General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

nice job invoking Godwin's law, but I'd call anyone who doesn't approve of trans people "literally Hitler"

I start arguments with even some of my teachers in class every single day solely because they might disagree with who I am and who I support. I will never tolerate anyone disapproving of my people because of who they are.

You seem equally obsessed with anti-semitism, so I think we're pretty even here.

Now I invoke Muphry's law. Life is ethnically Jewish. You call him "literally Hitler" and yet it is you trying to silence dissent. And the fact that you are intolerant makes you a bigot. Who's the hypocrite?

[solrocknroll]

Yes, but I would never want to jail anyone who calls me a kike.

This is the fundamental difference between us. You like using a gun much more than me. The difference is that you want to silence opposition.

That is antithetical to the Constitution. You quite literally are a trans-supremicist.

If I was in your shoes, I would especially desire those people to be punished. Jews are just as discriminated against throughout history.

People shouldn't just tolerate hate speech. It's disgusting and dare I say deplorable. Even if they don't get jailed, destroying their reputation or business is cathartic enough.

I don't even believe in guns, so whatever. Guns are evil and bad and should never have existed. Especially since people use guns to hurt innocent animals.

[Life]

If I was in your shoes, I would especially desire those people to be punished. Jews are just as discriminated against throughout history.

People shouldn't just tolerate hate speech. It's disgusting and dare I say deplorable. Even if they don't get jailed, destroying their reputation or business is cathartic enough.

I don't even believe in guns, so whatever. Guns are evil and bad and should never have existed. Especially since people use guns to hurt innocent animals.

You're contradicting yourself.

All laws are enforced at the end of a gun. That is the nature of the law. It can only be enforced with force.

It is acceptable to destroy a business because you disagree with the owner on his views as long as you do not resort to violence. But jail? That is what dictators do.

Do I dislike anti-semites? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be physically silenced? Never unless they directly call to violence.

I can't believe that I actually have to say this.

[blah the Prussian]

If I was in your shoes, I would especially desire those people to be punished. Jews are just as discriminated against throughout history.

People shouldn't just tolerate hate speech. It's disgusting and dare I say deplorable. Even if they don't get jailed, destroying their reputation or business is cathartic enough.

I don't even believe in guns, so whatever. Guns are evil and bad and should never have existed. Especially since people use guns to hurt innocent animals.

Jesus.

Let's think about this for a second. Guns essentially replaced close range weaponry, and actually were used in tandem with close range weaponry up until roughly the War of the Spanish Succession. So making the assertion "guns are evil" implies that either you're one of those Samurai fetishists who think that swords are honorable, for some reason, or you oppose weapons, which were necessary for establishing human civilization, and thereby the laws that protect you from being murdered, ESPECIALLY as an LGBT person, on principle. I'm not even going to get into the idea of animals being innocent.

[Moblin Major General]

I don't even believe in guns, so whatever. Guns are evil and bad and should never have existed. Especially since people use guns to hurt innocent animals.

Rabbits eat leafy greens, crows eat grain, and dear eat roots. If none of these animals were hunted because vegans like you wouldn't let us, you would starve to death as they decimate the fields. Hunting is necessary. Can it be excessive? Hell yes. Is it right to trophy hunt? Hell no it is not. But if hunting of some kind isn't in place, alongside fishing and meatpacking, many people will starve, starting with the treehuggers.

[Phoenix Wright]

"That's typically what happens when young people get interested in politics." is the full sentence with a key word you removed in bold. Without naming any names, you're blind if you think what I've said doesn't apply to a number of posters in this thread - I don't follow the thread religiously and I'm sure many people have attempted to see things from a less biased standpoint, but in general a lot of our posters (and on other vg forums) are young and only just getting into the subject as a result, or are only sparsely interested and so very uninformed. I wasn't only speaking about our forum, which I hope was clear.

In a thread where he is primarily arguing with someone he clearly does not like, with impressions being made based on those arguments, I don't think he would take offense to someone telling someone not to judge him based on those heated arguments...particularly when he has said himself that he isn't proud of some of what he's said? If you'd take offense in that situation, then I worry for any of your friends.

lol

I'm not terribly concerned with what your impression of me is, but thanks for contributing what you can.

lol

thanks for contributing what you can

[Life]

I'm going to return this back to the topic at hand.

When I say I support Trump, it is not because I like him. In fact, (as Raven correctly pointed out before) I had even gotten off the Trump train because I do not condone what he said on the bus with Billy Bush.

But I went back to Trump after the final debate. There were things that Trump said that were truth to power when he spoke about the sheer amount of corruption. We know that she is corrupt and takes money from corporations and foreign governments in return for favours. We know the DNC rigged the primary in favour of Hillary Clinton so that Bernie wouldn't have a chance (he wouldn't have won but it would have been a fair delegation). We know that there is media collusion between the campaign and the mainstream media (CNN and MSNBC are the big ones). She knows this. So why the fuck was she laughing up on stage when Trump pointed out her corruption?

Because it won't derail her presidency bid and she knows this. She speaks the SJW language to a T by equating anyone who disagrees with to a deplorable. Proof? Cykes-dono proved it here.

This is why I am terrified of a Clinton presidency. It is the rise of the authoritarian left.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Life

[Crysta]

There is undeniable (cult-like even) support for the candidates (and possibly extreme views in general) among generation Z. It's especially noticeable with Trump just by virtue of their actions on social media, but it does exist for both. There is a lot of support for GJ among millenials, yes. Also, the link appears to be broken?

Edit: I can see where I worded that poorly in my first post.

I'm denying this is more prevalent in the younger generation than in the generations before them.

So prove it.

[eclipse]

Clinton. If you're to believe Trump's claims that the polls are deliberately misinforming and that he is really winning, then, well... him.

i'm biased in the degree that i think that both of these candidates are fucking awful and that anyone willingly supporting them (in terms of actually liking them) is delusional

At least Eukyld is having fun with linking the newsthump satire website (yes, I'm aware it actually happened)

I'm not even in the UK, and I think just about every candidate (including third parties) have flaws that would've otherwise made them a "no-vote" in my eyes. However, since that's literally EVERY candidate, I need to consider which one is the least like to lead America straight to hell. I'm seriously considering writing in a ficus tree, since it's probably more competent than the field we have now.

You don't get the right to free speech if you use to to trash another person. Everyone is special, and no one deserves to have bad things said to them without any proper provocation.

If someone does something bad, criticize them for it. If they do something good, they're good. If we don't operate on that wavelength, I don't believe in free speech. No one has the right to dislike anyone.

The free speech that's guaranteed in the US (which doesn't apply to Life, because he's not a US citizen) is protection from the GOVERNMENT meddling in your speech, with a few exceptions. Private individuals may have their speech regulated in other ways. For example, this forum doesn't allow for personal insults - something that you're free to elsewhere. But this turns over another issue - just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. In this case, the "should" is "go below the level of the guy who doesn't agree with you".

Now, for the REST of the thread:

My view of immaturity is someone whose views on politics are black and white, without taking into account both the pros of the other side, and the cons of their side. It also bleeds over into things like personal philosophy ("my views are superior to yours"). Inflexibility is another sign of immaturity - it shows someone who's more interested in promoting themselves, as opposed to listening to/learning about/understanding others. I expect better behavior out of this forum, because the KIDS I see on a near-daily basis treat others with more decency and respect than I've seen in the last few pages.

If anyone has a response to the above, feel free to PM me. I don't want to clutter this thread up further.

EDIT:

I'm going to return this back to the topic at hand.

When I say I support Trump, it is not because I like him. In fact, (as Raven correctly pointed out before) I had even gotten off the Trump train because I do not condone what he said on the bus with Billy Bush.

But I went back to Trump after the final debate. There were things that Trump said that were truth to power when he spoke about the sheer amount of corruption. We know that she is corrupt and takes money from corporations and foreign governments in return for favours. She knows this. So why the fuck was she laughing up on stage when Trump pointed out her corruption?

Because it won't derail her presidency bid and she knows this. She speaks the SJW language to a T by equating anyone who disagrees with to a deplorable. Proof? Cykes-dono proved it here.

This is why I am terrified of a Clinton presidency. It is the rise of the authoritarian left.

This exemplifies why I refuse to support both sides. I do think Trump has a point regarding Clinton's corruption. At the same time, Trump himself doesn't conduct himself any better than she does. Hence why I refuse to vote for both of them.

Edited October 29, 2016 by eggclipse

[-Cynthia-]

There is undeniable (cult-like even) support for the candidates (and possibly extreme views in general) among generation Z. It's especially noticeable with Trump just by virtue of their actions on social media, but it does exist for both. There is a lot of support for GJ among millenials, yes. Also, the link appears to be broken?

Edit: I can see where I worded that poorly in my first post.

Fixed link I think. I won't deny that's there's some unconditional supporters for the candidates, but I'll question the notion that it's any more prevalent in younger generations than older ones. The stereotypical Clinton millenial voter is a Bernie supporter who thinks she isn't as bad as Trump- hardly a cult of personality on her part.

[Life]

This exemplifies why I refuse to support both sides. I do think Trump has a point regarding Clinton's corruption. At the same time, Trump himself doesn't conduct himself any better than she does. Hence why I refuse to vote for both of them.

This is a fair position in my book.

I have many problems with Trump, both policy-wise and character-wise. But even so, Hillary has sold diplomatic favours as SoS. You can't expect me to believe that she won't as president.

She is beholden to Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they pay her money. What, do you really think that they're giving money to a charity because they feel bad for people?

Add in the authoritarian left and I see civil war brewing with the POTUS inciting it. This is the fall of Rome in real time. There is a certain course of history that follows republics.

[Moblin Major General]

This is a fair position in my book.

I have many problems with Trump, both policy-wise and character-wise. But even so, Hillary has sold diplomatic favours as SoS. You can't expect me to believe that she won't as president.

She is beholden to Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they pay her money. What, do you really think that they're giving money to a charity because they feel bad for people?

Add in the authoritarian left and I see civil war brewing with the POTUS inciting it. This is the fall of Rome in real time. There is a certain course of history that follows republics.

We won't let it. Hillary will not be our Julius Caesar, especially if our countries become enemies, because as the Bible says, the enemies of Israel will feel God's wrath, unless Israel has erred, which it hasn't.

[Time the Crestfallen]

"Oh boy, I can't wait to see these new posts!"

"..."

But I went back to Trump after the final debate. There were things that Trump said that were truth to power when he spoke about the sheer amount of corruption. We know that she is corrupt and takes money from corporations and foreign governments in return for favours. We know the DNC rigged the primary in favour of Hillary Clinton so that Bernie wouldn't have a chance (he wouldn't have won but it would have been a fair delegation). We know that there is media collusion between the campaign and the mainstream media (CNN and MSNBC are the big ones). She knows this. So why the fuck was she laughing up on stage when Trump pointed out her corruption?

I feel like his points would be far more credible if he wasn't guilty of everything he accuses her of to an equal or even greater degree (outside the DNC rigging), but he's right about Hillary's corruption and it's a little funny that some people think Hillary would be a great President because she looks good next to Trump, which is not a hard thing to do.

This is why I am terrified of a Clinton presidency. It is the rise of the authoritarian left.

Is Hillary even left-leaning? I thought she was center-right being pushed into leftist policies by Bernie.

She is beholden to Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they pay her money. What, do you really think that they're giving money to a charity because they feel bad for people?

Last I checked, Trump and his inner-circle have a lot of financial ties to Russia and Trump has spoken very favourably about Putin. I don't want to start a pissing match about which country is worse, but let's not act as if Hillary is solely guilty of this.

Add in the authoritarian left and I see civil war brewing with the POTUS inciting it. This is the fall of Rome in real time. There is a certain course of history that follows republics.

Don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration?

Edited October 29, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[solrocknroll]

We won't let it. Hillary will not be our Julius Caesar, especially if our countries become enemies, because as the Bible says, the enemies of Israel will feel God's wrath, unless Israel has erred, which it hasn't.

That's assuming that what the Bible says matters. Which it doesn't.

I mean, innocent people live in Israel, so nothing bad should happen to it. But it's not by the will of God that it should be protected.

Hillary is no Bernie, but she's not going to be Caesar at all. I wouldn't even call Trump Caesar. The US has far too many allies for it to randomly fall. The UK. Japan. Germany.

Any possible WW3 is open and shut. Russia is surrounded by people who like the US far more than themselves, and no first world nation is stupid enough to go to nuclear war. If Russia nuked NYC, they'd immediately be slammed by the entirety of Asia and Europe.

Russia is the enemy here anyway.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/28/national/politics-diplomacy/putin-opposes-setting-time-limit-signing-peace-treaty-japan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+(The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories)

Putin actually still wants to play the WW2 game with Japan, since it never ended. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any way, and we should have a president that will crush Russia for trying to drum up drama.

[XeKr]

Trump is the one who wants to jail political opponents, suppress the free press, and ignore the results of the election because it’s rigged (or wait is the FBI/gov establishment good now? I can’t keep up).

But Clinton, the centrist candidate, embodies the authoritarian far left.

Okay.

Regardless, there is not going to be WW3 because it’s mutually assured destruction.

The only exception is if an irrational actor with no self-control is president. Hmm…

(recently, I’ve encountered the interesting argument that Trump is a superrational, albeit extremely self-interested, actor. If that’s the case, then I can see the “sane” case for him. If that’s the case…)

Edited October 29, 2016 by XeKr

[Life]

That's assuming that what the Bible says matters. Which it doesn't.

I mean, innocent people live in Israel, so nothing bad should happen to it. But it's not by the will of God that it should be protected.

Hillary is no Bernie, but she's not going to be Caesar at all. I wouldn't even call Trump Caesar. The US has far too many allies for it to randomly fall. The UK. Japan. Germany.

Any possible WW3 is open and shut. Russia is surrounded by people who like the US far more than themselves, and no first world nation is stupid enough to go to nuclear war. If Russia nuked NYC, they'd immediately be slammed by the entirety of Asia and Europe.

Russia is the enemy here anyway.http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/28/national/politics-diplomacy/putin-opposes-setting-time-limit-signing-peace-treaty-japan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+(The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories)

Putin actually still wants to play the WW2 game with Japan, since it never ended. This type of behavior is unacceptable in any way, and we should have a president that will crush Russia for trying to drum up drama.

I firmly disagree with a lot of this.

I know that Putin is the strongman in Asia. But he is going to offset SA and Qutar because they are funding ISIS.

The irony here for me is that Russia much prefers Israel to SA/Qatar. Proof? Russia was just kicked off the UNHRC. But the Saudis? Hell no, they still have their seat. In any case, Israel sits in a good spot without US intervention.

That's my view as an Israeli. Now if I was American, my first thought is that war with Russia causes MAD. The USA can bomb Moscow and Russia will bomb Washington DC. Both will perish.

I'm not saying that appeasement is the answer. Sudetenland is proof of appeasement not working. But I would start spending on defence and eliminate bad programs in order to free up money.

[Tangerine]

I'm denying this is more prevalent in the younger generation than in the generations before them.

So prove it.

I'm not terribly interested in discussing anything with you, thanks.

[Irysa]

I mean irrespective of your opinion on the quality of discussion in these threads I think it's better than people just sitting in an echo chamber. At the very least having your convictions challenged a little has a chance of helping you develop your own ideas.

Trump is the one who wants to jail political opponents, suppress the free press, and ignore the results of the election because it’s rigged (or wait is the FBI/gov establishment good now? I can’t keep up).

But Clinton, the centrist candidate, embodies the authoritarian far left.

Okay.

America has had a pretty warped view on what constitutes "The Left" for a while now, given your average political centre seems to sit rather far into the right than say, Europe. Although I suppose it goes both ways what with Centre Right parties in Europe being decried as "Far Right"...

Either way I tend to think back to how people used to compare Reagan and Thatcher but frankly Thatcher made nowhere near the same kind of cuts that Reagan did (public spending INCREASED during her time) whilst the Reagan administration was slashing Medicaid and Food Stamps (among other things)...

Edited October 29, 2016 by Irysa

[Crysta]

I'm not terribly interested in discussing anything with you, thanks.

Silly me, coming here expecting intelligent political discourse, amirite?

(Nah the rest of you are cool.)

I guess the tl;dr response to Trump being in the pockets of Russia is that Russia is better than Saudi Arabia? What about the whole thing about him having an incredibly thin skin and likely looking to tweak the libel laws to get back at his political opponents (though I doubt we'd really let him)?

[Tangerine]

Silly me, coming here expecting intelligent political discourse, amirite?

Expecting someone that you insulted in your very first reply to want to discuss anything with you was a mistake, lol.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Tangerine

[Crysta]

Expecting someone that you insulted in your very first reply to want to discuss anything with you was a mistake, lol.

But you don't care what I think!

Your claim is still wrong.

[UNLEASH IT]

I'm not terribly interested in discussing anything with you, thanks.

Expecting someone that you insulted in your very first reply to want to discuss anything with you was a mistake, lol.

Silly me, coming here expecting intelligent political discourse, amirite?

(Nah the rest of you are cool.)

I guess the tl;dr response to Trump being in the pockets of Russia is that Russia is better than Saudi Arabia? What about the whole thing about him having an incredibly thin skin and likely looking to tweak the libel laws to get back at his political opponents (though I doubt we'd really let him)?

But you don't care what I think!

Your claim is still wrong.

So umm, how long is this gonna go on for?

[Tangerine]

But you don't care what I think!

Your claim is still wrong.

You're right! There's a difference between caring what someone thinks and disagreeing with the way they start and hold "discussions", however. Not participating is the peaceful solution.

You're welcome to believe that. Proof wasn't provided after all, so why shouldn't you.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Tangerine

[Crysta]

So umm, how long is this gonna go on for?

I dunno. Do you have anything to add?

In Trump versus Clinton, I still see Trump being the far more authoritarian of the two. Putin doesn't have fondness for dissenting press, either.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Crysta

[XeKr]

America has had a pretty warped view on what constitutes "The Left" for a while now, given your average political centre seems to sit rather far into the right than say, Europe. Although I suppose it goes both ways what with Centre Right parties in Europe being decried as "Far Right"...

Either way I tend to think back to how people used to compare Reagan and Thatcher but frankly Thatcher made nowhere near the same kind of cuts that Reagan did (public spending INCREASED during her time) whilst the Reagan administration was slashing Medicaid and Food Stamps (among other things)...

Consequence of the cold war. Socialism is political poison for many who lived in that time. Capitalism is now probably the most important part of the American identity (previously I would have thought being a melting pot is, but this election obliterated that).

Sad thing is that conservative intellectuals who worship Reagan is the base of #nevertrump. Every neo-Nazi group is enthusiastically behind Trump. So that tells you where the party is.

edit: also for noneconomic issues, groups like the evangelicals and Mormons are extremely motivated, mostl monolithic voting blocs. Though no idea why similar groups aren't as prevalent in Europe (correct me if wrong).

Edited October 29, 2016 by XeKr