings, and potentially a different approach to law enforcement and public safety.
8. Modern Society
- Higher Literacy and Education Rates: Today, the U.S. might have higher literacy rates and a better-educated population overall, with more people holding advanced degrees. This could lead to a more competitive workforce and greater innovation in various fields.
- Less Political Polarization: A better-educated populace might be less susceptible to misinformation and political extremism, potentially leading to a less polarized and more cooperative political environment.
Conclusion
This alternative history, where the Second Amendment focused on education rather than arms, paints a picture of a U.S. society that might have prioritized intellectual and social development over military and individualistic pursuits. The potential for a more equitable, informed, and peaceful society is significant, though it’s important to remember that such changes would also bring their own challenges and complexities. Nonetheless, the emphasis on education as a constitutional right would have likely led to a profoundly different American experience, both domestically and on the world stage.
Osho is not a good role model. And that is a pretty fashy line of thinking…
Is it? Or are you mixing up “demographic” with “ethnicity”? People who are raised in an environment that does not promote individual thought (like overly religious or politically one-sided groups, or any setting where tribal mentality is dominant) will not have access to the same quality of information, and will likely be subjected to some kind of indoctrination. Adoption of the group’s ideals may be forced by societal pressure, and resistance may be met with punishment. A child exposed to a constant rhetoric about how “those dang dirty democrats are stealing our tax dollars and lying about everything, believe your daddy” and no way to confirm or deny it will likely grow up to be an adult repeating that rhetoric. I know because I used to be like that, and it took massive conscious effort to unlearn it.
Also, I literally only know of Osho from that one clip and have no interest in researching a religious leader, reason above.
No… just that generalising like this, and saying some groups are “intellectually deficient”, even if you don’t mean race or ethnicity, still is unscientific and unhelpful.
The mistake of race and racism wasn’t the specifics of discrimination on skin color. It’s discriminating whole groups based off of vibes and arbitrary boxes.
lol someone from .ml trying to correct your thought crime
they probably think that not having children is eco fascism
Bigotry and hatred are all about confirming your own status, even if those confirmatory actions hurt everybody, including you. As bigotry and hatred are illogical, however, you just say “but [outgroup] is being hurt more than I am!” and laugh it off, even as your family suffers.
People with low enough income would be on Medicaid, which basically covers everything 100%
Back in 2015, he said that if Secretary Clinton was elected president, there would be a taco truck on every corner. Why he stumps for the other side, I never understand.
I would love to have taco trucks in every corner. That sounds amazing.
I live in Los Angeles… I can confirm it is amazing having taco trucks on every corner.
I live in San Diego… I too can confirm having taco trucks on every corner is amazing.
I live in the NorthEast … I’ve seen a taco truck only in my dreams.
I’ve seen one or two in Minneapolis, not great, but I don’t like black beans. Issue really comes down to the inability to get the same fresh ingredients.
I thought that was the head of Latinos for Trump, not Trump himself.
Right you are, sir.
Lol I wish she was that cool
As a Swede I approve.
As a Spaniard I concur
I did not expect the Spanish concursion
Their primary weapon is agreement
As a normal, run of the mill, Lemmy shit poster, I’m on your side, in the same boat, singing to the choir and agreeing.
As a German, I’m never not appalled that the richest country in the world doesn’t have what is considered normal in all other Western democracies. It’s insane.
As a medical resident, I also concur.
As someone with a ridiculous amount of medical debt incurred over a couple of years, I will also give my approval.
But do you concur
Let me think about it…
Yes.
Warns. lol. best ad yet for Kamala
Play that soundbite over footage of sick children with parents who can’t afford healthcare.
He thinks that’s a bad thing, because it means people who already have healthcare would have longer lines at the doctor and more wait for services.
Except in reality universe healthcare = more preventative care = shorter lines for the ER and fewer critical cases cause people got taken care of earlier.
Universal healthcare would mean less demand for emergency care.
also (australia here), i don’t think i’ve ever waited more than a week to see my specific doctor, and i can usually find someone that day if it’s urgent?
oh also i can call a number and get a doctor to come to my house in a few hours
also it’s all free (other than taxes, but i guarantee my taxes are cheaper than insurance!… and you can pay more for more luxury care - which the government subsidises the same amount)
… also also i still have private insurance for some “make life nicer” non-necessities
A question - do you think these are all from stupidity?
The R politicians are so stupid that they say things about D candidate which make you like the latter more?
You think you are smarter than such powerful people?
There’s such a thing as match-fixing in team sports.
“Trump endorses Harris”
Yeah guys just hold your breath for that free healthcare. Fucking LOL.
Seriously though at least she’s a little better than that asshole. But free healthcare is a pipe dream.
Dems are never as cool as Republicans make them out to be.
Soo…Kamalacare?
In Finnish Kamala means terrible. So when I see “Kamala Harris” first thing my mind conjures is “Horrible Harris” or something like that.
So, to get to the point, “Terrible Care” sounds like not much would change.
The Trump campaign’s approach to this whole thing seems to be identical to the CCP’s approach to propaganda against the American military – make it look awesome. Neither one makes any sense to me, but I enjoy both.
Sort of like those old Mac vs PC commercials where everyone liked the PC guy more
John Hodgman for president
And then he complains that she laughs. In case you haven’t noticed, Dotard, we’re all laughing. At you.
If only he could say something true instead of only lies. Just this once.
When you politics so hard you start making fake populist promises for your opponent
Does anyone else think Americans seem to enjoy making things harder for themselves just so they can talk about the adversity they overcame?
They make healthcare paid for so you need to either be super rich or so popular you can easily fund raise a small fortune because you’ll bankrupt yourself for life just to call an ambulance.
I saw George Thorogood at the OC Fairground in 2019 and the guy who supported him was talking about how he had a kidney transplant and how proud everyone should be that they’re American because if he lived in any other country he would have died. Ridiculous.
Not the best choice of words.
