Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I ask this earnestly. Do you trust polls? I don't. My freshmen year in psychology, my teacher told us at the beginning of class that if any of us conducted a "survey" style experiment for our project that we'd get an automatic F. She said surveys are the most subjective and offer the least accurate results possible when posing questions and trying to answer them using the scientific method. She said you could easily fish for the results you want by asking a question a certain way and furthermore, some people don't answer honestly when they feel they are being watched. I don't know how polls are conducted but I sincerely doubt their integrity and don't give much credibility to them. 

I'm gonna preface my post by saying that I agree with you not trusting (or withholding full trust) polls. I've always thought that the "majority opinion" can be manipulated or ventriloquized, if you will, up to a certain degree. But the following responses to your post will be where I'd break camp.

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Why are you so invested in politics that you follow his daily actions or follow him weekly? Don't you have better things to do? Keep in mind that for this paragraph here I'm asking these questions to better understand where this passion comes from and why can't it redirected into something more positive. Like I dislike him too. But I don't allow him to run my life.

  1. They pay taxes (I say "they" because I no longer live in the US; I used to live in San Diego, CA, and live in the Philippines at present. Granted, PH has its own set of problems, but its political system is so far gone, it's a cautionary tale beggingto be told). You pay taxes, you have a say. It's your price of admission to whatever show is in town.
  2. As for better things to do: sure, we all can make that argument, but it's really a zero-sum one. It does no one's cause any favors, and for some people, no news is good news (e.g, those who benefit from keeping the status quo). Besides, going so far as to imply that being impassioned about criticizing a figure connotes having "nothing else to do" is a rib, and a not-so-flattering one at that.
5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Do you follow certain football players outside the regular game season? Do you constantly pay attention to their personal life? Cause as far as I'm concerned, I only care when it's game time and I do what I can to keep up with the matches and see what their results are. I had a teacher once tell me that he remembers a time when politics changed for ever. He said that before, you never use to hear anything or see anything untill one day in our history they started treating it like a sport. They even had collectibles and trading cards! I don't know what time period this was but that changed it forever. I mean, I got that the current president was a bad dude right from like the first 2 or 3 months but I guess maybe I'm just more patient and just waiting for when the time comes that I'm supposed to do something about it. I mean politicians like staying relevant and in circulation since it is what helps them get elected and there are plenty running for offices that require attention on a 2 year interval. What better way to spice things up and keep people entertained than to put on a show and flame the media with epic titles to keep you in the loop. But I think for some of you here, it is stressing you out and eating at you.

Again with the assumptions that the people inhabiting this echo chamber, as you call it, spend their waking hours getting annoyed at how the Orange Jackass shows blatant disregard for due process and insists on running things in the White House like he does his businesses, pushing patronage along the way. If you want people to respect the arguments you're making/positing , or at least evaluate them on merit, don't you think you gotta do the same?

6 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

So I guess I'll join the other team since they are nicer to me.

Going into generalizations because people don't see (or presumably, refuse to see) the gradations in your worldview never served anyone any good. And it won't help you out here. Trouble is, you are acutely aware of that, and you seem to be making that concession because of a few cutthroat pundits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

 

  1. They pay taxes (I say "they" because I no longer live in the US; I used to live in San Diego, CA, and live in the Philippines at present. Granted, PH has its own set of problems, but its political system is so far gone, it's a cautionary tale beggingto be told). You pay taxes, you have a say. It's your price of admission to whatever show is in town.
  2. As for better things to do: sure, we all can make that argument, but it's really a zero-sum one. It does no one's cause any favors, and for some people, no news is good news (e.g, those who benefit from keeping the status quo). Besides, going so far as to imply that being impassioned about criticizing a figure connotes having "nothing else to do" is a rib, and a not-so-flattering one at that.

Again with the assumptions that the people inhabiting this echo chamber, as you call it, spend their waking hours getting annoyed at how the Orange Jackass shows blatant disregard for due process and insists on running things in the White House like he does his businesses, pushing patronage along the way. If you want people to respect the arguments you're making/positing , or at least evaluate them on merit, don't you think you gotta do the same?

Going into generalizations because people don't see (or presumably, refuse to see) the gradations in your worldview never served anyone any good. And it won't help you out here. Trouble is, you are acutely aware of that, and you seem to be making that concession because of a few cutthroat pundits?

So regarding the first tidbit, I get your point, but that is only one perspective to look at it from. If you were to give me the benefit of doubt and assume I mean well, then you should have been able to reach the same conclusion that he has to go within or at the least, by the end of his first year. With that being said, as citizens your only duty and time to act is when elections roll around. You can't do anything else until then because like with this process currently being the newest media coverage, you as a citizen don't start an inquiry or an investigation. That is the responsibility and job of other elected officials and law enforcement. If all they wanted was to see if public opinion supports going forward, it could have been a one and done kinda thing. Didn't the vote to start Brexit start off similarly? It got public support and then after that, it has been constantly getting spinned around in the Chambers. So now that I said that, why stress yourself out constantly with unending updates on his character and actions? I'm trying to make the point that it isn't good for an individual's health. Stress has been studied very heavily in the medical field and has averse affects on one's health. It shortens your life span, makes you grow gray hairs and lose them, it wrecks and messes with your diet, messes with your sleep, and the list goes on. The dude has to go. We got it. It's one thing to keep yourself updated every other month to make sure you don't get overwhelmed with info, but it is another to daily antagonize your own well being and livelihood. 

I guess I'm only saying that though, cause I'm not willing to be involved anymore than just a few minutes or an hour once every two weeks. I just grab a few facts and drop the topics and focus on games/anime. Those make me happy and ease my stress. But I see some people posting here weekly, citing resources, and showing off their array of knowledge on the topics meaning they must be clocking hours upon hours possibly daily. I couldn't stress myself like that so frequently and not suffer in my workplace or in my personal life. I'd shoot myself. I get what you mean though, if people want to be invested, then that's their choice. But sometimes when I read this forum, I just imagine people on this thread super stressed out and probably suffering. And over someone they hate. That just shows how much control he has over other's lives. He doesn't control mine. Ever since he got into office, I haven't really noticed any difference in my lifestyle or haven't had to adjust my plans for the future. So what gives? 

Also evaluate others arguments? That he needs to go? That he is bad? To stay afloat on his daily shenanigans? I don't think I need help with that. All I hear is how some have personalized his actions and how it offends them directly leading to them wanting to do something about it asap. I don't want to change anyone's thinking or opinions. I came to answer a question and give feedback so some could have insight into the perspective of others. It seemed like as if they weren't going to be able to obtain the info otherwise, so I walked around and talk to people on my spare time at school  then relayed some of that info. If you think about it, I kinda just strolled in here and handed out food for thought and got attacked for it. When I read the fuck word dropped in eclipse's post, I just went e__e "this is why I don't comment here often". People want to know what the grass is like on the other side so I came to share. Again, this place isn't very welcoming. 

Regarding your last paragraph, above all else, I refuse to make enemies out of otaku and gamers. Pundits aren't something I'm worried about. I just don't want to lose to chance to talk about fun stuff with others who have my same interests. Here on this site, it is very critical i not make enemies since like 90% of the population likes not only my favorite game franchise but anime too. Hence, why I don't seek confrontation with the people here. For the most part. Am I making sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Then don't listen to all his crap? Is that an option? Why are you so invested in politics that you follow his daily actions or follow him weekly? Don't you have better things to do? Keep in mind that for this paragraph here I'm asking these questions to better understand where this passion comes from and why can't it redirected into something more positive. Like I dislike him too. But I don't allow him to run my life. I still move forward thinking that the time will come when it is my chance to make a change.

I find this bit a little condescending. We should be encouraging people to read the news on a regular basis to stay educated and informed. As citizens, we have a duty to maintain this country. Being invested in politics is a positive thing. I do not expect the average person to read the news daily like I do, but I do expect an upstanding American citizen to at least stay informed of current events and vote. Just browsing the headlines on BBC, PBS, NPR, or whatever neutral news station for ten to twenty minutes once a week would do.

I could easily spin it around and ask people why they spend so much time talking about something as boring and stupid as football and sports in general instead of spending their time doing more positive stuff like volunteering, reading the news, and participate in politics to better your community. Hell, videogames are even worse than sports and are a complete waste of time; at least sports makes you move your body.

1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

I guess I'm only saying that though, cause I'm not willing to be involved anymore than just a few minutes or an hour once every two weeks. I just grab a few facts and drop the topics and focus on games/anime. Those make me happy and ease my stress. But I see some people posting here weekly, citing resources, and showing off their array of knowledge on the topics meaning they must be clocking hours upon hours possibly daily. I couldn't stress myself like that so frequently and not suffer in my workplace or in my personal life. I'd shoot myself. I get what you mean though, if people want to be invested, then that's their choice. But sometimes when I read this forum, I just imagine people on this thread super stressed out and probably suffering. And over someone they hate. That just shows how much control he has over other's lives. He doesn't control mine. Ever since he got into office, I haven't really noticed any difference in my lifestyle or haven't had to adjust my plans for the future. So what gives?

For some of us, following the news is a hobby, and it is a hobby that not many people realize as a hobby.

I do not think it is stressful, but reading the news does excite me emotionally, mostly frustration but occasionally joy in regards to Trump. I think the trade war with China is the best damn thing Trump has done for this country, and while I do call him a pussy for not jacking the tariffs higher, no other recent president even got the ovaries to start a trade war with China.

You might not like the stress from news, but you might like the stress from some of your hobbies. For example, not many Heroes players enjoy Aether Raids, but I do. I get a daily feedback of my skill as a player. On the other hand, I find the stress from playing rhythm games to be unbearable, and I am super glad that Heroes did not make getting S rank in Tap Battle mandatory for the rewards.

1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

Also evaluate others arguments? That he needs to go? That he is bad? To stay afloat on his daily shenanigans? I don't think I need help with that. All I hear is how some have personalized his actions and how it offends them directly leading to them wanting to do something about it asap. I don't want to change anyone's thinking or opinions. I came to answer a question and give feedback so some could have insight into the perspective of others. It seemed like as if they weren't going to be able to obtain the info otherwise, so I walked around and talk to people on my spare time at school  then relayed some of that info. If you think about it, I kinda just strolled in here and handed out food for thought and got attacked for it. When I read the fuck word dropped in eclipse's post, I just went e__e "this is why I don't comment here often". People want to know what the grass is like on the other side so I came to share. Again, this place isn't very welcoming. 

I guess being more friendly is something we can all work on. I think I attacked conservative voters a few times, but I generally try to avoid that.

On the other hand, I think attacking elected officials is fair game since we the people elected them and they have to be accountable to us. Not only are we paying them to run the country, we are also paying them to be our boss. It is one thing if they are a government employee, since while we do pay them, they are not given power in the same way as elected officials. The power dynamics between voters and politicians is a little different from that of employers and employees. While employers should respect their employees and not abuse their power, voters have no need to afford that same level of care towards elected officials because elected officials have a shit ton of power. If anything, elected officials needs to be publicly humiliated if they make a big fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, XRay said:

I think attacking elected officials is fair game since we the people elected them and they have to be accountable to us.

This is the crux of every argument, for or against any public official elected by the populace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I ask this earnestly. Do you trust polls? I don't. My freshmen year in psychology, my teacher told us at the beginning of class that if any of us conducted a "survey" style experiment for our project that we'd get an automatic F. She said surveys are the most subjective and offer the least accurate results possible when posing questions and trying to answer them using the scientific method. She said you could easily fish for the results you want by asking a question a certain way and furthermore, some people don't answer honestly when they feel they are being watched. I don't know how polls are conducted but I sincerely doubt their integrity and don't give much credibility to them. 

It depends. It's obviously not wise to trust all polls, some of the reasons for that being what I've bolded from your paragraph. Another example of how they can be manipulated to boost a specific narrative would be pushing the idea that Biden is the best candidate in the primary because his numbers on the polls were higher but omitting the fact that the sample size was skewed due to a super majority of those polled being Boomers.

But the fact is that polling CAN work and it usually does for the purposes of seeing how the country feels/understands a policy and in our current political climate, it also helps us see that we're not all that different on certain issues. I bring up the same poll I've linked about 3 times now because despite how awful their politicians are to the LGBTQ community, we can at least see some issues where the voters can see eye to eye and demonstrate to them that some of their politicians are engaging in crap they don't agree with. Lastly, polling is needed to gauge interest and understanding of a certain subject nationwide or else you'd have to pull the answer to the questions "How do our voters feel about X" out of your ass and letting politicians do the latter isn't wise.

3 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Then don't listen to all his crap? Is that an option? Why are you so invested in politics that you follow his daily actions or follow him weekly? Don't you have better things to do? Keep in mind that for this paragraph here I'm asking these questions to better understand where this passion comes from and why can't it redirected into something more positive. Like I dislike him too. But I don't allow him to run my life. I still move forward thinking that the time will come when it is my chance to make a change.

That isn't possible because the President's words often shape the conversations in our politics. It doesn't matter who the president is, if you follow Politics, the President will always come up.

Also Because I'm well aware that misinformation is a problem that led to Trump getting elected and it's a problem that still exists, is severely underestimated and is being weaponized by the Republican party to cheat and hold on to power and I see it all every day. Said misinformation leads to people around you making bad judgments about policy and become more polarized and the longer a person holds a misconception, the longer it sticks with them. Here's a few examples

1. I have a Cousin who is also Hispanic and he's an immigrant. He's supporting Trump because he's buying into the overblown rhetoric of Illegal Immigrants. He's getting his information from right-wing sources like PragerU as the man spewed the talking point that "Democrats are actually the racists because it was people from their party that formed their KKK". Other folks jumped in their conversation and used a Fox and Friends clip as their evidence to say that the Impeachment Inquiry is just a coup by the Democrats and that they're hanging him

2. When the subject of Illegal Immigrants comes up in conversation, people will always defend their ire by saying "Well they should come here via legal means like everyone else!". Guess what their response is when you point them to the laws that say seeking Asylum by presenting themselves at the border checkpoint IS legal.

3. Friends in New York and New Jersey who hated Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders on the basis of economic-based arguments made by the GOP. They stopped after reading pieces by actual Economists that aren't Larry Kudlow (who said during the Bush years that there wouldn't be a recession and is there is no problem with Trump's economic policies).

4. Friends and Family who mention George Soros. Do I need to say more?

It is difficult to encompass all the problems that come with misinformation because there's just so much of it but normalizing bullshit is dangerous and it's what has led the country that brags about beating the Soviet Union and Communism to now have its people fighting among themselves thanks to trolling enabled by an ex-KGB and an incompetent buffoon installed with their help advance Putin's interests. You should see what Fiona Hill said about how Putin operates if you didn't.

12 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Allow me to use a metaphor here or something akin to an analogy. Do you follow certain football players outside the regular game season? Do you constantly pay attention to their personal life? Cause as far as I'm concerned, I only care when it's game time and I do what I can to keep up with the matches and see what their results are. I had a teacher once tell me that he remembers a time when politics changed for ever. He said that before, you never use to hear anything or see anything untill one day in our history they started treating it like a sport. They even had collectibles and trading cards! I don't know what time period this was but that changed it forever. I mean, I got that the current president was a bad dude right from like the first 2 or 3 months but I guess maybe I'm just more patient and just waiting for when the time comes that I'm supposed to do something about it. I mean politicians like staying relevant and in circulation since it is what helps them get elected and there are plenty running for offices that require attention on a 2 year interval. What better way to spice things up and keep people entertained than to put on a show and flame the media with epic titles to keep you in the loop. But I think for some of you here, it is stressing you out and eating at you. Like some of you are making it personal and that isn't good for your health. All of us already have daily little stressors from work, social relationship, home responsibilities, and so forth so why add more to your plate? I guess that is my two cents on this. 

Politics unfortunately doesn't work like just watching the most important games as a sports fan. Boomers and our parents often tell us that instead of just sitting around complaining we should get involved in politics. This is us getting involved in politics and in the age of misinformation that we're currently living in you have one side of the spectrum consistently using lies to convince those that aren't active in politics and drive the conversations to abrupt ends in their favor because when the conservative uses a Republican talking point that is a lie, naturally you'll have someone accusing the conservative in this case of lying which always comes with stigma and some bad tension. The conservative may not even a bad person and is simply using the talking points because they come from media that's more aligned with their political views but a lie is still a lie and the OnUs to prove that falls onto the accuser so the accuser has to do all the work which under normal circumstances is more effort than what the conservative is doing but under the current political climate and M.O of Conservative media that's most popular these days, that effort ends up becoming more exasperating than it needs to be due to the constant spins and bullshit thrown in. Take for example the following 2 points:

1. The Russia Investigation is a hoax and there's no evidence.

2. Trump Jr. was completely vindicated by the Mueller report over collusion/conspiracy accusations related to Russia.

The conservative utters these 2 points, the first one being recently used by Devin Nunes in the Impeachment hearings and echoed by Breitbart. Notice that the Breitbart piece is mostly just a copy paste of its sourcing and provides little to no contextual information or history.

The first point is simply false, there's plenty of evidence in the report that Russia did actively work to disrupt the election and boost Trump, get the DNC e-mails shortly after Trump publicly called for it and that generally speaking, members of the Trump campaign staff would be useful idiots for Russia.

The second point basically boils down to a classic case of a cop not going after family of someone in power.

The accuser has to go through all the trouble to find this information and present, primarily via the Mueller Report itself because as we all know, any news site that isn't Pro-Trump is FAKE NEWS! This is all shit people should take into account when holding their politicians accountable but come election time, what happened throughout the entire term will be a blur compared to what's fresh in memory unless you keep up with your country's politics.

13 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I'm a moderate that votes conservatively most of the time and didn't defend him or his actions or the "values" they claim to represent. But even I still feel wary stepping foot into this thread. I dislike all politicians. I mention this a few pages ago but I'm happy I have a brother and a sister in arms who are currently running for office. Tulsi Gabbard and Peter Buttigieg got my vote if they make it any further. I don't know why, but I feel more comfortable trusting someone who has served like myself than some random person who makes a career out of rubbing elbows with people. It takes a certain character and a certain level of personality to make it past boot camp and AIT. I'm not naive enough to believe everyone who joins the military is a good person, I know there are some bad people there too. But by a long shot, they'd beat anybody who doesn't know a thing about hard work, blood, sweat and more that get shedded living the soldier life.

That's fine dude, we all have our preferences, criteria and opinions of the candidates and you're entitled to your opinion but you have to understand that when discussing objective aspects, you may be challenged and that goes for everyone on this thread. I've said Biden is shit and basically Hillary 2.0 with my reasons for saying all that and I have my reasons for thinking Tulsi and Pete are bad choices but at the end of the day, I'll probably still for whichever one of them gets the nomination... except maybe Biden. If the issue is just that some people here can't stomach hearing bad things said about policies/people they don't like, that's their problem.

I don't hate you or hold any hostility against you, I may think your stance on something may be foolish but as long as you understand your stance and acknowledge the arguments against it and the objective flaws, then it's all good. And yes, I did see that reply of yours that you deleted regarding Muslims and country loyalty.

Take me for instance, I've said multiple times in this thread that in addition doing away with all the money in politics that effectively creates this "Pay 2 Legislate" garbage we're all sick of, we expand the death penalty and use it as punishment to Politicians who engage in that shit ever again. That is probably an extreme position that would be incredibly unpopular with the masses, result in liberals calling me a monster and realistically see no chance of ever passing because that would require the politicians to subject themselves to that kind of accountability. I'd stand by it and push it on my campaign if I were to run for office but who knows how successful that campaign would be with such a thing there but whatever, I despise the "Pay 2 Legislate" crap that's going on that much and would push to make sure that anyone that's serving in congress should think twice about doing it for such bribery.

13 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

But back to the point, I said this place isn't very welcoming and it mainly is cause, if I'm not on your side, then by default most assume I must be on the other side. And most others only assume there is one other side only. I think it was mentioned before, but this country sucks for having a two party system. There isn't a big enough and strong enough platform for others to go to that takes middle ground. So by default most want to make me their enemy. They don't want to talk and try and meet me plus the others somewhere in the middle. I dislike the republican platform and some of what it stands for, but I also have things I dislike about Dems too, but I notice when people like me or others come to try to provide constructive criticism to help balance you out and make your platform more stable so it could fit us on it too, we get pushed into your enemy camp and are told that is where we belong. Long story short, it's like I'm not allowed to be your ally unless I cave in to all your demands. So I guess I'll join the other team since they are nicer to me. I mean, I'm not hurt by it, but like how else am I supposed to respond when eclipse was like "what the fuck". I already knew going forward I had to back track and make her unangry and stop cussing before I could even begin to get her to see I'm not the enemy, and I come in peace. Like I just feel Dems are way more hostile. Repubs will take any ally they can get. But I like some Dems. They tend to like anime, fire emblem, Pokemon, and so forth. I want those peeps as my friends. But I gotta be lying and hiding my stuff since if they find out, they'll hate me.

Then you need to remember that folks here are not all full-blown Democrats and you may be perceiving. Like I'm checking Eclipse's response to you and I'm leaning towards saying you may just be too thin-skinned in these discussions.

Sure, it may seem like most of the folks here are liberal and lean left but that all depends on a combination of current events, ideals and contentious issue of where's the Center because many folks that bring up Left, Right or Center don't seem to understand what that means. Additionally, in our current state of affairs in the country, I don't believe the current fight should be left vs right, it should be People vs Corruption to establish equal power to all and while we would all like to "drain the swamp" and end the corruption, it has to be said that the right-wing needs to stop their cultist adoration of Trump because it is primarily his enablers in congress (including some Democrats) that want to perpetuate the Pay 2 Legislate gig. Political scientist Norm Ornstein has been telling the world that Republicans are the ones breaking our politics for a while now that shit's going to take some time before it becomes a unified narrative for the country thanks to Right-wing media so if the right-wing actually wants to help the country, they need to cut the Trumpism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, XRay said:

I find this bit a little condescending.

For some of us, following the news is a hobby, and it is a hobby that not many people realize as a hobby.

Someone quoted a philosopher saying something along the lines of "to be apathetic towards public policy will result in being ruled by corrupted officials". I'm not trying to discourage being informed. Being educated is indeed an important thing, but i guess I'm just concerned about people's well being. My perception is that some of you are super active, and I hope you aren't letting it drive you into the ground. I don't mean to be condescending. If people know how much they can tolerate when it comes to their stress levels, then by all means, consume the info hourly if you want. I suppose my words conveyed a tone that implied that doing this regularly is a waste of time and you could spend it better. I should have put more of an emphasis on stress levels and how passionate some of you are talking about this stuff plus how visible your anger is showing. Then maybe it would have been interpreted as me pointing out that it sounds like your letting this info and discussion bring out the ugly in you and how I imagine this must also being affecting your health negatively.

Bolded = that is pretty eye opening. My mind is kinda blown now. 

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

That isn't possible because the President's words often shape the conversations in our politics. It doesn't matter who the president is, if you follow Politics, the President will always come up.

I should have pondered my words more but what I was trying to convey was that maybe you shouldn't let it control you so much and bring out ugly side of you. You sound passionate sometimes when you talk and I wonder how negatively you're letting it affect your health.

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I don't hate you or hold any hostility against you, I may think your stance on something may be foolish but as long as you understand your stance and acknowledge the arguments against it and the objective flaws, then it's all good. And yes, I did see that reply of yours that you deleted regarding Muslims and country loyalty.

And here I thought I took it down fast enough. I lost my composure and ranted then thought about it and decided I didn't want to begin discussing that stuff. Not so much cause of the fact that it I shouldn't be bring how I feel about a certain group of people which of course would open up alot of debate, but cause I thought, you don't get what it's like and to put a spot light on a civilian isn't professional much less it is unreasonable to expect you to understand something you've never even encountered or experienced

 

8 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Then you need to remember that folks here are not all full-blown Democrats and you may be perceiving. Like I'm checking Eclipse's response to you and I'm leaning towards saying you may just be too thin-skinned in these discussions.

Not the first time I've been accused of that so I'm pretty sure you are right. But I'm also like that cause I think one should speak a certain way when out in public. Similar to the grandma rule (ya know the one where if you wouldn't wear it and her see, then you shouldn't be wearing it all) I use the same kinda rule when talking to others. If you wouldn't talk to your mom like that, then don't do it to others. But hey, everyone is raised differently so if she wants to talk like that, then by all means, have at it. Also since the internet is tone deaf, I probably also just interpreted yesterday as being agressive and hostile based off my mood and what I was already in based off my position so now if I go read it again, maybe it wasn't that bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I'm a moderate that votes conservatively most of the time and didn't defend him or his actions or the "values" they claim to represent. But even I still feel wary stepping foot into this thread. I dislike all politicians. I mention this a few pages ago but I'm happy I have a brother and a sister in arms who are currently running for office. Tulsi Gabbard and Peter Buttigieg got my vote if they make it any further. I don't know why, but I feel more comfortable trusting someone who has served like myself than some random person who makes a career out of rubbing elbows with people. It takes a certain character and a certain level of personality to make it past boot camp and AIT. I'm not naive enough to believe everyone who joins the military is a good person, I know there are some bad people there too. But by a long shot, they'd beat anybody who doesn't know a thing about hard work, blood, sweat and more that get shedded living the soldier life. Like I could try to explain it better but that would require I type a whole bunch more and I'm pretty sure my text wall is already getting pretty long.

Being a soldier surely gives you a lot of discipline, but that doesn't necessarily transfer to skill for things like crafting good policy. It can help you gauge their character, but even good people can make bad politicians. There are a lot of politicians who have never had to do much or any real work in their life (notably Trump), but the most effective ones have dedicated a lifetime of mental energy to understanding and mastering concepts and skills that are invaluable for politics, such as law, teaching, science, etc.

Personally, I think military service is overly glorified and often self-aggrandized. As a result, I find it suspect when people tout their military record to demand extra respect or claim they're more qualified.

21 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

But back to the point, I said this place isn't very welcoming and it mainly is cause, if I'm not on your side, then by default most assume I must be on the other side. And most others only assume there is one other side only. I think it was mentioned before, but this country sucks for having a two party system. There isn't a big enough and strong enough platform for others to go to that takes middle ground. So by default most want to make me their enemy. They don't want to talk and try and meet me plus the others somewhere in the middle. I dislike the republican platform and some of what it stands for, but I also have things I dislike about Dems too, but I notice when people like me or others come to try to provide constructive criticism to help balance you out and make your platform more stable so it could fit us on it too, we get pushed into your enemy camp and are told that is where we belong. Long story short, it's like I'm not allowed to be your ally unless I cave in to all your demands. So I guess I'll join the other team since they are nicer to me. I mean, I'm not hurt by it, but like how else am I supposed to respond when eclipse was like "what the fuck". I already knew going forward I had to back track and make her unangry and stop cussing before I could even begin to get her to see I'm not the enemy, and I come in peace. Like I just feel Dems are way more hostile. Repubs will take any ally they can get. But I like some Dems. They tend to like anime, fire emblem, Pokemon, and so forth. I want those peeps as my friends. But I gotta be lying and hiding my stuff since if they find out, they'll hate me.

Try to understand, if people don't agree with you, it doesn't mean they think you're the enemy. If people sound angry sometimes, it's cuz politics are a very high-stakes game, and the outcomes can completely reshape or end lives. Also, certain aspects that largely divide Republicans and Democrats, like civil rights, are not something that can be compromised on without betraying those who need that political support (which is why saying something racist, for instance, will get a very heated response).

Getting you to pick a side based on your hobbies and interests (anime, video games, etc) is a recruiting strategy for alt-right groups, so uh, be careful about that. For what it's worth, everyone loves Pokemon, anyone who says otherwise is a goddamn liar or some kind of robot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Johann said:

Getting you to pick a side based on your hobbies and interests (anime, video games, etc) is a recruiting strategy for alt-right groups, so uh, be careful about that. For what it's worth, everyone loves Pokemon, anyone who says otherwise is a goddamn liar or some kind of robot

Okay so I got to like 7:30 and couldn't continue. Within the first few seconds I knew this video was gonna be bad cause he said "white people shit" when referring to content around games, anime, and so forth. Like since when did white people own that content and those hobbies? Plus this video seems very much like the intended audience is just for one group. A group I'm not part of. Needless to say, I understand that to a certain extent this video covers some legit info that is real but the way the info is presented is very off putting and narrow in scope. I get your good intentions about sharing the video. But now I'm stuck on that fact that some dude out there think white people own those hobbies and interests. Which bothers me greatly. So I kinda wanna end this part of the discussion while still have more composure.

Suffice to say, I know my type and that I'm easily susceptible to being indoctrinated into a cult. I took a test once. It was kinda funny. But I got a few people who keep me in check so I'm safe. 

Regarding your comments on the military stuff, I get it. I won't remark on it since that would take way too much time to talk about though. Nothing wrong with having a healthy amount of skepticism and cynicism in your life. 

Also I totally agree! Who doesn't love Pokemon! Off to the Pokemon forms I go!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 9:47 AM, Tediz64 said:

Then don't listen to all his crap? Is that an option? Why are you so invested in politics that you follow his daily actions or follow him weekly? Don't you have better things to do? Keep in mind that for this paragraph here I'm asking these questions to better understand where this passion comes from and why can't it redirected into something more positive. Like I dislike him too. But I don't allow him to run my life. I still move forward thinking that the time will come when it is my chance to make a change.

Because its important. Right now America is in a vital period of its history and how the country will handle this crisis will decide its future. 

The time that demagogues could be dismissed as a curiosity or a passing fad is long gone. Right now there's an openly corrupt president in power who routinely demonizes pillars of a free society like the press or the independent judiciary. If that's condoned or accepted for long enough then an openly corrupt leader will be the new normal. The president abusing his office to get dirt on his rival will be normal, the president demonizing the press until people send bombs their way will be normal, the president implying that people who aren't loyal to him personally are traitors will be normal. Its will all be normalized as routine behavior in the political arena. And the countries where this behavior became the new normal are now all dictatorships or ''democracies'' that eerily resemble dictatorships. With this in mind citizens simply don't have the luxury to ignore their out of control demagogue and find ''something better to do''. If citizens start accepting it all just because doing otherwise would be annoying then they are setting highly dangerous precedents that are very hard to undo. 

Now this is not to say Trump would turn America in a dictatorship. He doesn't have what it takes to do so(namely patience and competence) and at this moment the American institutions are too strong. But Trump can pave the way for the next demagogue to dismantle democracy. America's institutions are too strong....right now.  That can change and Trump seems almost determined to go change it. If Trump continuously keeps demonizing the press and the judiciary and if he continuously sets the narrative of the president being a great leader to who'm opposition should be treason then his cult can easily stick with that mindset long after he's gone and one day find a champion that is both competent and malicious enough to fully dismantle or shackle any checks to his powers. It has already happened in Turkey, Hungary and Poland so why would America be an exception? Trump's supporters are already dangerously open to the idea Trump shouldn't have any checks on his power, that his corruption shouldn't have consequences. If anything the Republicans allowed themselves to be corrupted at a shocking rate that should makes other pseudo dictators like Orban or Erdogan deeply jealous.   

And even if the free democratic society survives the demagogues then fatal rot can still set in. Historically the exact points that empires started to fall can often be traced back to leaders who were either so inept or malicious that they knowingly let corruption run rampant and eat away at the state until there wasn't a way back anymore. When the standards starts to get lowered to dangerous level many people will fiercely defend this decline because fixing society again would remove their opportunity to exploit the state and its citizens for their own gain. 

Right now America has the choice to remain a member of the free world, an open and free democracy or if they will join the freak brigade of dictators and pseudo dictators. Right now the American President has far more resemblance with the later than he does with the former. And that's deeply unhealthy for any democracy. 

Quote

Do you think maybe it is possible that people who are moderate are still willing to vote for him because that is how much they disagree with the policies and ideas being espoused by the current Dem party. 

But are these people still moderates? Trump's corruption is incredibly easy to spot so a moderate will have spotted it. The choice of keeping an openly corrupt person in power just to avoid the implementation of ideas you don't like....well it hardly seems moderate to me. It requires the belief that corruption, incompetence and an extremely questionable devotion to democracy are all okay in a president as long as his politics are agreeable. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


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

Because its important. Right now America is in a vital period of its history and how the country will handle this crisis will decide its future. 

Clipped the rest "......"

I get how serious the situation is. I'm ready to play my part and make sure I make a decision to the best of my ability with the well being of as many people as I can. But what more do you expect from citizens? Spreading info is now more easier than ever with social media and various other outlets, I'm pretty sure for those who take it seriously, they do what they can to present info as factual as possible while leaving emotion out of it in an attempt to get people to see their logic and reasoning behind supporting a specific cause. (Which I sure is all you need to do to convince moderates) 

But I mean what else is there? Aside from making sure as many as people as you can reach are informed and will make an informed decision. Cause protesting is annoying with the inconvenience it causes. I hate being late to work cause of protesters. And my higher ups don't even accept that as an excuse for tardiness. Plus I lose time. I'm sure loads of people dislike protesting for those two reasons alone since it affects their livelihood. Then there is the danger of getting into a fight with counter protesters. I dunno, but from reading your response, it sounds like you are asking for more but what specifically? Or am I interpreting you wrong? Cause at this point anyone who stumbled into this forum should be able to make a pretty good choice based off the info plus sources presented. 

My response's objective isn't to discourage discussion on this board. Again, I just became concerned about how passionate and vocal some people are being. It sounds a bit unhealthy to get overly worked up. I drove my point by now, so I'll stop mentioning it but that was all I was trying to say. If I had to put it more accurately, I just want some people to take a few days off and get some R&R. Then come back after a week or two. Maybe my imagination was just tricking me a few days ago and it isn't a big deal. 

9 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But are these people still moderates? Trump's corruption is incredibly easy to spot so a moderate will have spotted it. The choice of keeping an openly corrupt person in power just to avoid the implementation of ideas you don't like....well it hardly seems moderate to me. It requires the belief that corruption, incompetence and an extremely questionable devotion to democracy are all okay in a president as long as his politics are agreeable.

I still consider myself moderate. I have this notion in my head that we can recover from whatever he is doing. We can fix it. It'll just take hard work and good will to get others to come back to being our allies. Maybe that is overly optimistic and naive but I've seen it before. I've met people who it wasn't easy to win their trust but since I never gave up, now I have a certain level of  rapport with them and I know the impression I've created is "hard-working, earnest, diligent, reliable, honorable, and demonstrates good integrity". I'm sure people are wise enough to know that not everyone likes him, thinks like him, or even agrees and that the real good people are just waiting for him to go away so we can get back to work like real mature adults and fix the mess we are in. 

But looking at the Dem's current platform and ideas. Hmm I don't know how to phrase it but i just have this gut feeling that allowing others to pass those laws and live that lifestyle would create a huge mess of things that you can't recover from. Laws can be changed and rewritten, order can be restored, trust can be earned back over a period of time, but people lifestyle isn't something that can easily be changed. It is close to impossible. That requires changing people from the inside and that is extremely difficult. Making those changes that they are proposing would enable certain mindsets and send a message that once the people start getting comfortable living like that, we won't be able to come back from it before it is too late. I'm pretty sure I'm being vague as hell but it is just a gut feeling. Im listening to my instincts. I don't know how else to better articulate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

But looking at the Dem's current platform and ideas. Hmm I don't know how to phrase it but i just have this gut feeling that allowing others to pass those laws and live that lifestyle would create a huge mess of things that you can't recover from. Laws can be changed and rewritten, order can be restored, trust can be earned back over a period of time, but people lifestyle isn't something that can easily be changed. It is close to impossible. That requires changing people from the inside and that is extremely difficult. Making those changes that they are proposing would enable certain mindsets and send a message that once the people start getting comfortable living like that, we won't be able to come back from it before it is too late. I'm pretty sure I'm being vague as hell but it is just a gut feeling. Im listening to my instincts. I don't know how else to better articulate it. 

But what problem do you have with the current Democratic platform? Welfare spending? Immigrantion tolerance? Anti guns? I sometimes vote on my gut too, but that is only after I have done some research on a subject.

In terms of welfare spending, I would argue that because we have low welfare spending that our country is not as well developed as our European counterparts. In fact, Boomers and older generations have benefited greatly from high welfare spending from the past and they are now cutting any welfare spending that does not directly benefit themselves. They want Social Security and Medicare to be kept, but fuck allocating more funds to education and helping the poor.

As for immigration, having high rates of immigration is a good thing. We need all types of people to come to this country. Not only do we want to attract the best and brightest from the rest of the world, we should also accept those who are poor and persecuted. We have a shortage of scientists, but we also have a shortage of low skilled laborers, and hiring foreigners that we can pay lower wage help makes the rest of our lives more affordable. Having a more open border is what makes America strong. I do not want us to be like Japan with a shrinking economy and population.

As for guns, not all Democrats are that extreme in wanting to ban guns. I think Warren and Bernie are pretty moderate in gun control, but you might want to do additinal research on that to make sure. I think all Democratic candidates right now favor stronger background checks and licensing, which I agree with, but most also support banning weapons, which is something I strongly disagree with. While Biden is my top pick, he is pretty anti gun, so this is one issue that I have to accept compromising on.

Share this post


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

But what problem do you have with the current Democratic platform? Welfare spending? Immigrantion tolerance? Anti guns? I sometimes vote on my gut too, but that is only after I have done some research on a subject.

In terms of welfare spending, I would argue that because we have low welfare spending that our country is not as well developed as our European counterparts. In fact, Boomers and older generations have benefited greatly from high welfare spending from the past and they are now cutting any welfare spending that does not directly benefit themselves. They want Social Security and Medicare to be kept, but fuck allocating more funds to education and helping the poor.

As for immigration, having high rates of immigration is a good thing. We need all types of people to come to this country. Not only do we want to attract the best and brightest from the rest of the world, we should also accept those who are poor and persecuted. We have a shortage of scientists, but we also have a shortage of low skilled laborers, and hiring foreigners that we can pay lower wage help makes the rest of our lives more affordable. Having a more open border is what makes America strong. I do not want us to be like Japan with a shrinking economy and population.

As for guns, not all Democrats are that extreme in wanting to ban guns. I think Warren and Bernie are pretty moderate in gun control, but you might want to do additinal research on that to make sure. I think all Democratic candidates right now favor stronger background checks and licensing, which I agree with, but most also support banning weapons, which is something I strongly disagree with. While Biden is my top pick, he is pretty anti gun, so this is one issue that I have to accept compromising on.

Welfare is something I don't know much about and isn't the issue I'm overly concerned with. 

I'm okay with immigration as you described it but I want who ever comes to assimilate to our culture and our traditions. No more practicing your country's stuff while you are over here. I'd say leave all that back in your country. Those who refuse to assimilate, can leave. If you are coming to live in America, then BE an American. Actually become one! Religion anf culture are two different things and for those who think they are slick and gonna mix up the terminology then you can take your @$$ out. Anybody who has taken an introductory level sociology class can tell the difference and when immigrants trying to be sneaky and play word games they can shove off. Abusing the wording of laws and finding loopholes would be something that needs to be addressed too. Like for example that birthright one and how they is currently being being used out of context. That entire law should be abolished since it isn't even clear and is being taken advantage of. Anchor babies shouldn't even be a thing. But maybe I'm honing in on one detail too much. Suffice to say there does need to be changes to fix stuff but overall immigration is a good thing when it is being done right. By right, I mean we have a clear organized and fair system in place that doesn't create loopholes and makes it so that coming is on a need basis first, then merit, and finally an economic one.  Now I'm sure the next thing would be that we'd have to define what is "American" but that in itself is a separate topic. 

But on another note, I'm tired of the topic of immigration. If so many people want to come here, why not we just take over more countries? We should just go and claim more territories as vessels kinda like Puerto Rico. We should be expanding to fit all the people who want to come over. If a country's leader objects, then black list the people from there. Plus put in measures to prevent them from trying to sneak in. I know that might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm in favor of America expanding and taking over more land. Clearly other places don't know how to manage themselves and as a result of their failure, we have to provide resources and manpower to fix other people's problem. We could avoid that if we just take those lands and plant our flag there. Then send some competent skilled people to help that land and the people flourish this making our country bigger, better, and more prosperous. Why in the hell haven't we already conquered Central America is beyond me. The leaders down their are never gonna fix anything, gangs are still running rampant, and all that land and those resources are being wasted by not being managed and allocated properly. It is a waste in my opinion that we haven't cultivated and groomed the land to benefit our people. Plus if those people decided to become part of us, they'd get all the same protections from our laws and so forth. Okay, I'll stop there cause I'm just ranting.

As for guns. I don't think any of that "control" stuff works. It all sounds ineffective and considering how often there are daily shootings in two different places that are part of states that are supposed to be the harshest on gun control, it is clear it doesn't work. But since people won't shut up about, fine pass the license and background checks parts. We can draw up legislation that expires in 5 years. During that time we can collect data and then when it comes time to renew we can shove cold hard evidence in the faces of certain groups that it did absolutely nothing to change the numbers on violence. If on the off chance, it did work, we can keep it. But I put my money on it not working. But it is time for that topic to come to an end and for us to do something about it so we can move onto other topics. I'm willing to experiment on solutions but I want expiration dates on these solutions and I want a team collecting data while it is ongoing. Cause if it isn't working, we can throw those papers in the trash when they expire and not bring up the topic again. I'm part of camp that think it is a mental issue problem and that we need to invest into raising kids better and being part of their life to help them turn into good adults. As for the adults that do the crime, we need centers where we can see if they can be rehabilitated and if not, then we can decide what to do with them afterwards. There are plenty of ideas on the table so I think we should start experimenting already by drawing up papers with time limits so we can see what will work and what won't. 

So do I see any candidates that talk similar to how I think? Not really. I usually just either go for independents or for whoever at least picks one thing I care about and echoes a similar train of though. Often enough they want to do one thing I care about right, but others wrong. Like it is weird how they think the same on one idea, but not others. 

Edited by Tediz64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 10:47 PM, Tediz64 said:

I don't know?

I just walk up to people and ask/state "hey, I'm a student conducting a survey. I don't want your name but if you could please answer a few questions it'd help me with my project. Try to answer these questions while role-playing as a scholar and keep it academic as possible".

Then I get the feedback and relay it here. I think the idea that "those are so bad then this must mean the inverse, which is equal  to these must be better ideas" logic isn't right here. Maybe they think both suck really bad but instead of weighing which one sucks more it is a matter of, which one is unacceptable and then they roll with it. I mean depending on who you are and what your priorities are, some stuff might be a deal breaker right off the bat. I recall we discussed once before, that some people only really care about one single issue and make compromises on others as long as that one is dealt with how they want.

. . .what the hell, again?  "Role-playing a scholar"?

If you're looking solely for answers, just have yes/no questions.  If they need to justify it, let them justify it as they will.  Emotion is just as much of a part of decision-making as logic in stuff like today's politics.  I'm sure the academic rigor would be fine with the yes/no questions (or "on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being full agreement and 5 being full disagreement, how would you rate such-and-such?").  Look at random personality quiz questions for examples on how to structure a question/answer (but make sure you have an idea of what you're measuring, and how the questions you ask will measure that idea).

22 hours ago, Johann said:

Try to understand, if people don't agree with you, it doesn't mean they think you're the enemy. If people sound angry sometimes, it's cuz politics are a very high-stakes game, and the outcomes can completely reshape or end lives. Also, certain aspects that largely divide Republicans and Democrats, like civil rights, are not something that can be compromised on without betraying those who need that political support (which is why saying something racist, for instance, will get a very heated response).

Getting you to pick a side based on your hobbies and interests (anime, video games, etc) is a recruiting strategy for alt-right groups, so uh, be careful about that. For what it's worth, everyone loves Pokemon, anyone who says otherwise is a goddamn liar or some kind of robot.

I generally don't tolerate certain things very well, hence why I tend to sound short with people.  I reserve the auto-hatred for those who actively come to SF with the sole intent of making life difficult for everyone else.

And Pokemon is the worst if you're PETA, BUT that might fall under the robot category.  Oh, and some of the really religious people, but again, robots.

54 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

I'm okay with immigration as you described it but I want who ever comes to assimilate to our culture and our traditions. No more practicing your country's stuff while you are over here. I'd say leave all that back in your country. Those who refuse to assimilate, can leave. If you are coming to live in America, then BE an American. Actually become one! Religion anf culture are two different things and for those who think they are slick and gonna mix up the terminology then you can take your @$$ out. Anybody who has taken an introductory level sociology class can tell the difference and when immigrants trying to be sneaky and play word games they can shove off. Abusing the wording of laws and finding loopholes would be something that needs to be addressed too. Like for example that birthright one and how they is currently being being used out of context. That entire law should be abolished since it isn't even clear and is being taken advantage of. Anchor babies shouldn't even be a thing. But maybe I'm honing in on one detail too much. Suffice to say there does need to be changes to fix stuff but overall immigration is a good thing when it is being done right. By right, I mean we have a clear organized and fair system in place that doesn't create loopholes and makes it so that coming is on a need basis first, then merit, and finally an economic one.  Now I'm sure the next thing would be that we'd have to define what is "American" but that in itself is a separate topic. 

But on another note, I'm tired of the topic of immigration. If so many people want to come here, why not we just take over more countries? We should just go and claim more territories as vessels kinda like Puerto Rico. We should be expanding to fit all the people who want to come over. If a country's leader objects, then black list the people from there. Plus put in measures to prevent them from trying to sneak in. I know that might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm in favor of America expanding and taking over more land. Clearly other places don't know how to manage themselves and as a result of their failure, we have to provide resources and manpower to fix other people's problem. We could avoid that if we just take those lands and plant our flag there. Then send some competent skilled people to help that land and the people flourish this making our country bigger, better, and more prosperous. Why in the hell haven't we already conquered Central America is beyond me. The leaders down their are never gonna fix anything, gangs are still running rampant, and all that land and those resources are being wasted by not being managed and allocated properly. It is a waste in my opinion that we haven't cultivated and groomed the land to benefit our people. Plus if those people decided to become part of us, they'd get all the same protections from our laws and so forth. Okay, I'll stop there cause I'm just ranting.

Imperialism.  Read about it.  Understand it.  Then reread the second paragraph you wrote, because I'm half-tempted to warn you for trolling.

As for the first paragraph, I'm fine with little bits of culture coming over.  Other countries have good food, and I'll be damned if that gets wiped out.  The beliefs that go against the general rule of "don't be a dick to others" are the ones that can go poof.  There's a middle ground between wiping out the immigrant's culture, and wiping out the host country's culture.  Aim for it.

If you want a rough idea as to which candidate will best represent you, have fun.  No one candidate is going to match you perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

I'm okay with immigration as you described it but I want who ever comes to assimilate to our culture and our traditions.

I do not think full on assimilation is necessary, and I find full on assimilation detrimental since diversity is what makes us strong. As long as immigrants can pass a citizenship test and pledge allegiance to the flag, I am fine with them practicing their culture and religion; what is important is their loyalty to America, what they wear or eat does not matter. Defining what is American based on culture and religion is kind of vain and superficial. I do not want America to be defined by Christianity, apple pie, and speaking English. I want America to be defined by enduring ideals like freedom and democracy and progress, not arbitrary ceremonies or cultural practices that come and go like fads. I also find it extremely annoying when people tell others to speak English in America; I find that disrespectful to Native Americans and borderline treasonous; if those people want to speak English so much, then they should deport themselves back to England and speak English there. I also do not think immigrants need to citizenship to stay here either, and immigrants who are not citizens should not be afforded the benefits that citizenship brings, and that makes them easier to maintain.

1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

But on another note, I'm tired of the topic of immigration. If so many people want to come here, why not we just take over more countries? We should just go and claim more territories as vessels kinda like Puerto Rico.

While I wished the United States kept more of her overseas territories and absorbed them as fully fledged states, I do not think it is a good idea to expand our borders with our military that overtly in this day and age. The best way to expand America is with military, economic, social, and political cooperation. I do not think it is necessary to unify all the democracies of the world under one flag. Unifying all democracies under a military alliance, free trade area, and some kind of Schengen zone is more than sufficient right now, kind of like the European Union. If all democracies are united under one central government, if someone like Trump gets elected, the damage done to all democracies (I guess just one democracy since it is just one nation now) will be far greater.

Share this post


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

. . .what the hell, again?  "Role-playing a scholar"?

 

Imperialism.  Read about it.  Understand it.  Then reread the second paragraph you wrote, because I'm half-tempted to warn you for trolling.

As for the first paragraph, I'm fine with little bits of culture coming over.  Other countries have good food, and I'll be damned if that gets wiped out.  The beliefs that go against the general rule of "don't be a dick to others" are the ones that can go poof.  There's a middle ground between wiping out the immigrant's culture, and wiping out the host country's culture.  Aim for it.

No wait, you're misunderstanding. I don't want answers like yes or no, and scales of 1 to 5. I want people to give me their ideas and theories on why they think things are the way they are, what made them that way, how to change them, and so forth. I approach these conversations like from a philosophical point of view. I'm not trying to measure or turn any of this into a statistic. I like open ended responses cause it gives a person a chance to reveal themselves. Someone with my skill sets in the social sciences plus information gathering helps me learn about a person better. How do I put it. Like I need some time to observe a person and to hear them talk so I can figure things out. The part of me relaying the info here was more like giving info to the people asking questions so they can ponder that stuff. I didn't know if they were rhetorical or if they actually wanted someone to give them feedback so they could spend some time mulling it over. 

I get what you mean. Talking about it is one thing, like right here, but I'd expect leaders to better figure out how to implement what I mean. Refining the process before doing anything is a given. I just mentioned what i did by bring some of the idea to the table. What you said makes sense. I also like music and art so I'd prefer to not do away with those aspects. 

As for imperialism. I'll stand down. But just for you to better understand the kind people that live in this world and what some have been thinking and talking about lately, I want you to know, I'm not alone when it comes to discussions over our country taking others (by force if they won't come over peacefully). It has increased as a topic lately. Just giving you a heads up is all. Those kind of talks might begin surfacing soon enough in our politics. But i can see you dislike that direction of discourse, so I'll drop it as far as "encouraging" it goes. 

@XRay I get what you are saying. It would have to be something discussed pretty extensively to find middle ground as far as advocating how people should conduct themselves and what would be discouraged as living practices are better understood and brought to light. I agree about the religion part but I think more of character when the word American comes to mind. Culture is more of a word used in sociology to define how communities or groups act based off what brings those people together so I think in this case, maybe that word conveys the wrong intent? I also don't want superficial things to determine what makes you an American cause people could easily pretend or act to avoid detection. I think it should be something more symbolic and deep to truly set us apart from other countries and something enemy spies can't simply imitate. I guess maybe I'll think more on what that should be. But none the less, I still want people to "become" American. I feel like some people are here just to take advantage of certain opportunities that should only be reserved for us and our citizens. Cause then you have people like that woman who left and joined ISIS and now that her group was wiped out, she is begging to come back since she had a son. I couldn't even begin to tell you how much that...no. I'm going to relax and leave it at that. That is an example of someone who never was American and what I want to keep out of our country. I've seen numerous people defecting recently and something has to be done about people like that. The fighting has moved inland here in our country. And fixing this isn't going to be easy. Our country has been invaded and they are using social engineering to take us down. 

Share this post


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

Imperialism.  Read about it.  Understand it. 

Imperialism isn't this terrible thing that only harmed people. That's a serious historical mistake you're making.

For example, compare modern day Zimbabwe to Botswana, both countries where the British came in and colonized the shit out of them. One of the two countries threw off the entire yoke of Western civilization... and spawned one of the most infamous despots of the last century. Meanwhile, the other is probably the single most stable African nation of the last fifty years and that was all thanks to British Imperialism.

Share this post


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

Imperialism isn't this terrible thing that only harmed people. That's a serious historical mistake you're making.

Uh, keep in mind the context @eclipse is responding to. Imperialism isn't all bad, correct. I'm sure Hong Kong is wishing it was still under British rule right about now.

It's a very, very tricky concept and it's been implemented in a lot of ways. Some with more success than others, with recent imperialism leading to both social progress in some regions, and absolutely horrible exploitation in others.

However, "take over every country you want and then blacklist refugees from the countries that don't want in on your empire" is most definitely not one of "the good ways to do imperialism".

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


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

Imperialism isn't this terrible thing that only harmed people. That's a serious historical mistake you're making.

For example, compare modern day Zimbabwe to Botswana, both countries where the British came in and colonized the shit out of them. One of the two countries threw off the entire yoke of Western civilization... and spawned one of the most infamous despots of the last century. Meanwhile, the other is probably the single most stable African nation of the last fifty years and that was all thanks to British Imperialism.

No, it actually was all bad, and holy shit, your example. Do read up on things before you talk this amount of shit.

Share this post


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

However, "take over every country you want and then blacklist refugees from the countries that don't want in on your empire" is most definitely not one of "the good ways to do imperialism".

I didn't phrase it like that at all. Plus I didn't even use the word refugee. I mean I guess if you are the most cynical person as can possibly be and put it under the most negative spotlight you could, I'd imagine that is one way to interpret it. 

It isn't a matter of "wanting" those countries. But if that country is a failure and in shambles plus the leaders are worthless, then maybe we should just add them to our land. I mean the earlier example I gave was parts of Central America. An absurd amount of people are fleeing and it is super obvious those leaders are never going to take the country in a good direction. They should just abdicate and become one our territories. The alternative is to keep letting people flee for their lives from there and to let those perfectly good resources and land go to waste under the management of incompetent leaders. Like Mexico is a pretty good example. That leader is nothing more than a puppet. It is obvious the government is ruled by the Cartels. Why wouldn't they want to join us? What do they have to lose? Their poor way of life? The endless amount of families that starve and barely get to eat meat once every two weeks or sometimes worse, once a month? The fact that they pimp out their young teenage daughters to have food for a month? I want a pretty good list of reasons why, joining us is a bad thing. Considering the fact that tens of thousands of them keep trying to cross over and live over here or at least come over and do business with is. We mine as well plant our flag over there and then tax them. We could bring good reform that would help those people.

Like you said earlier, context matters. Please don't distort my words. I meant other joining us with good will and intent. But there are some people that are fed up of taking refugees from places that should have gotten their shit together long ago and they are most certainly not laying the ground work for improving even as we speak today. Some people are advocating using force. I want to put the option on the table to begin discussing. 

As for preventing the people from sneaking in over here after they refuse, how is that not reasonable or sensible? What is wrong with blocking them from coming over? Please elaborate. I want to hear your logic and reasoning. If not to be convinced that maybe I'm being unethical or unfair. 

Edited by Tediz64
Changed the 3rd paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the news of Nunes's almost certain involvement in the scheme (Though this probably should have been sooner), I feel we need a new name for the socalled Grand Old Party:

Gabby Onerous Projectors.

I think that's a fitting name (also it's a shame that there no C in it for an easy pick). It's depressing they aren't a fucking small bunch of angry old men shouting at everything for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

I didn't phrase it like that at all. Plus I didn't even use the word refugee. I mean I guess if you are the most cynical person as can possibly be and put it under the most negative spotlight you could, I'd imagine that is one way to interpret it. 

It isn't a matter of "wanting" those countries. But if that country is a failure and in shambles plus the leaders are worthless, then maybe we should just add them to our land. I mean the earlier example I gave was parts of Central America. An absurd amount of people are fleeing and it is super obvious those leaders are never going to take the country in a good direction. They should just abdicate and become one our territories. The alternative is to keep letting people flee for their lives from there and to let those perfectly good resources and land go to waste under the management of incompetent leaders. Like Mexico is a pretty good example. That leader is nothing more than a puppet. It is obvious the government is ruled by the Cartels. Why wouldn't they want to join us? What do they have to lose? Their poor way of life? The endless amount of families that starve and barely get to eat meat once every two weeks or sometimes worse, once a month? The fact that they pimp out their young teenage daughters to have food for a month? I want a pretty good list of reasons why, joining us is a bad thing. Considering the fact that tens of thousands of them keep trying to cross over and live over here or at least come over and do business with is. We mine as well plant our flag over there and then tax them. We could bring good reform that would help those people.

Like you said earlier, context matters. Please don't distort my words. I meant other joining us with good will and intent. But there are some people that are fed up of taking refugees from places that should have gotten their shit together long ago and they are most certainly not laying the ground work for improving even as we speak today. Some people are advocating using force. I want to put the option on the table to begin discussing. 

As for preventing the people from sneaking in over here after they refuse, how is that not reasonable or sensible? What is wrong with blocking them from coming over? Please elaborate. I want to hear your logic and reasoning. If not to be convinced that maybe I'm being unethical or unfair. 

Maybe you should stop digging the hole here, because holy shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Maybe you should stop digging the hole here, because holy shit.

Why bother posting if you can't even add to this discussion? Or make a point? That's two posts now where all you do is come in, and look down on other's perspective of things and offer no feedback. We've had a run in before and I'm not one to hold grudges, so I'm pretty sure I'm being objective or at least trying to be when I make the following statement:

You don't belong in this thread. You aren't mature enough and how you conduct yourself is in violation with the rules. If all you are going to do is belittle others and talk trash, then you can go. 

I'm not going to humor you anymore going forward.

Share this post


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

No, it actually was all bad, and holy shit, your example. Do read up on things before you talk this amount of shit.

You are going to have to explain how British Imperialism did more harm than good to Botswana rather than say "holy shit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

Why bother posting if you can't even add to this discussion? Or make a point? That's two posts now where all you do is come in, and look down on other's perspective of things and offer no feedback. We've had a run in before and I'm not one to hold grudges, so I'm pretty sure I'm being objective or at least trying to be when I make the following statement:

You don't belong in this thread. You aren't mature enough and how you conduct yourself is in violation with the rules. If all you are going to do is belittle others and talk trash, then you can go. 

I'm not going to humor you anymore going forward.

No, you and your blatant racism don't belong in this thread

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...