General US Politics

[Ein]

Hillary has sided with BLM anyway to try and win the black vote which in it of itself is frightening considering the racist rhetoric BLM has been spewing everywhere.

[Crysta]

To be honest she doesn't really need to try to get the black vote against this guy.

At all.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Crysta

[Yojinbo]

To be honest she doesn't really need to try to get the black vote against this guy.

At all.

Yeah she does.

[-Cynthia-]

Hillary has sided with BLM anyway to try and win the black vote which in it of itself is frightening considering the racist rhetoric BLM has been spewing everywhere.

It is possible to agree with a movement while disagreeing with some members of that movement. Stating that there are racial discrimination issues within many police departments in the United States is not condoning killing cops.

[Life]

racism isn't just against black people bro

lip service to a church doesn't absolve anyone from racism anyway

nothing on the campaign trail is really anything but lip service bro, but i think you're missing the point of the whole "racist party" thing. the point of the documentary is that the roots of the democratic party are in racism with Andrew Jackson, and somehow that made the party racist today - despite being the party in the forefront of the Civil Rights act.

besides, hillary has definitely given speeches and visited black communities during her campaign, so i don't know what you're getting at

But the Democratic Party wasn't at the forefront of the Civil Right Acts.

I looked at the voting records. The Republicans voted in favour of the Civil Rights Acts at 80% for in general. That's in comparison to the mid 60% support from Democrats. The biggest group of those against the Civil Rights Acts were Southern Democrats but other prominent Democrats against it included Robert Byrd.

It makes me wonder why the NAACP loves Byrd so much when he didn't want them to have rights when the bill came around. I know that he had an "about face" but his record on LGBT is just as bad. Forgiveness is great but it doesn't sound genuine here when it is a complete rejection of every single thing he once stood for.

[ping]

What are you trying to prove, exactly? I'm legimately completely lost. What does the stance of the Democrats and Republicans from 50 years ago have to do with their stance right now?

I mean, of course it's important to know about the roots of the parties, but (to once again use a German excample) the fact that the Green Party in Germany had quite a few pedophiles trying to abuse the whole sexual freedom thing does not make the party pedophile right now.

[Lord Raven]

You are aware that the president signs bills into law right (as opposed to a veto)? What was the party of the president in 1964? Furthermore, Kennedy (a Democrat) was the one who suggested the bill - also a Democrat. If you think the bill was anything short of bipartisan then you clearly just hear what you want to hear from anything you listen to, and you don't actually care about the facts. In fact, you're letting your feelings get in the way of your facts - which is ironic considering your custom title.

EDIT: despite the voting differential democrats are widely associated with it on the grounds that democratic congressman were the people who actually helped ensure that people would vote in its favor in congress. It's not just about votes, especially since the parties were so mixed in viewpoints at that point in history.

EDIT 2: it's amazing to me that you think this Dinesh wife-beater or tosser or whatever you want to call him is a good source of political fact checking and neutrality. Do you also watch God's Not Dead for enlightenment on the nuanced debate between Christianity and Atheism/Islam?

EDIT 3: I thought you didn't care about the T part of LGBT? I had a bunch of shit typed up on Byrd but I realize it's irrelevant, as should you.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

guess its a good thing that trump isn't a racist and goes to an all black church and behaves nothing but respectful http://archive.is/47G2s

where's hillary with the lip service to the black community? i'm sure if the democrats aren't the evil racist party anymore then that should be no sweat.

i'm confused. do you want hillary to blatantly pander to an audience in a way more pathetically than romney did? lol

going to a black church doesn't change how you feel about a race. trump could still be a racist.

[Tryhard]

Yeah she does.

let's just say she doesn't need to try as hard against the guy with current support from like 1% of black voters

this isn't really new, though, as "Mitt Romney won 6% of the black vote in 2012, John McCain won 4% in 2008, and George W. Bush won 11% in 2004."

Edited September 5, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

You are aware that the president signs bills into law right (as opposed to a veto)? What was the party of the president in 1964? Furthermore, Kennedy (a Democrat) was the one who suggested the bill - also a Democrat. If you think the bill was anything short of bipartisan then you clearly just hear what you want to hear from anything you listen to, and you don't actually care about the facts. In fact, you're letting your feelings get in the way of your facts - which is ironic considering your custom title.

EDIT: despite the voting differential democrats are widely associated with it on the grounds that democratic congressman were the people who actually helped ensure that people would vote in its favor in congress. It's not just about votes, especially since the parties were so mixed in viewpoints at that point in history.

EDIT 2: it's amazing to me that you think this Dinesh wife-beater or tosser or whatever you want to call him is a good source of political fact checking and neutrality. Do you also watch God's Not Dead for enlightenment on the nuanced debate between Christianity and Atheism/Islam?

EDIT 3: I thought you didn't care about the T part of LGBT? I had a bunch of shit typed up on Byrd but I realize it's irrelevant, as should you.

1) What part of my feelings entered into this dicussion? All I did was simply point out that 35~40% of the Democratic Party were against the bill as opposed to the sub 20% from the Republican Party. 40% is pretty significant.

Pardon me for thinking that the party that historically against things like Jim Crow and lynching laws was much more in favour for the Civil Rights Act than the one that historically wasn't and had nearly half of its representatives vote against it.

Yes, LBJ was Democrat. But he was not the only person in the Democratic party and is not representative of everyone's opinions.

What I am saying is the "Democratic Party" was not at the forefront. A Democratic President, yes. But not the party.

Rather than assume that I know nothing of what I speak about, try instead to actually read my comments without a burning anger rising instinctively.

We don't agree on things. But I haven't gotten emotional about anything (aside from the transgender debates) despite all of your accusations. You've admitted to being emotional and you refuse to listen to someone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm trying to use this discussion to learn. You're using it to berate.

2) What bearing does Dinesh beating his wife (and this is the first time I've heard of it so I'll look into it) have on a political opinion?

I know he's conservative. I never said that he was neutral. But I do think that his opinion is more valid than yours or mine because he has been in politics longer than we have been alive and is one of the most respected conservatives out there for his opinions.

3) I don't agree with the T section of LGBT. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to acknowledge the fact that the government recognizes them.

EDIT: I've looked into Dinesh's history on a basic level. Here's what I've gathered.

- He cheated on his wife. Ok. Personally, that's morally reprehensible but not illegal.

- He apparently beat his first wife. This is not substantiated and I will presume innocent until proven guilty on this charge. It could be sour grapes or it could be factually true. But the system is not guilty until proven innocent.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

1) What part of my feelings entered into this dicussion? All I did was simply point out that 35~40% of the Democratic Party were against the bill as opposed to the sub 20% from the Republican Party. 40% is pretty significant.

Pardon me for thinking that the party that historically against things like Jim Crow and lynching laws was much more in favour for the Civil Rights Act than the one that historically wasn't and had nearly half of its representatives vote against it.

Yes, LBJ was Democrat. But he was not the only person in the Democratic party and is not representative of everyone's opinions.

What I am saying is the "Democratic Party" was not at the forefront. A Democratic President, yes. But not the party.

Rather than assume that I know nothing of what I speak about, try instead to actually read my comments without a burning anger rising instinctively.

so is your point that Hillary is going to reinstate Jim Crow laws or something? this is where nobody is understanding you. Are you giving a history lesson or implying anyone who votes democrat is a racist? Make a point, don't just mouth off on facts that aren't even necessarily in context

EDIT: like literally you're arguing words now, it depends on what you mean by "democratic party" - the commander in chief or the party itself? the speaker of the house? the majority leader? we're splitting hairs, and you're still not making your point clear

and you care about the civil rights act? you don't care that the republican party has tried to block healthcare reform? The party that uses 911 as a propaganda tool for sending military to the middle east then proceeds to fuck over the 911 first responders and deny them healthcare despite their health problems being linked to the response? Like, they just literally stand there with a straight face and watch them die as they rake in the sympathy propaganda

and don't forget that they were the reason things like "don't ask don't tell" were considered liberal in the 90s and that marriage equality had been blocked for years. but because a party's platform 50 years ago was racist (when it really wasn't singularly racist based on the fact that the President at the time came from said party - it just wasn't a fucking monolith) they're the evil party. I'm not reading your thing with any venom, it just makes zero sense that you're using the whole "the Democrats weren't a monolith" argument in the same breath as "the Democrats have been historically racist" when a majority of them still voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was literally only southern democrats (like literally of southern states) that voted against it. The voting record for it is actually online!

We don't agree on things. But I haven't gotten emotional about anything (aside from the transgender debates) despite all of your accusations. You've admitted to being emotional and you refuse to listen to someone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm trying to use this discussion to learn. You're using it to berate.

lol cute mr "Hillary is taking our guns away and I don't fucking trust her because she lied about other things"

2) What bearing does Dinesh beating his wife (and this is the first time I've heard of it so I'll look into it) have on a political opinion?

I know he's conservative. I never said that he was neutral. But I do think that his opinion is more valid than yours or mine because he has been in politics longer than we have been alive and is one of the most respected conservatives out there for his opinions.

respected by who? Other conservatives?

I mean a lot of people have been in politics longer than I've been alive does that mean I should fellate them for facts and opinions?

The rest is me condescending on him cause the dude is a joke and a bad person, he literally had a victim complex in his documentary by saying he went to jail for his Obama documentary when he did it for bribing a politician. The dude is pretty untrustworthy as a whole, I mean there's dudes out there who deny the existence of the Lorentz Force who have been doing physics longer than me, doesn't make his opinion more valid than mine

3) I don't agree with the T section of LGBT. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to acknowledge the fact that the government recognizes them.

but your argument against it is emotional in nature so I mean ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

- He cheated on his wife. Ok. Personally, that's morally reprehensible but not illegal.

- He apparently beat his first wife. This is not substantiated and I will presume innocent until proven guilty on this charge. It could be sour grapes or it could be factually true. But the system is not guilty until proven innocent.

I dunno you're pretty quick to use really unrelated issues to harp on things (see: Hillary Clinton, the second amendment) so I'm gonna use the fact that he beats his wife to discredit him regardless of how true it is Edited September 6, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

i think his argument might be that repubs are better historically?

i'd take a teddy or a lincoln over the actual garbage that the gop has given us these last like 80 yrs any day.

[Yojinbo]

let's just say she doesn't need to try as hard against the guy with current support from like 1% of black voters

Just because they're not going to vote Dolan doesn't mean they're necessarily going to vote Hillary. Those are still votes that need to be fought for from the Democrat's point of view.

[Crysta]

Has there been an swell of support from them for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson I'm just not seeing?

I suppose they could just not vote at all.

[Yojinbo]

Whether they end up voting Libertarian, Green or none at all is irrelevant for the Democrats. For them they are lost votes either way.

[Tryhard]

Just because they're not going to vote Dolan doesn't mean they're necessarily going to vote Hillary. Those are still votes that need to be fought for from the Democrat's point of view.

true, but you could say that about anyone that isn't interested in voting for hillary - they probably weren't going to vote for her anyway.

you could say that she is more likely to try and reach out to black voters, but she already pretty much shown that she did not do that for the progressive base that Sanders had, so who knows.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Soooo, between hillary coughing up green stuff during a speech and http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillarys-health-concerns-serious-say-most-doctors-polled-by-the-association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-aaps-300325065.html her health issues being noticed more and more by doctors, is it still too early to say that i was right about her health being a huge issue like many pages ago?

i don't mind having to wait longer, I'm sure something else will come up.

on a side note, nice speech in Ohio there, Trump..

[Time the Crestfallen]

Soooo, between hillary coughing up green stuff during a speech and http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillarys-health-concerns-serious-say-most-doctors-polled-by-the-association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-aaps-300325065.html her health issues being noticed more and more by doctors, is it still too early to say that i was right about her health being a huge issue like many pages ago?

Not surprising. She's 68, isn't she? Health issues are going to come naturally. Quite frankly, I'm surprised Trump is as healthy as he is. He could be doing a lot worse for a 70 year old.

[Tryhard]

I doubt Trump's health is perfect, his medical letter seemed fake as hell. There is one more concerning than the other if she has trouble in public without having some sort of reaction, though, and I never said otherwise.

You know, I kinda wonder if if either is elected they will both just be figureheads. Hillary may be too ill to completely supervise and may pass off responsibilities to others, including Tim Kaine. And Kasich and his team came out with a claim that Trump approached him for an offer to be 'the most powerful vice president', implying that he would hand off responsibilities to him to primarily run the country, if Kasich's team isn't lying. If Mike Pence is Trump's guy, then maybe he will end up being the 'most powerful vice president'. Wouldn't be surprising if it was another Bush/Cheney deal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/index.html

Edited September 9, 2016 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

I doubt Trump's health is perfect, his medical letter seemed fake as hell. There is one more concerning than the other if she has trouble in public without having some sort of reaction, though, and I never said otherwise.

Oh for sure it's not perfect. But still, he could be doing a lot worse considering his age. As for his medical letter, is it not illegal to fakes something like that?

You know, I kinda wonder if if either is elected they will both just be figureheads. Hillary may be too ill to completely supervise and may pass off responsibilities to others, including Tim Kaine. And Kasich and his team came out with a claim that Trump approached him for an offer to be 'the most powerful vice president', implying that he would hand off responsibilities to him to primarily run the country, if Kasich's team isn't lying. If Mike Pence is Trump's guy, then maybe he will end up being the 'most powerful vice president'. Wouldn't be surprising if it was another Bush/Cheney deal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/index.html

Oh yeah, I would not be surprised if Pence wound up having more influence on policy than Trump. As for Hillary, I don't think she'd be a figurehead. I don't see her being very physically active in terms of moving around the country and maybe even attending meetings and what not, but I don't think she'd pass of enough responsibilities to qualify as a figurehead.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Not surprising. She's 68, isn't she? Health issues are going to come naturally. Quite frankly, I'm surprised Trump is as healthy as he is. He could be doing a lot worse for a 70 year old.

definately true, i bet his health isn't perfect either, but i'd say its better then hers, at least publicly .

@trihard

yeah i could definitely see a figure head thing happening, i certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility because both these candidates are rather barely younger then my dad's parents.

https://twitter.com/GissiSim/status/773854240154456065 on a side note, if the third party matters, which i think it does, Johnson from what i heard, while he doesn't wanna go to war in Syria, which i approve of, he doesn't know what Aleppo is, while still wanting to take in refugee's from Syria.

Man i wish we had a Teddie Roosevelt running instead.

[Tryhard]

Oh for sure it's not perfect. But still, he could be doing a lot worse considering his age. As for his medical letter, is it not illegal to fakes something like that?

Probably. It's not as if anything will come of it, though. Hillary's medical letter also stated she was in excellent health so unless it did not foresee a major deterioration in recent health then make of that what you will.

Oh yeah, I would not be surprised if Pence wound up having more influence on policy than Trump. As for Hillary, I don't think she'd be a figurehead. I don't see her being very physically active in terms of moving around the country and maybe even attending meetings and what not, but I don't think she'd pass of enough responsibilities to qualify as a figurehead.

Well, she probably has the biggest desire to become president, definitely, you're probably right. Still, she may hand off any responsibilities that involve travelling if things are dire.

[Lord Raven]

You know, I kinda wonder if if either is elected they will both just be figureheads. Hillary may be too ill to completely supervise and may pass off responsibilities to others, including Tim Kaine. And Kasich and his team came out with a claim that Trump approached him for an offer to be 'the most powerful vice president', implying that he would hand off responsibilities to him to primarily run the country, if Kasich's team isn't lying. If Mike Pence is Trump's guy, then maybe he will end up being the 'most powerful vice president'. Wouldn't be surprising if it was another Bush/Cheney deal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/index.html

I think the president in general is a figurehead that introduces legislation to the court and can't do much but veto.

Either way, Trump won't do shit so we'll have to deal with Pence. If Hillary somehow dies in office or is rendered unable to do do work, then it'll be Tim Kaine. At this point, who do you trust? Pence or Kaine?

https://twitter.com/...854240154456065 on a side note, if the third party matters, which i think it does, Johnson from what i heard, while he doesn't wanna go to war in Syria, which i approve of, he doesn't know what Aleppo is, while still wanting to take in refugee's from Syria.

I think he knew what Aleppo was. Not that I give a crap about Gary Johnson, but I think the media blew it out of proportion and he just didn't have it on recall. Especially since most people would refer to it as "the Syrian Refugee Crisis" and not "Aleppo." Edited September 9, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Yojinbo]

You know, I kinda wonder if if either is elected they will both just be figureheads. Hillary may be too ill to completely supervise and may pass off responsibilities to others, including Tim Kaine. And Kasich and his team came out with a claim that Trump approached him for an offer to be 'the most powerful vice president', implying that he would hand off responsibilities to him to primarily run the country, if Kasich's team isn't lying. If Mike Pence is Trump's guy, then maybe he will end up being the 'most powerful vice president'. Wouldn't be surprising if it was another Bush/Cheney deal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/index.html

The president is already a figurehead. Like Lord Raven said the main thing he can do is vetoing stuff.

But the real issues aren't decided by the president. Things like war or economy. Those are decided at Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Pentagon and so on. The president has next to nothing to say on these matters.

[Tryhard]

Then why do people care so much about who the president is? Aside from what they choose to veto.

I don't really know enough about Pence or Kaine to make a call between them, though.