General US Politics

[Rapier]

4 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

What did I say that you're referring to?

This (I won't create quotes because quotes hate my guts):

" (...) we've already seen measures introduce to do away with the ACA (with no alternative currently offered). We've already seen the changes to the whitehouse.gov site (with all references to LGBT and disability rights removed, with so far nothing chosen to replace them, and with threatening pages as the new Issues pages instead), we've got yesterday's lies, and today we have the announcement of the intention to withdraw from the UN. (...)"

9 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I suppose it's an issue about defining where the lines are drawn. It's possible that the lines between "He may do this but we can stop it if it's really going to happen", "He is definitely going to do this but we can still stop it", "He is definitely going to do this but we can't stop it", and "He is already doing it" aren't well defined that people would rather prematurely act than to wait. They don't know for now long they can allow inaction so they start to act up now.

it's like indicting someone for a crime they did not commit. I can't see a rational basis for it.

[Rezzy]

3 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

...no, not really. Rome did a lot of good things, but it was shit in woman's rights even compared to other coutnries of the time, such as the Alexandrian successor states, which had Queens either as co-monarchs with their husbands or full on female inheiritance, and Persia, which had female regents and several female monarchs, although admittedly most of those were assasinated pretty quick. So no, Roman women were a little a bit above Saudi Arabia in that they could dress a bit freer, but apart from that it was utter shit. The real thing the Ancient World was good about was LGBT rights.

I did not mean that they were good, but it wasn't the bottom of the barrel, and the Classical era's not the first historical era one thinks of, and as stated before it was just a confusing analogy.  But if that's what they're going for, I won't dwell on it, since women's rights throughout history could be a thread unto itself.

 

Just now, Rapier said:

This (I won't create quotes because quotes hate my guts):
 

So that's what you meant, but Res and I are two different people.  People often call me just Rez, so I thought you meant me.

[Acacia Sgt]

3 minutes ago, Rapier said:

it's like indicting someone for a crime they did not commit. I can't see a rational basis for it.

Unless said person had made statements relating to the crime in question. From my understanding, the idea of doing something regarding people that only joke that they would do X is a thing.

[ping]

2 hours ago, Rapier said:

I preferred to say that I don't recall if he ever said that so that I wouldn't put words on someone's mouth or make a strawman out of someone. I had my doubts and played safe. Also, yes, I am irredeemably lazy.

Fair enough. It's just that it reminded me of the classic Trump tactic of saying something and then just forget about it or even outright deny that he ever said it.

2 hours ago, Rapier said:

It's not pointless to act beforehand, true, but it is pointless and especially intelectually dishonest to accuse someone of doing something that they haven't done, or call someone for something they haven't done/started doing. Using a ridiculous example to show what I mean, I can't be warned by the staff without breaking the rules, or by merely mentioning that I'll break the rules later. On the latter case, it's reasonable to expect a moderator to tell me that they'll keep a watch on my posts, but it still does not give them the legitimacy or justification for giving me a warn. The Women's March was a protest against things that Trump did not do. That's my point.

Well, technically the demonstrants just give Trump a friendly reminder that they stand against everything he said he would do. ;) Thing is, we're not talking about singular speeches or freudian slips - just take his stance to freedom of press. He was saying that he would restrict it when he was still fighting for the nomination, he still said it when he was running against Clinton and he's still saying it now that he's elected and inaugurated. I would say it is a very responsible thing to speak out for freedom of press now, not when it's already too late.

[eclipse]

Hey Rapier, before kicking over a hornet's nest, do some basic research before posting.  Trump has already done stuff, whether it be appoint someone from Exxon as the head of the EPA, or have certain whitehouse.gov pages disappear.  I am a firm believer of actions over words, and I am not happy with Trump's actions.

[Phoenix Wright]

4 hours ago, Rapier said:

Ok, I might be putting my foot on my mouth with this, and I haven't actually followed Trump and Clinton's tragectory up to their elections, but I'm seeing Trump's opposition to be as bad as he is. The Women's March case only helped me see how cringy the whole ordeal is.

First, "Trump is not my president!". Yes, he is. He won fairly and legally, unless there is evidence backing up the possibility of an impeachment and a legal clause that can be used for its justification, accept that maybe people disagree with your opinion and prefer another candidate, let it go and move on.

Second, either I am living in a cave and missing out the news (I am, kind of), but Trump has done nothing yet against LGBT/immigrants/minorities-in-general's rights. Protesting against stuff that someone didn't even do is not only pointless, it is also ranty and intelectually dishonest for creating a scarecrow out of someone's position. Despite what Trump said he'd do during his elections, it is pointless to act before anything happens because it does not confirm that he will actually do those things he promised (oh, look, the possibility of a politician who doesn't do what he said he'd do during his elections, or who at least doesn't follow his promises integrally. That's new).

I don't like Trump, I disagree with banning illegal immigrants and the possibility of banning muslims (I... don't really remember if he ever said that), but I must facepalm at both sides, unfortunately.

 

 

you most certainly are.

you have done no research. this post is hogwash--get rid of it.

sad!

[Rezzy]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Hey Rapier, before kicking over a hornet's nest, do some basic research before posting.  Trump has already done stuff, whether it be appoint someone from Exxon as the head of the EPA, or have certain whitehouse.gov pages disappear.  I am a firm believer of actions over words, and I am not happy with Trump's actions.

It makes me feel dirty to defend anything Trump does, but the White House website has an innocuous explanation. I also feel dirty using Buzzfeed as a source.

Basically, the takedown of the White House site was planned by both parties, and it will get rebuilt for the new administration.

 

I just think we should try to be objective.  I know it's tough, but when we overreact to everything, it will make people think we cry wolf one too many times and not take action when there's genuine things that need attention.  I still don't know why the Vaccine thing is not getting more attention, when people are just talking about PissGate, Copy Cakes, and the White House website getting remodeled after the transfer of power.

[eclipse]

5 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

It makes me feel dirty to defend anything Trump does, but the White House website has an innocuous explanation. I also feel dirty using Buzzfeed as a source.

Basically, the takedown of the White House site was planned by both parties, and it will get rebuilt for the new administration.

 

I just think we should try to be objective.  I know it's tough, but when we overreact to everything, it will make people think we cry wolf one too many times and not take action when there's genuine things that need attention.  I still don't know why the Vaccine thing is not getting more attention, when people are just talking about PissGate, Copy Cakes, and the White House website getting remodeled after the transfer of power.

Perhaps it's because they're not in my shoes, where a diminished herd immunity puts me at risk (to put it mildly). Perhaps it's because those people immunized themselves and their kids, so don't really care about it.  Perhaps it's because trying to argue with someone who's anti-vaccination is about as productive as punching a wall.  Regardless, I think it's a very important issue, and one that the federal government should take into its hands.

Anti-vaccination is one of those rare things where I have no qualms about using whatever methods I have to get people to listen.  I'm quite literally fighting for my life.

[Rezzy]

10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Perhaps it's because they're not in my shoes, where a diminished herd immunity puts me at risk (to put it mildly). Perhaps it's because those people immunized themselves and their kids, so don't really care about it.  Perhaps it's because trying to argue with someone who's anti-vaccination is about as productive as punching a wall.  Regardless, I think it's a very important issue, and one that the federal government should take into its hands.

Anti-vaccination is one of those rare things where I have no qualms about using whatever methods I have to get people to listen.  I'm quite literally fighting for my life.

As stated before, vaccinations are one of the single best thing for public health, apart from access to clean water and not having feces building up in the streets.  There is hard evidence that they work and many diseases that for centuries would kill a sizable portion of the populace were all but eliminated in the span of a few decades.

And it's not something that would takes centuries to see the true effects of, diseases can and have spread in a matter of months and kill millions of people.  I'm not being hyperbolic; the Flu killed more people than World War One in the early 20th century.

[Lord Raven]

Are you talking about in the media or in this thread? Because honestly even though the media is dumb I prefer a free press over a controlled press (in this case they chase the money - drumming up controversy and sensationalism) but we had a discussion on vaccines a few pages back and the vaccine skeptic has not come back to defend himself.

The idea of post-truth and alt-fact (which is a term Kellyanne Conway used today to say that Trump had the largest inauguration crowd in history...) transcends this though and is possibly an even bigger issue. Why bother educating people on vaccines when they use their feelings and their opinions to weigh in on scientifically verified facts? It's more productive to educate people on everything this administration represents then everything else will fall into place.

[Water Mage]

One thing I don't understand is why people are afraid or have the wrong idea of vaccines in the first place. Don't they have things such as pamphlets, tv commercials, speeches in schools and such that explain what will the vaccines do to their bodies? Or is it that the people don't bother getting informed? 

Also I keep about the whole discussion about the number of people attending Trump's inauguration. I mean, there's a much simpler explanation for that.

I mean, I am honestly not surprised that Trump had less people at the inauguration. They where in DC, which voted 90% Hillary and 4% Trump. Compare this to 2012 and 2008: which about 90-92% of DC voted for Obama. DC is also in between Maryland and Virginia, which 61-62% of the former voted for Obama and 50-51% of the latter voted for Obama. He also had swing state support in that General region as well, that is why John McCain and Mitt Romney lost. Obviously if someone has more support in an area, they are going to have more people celebrating their victory.

Simply put, Obama had more support locally where the inauguration happened. This is like complaining about an inauguration in Texas having more support for Trump rather than Obama.

[Lord Raven]

Actually if you look at the neighboring COUNTIES you'll see even less support for Trump.

My parents live in Prince George's County which is in the metro area and they had something like 95% Clinton votes and Fairfax/Loudon county had a lot more Clinton than Trump support. It still doesn't stop the administration from actively lying about the fact that more attended Trump's than Obama's inauguration.

[eclipse]

21 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

One thing I don't understand is why people are afraid or have the wrong idea of vaccines in the first place. Don't they have things such as pamphlets, tv commercials, speeches in schools and such that explain what will the vaccines do to their bodies? Or is it that the people don't bother getting informed?

Besides the completely idiotic stance that vaccines cause autism (they don't), there's also another branch that's afraid of what's in the vaccine.  "OMG THERE'S ALUMINUM, MERCURY, ABORTED FETUSES, AND SHIT THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE" is one stance, along with another that's afraid of their newborn dropping dead after getting a vaccine.  Google "vaccine deaths", and one of those sites should pop up.  I'd link it, but there's some seriously disturbing images on that site.

Now, if y'all just want to chew the cud about vaccines, feel free to make another topic.  If you want to talk about how the government plays a part in it, keep posting in here~!

Edited January 22, 2017 by eclipse

[Water Mage]

3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Besides the completely idiotic stance that vaccines cause autism (they don't), there's also another branch that's afraid of what's in the vaccine.  "OMG THERE'S ALUMINUM, MERCURY, ABORTED FETUSES, AND SHIT THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE" is one stance, along with another that's afraid of their newborn dropping dead after getting a vaccine.  Google "vaccine deaths", and one of those sites should pop up.  I'd link it, but there's some seriously disturbing images on that site.

Now, if y'all just want to chew the cud about vaccines, feel free to make another topic.  If you want to talk about how the government plays a part in it, keep posting in here~!

To be honest, the government is part of why I am such disbelief. 

Does the goverment make any effort to explain vaccines to people? It would make a lot more people much less paranoid. And doesn't the people who are unsure about vaccines seek an especialist to explain it to them?

[eclipse]

5 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

To be honest, the government is part of why I am such disbelief. 

Does the goverment make any effort to explain vaccines to people? It would make a lot more people much less paranoid. And doesn't the people who are unsure about vaccines seek an especialist to explain it to them?

Besides my own self-interest, part of my history class was "choose something from the past to research".  I chose smallpox.  This is how I learned about the history of vaccination, and why I supported them.  If people were willing to deliberately get themselves sick to avoid smallpox, it must've been bad.  Furthermore, it was vaccines that wiped out smallpox. . .not this anti-vaccination shit.

While vaccination education isn't mandatory, the books and whatnot are there for those who want to learn about it.  However, when you're dealing with people who have about as much biological science understanding as I do about quantum physics, rational education won't work, and will be written off as government propaganda.

EDIT: Oops, sorry Lord Raven!  Tried to delete the double-post, and somehow deleted both!

Edited January 22, 2017 by eclipse

[Rukina]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I still don't know why the Vaccine thing is not getting more attention, when people are just talking about PissGate, Copy Cakes, and the White House website getting remodeled after the transfer of power.

Once Spring arrives the mosquito population will have a chance to steadily rise again.  This should help get more light on vaccine related issues, especially since the Zika vaccine is still being worked on which means the Zika virus will be hard to effectively control.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Sarracenia

[Water Mage]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Besides my own self-interest, part of my history class was "choose something from the past to research".  I chose smallpox.  This is how I learned about the history of vaccination, and why I supported them.  If people were willing to deliberately get themselves sick to avoid smallpox, it must've been bad.  Furthermore, it was vaccines that wiped out smallpox. . .not this anti-vaccination shit.

While vaccination education isn't mandatory, the books and whatnot are there for those who want to learn about it.  However, when you're dealing with people who have about as much biological science understanding as I do about quantum physics, rational education won't work, and will be written off as government propaganda.

Sometimes I wonder if the goverment should make vaccination education mandatory. It would help a lot. 

Actually, why isn't vaccination education mandatory in America in the first place? Or vaccination in general? 

[Res]

While the anti-vax community has been gaining alarming traction, vaccination rates are still currently at over 90%, so perhaps that's why the government hasn't considered it necessary to make education mandatory? 

[Water Mage]

11 minutes ago, Res said:

While the anti-vax community has been gaining alarming traction, vaccination rates are still currently at over 90%, so perhaps that's why the government hasn't considered it necessary to make education mandatory? 

I know, but allow me to be blunt:

Anti-vax community is something that shouldn't even exist in the first  place. It's such a ridiculous and dangerous notion, that even 10% is unacceptable. 

I come from a country where people have to fight to be vaccinated. Fight for the right to be vaccinated. Sometimes they travel to other towns and such just to be vaccinated. They endure incredible long lines to be vaccinated. I've seen people crying, and begging to be vaccinated, saying things like "I beg you, at least vaccinate my children!", but there wasn't enough vaccine. I've seen so many die because they weren't vaccinated and they were begging to be vaccinated. So, it actually makes me angry that something like anti-vax sentiment exists in the first place. These people aren't aware at how lucky they are. They aren't aware at how lucky they are to have these vaccines easily avaiable. It feels like a first-world problem to be honest. 

And I sorry eclipse, I know you said to keep this about the goverment, but I had to let it out.

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Water Mage

[Augestein]

6 hours ago, Rapier said:

It's not pointless to act beforehand, true, but it is pointless and especially intelectually dishonest to accuse someone of doing something that they haven't done, or call someone for something they haven't done/started doing. Using a ridiculous example to show what I mean, I can't be warned by the staff without breaking the rules, or by merely mentioning that I'll break the rules later. On the latter case, it's reasonable to expect a moderator to tell me that they'll keep a watch on my posts, but it still does not give them the legitimacy or justification for giving me a warn. The Women's March was a protest against things that Trump did not do. That's my point.

 

But here's the thing, even using your example, when a person is signing up for a place, let's say Serenes Forest, you are given the rules. What happened would be the equivalent to you reading the rules and saying "screw the rules," you may not have broken the rules yet, but the moderators are already going to have their eyes on you. In this case, Trump already has begun doing things, so it's already a problem. He's been saying things from the start. You are supposed to be proactive rather than reactive. It's harder to lose something than it is to gain it back. 

 

As for vaccination, all I can really do is pray at this point that people aren't overall that stupid. Otherwise I'm going to have to start thinking of myself as smart, and I don't like that.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Augestein

[Lord Raven]

8 minutes ago, Augestein said:

As for vaccination, all I can really do is pray at this point that people aren't overall that stupid. Otherwise I'm going to have to start thinking of myself as smart, and I don't like that.

Yeah, I agree. I consider myself educated to issues to a bare minimum degree and I really don't want to be considered in the upper tier of this, if nothing else.

17 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

I know, but allow me to be blunt:

Anti-vax community is something that shouldn't even exist in the first  place. It's such a ridiculous and dangerous notion, that even 10% is unacceptable. 

Absolutely. This is a matter of public health and basic safety. There is zero reason to actively go against it, and I believe if nothing else there should be education at a basic level to counteract the ignorance in a logical and concise way.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

I agree completely, but people have been fighting against vaccinations since Jenner's day, and there'll especially always be a significant anti-vax movement as long as they don't feel directly threatened (even then, you have anti-vax parents who remain resolute even after their child has contracted measles or pertussis!). It's always going to exist, but we can at least work to reduce the numbers.

Here's another problem: Trump has not divested himself of any holdings in his companies, nor has he even transferred control to his kids. If that continues, what happens if, for example, a Trump hotel is bombed abroad? Is it just an attack on the hotel itself, or is it seen as a personal attack at Trump, or is it viewed as an attack on the U.S.?  

[Lord Raven]

To be honest, Trump keeping control of his company is a more honest way of doing what Cheney did under the Bush administration. It's still horrifying, but at least they're honest about it?

Comparisons to Dick Cheney will always be a very very bad thing, though.

EDIT: This is quite interesting.

http://imgur.com/gallery/Y7Zpt

Is the reception of Trump's inauguration more peaceful or more violent?

Edited January 22, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Radiant head]

yeah it's kind of the same thing as putting the ceo of exxon or the president of goldman sachs in his cabinet.  just a more blatant version of how the government has always been run. 

[Skynstein]

45 minutes ago, Res said:

I agree completely, but people have been fighting against vaccinations since Jenner's day, and there'll especially always be a significant anti-vax movement as long as they don't feel directly threatened (even then, you have anti-vax parents who remain resolute even after their child has contracted measles or pertussis!). It's always going to exist, but we can at least work to reduce the numbers.

Here's another problem: Trump has not divested himself of any holdings in his companies, nor has he even transferred control to his kids. If that continues, what happens if, for example, a Trump hotel is bombed abroad? Is it just an attack on the hotel itself, or is it seen as a personal attack at Trump, or is it viewed as an attack on the U.S.?  

People fight vaccination because they don't know what it is and because of conspiracy, it's always been like that, sadly lately the anti-vax camp has developed hoaxes to (pseudo)scientifically "justify" their stance (much like the anti-global warming camp) and people are falling for it because of conspiracy once again.

I've always thought vaccines are one of the most ingenious things mankind has developed.