Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

275 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      112
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, XRay said:

Just as we do not permit religious human sacrifices, we should not permit religious exemptions on vaccines. If there is a kid who has a legitimate medical reason to not take vaccines and dies from chickenpox, the school district and all those parents of other kids who refuse vaccines for religious reasons should be held liable for involuntary manslaughter.

Evangelicals are funny

Apple CEO says Tech regulation "inevitable". What are everyone's thoughts on the matter? Personally, I just hope it doesn't come during this fascist administration or during Republican control, this is obviously something the country needs to be careful with and I don't trust government under the leadership of Mitch McConnel and Trump to do anything right (so good that they lost the house).

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Apple CEO says Tech regulation "inevitable". What are everyone's thoughts on the matter? Personally, I just hope it doesn't come during this fascist administration or during Republican control, this is obviously something the country needs to be careful with and I don't trust government under the leadership of Mitch McConnel and Trump to do anything right (so good that they lost the house).

Meh, kinda indifferent. I don't know enough about Silicon Valley, and about the tech market in general to make an assumption on whether he is jumping the gun or right on the money. Regardless, this made me remember a large levy of complains against Apple, but that isn't particularly relevant to this forum so I'll save those for some other time. This is something that needs to be done by people who understand a lot about technology and its market, from a variety of people on the political spectrum. Only then can you really create something that everyone is generally fine with. You also need to make sure that they don't get bribed from the big tech companies, like Apple gives a lot of money and the law is something like "All non-IOS devices will get a tax". It obviously won't be something that extreme, but favoritism due to monetary backhandism mustn't occur. To play a slight devil's advocate for our current administration, as much as I hate to do so, while they lost the house they gained a supermajority in the Senate. While this stops a lot of laws from passing, at this point control of the Senate is much more important than control of the house, since the Senate mainly controls appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Geek said:

So... who wants to tell him that northern California (which is where the most devastating fires have occurred) is largely Republican?

He'd spin it. "Hell on earth brought to our fellow Christians in California by the godless Liberals".

On the subject of Khashoggi...

Trump won't listen to the "suffering tape", so much for the claim that he's tough and doesn't back down from anything.

CIA makes the conclusion that MBS ordered the deed, Trump insisting it's not true and issued a statement echoing what the Saudis are saying

And then there's this gem coming in 2 weeks before the Mercy Hospital shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

So it seems naughty Ivanka Trump used her private Email to conduct governmental business. That vaguely sounds like a certain someone. 

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

Fake news! Trump emails are best emails. So secure. No problems. Government emails bad; China hacks them. Obama ruined government emails. Sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a woman or minority beat Trump in 2020? Obama's thoughts

What do you guys think? As things stand right now, I have to disagree with him and say that it's probably setting up a second Trump term with the Electoral College still being a thing.

Naturally things can change as we head to 2020 but if the Election were today, Trump would probably beat any minority or woman running for president.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Can a woman or minority beat Trump in 2020? Obama's thoughts

What do you guys think? As things stand right now, I have to disagree with him and say that it's probably setting up a second Trump term with the Electoral College still being a thing.

Naturally things can change as we head to 2020 but if the Election were today, Trump would probably beat any minority or woman running for president.

Maybe he just wants his wife to be the next Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Well there's no reason a white woman couldn't beat Trump; their is sadly a not insignificant chunk of the population that would look for any reason (real or fake) not to vote for a minority candidate due to racial bias alone, and dealing with the combined racism and misogyny factors would be utterly hellish.

That said, I feel like the campaign issues will matter more than the gender/ethnicity of the candidate, and I have a gut feeling that the Democrats will avoid actually promoting a policy platform and will just repeat the same old song-and-dance of 'Trump is bad and colluded with Russia, us Democrats are slightly less bad than Trump so you ignore all our many shortcomings, something something Bipartisanship' even though it very provably doesn't work but hey, at least they get to avoid actually having a platform to campaign on.

Edited by Time the Crestfallen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman can beat Trump and a minority can beat Trump. Anyone can beat anyone.

But the question in 2020 is whether or not the Democrats can regain control of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin after losing all three in 2016, which cost Hillary the election. If the next Democratic nominee wins all three of those then they've already won the damn race so long as they keep all the states Hillary kept.

Remember: Bush in 2004 had to essentially win every state outside the Blue Wall in order to win reelection. If he had lost Florida he would've lost his reelection bid. I think the odds favor the Dems in 2020 (even conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro seem to agree with this assessment, and it should be noted that Trump won those "Blue Wall" states with incredibly thin margins) but if 2016 is anything to go by, anything can happen.

3B776.png

EDIT: I'm watching some clips of the Cruz vs. Sanders CNN healthcare debate and god, I wish the 2016 campaign was Cruz vs. Sanders. It would've been a lot more... insightful, I think, than whatever the fuck the real 2016 was.

Edited by Pixelman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big factor determining who would win in 2020 is, as others have stated, whether the Democrats can win back the areas that Clinton famously assumed would be hers.  If they choose to campaign based on issues like they did this year in the midterm elections, I'm willing to bet they stand a chance.

Another factor that will be interesting to see how it affects future elections is the passing of the law in Florida that gave voting rights back to felons who served their term.  A full 10% of the state's voting population can now exercise their right to vote when they couldn't before.  Will this result in Florida going from a swing state to decidedly being for one side or the other, or will it continue to be a swing state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump is up for re-election, Hawaii will vote Democrat.  Hell, Cruz could be a Democrat, and I think Hawaii would vote him over Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eclipse said:

If Trump is up for re-election, Hawaii will vote Democrat.  Hell, Cruz could be a Democrat, and I think Hawaii would vote him over Trump.

Didn't Kenya..uh I mean Hawaii always reliably vote Democrat? At least since the Obama days. I thought it was one of those states safely locked on the Democrat side no matter what.  

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


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

Didn't Kenya..uh I mean Hawaii always reliably vote Democrat? At least since the Obama days. I thought it was one of those states safely locked on the Democrat side no matter what.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a sad, sad statistic.

question: in practice, no. failure to acknowledge civil injustice is as bad as being ok with it. (because both will lead to the problem never being solved.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

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...