Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

iirc wikileaks works by having whistleblowers give them the information, so they might not have had a source. also podesta's email was hacked because he was incompetent so unlikely they'd have that same luck again.

of course julian assange once thought ron paul was the answer to his problems with the us government, so wouldn't rule out him being a partisan hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Also, @Res, that third-wave feminism has reached its death throes doesn't mean that we're suddenly going to go full patriarchal on this. Before third wave feminism even started, women already enjoyed full equality under the law (and even advantages over men in this aspect); and although society still viewed women differently than men (with both advantages and disadvantages), nothing short of full re-indoctrination and likely genetic engineering will change it. People treat others differently based on their sex and it's a perfectly natural thing to happen.

Mm. Based on your previous posts in this thread and in others, you're the exact type of political voter who concerns me. You're certainly right that you'd treat others differently based on their sex.

This article speaks of fear and speculation, neither of which is helpful. I like having information dissected, but I don't like the spin on it. For example:First sentence: HAS NOT FUCKING HAPPENED, STOP TRYING TO ADVERTISE THE APOCALYPSE, SHEESH.Last bit regarding Puzder: Fine, he's a cheesehead. However, he has enacted zero things so far.The rest have links, except for the Planned Parenthood thing. Links are good. Fear-mongering is not.

This is fair criticism and it certainly is fearmongering (I probably should've just paraphrased the one paragraph I liked in my post). As for what actual rights might be taken away/threatened I'm trying not to speculate - I want to stay aware, not fearful. As for the shift in general public attitude, though, I think that's already happening to a degree.

Putin just proved he's not as childish as Obama.

https://www.rt.com/news/372256-putin-diplomats-expulsion-rejects/

Smart move on Putin's part!

Harking back to the discussion of a couple of pages back: I think there's very little that's admirable about the current U.S. political system. And in terms of actual policies, there's been little difference between the parties once they actually hold power. Under Obama, the implementation of the ACA has been half-hearted. He's actually deported more immigrants than any of his predecessors. Drone strikes have increased; Guantanamo Bay is still open. As for Trump, my main concern isn't that he's revolutionary in any way (because his cabinet picks so far do not indicate this); it's that he'll continue along the same old path, only veering ever more conservative. An even bigger rich/poor divide (from increasing capitalism), increased deportion (that he promised), more use of torture (also a direct promise), decreased benefits, a gutting of social security, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now hate our own fellow citizens more than anything else in the country because of a stupid political party.

It's not necessarily politics that causes the divide, rather that politics has become the primary means with which Americans express their way of life. Basically a cultural war.

There has always been divisions in the US; whether it's race, class, political party or regionalism. The starkest divide shown now, probably, is the urban/rural divide. It could be said that the people who voted for Hillary, and the people who voted for Trump, represent two different Americas with two different ways of life; with both sides viewing each other as a threat to their way of life/existence.

Also, it's true that the GOP will get what's coming to them when the Democrats start being the obstructionists; that's how partisan politics works. Plus, the GOP was rewarded for their obstructionism; their gamble on the Supreme Court opening certainly payed off. Naturally, Democrats will want to replicate that.

Besides, the Democrat base will naturally be opposed to the Democrats working with Trump in any regard; they do not want to legitimize him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's assuming that democrats have half the backbone that republicans do, which i seriously doubt. most of the disastrous stuff under reagan and bush had bipartisan support. the us doesn't have a serious left-wing to counter trump.

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bipartisan support entails is vague. Also, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, democrats and republicans often cooperated. It was with the rise of the tea party movement during the Obama presidency that the two parties polarized, and stopped working together. Considering the republican centre, historically the ones cooperating are now a minority in their party, there's no one to facilitate cooperation. Regardless of Democrat will to cooperate, which I doubt will be high, simply because there is no common ground to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is that the gop is constantly moves further and further to the right. while the dems constantly try to appease them to the center, effectively moving right as well. the democratic support for the war in iraq is a pretty concrete, non-vague example of both parties cooperating on a right-wing agenda.

anyway, this piece was good

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I guess stable relations with Russia just aren't part of the NATO-agenda.

It probably is part of the agenda, just not at any cost.

Because right now Russia is illegally holding on to the territory of its neighbor state, is arming and aiding rebels/bandits to create chaos in that same neighbor state, its acting belligerently towards Europe and its dealing in the middle east can be deemed controversial at best.

I'm not sure why NATO has to play the role of abused spouse and turn the other cheek. Its not in their interest to send Russia the message they can just carry on with this behavior.

You could say we should let a couple of highly questionable things slide for the sake of stability but who else thought like that a couple of decades ago? Chamberlain did and his name is pretty much mud by now.

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is that the gop is constantly moves further and further to the right. while the dems constantly try to appease them to the center, effectively moving right as well. the democratic support for the war in iraq is a pretty concrete, non-vague example of both parties cooperating on a right-wing agenda.

anyway, this piece was good

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

That was a good read; so are the author's other articles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in way too much detail about Russia/hacking/this election, reddit has some very interesting posts.

Geopolitics single post regarding Russia

Tactical post

Neutral Politics, where sources are mandatory

CLICK ANY AND ALL LINKS WITHIN TOPICS AT YOUR OWN RISK! I haven't had a chance to vet all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all 100% SFW, especially the NeutralPolitics post which is a heavily regulated sub.

I can vouch that there's a couple of links in the second link I provided that are ABSOLUTELY not safe for work. They're marked, and the descriptions on the link make it pretty obvious it's NSFW. Still, I can't guarantee that every last person will read everything in all of those posts, hence the warning.

Edited by eggclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can vouch that there's a couple of links in the second link I provided that are ABSOLUTELY not safe for work. They're marked, and the descriptions on the link make it pretty obvious it's NSFW. Still, I can't guarantee that every last person will read everything in all of those posts, hence the warning.

I've got a fever, and am feeling light headed, but why are they NSFW? Do we get nudes of Putin or are they virus laden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a fever, and am feeling light headed, but why are they NSFW? Do we get nudes of Putin or are they virus laden?

Neither. It's a decapitation video. The other one involves people being thrown off of a roof.

Regardless, both are pretty clearly labeled, so those who have issues with that can stay away from it, and read the gigantic wall of text instead.

Edited by eggclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say we should let a couple of highly questionable things slide for the sake of stability but who else thought like that a couple of decades ago? Chamberlain did and his name is pretty much mud by now.

lol the idea that that nato has some kind of moral high ground on international affairs is laughable.

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao, you must be pretty brainwashed by russian propaganda.

Putin's ivasion of Ukraine is rightful but NATO is terrorist? lol

Putin didn't invade Ukraine as much as USA didn't invade Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin didn't invade Ukraine as much as USA didn't invade Texas.

well, the us did invade and anex texas almost 200 years ago, but that's irrelevant as of now. If the US anexed or invaded part of Mexico nowadays, then there would be a lot of backlash.

Also, Crimea, that has a russian majority indeed, wasn't the only part of Ukraine invaded by Russia. There are plenty of places in western Ukraine that DO NOT have russian majorities (russians are around 30% of the population there) that are invaded by russia as of now.

Russians always oppressed Ukrainians, treated them like shit, even commited genocide against them, yet russian apologists try to pretend that Ukraine is in the wrong for trying to stay away from the country that always oppressed them.

Edited by Nobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the us did invade and anex texas almost 200 years ago, but that's irrelevant as of now. If the US anexed or invaded part of Mexico nowadays, then there would be a lot of backlash.

Also, Crimea, that has a russian majority indeed, wasn't the only part of Ukraine invaded by Russia. There are plenty of places in western Ukraine that DO NOT have russian majorities (russians are around 30% of the population there) that are invaded by russia as of now.

Russians always oppressed Ukrainians, treated them like shit, even commited genocide against them, yet russian apologists try to pretend that Ukraine is in the wrong for trying to stay away from the country that always oppressed them.

That's what I call hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I call hypocrite.

care to elaborate?

I'm an hypocrite because I think something that happened 200 years ago shouldn't be judged on the same light as something that happened last year?

I wouldn't judge russia for invading countries and anexing their lands 200, 100 or even 50 years ago

But they did that literally last year

Either way, if I'm a hypocrite, then so are the putinbots who think russia did nothing wrong.

Edited by Nobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin didn't invade Ukraine as much as USA didn't invade Texas.

who said that wasn't wrong?

retrospectively, the very existence of the colonies was wrong. manifest destiny was wrong. going to war to expand territory was and remains wrong. however, that sort of thing was accepted (to a degree, obviously not 100% of people thought imperialism was ok) 90+ years ago. it is not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA legit didn't invade Texas, though. Texas got independence and then joined voluntarily. Now, the US totally stole a lot of land from Mexico, but they didn't invade Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, believe that United States history is terrible and is fed to its citizens in the most sugarcoated way possible.

I mean, we fought for our freedoms - that we pretty much had already - in 1776. We fought to end slavery hundreds of years after we started it. We fought to prevent genocide in the 40s, despite performing it ourselves and leaving significantly less behind. I mean come on.

If you're going to call out any American for being a hypocrite against this kind of stuff, then you may as well ask them how they stand on the idea first. Just because I'm living in this country doesn't mean I'm proud of its history.

Share this post


Link to post
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...