Political Ideology - Left vs Right

I know Political Ideology is the forum title but I just couldn't think of any other title that would fit this issue.

Everyone put your political sides away for a moment and look at this with an open mind....

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

My view when I read this - "Great! They abolish slavery. Wait.. what's that other part? If I get caught speeding or not wearing my seat belt... Someone will make me a slave? Will there be an auction to see who gets me? What will they make me do? Will there be wips?"

Ok, so I'm a bit of a smart@$$. Still, doesn't anyone else see "except as a punishment for crime"? Slavery is a crime, unless you commit a crime, then you become a slave.


I present into topic, discussion Part 2.

If a Dem politician brings this Amendment up to amend that silly part of the amendment, is it justified? Will the left side of the isle raise a stink about it?

Why would they?

So why when a person like Kanye West (off his rocker or not) brings this same topic up, people (democrat related sources) go bat$#!% crazy? Is it because he's a Trump supporter? What if he didn't support Trump but supported Hillary, would his ideals be attacked the way they are?

His words:

'this represents good and America becoming whole again. We will no longer outsource to other countries. We build factories here in America and create jobs. We will provide jobs for all who are free from prisons as we abolish the 13th Amendment. Message sent with love.'

Though he made a slight mess-up because people were quick to label him .... all kinds of things. He tried to clarify himself:

not abolish but. let’s amend the 13th amendment We apply everyone’s opinions to our platform

...but people would still not have it because they obviously believe he's an 'uncle tom' and couldn't possibly meant something positive:

One user @King_Yunn wrote: 'Saying abolish the amendment that also help (sic) abolish slavery without being specific on what you mean by abolishing it...is him purposely being indirect for drama?'

Another follower @AlishaFruits wrote: 'There’s a hundred different ways he could’ve said it without sounding like an uneducated fool and stirring up unnecessary controversy, but that’s all he’s got.'

One of the sharpest criticisms came from actor Chris Evans, who tweeted: 'There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue.

'The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented and absolutely terrifying.'

Yep, even celebrities.


So I ask, dems and reps here on the site, what do you honestly think? Seriously, forget what side you voted for and look at this with a clear, opened mind.


Have we as a people become so low to where even words that make sense are shunned because it comes from someone other than our party?

What if say the next Democratic contender says... "Let's just take arms and kill all those that do not believe what we believe".

What if say the next Republican contender says... "Let's just take arms and kill all those that do not believe what we believe".

Who would you honestly be more likely to believe would take action by their words? Will you believe it because your party said it?

a reply to: StallionDuck

I think in this day and age, the 13th amendment could be safely abolished in it's entirety.

Slavery is already illegal under other provisions in the Constitution.

I could see the case for leaving it alone as a reminder.
But I could get behind amending it to cut out that prison slavery part.

The man isn't playing with a full deck, in my opinion. If he TRULY meant amend, then that's ok with me, because the wording as it stands is pretty murky.
However, he could've easily said amend the first time, but he chose not to. He's stirring up controversy, the majority of his career is based on it. I wouldn't read too much into it, he has a giant ego, and any time he starts to drop off of people's radar, he has to do or say something crazy to try to stay relevant.
Also, he said slavery was a choice. Even if that was him stirring up controversy, that's a horrible thing to say, and he shouldn't have said it.
His ego outweighs his common sense, and that's why I don't like the guy.

To answer your questions at the bottom of the OP:
1. I don't think his words made sense at first, and all of the negative reactions were a result of his initial outburst talking about abolishing the 13th. Once he "corrected" what he meant, his words make more sense. That's why he was initially "shunned", because at first he didn't make sense.
2. If a Dem said that, they should be stopped immediately and kicked out of office, or out of the running, because that isn't how our country works.
3. If a Repub said that, (insert the exact same thing I said for #2).
4. Both main parties have a pretty dismal record of following through with what they say, so I wouldn't be likely to believe either. I believe in actions, not words. No, I wouldn't just because my party* said it. They'd have to walk the walk.

*I don't have a party

originally posted by: StallionDuck
What if say the next Democratic contender says... "Let's just take arms and kill all those that do not believe what we believe".

What if say the next Republican contender says... "Let's just take arms and kill all those that do not believe what we believe".

As much as our two party system often seems to be dysfunctional; extreme polarization and lack of discourse seem to be the real problem to me.

To suggest that people who have different beliefs are so wrong that they need to be killed shows a weakness of character and a lack of conviction in our own beliefs. If our beliefs are correct then a right-minded individual will see through the bull# and come to the correct conclusion...

If I'm not sure I am right, then anyone who disagrees with my opinion can be scary and must be attacked and eliminated before they poke a hole in my opinion / theory. (This is the mental space that it seems a lot of people operate from [at least in online forums...])

Calls to end the opposition or make their ideas illegal are amusing (but mostly sad and depressing) if we have conviction in our own ideas, opposing ideas are less threatening. I think we forget that the USA was the original great social experiment, an attempt to make a land that could exist without the need to remove people from society because of their unpopular beliefs (religious or political) a place where people who were persecuted could live free...

P.S. - Institutionalized slavery seems like a very bad idea, I would suggest the privatized prison industry was/is a bad idea. If I am your jailer I should (probably) not profit from your time as it creates a conflict of interest for me... And if I do I certainly should not be able to extend your sentence...

At least Kanye thinks for himself. The MSM-indoctrinated could learn a lot by doing the same. Talk about slaves.

Of course the slave master's overseers don't like it one little bit: CNN Anchor: Is It ‘Time to Start Worrying About Kanye?’

Both you and Kanye seem to have over-looked, or misunderstood, a very important caveat contained within the text of the amendment, to whit:

“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”

So, no, getting a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt won’t put you naked on the auction block.

But, if you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you could find yourself on a work gang. Or, for lesser offenses, doing a specified number of hours on “community service”, your labor un-reimbursed (as if you were a “slave”) as part of your punishment.

Really people, what part of this is so difficult to understand?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Have we as a people become so low to where even words that make sense are shunned because it comes from someone other than our party? 

It sure seems like it. People are putting party above everything these days, just like those who drew it up wanted.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Both you and Kanye seem to have over-looked, or misunderstood, a very important caveat contained within the text of the amendment, to whit:

“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”

So, no, getting a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt won’t put you naked on the auction block.

But, if you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you could find yourself on a work gang. Or, for lesser offenses, doing a specified number of hours on “community service”, your labor un-reimbursed (as if you were a “slave”) as part of your punishment.

Really people, what part of this is so difficult to understand?

Sure... It's common sense in a way BUT... As with loopholes to get away from the law, loopholes like this could very well have people in high places take advantage of the wording.

Isn't laws centered around wording? It's wording what makes or breaks a court case?

So that "common sense" law could very well come back and bite us in the... If someone woke up tomorrow and took advantage of that law, say like the PoTUS. Wouldn't be a thing you could do about it. You can be accused of any crime, hard labor or not. If you don't pay a ticket and plead not guilty, you can STILL BE accused of a crime and have to pay for it.

So I'll say it's fortunate the law hasn't been abused by some power here in the US but that doesn't mean it can't. Id sleep better at night knowing another stupid loophole were closed and couldn't be used against someone for nefarious reasons.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Personally, I'm a fan of Kayne the artist and I'll continue to listen to his new stuff as long as his bad political takes are merely nuts and not hostile.

I don't really know why anyone would pay any undue attention to the average celebrity's opinion of anything outside of their profession. Kanye is no student of history or the Constitution.

As far as the 13th Amendment goes, there's a lot to unpack here. First, the argument some people have made here is logically inconsistent. There are many ways of interpreting law. This "concern" over the 13th stems from some strict literalist (textualist) interpretation.

This is somewhat different from the originalism of a Scalia, who would seek to interpret the text based on original intent and meaning of words or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg who favors the more pragmatic Living Constitution interpretation which holds that interpretations should be dynamic, taking into account changing circumstance.

I'd argue that much of the civil liberty we take for granted is in fact based on the latter, particularly in areas like First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment protections of our privacy. Consider what the 4th actually says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nothing in the text literally says a cop can't search your car for no good reason much less demand the password for your Gmail account. Or the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, Congress shall make no law. That doesn't preclude any other for of suppression of free speech. And what exactly is free speech? Does that cover art? Movies? A t-shirt? Pornographic magazines?

Where the inconsistency lies with this literalist interpretation of the 13th — that it should be abolished because it "makes slavery a legal punishment" — is that simply abolishing it would basically then make slavery legal for everyone. So if you're going to be a strict literalist, you should want a amendment that repeals the 13th like the 21st repealed the 18th and then replaces it with text that can be interpreted literally as abolishing slavery unilaterally.

This is where you run into serious practical issues. How frequently should we be amending the Constitution? Should we replace the 1st (and it's successors from there) to enumerate every possible type of expression as we develop new ones? Should we change the 4th to accommodate each new development in technology?

I don't think the 13th would need to be repealed and replaced under either the Living Constitution or originalist interpretations on the grounds that it makes government run slavery legal. Even the originalist is going to read that and interpret that it was not intended to make chattel slavery of convicts legal but rather forced labor.

Now if you think it should be replaced with an amendment that crushes the whole prison-industrial complex, then that's a valid discussion to have but to avoid backlash, it would be best to explicitly frame the argument from the jump.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes. The constitution is vague for a reason, and literalists are way off base. For instance, there is no mention of “cars” or even “firearms” in the constitution. There are no rights for women or black slaves in the original constitution. Who wants to go back to the “original” intent? Morons who like white privilege maybe?

a reply to: StallionDuck
Being in prison counts as involuntary servitude. That's what it means.
The clause is there to stop pedantic lawyers arguing "You can't put my client in prison, because that's been abolished."

a reply to: theantediluvian

Kanye is no student of history or the Constitution.

I'd say he's a far better student than I.

As a non-American I really fail to understand this obsession with the US Constitution etc.

But I've got to thank you for explaining at least something about your Constitution that I can understand and fully appreciate.
Usually anything written about The US Constitution, The Bill of Rights or The Declaration of Independence is done so in such a glorified, hallowed and reverential manner that any non-American's eyes just glaze over after reading only a couple of sentences or so.

An aside, and probably more on topic; what is it with the current US obsession with Left v Right here on ATS?
Is it representative of US society in general?

a reply to: Freeborn

An aside, and probably more on topic; what is it with the current US obsession with Left v Right here on ATS? Is it representative of US society in general?

Hey Freeborn.

I can't answer that in full but I can say it's more like two people owning a shop. One owner wants to make bread while the other owner wants to make pastries. Both owners have an equal backing of their employees. Sometimes the employees come to blows and the owners are constantly at each other's throats, each wanting to sue the other for what they want in a shop they both own. No one wants to split the shop down the middle because no one wants a half a shop. Besides that, many of the employees like both of the owners and really don't have an opinion either way.

Sadly... The shop owners don't understand that taking one to make the other is possible. Once they come to the sudden realization that they can do both, things would be peaceful but both are stubborn and want to have it each their way. None of them care that the hole point to the shop is to give their employees a job so they can make a living by selling pastries and loaves to the public for the sake of giving them both something to enjoy and sustenance to live.

Isn't parlament pretty much the same? We just have 2 groups because no one feels a 3rd or 4th or 10th political side would win since the most common are dems and reps.

Sadly, each side feels that each their political figurehead has the right idea. Sadly also, we are no longer a melting pot of ideals as we are of people. Sides seems to be brainwashed to where topics only seem to fall in two categories.

Ex.

If you're a republican, people will assume right off the bat that you're against homosexuality, abortions, and taxes. You're a gun owner, you kill animals for sport, you had sex with your sister, you are a bible thumper, privileged white and MURICA!

If you're a democrat, people will assume right off the bat that you're against life, the sanctity of marriage, making money and world peace. You're an artist by trade, possibly vegan and or a gay movie star, live in california or north east US, communist and pro being taxed to death by big government.

In truth, most people probably would be so many random things if we simply didn't have parties. I know I personally feel that I think for myself and I believe in things from both sides of the isle.


Yeah... Politics suck. People should just focus on the fruits of labor instead of the color of their hats. For so long, the country has been run by lawyers, governors and only that. We're taught when we're children that YOU and anyone can be president. You just better not be a businessman or anything other than a lawyer. Kind of bass ackwards isn't it....

a reply to: Freeborn

The obsession is because some people are like the poster two spots above you who like to say that because the COTUS doesn't mention certain specific words, they can make whatever laws and decrees they like about them and be just fine and dandy.

So because the founders didn't say "RIght to keep and bear AR style rifles ..." that means they ought to say no one can own them.

Because they founders didn't write in every classification and sub-classification and 57 gender, etc., grievance group every time a person is referenced to mean citizen, then they obviously were flawed and biased and prejudiced and it makes the COTUS a bad basis for every law since, so they can make whatever laws and decrees they like and those ought not be bound by the COTUS in any way, etc. ...

a reply to: ketsuko

Funny how the original constitution only counts black folks as 3/5ths of a person for representation. Oh, and they did bother to write that down.

I see Kanye is apparently not the only one who never actually learned history.

OP - the real problem is that some people can’t handle the truth (to borrow a movie phrase).

a reply to: StallionDuck

I sort of get your point.

I can only try to relate to something I do know about.

Here in the UK there is a bit more of a blurring between the two sides, Tory 'Wets' have much in common with New Labour.

But I can't get my head around the constant obsession and railing against anything even remotely leftist by those who tend towards The Republican party.
Being viewed as leftist or supporting anything even remotely resembling socialist is deemed as nothing short of devil worship and the most heinous of heinous crimes. (To be fair I doubt the vast majority of Americans have ever met anyone who is a true and genuine socialist).

Alternatively the vast majority of Democrats seem to despise everything Republicans support and view them as neo-Nazi, corporate whores whose sole beliefs are profit and exploitation.

Everything has to be labelled and pigeon holed as left or right.

Its my firm belief that the party political system here in the UK has outlived its fit for purpose and we need urgent and radical reform.
Adherence to party line or a particular ideology takes precedence over the will and best interests of the electorate.

People, and politicians - I separate the two as the vast majority of modern day politicians of all political persuasions sold their soul at the outset of their respective careers - seem incapable of exercising independent and reasoned thought free from ideological restraints or personal motivations.

Personally I don't see everything as left or everything as right. There's a balance between the two and I try to judge each individual situation or topic or whatever on its own individual merits and come to my own personal opinion free from any sort of political or ideological restraint.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well and am most likely just rambling on...I guess what I'm saying is that people should break free from this left v right obsession....its maddening and it clogs ATS with #e.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Everyone put your political sides away for a moment and look at this with an open mind....

The entire thread is about political ideology. And very few "open minds" when discussing either...as evidenced by the finger pointing and snark. There's also an negative side....

a reply to: Freeborn

Think more government control of life v. less government control of life.

The Nazi side comes in because they are convinced we're arguing the same old more European paradigm - more government v. more government. They have equated big business to government.

It all really comes back to government and power in the end.

Personally, I want less government, less power. The dirty secret is that a lot of people are deathly afraid of that idea because it means they will have to do for themselves. There are forces that have steadily eroded the institutions in this country that helped people feel self-reliant: family, neighborhood, faith community.

Those three things used to let people feel they could do on their own because if you stumbled a bit you had family, neighborhood and faith to help you pick back up.

But divorce and other similar forces are eroding the idea of strong families, neighbors barely talk to one another anymore, and there is widespread contempt for the idea of faith of almost any stamp being spread around.

Those gaps are filled by the notion that government should compel us all to "share" in a lot of folks' minds. They're afraid.