Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

Hawaii's a stronghold state.

Reagan's reelection was an odd one out, but that was an odd one out for every blue state besides DC and Minnesota.

Nixon's reelection was an odd one out too, as Hawaii also voted Republican in the 1972 presidential election.

It's quite interesting to note that the last time a Democrat has really won a landslide was in 1964 when LBJ clobbered Goldwater. Do you guys think there might be more landslides (from either party) or at least a significant realignment election in the future? Or will the states vote largely the same going forward as politics becomes more divisive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Pixelman said:

Nixon's reelection was an odd one out too, as Hawaii also voted Republican in the 1972 presidential election.

It's quite interesting to note that the last time a Democrat has really won a landslide was in 1964 when LBJ clobbered Goldwater. Do you guys think there might be more landslides (from either party) or at least a significant realignment election in the future? Or will the states vote largely the same going forward as politics becomes more divisive?

I think as party lines become clearer, states will vote down the line more often, unless we get a really reprehensible candidate(Worse than Trump).

Trump winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania was I think as extreme as we'll get. While Wisconsin and Pennsylvania lean blue, they're still borderline swing states. Winning Michigan was a big deal.

I think these states might be more solidly blue going forward, and some red states are inching bluer, but some states are getting redder, and I think we'll be pretty divided down state lines for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between this and Manafort, it makes it seem like Mueller was waiting for Trump to submit anything before really going after him. 

Get ready for some angry tweets from the president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't say I feel too strongly one way or another. 

HW was president for precisely 1 year and 2 months of my life, and he spawned W. But he himself seemed to keep a low profile. 

The most I can say is:

I hope Trump is, once again, not invited to a high profile political funeral. 

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58% of Republicans think higher Education is bad for America, according to poll by Pew Research Center

The chair of Cognitive Science at the University of Bristol, Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky once said on the "Adam Ruins Everything" comedy show interview:

"The real problem there (UK and the Brexit campaign) and also with the recent election in the US (2016 Presidential Election), I think is not just, the flood of misinformation. It's also that Facts seem to have lost traction and Expertise is now considered Elitist, Education, sometimes is considered to be Elitist".

 

Sound like basically Republicans are counting on people to perpetuate ignorance and antagonize Education...

EDIT: Question to those that read this: Do you believe there is such a thing as a "neutral stance" when it comes to Civil Rights?

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2018 at 10:39 AM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

58% of Republicans think higher Education is bad for America, according to poll by Pew Research Center

The chair of Cognitive Science at the University of Bristol, Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky once said on the "Adam Ruins Everything" comedy show interview:

"The real problem there (UK and the Brexit campaign) and also with the recent election in the US (2016 Presidential Election), I think is not just, the flood of misinformation. It's also that Facts seem to have lost traction and Expertise is now considered Elitist, Education, sometimes is considered to be Elitist".

 

Sound like basically Republicans are counting on people to perpetuate ignorance and antagonize Education...

I think it is a little more nuanced than that. According to Gallup, Republicans' primary issue with higher education is that they perceive higher education institutions to be too politically liberal and are pushing an agenda on to students. I think if an issue has political language removed or if they have more first experience with an issue, Republican voters are more likely to be more moderate or even lean left.

For example, healthcare is apparently a huge thing for Republican voters and a lot of them lean left on that issue, or at least that is what the media seems to portray them to lean.

In terms of education, once Republicans experience higher education more, I think they will come around and support it too, and I do not mind having wealthier Democratic states pay for higher education in poorer Republican states. In my opinion, I think education should be nationalized and the standardization Bush did was not enough.

On 12/1/2018 at 10:39 AM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

EDIT: Question to those that read this: Do you believe there is such a thing as a "neutral stance" when it comes to Civil Rights?

I think the only thing that I am neutral or against on is affirmative action in higher education for Asians. I personally do not think Asians need anymore help in terms of education, so peeling back affirmative action for them in that specific situation is fine; other minorities need affirmative action more in my opinion. Affirmative action is a tool to combat unequal opportunities for disadvantaged groups in certain situations, and once a group is no longer disadvantaged in certain situations, affirmative action for the group should be peeled back in those situations.

As for other racial issues, the wall and travel ban are completely stupid and pointless. This is not about immigration in general; this is about non-white immigration. The wall and travel ban are dog whistles for racists and white supremacists to rally behind.

I am a feminist, so gender equality is a no brainer. While I get that my friend and I work in different fields and companies, we have been working for around the same amount of time in our own fields, and I find it a little absurd that I am able demand and get much higher pay than her (I got 20/hr, she got 16/hr). If we include total work experience and our work ethic, she has additional experience in fast food and retail and she is a much harder worker than I am. I had quite a bit of opportunities to slack off or work slower and no one complained or noticed, but her superior pesters her for not getting things done when she also has to cover for other people.

When it comes to religion, I find the Republicans to be hypocritical for promoting religious freedom while discriminating against Islam. There is no fucking war on Christmas. Businesses discriminating against homosexuals in the name of religion is also a dick move. I do not care what people believe in and their practices should be accommodated for as long as they do not be an ass to others.

On LGBTQ issues, I want them to be specifically mentioned and protected under anti-discrimination laws.

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

Depends on the topic at hand.  There are some things that I well and truly don't care about, and I don't have the time or energy to do so.

What do you mean? Which topics are you talking about?

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XRay said:

What do you mean? Which topics are you talking about?

Civil rights.  I'd like to see the topic before deciding whether or not I care about it, since it can be a rather broad descriptor.

Edited by eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2018 at 1:39 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Do you believe there is such a thing as a "neutral stance" when it comes to Civil Rights?

As a matter of ideological preference--Yes. Individual persons may be truly undecided or ambivalent or disinterested, on-the-issues. As a matter of social utility and political pressure: [NO]

Active support is the force of propulsion for changing the status-quo. Opposition, disinterest, and ambivalence are forces of resistance (political inertia, so-to-speak). Apathy/disinterest/neutrality--though ideologically distinguishable--is therefore functionally equivalent to opposition to change + support for the status-quo.

A "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to support for a civil right, if the status-quo holds that the civil right exists and is protected. (i.e. an "neutral position"  on guns in America is a de-facto position of support for treating private gun ownership as a fundamental civil right)

Conversely, a "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to opposition to a civil right if the status-quo holds that the civil right does not exist or is not protected (i.e. a "neutral position" on healthcare in America is a de-facto position of support for the idea that access to medical treatment is NOT a protected civil right; its a market commodity)

______

Martin Luther King had a great quote on-point:  

"
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate...shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." (MLK; April 16, 1963)


 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2018 at 9:47 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Active support is the force of propulsion for changing the status-quo. Opposition, disinterest, and ambivalence are forces of resistance (political inertia, so-to-speak). Apathy/disinterest/neutrality--though ideologically distinguishable--is therefore functionally equivalent to opposition to change + support for the status-quo.

A "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to support for a civil right, if the status-quo holds that the civil right exists and is protected. (i.e. an "neutral position"  on guns in America is a de-facto position of support for treating private gun ownership as a fundamental civil right)

Conversely, a "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to opposition to a civil right if the status-quo holds that the civil right does not exist or is not protected (i.e. a "neutral position" on healthcare in America is a de-facto position of support for the idea that access to medical treatment is NOT a protected civil right; its a market commodity) 
 

 

So I have a question then regarding being neutral. (I'm know I haven't posted here in a while but I'm showing somehow how this site works since they want to join. They love fire emblem and want to talk to others so I'm showing them the forum section) I ask this because I want to know what the stance is.

What if you take a position that is neither apathetic or disinterested (albeit you are still not fully educated on the topic and all it's complexities) but focusing on issues that are more relevant to you. 

For instance, I have my own battles I'm fighting. I really can't expend the time to go help others when my cause is woefully ignored and has nobody on board. Not very many people actively try to propose ideas or solutions that can be put into effect to make a difference or change in the status quo. I have to talk to numerous people and even then, unless I offer some incentive for them to join my cause, nobody wants to pitch in. 

But yet, after I've implemented some changes everyone wants to get mad and question why it wasn't done sooner. They accuse others of not caring. I was going to type more but maybe later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got some enjoyment out of the Trump administration being harder on guns than the supposed gun grabber Democrats and Obama with the reveal of the bump stock ban to be voted on.

As much as I'll give Trump credit for actually getting his Attorney General to sign it, it was never going to be the end all or be all, but the way some gun people act is the doomsday scenario and this is the one thing Trump has done that is unforgivable, which is fucking hilarious.

I saw some of those guys say they have long memories and won't vote for Trump in 2020. Maybe so, but fat chance on the long memory thing. Do these people honestly get taken in by the obvious conman with no convictions? Compromising your own ideals to own the libs.

It'll probably be forgotten about next week knowing how these things seem to go with Trump's base but nevertheless, it was an interesting dynamic.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2018 at 9:47 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Martin Luther King had a great quote on-point:  

"
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate...shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." (MLK; April 16, 1963)



 

Seems like an understatement.

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I got some enjoyment out of the Trump administration being harder on guns than the supposed gun grabber Democrats and Obama with the reveal of the bump stock ban to be voted on.

As much as I'll give Trump credit for actually getting his Attorney General to sign it, it was never going to be the end all or be all, but the way some gun people act is the doomsday scenario and this is the one thing Trump has done that is unforgivable, which is fucking hilarious.

I saw some of those guys say they have long memories and won't vote for Trump in 2020. Maybe so, but fat chance on the long memory thing. Do these people honestly get taken in by the obvious conman with no convictions? Compromising your own ideals to own the libs.

It'll probably be forgotten about next week knowing how these things seem to go with Trump's base but nevertheless, it was an interesting dynamic.

Got examples to share? I imagined the gun nuts would flip when I first heard about and the most amusing bit of it is the bolded, remember when they said: "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM WHO'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS"? Now you've literally got law enforcement coming for an accessory that most mass shooters don't even use or know about.

I'm seeing lots of commentators on the left giving Trump credit for this and someone I know on the right asking me what I thought about this bump stock ban. I'm not 100% sure what to think on it because I haven't looked into it much past what a bump stock does but from what little I know so far, I think this is rather insignificant for the purpose of reducing/dealing with mass shootings and it's a better example of "punishing responsible gun hobbyists" than anything being touted by a "common sense gun control" advocates. Maybe I'm wrong and there's more use of the bump stocks in mass shootings than I think there is.

I've heard some speculation that this move was done by Trump to try and distance himself from the NRA for the Russian money and scandals related to Maria Butina. If so, it's even more salt in the wound to Trump voting gun nuts and they got what they voted for.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Got examples to share? I imagined the gun nuts would flip when I first heard about and the most amusing bit of it is the bolded, remember when they said: "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM WHO'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS"? Now you've literally got law enforcement coming for an accessory that most mass shooters don't even use or know about.

I'm seeing lots of commentators on the left giving Trump credit for this and someone I know on the right asking me what I thought about this bump stock ban. I'm not 100% sure what to think on it because I haven't looked into it much past what a bump stock does but from what little I know so far, I think this is rather insignificant for the purpose of reducing/dealing with mass shootings and it's a better example of "punishing responsible gun hobbyists" than anything being touted by a "common sense gun control" advocates. Maybe I'm wrong and there's more use of the bump stocks in mass shootings than I think there is.

I've heard some speculation that this move was done by Trump to try and distance himself from the NRA for the Russian money and scandals related to Maria Butina. If so, it's even more salt in the wound to Trump voting gun nuts and they got what they voted for.

Eh, I was just watching random "2A" guys on youtube. Funny thing is they usually seem to have a "Don't tread on me" flag or slogan, American flag, "liberty or death" or some shit behind them more often than not. Some of them at least admitted that they never trusted the Democrats or Republicans, but I don't know how much of that is covering asses. I saw that most of them weren't very fond of cops if they mentioned them as well, which is an interesting comparison to your more traditional conservative. Also a lot of strongman "I'm not giving them my shit over my dead body" in the comments, but we all know most of these people will never do shit. 

I heard that bump stocks weren't the only thing that were highlight as part of the law and it's redefining what might be considered an automatic weapons, so other accessories like sights may be on the chopping block to some degree too.

It's not really that I find that it's going to make any sort of massive improvement, and it is not something I care about pushing, but it's certainly I didn't expect Trump to take, and I give credit to him on the very few rare occasions when that happens.

It was just more that Trump supporters were all like "bad trump >:(" for two weeks after he sent missiles to Syria and have fully forgotten about it. When the fearmongering comes in about the big bad Democrats coming to take all your guns away at election time those folks will be right back to voting for the same.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce asylum restrictions

Trump's justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch) of course voted for Trump and Ginsburg voted against it from her hospital bed. It's incredible that such a simple decision actually ended up being 5-4...

lol

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

US Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce asylum restrictions

Trump's justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch) of course voted for Trump and Ginsburg voted against it from her hospital bed. It's incredible that such a simple decision actually ended up being 5-4...

lol

The mere fact that a) something like this goes to a 5-4 decision and b) that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are very clearly voting along a party line paints a dire picture for what the Supreme Court decisions will be like for the next 3 decades.

My only hope at this point is that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don't die/retire until there's a Democratic president, because if Conservatives get to put a 3rd person on the SCOTUS then the US is going to be completely fucked.

Edited by Time the Crestfallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

The mere fact that a) something like this goes to a 5-4 decision and b) that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are very clearly voting along a party line paints a dire picture for what the Supreme Court decisions will be like for the next 3 decades.

My only hope at this point is that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don't die/retire until there's a Democratic president, because if Conservatives get to put a 3rd person on the SCOTUS then the US is going to be completely fucked.

...What? Why?

Edited by Pixelman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pixelman said:

...What? Why?

Because considering the SCOTUS Judges that are the most likely to die/retire right now are Ginsburg or Breyer due to their advanced ages and if Trump or someone like him gets to nominate their replacement the outright Conservatives (as far as I understand Roberts can be a bit of a swing vote) would have a 5-4, potentially 6-3 majority for probably at least a decade. Perhaps 'completely fucked' is a hyperbolic statement, but my position is that it would be extremely detrimental to the US if the current iteration of the Republican Party was able to place a 3rd Judge on the SCOTUS.

Edited by Time the Crestfallen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

Because considering the SCOTUS Judges that are the most likely to die/retire right now are Ginsburg or Breyer due to their advanced ages and if Trump or someone like him gets to nominate their replacement the outright Conservatives (as far as I understand Roberts can be a bit of a swing vote) would have a 5-4, potentially 6-3 majority for probably at least a decade. Perhaps 'completely fucked' is a hyperbolic statement, but my position is that it would be extremely detrimental to the US if the current iteration of the Republican Party was able to place a 3rd Judge on the SCOTUS.

At best, no major forward moving/progressive rulings would be made in that time frame. At worst, we'd get incredibly regressive rulings and overturning of old court cases that set precedents.

I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

My problem is that even if Trump goes down, Mike Pence takes over and his appointments will likely be just as bad as Trumps, so even if Trump goes down to Mueller or something we'd still be fucked if a SCOTUS vacancy opens up prior to the 2020 election. There's also the fact that if the Republicans manage to hold onto a Senate Majority, we might learn whether or not Ted Cruz was serious about Republicans indefinitely blocking Democrat nominations to the SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Slumber said:

At best, no major forward moving/progressive rulings would be made in that time frame. At worst, we'd get incredibly regressive rulings and overturning of old court cases that set precedents.

I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

Well Obama was not allowed to appoint Judges merely for the crime of being in his final year as president. You'd think being a president that's under investigation would be a far bigger crime than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...