Mastodon Skip to content
  • Home
  • Aktuell
  • Tags
  • Über dieses Forum
Einklappen
Grafik mit zwei überlappenden Sprechblasen, eine grün und eine lila.
Abspeckgeflüster – Forum für Menschen mit Gewicht(ung)

Kostenlos. Werbefrei. Menschlich. Dein Abnehmforum.

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II.

Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II.

Geplant Angeheftet Gesperrt Verschoben Uncategorized
69 Beiträge 42 Kommentatoren 0 Aufrufe
  • Älteste zuerst
  • Neuste zuerst
  • Meiste Stimmen
Antworten
  • In einem neuen Thema antworten
Anmelden zum Antworten
Dieses Thema wurde gelöscht. Nur Nutzer mit entsprechenden Rechten können es sehen.
  • jackpine@ohai.socialJ jackpine@ohai.social

    @fivetonsflax

    Establish an essential living threshold.

    Transparent threshold – $761 k is derived directly from the average grocery‑share of disposable income for the bottom 99 % of households.

    Targeted surcharge – A 90 % marginal tax applies only to income above that level, isolating the ultra‑wealthy while preserving the existing progressive brackets for virtually everyone else.

    Minimal administrative change – Updating the statutory threshold and @heidilifeldman

    jackpine@ohai.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    jackpine@ohai.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    jackpine@ohai.social
    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
    #48

    the supplemental filing form is all that’s required; the compliance architecture (automated detection, anti‑avoidance rules, voluntary‑disclosure incentives, and the public‑good credit) stays the same.

    Substantial revenue potential – Even with conservative assumptions, the design could generate over $1 trillion annually, providing a powerful fiscal lever without reshaping the broader tax system.

    @heidilifeldman @fivetonsflax

    1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
    0
    • codhisattva@mastodon.socialC codhisattva@mastodon.social

      @heidilifeldman it seems to me that the civil war is fed vs states and for the states to prevail it means ending the federal experiment. At least temporarily to implement the necessary purge of laws and personnel. A “de-baathification” of DC. A “de-magafication” I suppose.

      In the interim the states will need to replace services and use captured federal income tax dollars.

      joeinwynnewood@mstdn.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
      joeinwynnewood@mstdn.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
      joeinwynnewood@mstdn.social
      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
      #49

      @Codhisattva

      Which states?

      Red states have had regimes by the bullies for the billionaires for decades, silencing non White Christian voters, rigging the rules, enforcing the law selectively, defunding infrastructure, social services, schools...
      They need to be reconstructed too, it isn't just DC.

      @heidilifeldman

      1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
      0
      • grootinside@troet.cafeG grootinside@troet.cafe

        @heidilifeldman
        Am still waiting for something i fear will never come:
        The army remembers their oath to the constitution(!) and refuses to follow unlawful orders.

        thenovemberman@bookstodon.comT This user is from outside of this forum
        thenovemberman@bookstodon.comT This user is from outside of this forum
        thenovemberman@bookstodon.com
        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
        #50

        @grootinside @heidilifeldman@mastodon.social 🤞 I hope

        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
        0
        • jmarkockerbloom@mastodon.socialJ jmarkockerbloom@mastodon.social

          @Ulmo @heidilifeldman I highly doubt elections will be canceled. Most authoritarian regimes still hold them, to make themselves look more legitimate, but engage in major suppression of voters and/or candidates to force the result they want. We've certainly seen that in our own country's history (like before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, now in the process of being dismantled).

          I worry that a lot of folks are thinking "well, elections haven't been canceled, so it can't be too bad". Yes it can be.

          dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
          dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
          dragonfrog@mastodon.sdf.org
          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
          #51

          @JMarkOckerbloom @Ulmo @heidilifeldman that does seem like the endgame of the nonsensical fear mongering about non-citizens voting plus "mail-in ballot fraud" plus ICE targeting community gathering places - make non-white people afraid to show up at the polls and unable to vote without showing up at the polls.

          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
          0
          • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

            If you are on the side of American Democracy in the currently unfolding American Civil War II and elections are held, vote for candidates that understand the war and what will required if our side prevails. 10/10

            dpontifex@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
            dpontifex@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
            dpontifex@infosec.exchange
            schrieb zuletzt editiert von
            #52

            @heidilifeldman Pretty clear the current leadership of the Democratic Party understands neither

            1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
            0
            • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

              Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II. Certainly we are in a civil war, instigated by the federal government, when it began sending unnecessary and militarized forces into American cities. (See pinned post.) 1/

              d_reno@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
              d_reno@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
              d_reno@mastodon.social
              schrieb zuletzt editiert von
              #53

              @heidilifeldman agreed. White power slogans and symbols are now openly used by the government. I think they plan a complete power grab

              1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
              0
              • su_g@aus.socialS su_g@aus.social

                @heidilifeldman
                Some Germans say that the democracy the US ‘gave’ Germany after WWII was the one the US really wanted for itself. There are many interesting innovations in the German model which similarly has a state-federal structure. Australia (my country) also has that structure & some voting innovations that have stood the test of time and are still evolving. Doubtless many other models worldwide can contribute to Democracy Mk II to make the US a better country, ally, partner. 😁

                M This user is from outside of this forum
                M This user is from outside of this forum
                minnesota411988@mastodon.social
                schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                #54

                @Su_G @heidilifeldman

                Pretty remarkable that in so many ways the post-war German and Japanese constitutions have worked better than the U.S. Constitution. 14th Amendment should have prevented Trump from having a second term but it failed. Impeachment is so unworkable that it presents no deterrent to the worst actions of a president. The Constitution will definitely require some attention if any in the world are to regain trust in the U.S.

                #uspol

                1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                0
                • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                  Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II. Certainly we are in a civil war, instigated by the federal government, when it began sending unnecessary and militarized forces into American cities. (See pinned post.) 1/

                  jab01701mid@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jab01701mid@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jab01701mid@mastodon.social
                  schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                  #55

                  @heidilifeldman Having just watched the Ken Burns "American Revolution" series, I'm inclined to think of the current times more in that frame than the 1861 War for Slavery.
                  1776 was time to make the Declaration, and then invent a new government, and social contract. And it was complicated.

                  1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                  0
                  • cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC cmthiede@social.vivaldi.net

                    @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                    Ranked choice to end the 2-party, same equity extortion coin to choose from every election.

                    Roll back Citizens United and limit contributions to an honest day's pay.

                    regguy@mstdn.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                    regguy@mstdn.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                    regguy@mstdn.social
                    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                    #56

                    @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                    Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                    I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                    @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                    cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC colo_lee@mstdn.socialC cpr320@frontrange.coC jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ 5 Antworten Letzte Antwort
                    0
                    • coffee2di4@glasgow.socialC coffee2di4@glasgow.social

                      #TIL that @mastoreaderio exists and how to use it

                      @msbellows

                      msbellows@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
                      msbellows@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
                      msbellows@c.im
                      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                      #57

                      @coffee2Di4 @mastoreaderio I'm glad! Ain't it useful?

                      1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                      0
                      • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                        @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                        Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                        I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                        @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.net
                        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                        #58

                        @RegGuy @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio I don't know that anyone has settled on the logic beyond the name sounding catchier than explaining a runoff election midsummer to crank things up a notch. If it gets rid of the Nader Effect, I don't care what it's called. I'd be happy if both sides had a serious discussion about it out loud so everyone can hear.

                        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                        0
                        • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                          @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                          Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                          I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                          @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                          colo_lee@mstdn.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                          colo_lee@mstdn.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                          colo_lee@mstdn.social
                          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                          #59

                          @RegGuy I'm interested in RCV.
                          But I don't think it's one weird trick to save democracy...

                          @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                          0
                          • joblakely@mastodon.socialJ joblakely@mastodon.social

                            @heidilifeldman

                            Democracy was never meant to be done by election. Athenians knew it would captured by oligarchs. It was meant to be by sortition.
                            I modified this idea & how it could be structured & why. What I envision is completely different to what we have now. It’s a different democratic model, using a version of sortition. What I envision is practical & develops interdependence, understanding, experience, skills, while solving real problems.
                            https://mastodon.social/@JoBlakely/110531598480099232

                            grovewest@mstdn.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                            grovewest@mstdn.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                            grovewest@mstdn.social
                            schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                            #60

                            @JoBlakely @heidilifeldman I just received a notice for jury duty. We accept the judgement of somewhat randomly chosen candidates for a jury so I can see sortition as a more democratic method than elections.

                            1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                            0
                            • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                              @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                              Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                              I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                              @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                              cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
                              cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
                              cpr320@frontrange.co
                              schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                              #61

                              @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio Just think of it one vote at a time. Your vote says "I prefer C1, but if she gets eliminated I'll vote for C2 instead."

                              Your vote says exactly what you would do if there were a series of run-off elections.

                              1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                              0
                              • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                                @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                                Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                                I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                                @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                                cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
                                cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
                                cpr320@frontrange.co
                                schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                #62

                                @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio I don't understand this: "...yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority." It sounds like you want to put the two rounds together, but they are separate.

                                1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                0
                                • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                                  @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                                  Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                                  I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                                  @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                                  jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                  jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                  jetsoft@hachyderm.io
                                  schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                  #63

                                  @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio only one candidate gets eliminated at a time. So in your example assuming c3 c4 c5 weren't exactly the same let's say 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% so c3 gets eliminated. His 11.3% is allocated however the voters wanted. Some to each of c1, c2, c4 and c5. Then repeat for new lowest ranked.

                                  Not sure what would happen in a draw where two lowest candidates have exactly same number. I'm sure it's covered in the Australian system. Possibly a coin toss. But very unlikely to have exactly the same number of votes.

                                  jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                  0
                                  • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                                    Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II. Certainly we are in a civil war, instigated by the federal government, when it began sending unnecessary and militarized forces into American cities. (See pinned post.) 1/

                                    npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                                    npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                                    npars01@mstdn.social
                                    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                    #64

                                    @heidilifeldman

                                    These are the people who bought an election for MAGA...

                                    They are responsible for what Trump's done to America.

                                    We need to know the identity of every donor.

                                    1. SpaceX $288,723,409
                                    2. Adelson Clinic/Miriam Adelson $146,881,700
                                    3. Uline Inc $146,027,201
                                    4. Citadel LLC $108,669,316
                                    5. Susquehanna International Group $101,468,362
                                    6. Andreessen Horowitz $89,036,553
                                    7. Empower Parents PAC $82,500,000
                                    8. Coinbase $79,008,020
                                    9. Elliott Management $68,846,510

                                    npars01@mstdn.socialN 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                    0
                                    • jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ jetsoft@hachyderm.io

                                      @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio only one candidate gets eliminated at a time. So in your example assuming c3 c4 c5 weren't exactly the same let's say 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% so c3 gets eliminated. His 11.3% is allocated however the voters wanted. Some to each of c1, c2, c4 and c5. Then repeat for new lowest ranked.

                                      Not sure what would happen in a draw where two lowest candidates have exactly same number. I'm sure it's covered in the Australian system. Possibly a coin toss. But very unlikely to have exactly the same number of votes.

                                      jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                      jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                      jetsoft@hachyderm.io
                                      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                      #65

                                      @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/complex-count.htm
                                      Still looking for the tie break but a good explanation if the Australian system.

                                      1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                      0
                                      • dcdeejay@mastodon.onlineD dcdeejay@mastodon.online

                                        @heidilifeldman I wonder if there is a more precise term than civil war, where one or more groups of citizens are at war with each other.

                                        This situation, when the government is waging war with one group of citizens (supposedly) on behalf of another, may not have a commonly used term to accurately describe it.

                                        I think it's an important distinction, because Americans are not fighting Americans, even if some in government would love to change that. We shouldn't help them normalize the idea.

                                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.net
                                        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                        #66

                                        @dcdeejay @heidilifeldman I think it's called revolution. But, the party pushing the Civil War angle is the same one that already used Revolution for pitching AI, to sell the new Industrial Revolution. They've been solving problems that nobody asked to be solved, for so long, using everyone's money but their own, they never thought anyone would stop to notice. The whole world was gifted a moment of reflection thanks to COVID. Who ever thought people would want to stick their face right back in the oven?

                                        ¯\_(ツ_)/¯

                                        https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/american-voices/

                                        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                        0
                                        • npars01@mstdn.socialN npars01@mstdn.social

                                          @heidilifeldman

                                          These are the people who bought an election for MAGA...

                                          They are responsible for what Trump's done to America.

                                          We need to know the identity of every donor.

                                          1. SpaceX $288,723,409
                                          2. Adelson Clinic/Miriam Adelson $146,881,700
                                          3. Uline Inc $146,027,201
                                          4. Citadel LLC $108,669,316
                                          5. Susquehanna International Group $101,468,362
                                          6. Andreessen Horowitz $89,036,553
                                          7. Empower Parents PAC $82,500,000
                                          8. Coinbase $79,008,020
                                          9. Elliott Management $68,846,510

                                          npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                                          npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                                          npars01@mstdn.social
                                          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                          #67

                                          2/

                                          No more faceless, nameless billionaires buying the destruction of democracy & the planet.

                                          10. Securing American Greatness $67,558,284
                                          11. Senate Leadership Fund $67,445,300
                                          12. Club for Growth $59,846,594
                                          13. Koch Inc $49,092,685
                                          14. Blackstone Group $48,609,890
                                          15.  Stand Together Chamber of Commerce $44,801,948
                                          16. Restoration PAC $41,168,363
                                          17. Crownquest Operating $35,752,512
                                          18. Bigelow Aerospace $34,991,590
                                          19. Building America's Future $33,670,000
                                          20. Stephens Inc $27,343,518

                                          npars01@mstdn.socialN 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                          0
                                          Antworten
                                          • In einem neuen Thema antworten
                                          Anmelden zum Antworten
                                          • Älteste zuerst
                                          • Neuste zuerst
                                          • Meiste Stimmen



                                          Copyright (c) 2025 abSpecktrum (@abspecklog@fedimonster.de)

                                          Erstellt mit Schlaflosigkeit, Kaffee, Brokkoli & ♥

                                          Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung | Nutzungsbedingungen

                                          • Anmelden

                                          • Du hast noch kein Konto? Registrieren

                                          • Anmelden oder registrieren, um zu suchen
                                          • Erster Beitrag
                                            Letzter Beitrag
                                          0
                                          • Home
                                          • Aktuell
                                          • Tags
                                          • Über dieses Forum