Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

On 2/22/2017 at 0:27 AM, Lord Raven said:

You have not given one reason as to why you voted Trump aside from "I live in a rural area and I like it here, and I prefer a more conservative America."

No. You can say whatever you want about me, but do not misconstrue what I've said for the sake of your argument.

I said before that I did not like Hillary's ideas on foreign policy. I also said that I was willing to take a gamble on Trump's economic ideas, because I know people around here need jobs. I've also said that I think illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be dealt with, whether someone puts up a wall or not. Those are the reasons I voted Trump; I don't buy into Trumpism. My preferred candidates were people like Jim Webb and Rand Paul.

Your point about the people in power sowing divisions among society is fair; you're not the first person I've heard say that. Perhaps you are right.

 

On 2/22/2017 at 0:27 AM, Lord Raven said:

The difference is that one is legitimately a threat and one is not a threat.

"We're not the threat, they are!" is not a convincing argument if you want to win the other side over. Democrats/liberals have been saying that kind of stuff for years; that they just want to help, people who vote Republican are voting against their own interests. Maybe those voters are being deceived, or maybe the values that Republicans preach are the values they believe in. Either way, look at the last election; Hillary was anathema to a lot of conservatives, enough that many pulled the lever for Trump despite their own personal misgivings. They very clearly viewed her and the side she represented as a threat.

 

On 2/22/2017 at 0:27 AM, Lord Raven said:

I am willing to bet that minorities and people who are of the class of people who are persecuted are much more likely to be sympathetic to a rural American who is struggling despite differing views on things than the other way around; because the politicians have convinced the latter that the former are evil.

I don't know, I'm kind of doubtful about that. Obama pretty much said the same thing in his farewell speech, but I don't think it really went home. When you consider the issues important to blacks or Latinos, why should they sympathize with that working-class white guy who's struggling economically? They're mad about the police, or concerned about immigration...so why should some guy from the majority group having economic problems concern them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@CyborgZeta

Quote

No. You can say whatever you want about me, but do not misconstrue what I've said for the sake of your argument.

I said before that I did not like Hillary's ideas on foreign policy. I also said that I was willing to take a gamble on Trump's economic ideas, because I know people around here need jobs. I've also said that I think illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be dealt with, whether someone puts up a wall or not. Those are the reasons I voted Trump; I don't buy into Trumpism. My preferred candidates were people like Jim Webb and Rand Paul.

Your point about the people in power sowing divisions among society is fair; you're not the first person I've heard say that. Perhaps you are right.

Then why do you push this rural/urban culture divide narrative that more or less doesn't exist? In fact, you haven't even specified what the divide is in any detail.

You even said that draining the swamp was a good thing (something he hasn't done) - and that is a Trumpism - as is restoring jobs to people who...  probably won't get their jobs back forever. Which is another Trumpism. You were willing to take a gamble on something that has shown not to work in the past.

Quote

"We're not the threat, they are!" is not a convincing argument if you want to win the other side over. Democrats/liberals have been saying that kind of stuff for years; that they just want to help, people who vote Republican are voting against their own interests. Maybe those voters are being deceived, or maybe the values that Republicans preach are the values they believe in. Either way, look at the last election; Hillary was anathema to a lot of conservatives, enough that many pulled the lever for Trump despite their own personal misgivings. They very clearly viewed her and the side she represented as a threat.

Again, this is avoiding the point. I pointed to you specific things that do threaten people's way of life that people continue to vote against or vote for people who want to destroy these. I will list them again.

- Transgender bathroom bills (being able to choose your bathroom is what prevents sexual assaults from happening generally btw)

- Gay marriage and all of the benefits that come from it

- Gay adoption

- Taking away the right for employers to fire you based on your sexual preference or gender identity

- Taking away the right for people to deny you service based on sexual prefer, gender identity or political beliefs

- The right to a safe abortion

- The right to healthcare

- The right to not be on a registry, and to stay in a country you're legally allowed to stay in

"We're not the threat, they are!" is not gonna win people over...  unless I provide specific examples of how exactly it's going to work, and no matter what I do it won't convince this particular subset of people. Because they are convinced to war against these people because it's supposedly un-Christian and their lives will be negatively affected by it -- how?? And how the hell do you compromise on any of these things? You know there's a good chunk of people that want this, and therefore they are a direct threat to others' lives? How about you list some specific examples of ways that the "urban" people do threaten the rural way of life? You've failed to do that, and I actually do not see it.

In fact, you keep pushing the idea of "people aren't compromising! They're just yelling at each other and being tribalistic!" But this is not anything new. This has always been an issue, and this will not increase due to this supposed rural/urban divide. Both have drug issues, both have job issues, and both have plenty of pockets in extreme poverty; there is no actual divide here. Only a supposed divide.

You haven't posted any specific arguments as to what people don't compromise on. Or are you talking about when Barack Obama tried for his first term for bipartisanship and the Republican party basically spit in his face? How the Republican Party hated the shit out of Bill Clinton and looked to any flimsy excuse to impeach him? Hell, they even blame him for Bin Laden, and they're the ones that blocked him from going after Bin Laden! The Republican party is continually unwilling to compromise and had the balls to come out and say "I hope they give Neil Gorsuch the proper consideration that we gave Merrick Garland," basically giving them the middle finger. You literally voted for this side, then complained that people don't talk anymore. You don't get to claim any sort of moral high ground.

They've continually also preached party over country as well, if you look at any Paul Ryan interview. If you elect a Republican president, your bills get passed. He hasn't spoken out against the travel ban, he hasn't spoken out against multiple things Trump has done over the past month, because he wants his bills passed and his party to stay united. 

Quote

I don't know, I'm kind of doubtful about that. Obama pretty much said the same thing in his farewell speech, but I don't think it really went home. When you consider the issues important to blacks or Latinos, why should they sympathize with that working-class white guy who's struggling economically? They're mad about the police, or concerned about immigration...so why should some guy from the majority group having economic problems concern them?

Because they're literally also probably facing economic problems on top of their own issues. In fact the majority of issues towards blacks and latinos are economic in nature, but they're also due to passive segregation denying them from better schooling as well as the idea of gentrification.

But the thing is that rural areas continuously get screwed when it comes to education, their property values are shit too, etc. Being sympathetic to poverty is easy because it tends to affect more people, but one side just doesn't try to be sympathetic towards different sexual preferences, the idea of gender identity, and race -- all because they're told not to, not because of any inherent looming threat.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also the left doesn't really need to convince trump voters by and large, since the biggest group of americans are the ones who didn't vote at all.  some trump voters, especially the blue collar rust belt types, can be won over with a more economic populist agenda, but for the most part it's more productive to tap into people who are discouraged from the process altogether, and hillary was by far the worse choice for that. 

the "both sides are too extreme and need to talk to each other" is a bad joke at this point 

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Radiant head said:

also the left doesn't really need to convince trump voters by and large, since the biggest group of americans are the ones who didn't vote at all.  some trump voters, especially the blue collar rust belt types, can be won over with a more economic populist agenda, but for the most part it's more productive to tap into people who are discouraged from the process altogether, and hillary was by far the worse choice for that. 

the "both sides are too extreme and need to talk to each other" is a bad joke at this point 

In other words, in order for the left to win, they have to get people to actually vote. Unless they create a law that forces people to vote or at the very least make voting days on Sundays, most americans won't vote at all. Seriously, whose idea was to make voting day on a regular workday? Of course a lot of people won't vote! 

Edited by Water Mage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Water Mage said:

In other words, in order for the left to win, they have to get people to actually vote. Unless they create a law that forces people to vote or at the very least make voting days on Sundays, most americans won't vote at all. Seriously, whose idea was to make voting day on a regular workday? Of course a lot of people won't vote! 

Dude, watch this.

From what I can tell, a lot of policies on American politics and voting are a result of things back in the days when the U.S. was first being established as a country, and for whatever reason politicians refuse to upgrade their faulty system. It's like insisting on using a computer that is several years out of date and refusing to get with the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

Dude, watch this.

From what I can tell, a lot of policies on American politics and voting are a result of things back in the days when the U.S. was first being established as a country, and for whatever reason politicians refuse to upgrade their faulty system. It's like insisting on using a computer that is several years out of date and refusing to get with the times.

Indeed.  And since we have a national holiday on Nov. 11th, Veteran's Day, it would be nice if we could make that the new Election Day. I'm sure veterans won't mind their holiday sharing the spotlight with a long held, patriotic tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Water Mage said:

In other words, in order for the left to win, they have to get people to actually vote. Unless they create a law that forces people to vote or at the very least make voting days on Sundays, most americans won't vote at all. Seriously, whose idea was to make voting day on a regular workday? Of course a lot of people won't vote! 

this would be better than what we have now, but australia already has this and the left hasn't benefitted that much. 

getting people to vote is going to be more about actual politics, ie. grassroots organizing, coalition building, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320902-white-house-hints-at-crackdown-on-recreational-marijuana

Spicer kinda hinted that there would be "greater enforcement" in regards to recreational marijuana (and compares it to opiods).

It's also interesting they are determined to push it as a federal issue when transgender bathroom rights are a "states rights issue". States rights are good until they aren't, I guess.

Still, I can't see this actually happening. If it does, then they will have quite a few pissed people, even conservatives. It won't go over well.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would conservatives be mad over the bathroom/marijuana thing?

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that they will care about the marijuana issue. Because even Trump supporters are somewhat in favour of legalisation from what I've seen. It's not really disputed by people unless they are moralising douchebags.

They couldn't give a toss about transgender rights, I'd imagine, and often states rights has been used as an argument to 'Don't tread on my right to take away the rights of others', so that's not what I'm referring to they would be pissed about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I meant that they will care about the marijuana issue. Because even Trump supporters are somewhat in favour of legalisation from what I've seen. It's not really disputed by people unless they are moralising douchebags.

They couldn't give a toss about transgender rights, I'd imagine, and often states rights has been used as an argument to 'Don't tread on my right to take away the rights of others', so that's not what I'm referring to they would be pissed about.

Those on the authoritarian right will cheer for these changes.  Unfortunately, that block was far more likely to vote for Trump than any other candidate, since the GOP pandered to the evangelical Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Those on the authoritarian right will cheer for these changes.  Unfortunately, that block was far more likely to vote for Trump than any other candidate, since the GOP pandered to the evangelical Christians.

No doubt. It's almost like Trump is authoritarian.

Don't know how any Libertarian can in good conscience support this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Moira said:

Going to side eye all the people who said trump was for LGBT people, he's clearly taking a stance now

I thought his stance was taken when he made Pence his VP.

Remember this?
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/1/30/trump-backtracks-campaign-promise-wont-overturn-lgbt-protections

Couldn't even wait a whole month before going back on it. How anyone can support Trump from being different to normal politicians is beyond me. He's basically all the worst aspects of modern politics incarnate.

Edited by The Blind Idiot God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought he'd be pro lgbt, but so many obnoxious people wanted to insist that he would be. I even remember this sentiment in the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Blind Idiot God said:

I thought his stance was taken when he made Pence his VP.

Remember this?
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/1/30/trump-backtracks-campaign-promise-wont-overturn-lgbt-protections

Couldn't even wait a whole month before going back on it. How anyone can support Trump from being different to normal politicians is beyond me. He's basically all the worst aspects of modern politics incarnate.

Isn't that article just speculating? I have nothing against speculation, but it just seems to pointlessly rile people up. Trump hasn't confirmed or denied that he's going repeal Obama's actions (avoiding or leaving the subject for last), so the LGBT+ community is understandably worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Raumata said:

Isn't that article just speculating? I have nothing against speculation, but it just seems to pointlessly rile people up. Trump hasn't confirmed or denied that he's going repeal Obama's actions (avoiding or leaving the subject for last), so the LGBT+ community is understandably worried.

i mean the trump administration literally just did repeal one of Obama's transgender protections as posted by him earlier so i'm not sure why you're saying it's speculation

now you can argue if that was a good law or not or whatever but he has legitimately already done this so... yeah.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

i mean the trump administration literally just did repeal one of Obama's transgender protections as posted by him earlier so i'm not sure why you're saying it's speculation

now you can argue if that was a good law or not or whatever but he has legitimately already done this so... yeah.

M'kay.

Edit: Not like I can do anything about it. I'm a simple woman who is a bit directionless in life. I've had my share of health problems and insecurity, but also happy moments, y'know, mundane. 

Aah, I just feel apathetic about everything. Ideology has done absolutely nothing for me. I look and look, yet there is not one that fits me.

Edited by Raumata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moira said:

I never thought he'd be pro lgbt, but so many obnoxious people wanted to insist that he would be. I even remember this sentiment in the thread

There was definitely the sentiment in this thread.

The DAPL is forging ahead, screwing over Native Americans once again.

The crackdown on marijuana is nothing but a waste of time, money and resources - and that's speaking as someone who hates the stuff and recreational drug use in general (I think it'd be much better for multiple reasons to see illegal drugs legalized and taxed). 

House Bill 610, concerning education, does not look good. It diverts funds from the public school system and repeals ESSA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Moira said:

I never thought he'd be pro lgbt, but so many obnoxious people wanted to insist that he would be. I even remember this sentiment in the thread

The dude even said that the Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage was a travesty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Dakota Access getting bombed at some point. The Corps of Engineers are probably going to need actual personnel guarding them while they get it built to prevent a terrorist from blowing the pipeline. 

I think tighter marijuana restrictions may backfire as more states legalize it just to slight Trump and the DEA.

The Education bill... hopefully won't pass. If it does, I vow to NEVER send my children to a public school so long as it is law. If I can't be sure my children will be safe in school, they will not attend one, especially if the protections afforded to me, an Asperger's "sufferer", are not afforded to my children, should they also suffer from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are definitely other people influencing him on marijuana and the bathroom thing.  not that it makes any difference, since it was always clear that trump was getting in bed with the rest of the gop and the dogma that comes with that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like marijuana use personally either but it's frustrating because what Sean Spicer said that the Trump administration want to do directly proves that Trump is full of shit on states rights and he's full of shit about job creation too. And the conservatives calling for 'small government' supporting him are full of shit, too. Legalisation has been an undeniable boon for thousands of workers and economically in those states. You think a businessman would know a booming fledgling industry when he sees one. Though, in spite of that, alcohol and tobacco companies don't want the competition, obviously, and is it any wonder that Jeff Session reverses the Obama order to phase out private prisons on the same day?

Let's put more people in private jails (who make a pretty profit) for minor offences in the country that already has already around 22% of the WORLDS prisoner population.

Jeff "good people don't smoke marijuana" Sessions probably pushed this.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I can see Dakota Access getting bombed at some point. The Corps of Engineers are probably going to need actual personnel guarding them while they get it built to prevent a terrorist from blowing the pipeline. 

I think tighter marijuana restrictions may backfire as more states legalize it just to slight Trump and the DEA.

The Education bill... hopefully won't pass. If it does, I vow to NEVER send my children to a public school so long as it is law. If I can't be sure my children will be safe in school, they will not attend one, especially if the protections afforded to me, an Asperger's "sufferer", are not afforded to my children, should they also suffer from it.

I'm not sure how to read your first sentence. There have been hundreds of armed LEO and armed contracted security personnel defending DAPL already. Meanwhile, the Native Americans were unarmed (at least with regards to firearms) and their protesting was largely peaceful. 

I'm sending my kids to public school because I have little other choice. However, I feel they're actually safer than most as we live in an immigrant-heavy area (their local school has a poor rating; however, it's rated excellent by actual parents and reading reviews it looks as if the poor rating is due to the high number of children speaking English as a second language, and struggling to meet grades as a result). 

5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Let's put more people in private jails (who make a pretty profit) in the country that already has already around 22% of the WORLDS prisoner population.

Ugh. Yes. 

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...