General US Politics

[peener weener]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/john-kelly-a-lack-of-ability-to-compromise-led-to-the-civil-war.html

John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

"I think we make a mistake as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is accepted as right and wrong, and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'"

"[Confederate General] Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said.

"But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

this is the funniest thing i've read all day

Edited October 31, 2017 by fartboi

[Res]

Rape and genocide were merely a product of Columbus's time, eh?

[peener weener]

those silly progressive just couldn't compromise on slavery, is that really so much to ask for?

[Moblin Major General]

9 minutes ago, fartboi said:

'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

Except there was compromise. Twice. The only reason the Civil War didn't happen earlier is because Fillmore was an idiot, Pierce was an asshole, and Buchanan was as incompetent as a president has ever been (I doubt Trump would take kindly to a state seceding from the US, even if they are everything he isn't.)

[Lord Raven]

24 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Except there was compromise. Twice. The only reason the Civil War didn't happen earlier is because Fillmore was an idiot, Pierce was an asshole, and Buchanan was as incompetent as a president has ever been (I doubt Trump would take kindly to a state seceding from the US, even if they are everything he isn't.)

What were the compromises?

Anyway, Buchanan and Pierce's incompetence led to the civil war and Johnson's incompetence is why the south is how it is today

32 minutes ago, fartboi said:

those silly progressive just couldn't compromise on slavery, is that really so much to ask for?

I'm sorry, but this is stupid. I don't want my kids to get vaccines because I think they may get autism, can't we compromise and let your kids get autistic vaccines and my kids are free of that shit? It's not like people get polio, smallpox, hepatitis, or the measles  anymore anyway.

I forgot though, you (((liberals))) are the real fascists because your fascism will make my child autistic.

John Kelly may run a tighter ship than before, but I won't pretend he's a weasel trying to downplay the horrific history of the US. The civil war was caused by a secession due to a region that refused any and all compromise and rejected the results of democracy. It would be equivalent to the southern half of the country seceding due to Obama's election, or the northeast seceding due to Trump's win.

[blah the Prussian]

6 hours ago, Res said:

Rape and genocide were merely a product of Columbus's time, eh?

The funny thing is that they clearly WEREN'T, because the Spanish crown punished Columbus for his abuses and throughout the reign of Charles V attempted to reign in the excesses of the Cinquistadors. It was only under Phillip II that they gave up. So the actions of the Conquistadors were hardly "products of their time" when people in that time recognized them for the atrocities they were.

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

What were the compromises?

 

The most famous one is the Fugitive Slave Act, which I'm sure you know about, but basically there were a bunch of compromisises that boiled down to "Slavery cannot be extended" until the FSA, which said "Northern states now need to recognize the South's slaves" which is pretty ironic given that it kind of flies in the face of the idea of state's rights.

[Lushen]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:12 PM, Lord Raven said:

also saying "the left" as a conglomerate is a sign of the alt-right

EDIT: lushen also doesnt read/watch the news, in fact he's still never told me where he reads his news

Uhh.  Does this mean saying "the right" is a sign of something?  No?  Of course not...

As for where I get the news that is a complicated question to answer.  As far as breaking news, my Google Pixel sends me notifications whenever something major happens.  As for when I go looking for news, I like to use Google News because it shows me news headlines on subjects from all kinds of sources including the washington post, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, etc.  I don't know how I could get any more diverse than that.

Anyways, I'm sure everyone's heard about the terrorist attack in NYC.  Sad, though I was able to hold on to my faith in humanity when I heard that a bus driver civilian helped stop the attack.  I really do think America has some of the bravest people when it comes to these kinds of situations.  

Edited October 31, 2017 by Lushen

[dragonlordsd]

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Anyways, I'm sure everyone's heard about the terrorist attack in NYC.  Sad, though I was able to hold on to my faith in humanity when I heard that a bus driver civilian helped stop the attack.  I really do think America has some of the bravest people when it comes to these kinds of situations.  

Indeed.

And weird as it is to say, I'm glad the guy responsible survived. I've had enough of the whole "Terrorist shot himself, so we can never know what motivated him."

I'm glad he's going to be able to face justice.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, dragonlordsd said:

And weird as it is to say, I'm glad the guy responsible survived. I've had enough of the whole "Terrorist shot himself, so we can never know what motivated him."

I found this interesting as well.  I was trying to think back to a time where we captured a Terrorist and I can't think of a time.  I'd be very curious to see if he was involved with any terror organizations (not just ISIS) because I've always been wondering if terrorist attacks are escalating because of these organizations or individual hatred.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[dragonlordsd]

Just now, Lushen said:

I found this interesting as well.  I was trying to think back to a time where we captured a Terrorist and I don't know that it ever happened.  I'd be very curious to see if he was involved with any terror organizations (not just ISIS) because I've always been wondering if terrorist attacks are escalating because of these organizations or individual hatred.

Guy was from Uzbekistan, right?

According to wikipedia, the last major terrorist attack in that country was in 2004. It doesn't have any connections to ISIS, and is not considered to have a major terror threat.

Doesn't mean that the guy isn't connected to something or other, but again, ISIS has the tendency to claim responsibility for things that they didn't actually do to make themselves seem stronger (like when they said they were responsible for the vegas shooting)

[Moblin Major General]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 I was trying to think back to a time where we captured a Terrorist and I can't think of a time.

Dzhokar Tsarnaev, Boston Marathon bomber. He is a terrorist and is alive, and probably will be until he runs out of appeals.

[dragonlordsd]

1 minute ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Dzhokar Tsarnaev, Boston Marathon bomber. He is a terrorist and is alive, and probably will be until he runs out of appeals.

Geez. That was nearly a decade ago.

Did he get death sentence or life in prison? 

[Moblin Major General]

8 minutes ago, dragonlordsd said:

Geez. That was nearly a decade ago.

Did he get death sentence or life in prison? 

He got the death penalty.

[dragonlordsd]

2 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

He got the death penalty.

Eh, he deserves it.

Doesn't matter much, though, I'd bet. Even if he got life, from what I've heard, guys like him don't live long in prison anyway.

"No known terror ties" on the New York attacker. Well, we'll know soon enough. This time we can actually ask him.

Edited November 1, 2017 by dragonlordsd

[Lord Raven]

2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

The most famous one is the Fugitive Slave Act, which I'm sure you know about, but basically there were a bunch of compromisises that boiled down to "Slavery cannot be extended" until the FSA, which said "Northern states now need to recognize the South's slaves" which is pretty ironic given that it kind of flies in the face of the idea of state's rights.

you know what the funny thing is? i definitely took it for granted that the north was willing to compromise due to their indifference towards slavery (as in, they seemed to be not anti-abolitionist, but saw slave labor as basically inefficient) because i kept thinking "wait, how did the south compromise at all?"

because i definitely had that in the back of my mind

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Uhh.  Does this mean saying "the right" is a sign of something?  No?  Of course not...

i am curious what kind of stigma you attach to "the left," because i've talked to all kinds of conservatives before and only the ones that lean alt-right tend to refer to "the left."

"the right," meanwhile, is the norm in the US and generally around the rest of the western world by far. there's definitely a power dynamic at play here which you're not quite understanding.

in either case, your entire point is to strawman "the left" or to just make shit up about the way "the left" views things. in fact, calling me "unamerican" because I believe in democratic socialism despite the fact that I also stated I'd rather vote centrist than demsoc is mccarthy-esque and disturbing.

i'm also not equating the alt-right to the right here. the american right is the norm, and "the right" when used to condescend is more or less referring to the Republican party...  who are the far-right. the alt-right literally only exists as a result of a russian propaganda campaign and grooming from breitbart and you borrow a ton of their rhetoric. (keep in mind, i do not use the word grooming lightly).

i mainly asked your news sources because I was curious if you viewed certain subreddits (i'm not talking about The_Donald, fyi, probably closer along the lines of /r/conservative) it looks like you read everything. which baffles me as to why you seem to hold the fox news or the alt-right angle over the alternative in every way, shape, or form.

at any rate, i still don't quite believe that you read all of those, because you've made claims in here about what the media does despite most other members saying that your assessment is highly inaccurate. either that, or you're super selective about what you want to read about.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

I think you believe that anyone who disagrees with you on most policies must be a member of the alt-right.  Can we not play these games?

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

i mainly asked your news sources because I was curious if you viewed certain subreddits (i'm not talking about The_Donald, fyi, probably closer along the lines of /r/conservative) it looks like you read everything. which baffles me as to why you seem to hold the fox news or the alt-right angle over the alternative in every way, shape, or form.

I have never had a Reddit account and spend less than an hour on Reddit per month.  And it's clear to me that you do not understand the difference between the alt-right and classical conservatism.  Or that, again, anyone who disagrees with you is the alt-right.

 

Anyways, it appears as though this attack was influenced by ISIS.  https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nyc-terrorist-attack/note-about-isis-found-truck-used-nyc-terrorist-attack-sources-n816276

Damn, we were having a lot of great news suggesting the potential fall of ISIS recently.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

I think you believe that anyone who disagrees with you on most policies must be a member of the alt-right.  Can we not play these games?

I have never had a Reddit account and spend less than an hour on Reddit per month.  And it's clear to me that you do not understand the difference between the alt-right and classical conservatism.  Or that, again, anyone who disagrees with you is the alt-right.

Nope. I'm not even saying you're alt-right. I said you're far right; you believe in economic Darwinism because that's what you believe we have and that's what you believe is the way forward. That only hard work and common sense is necessary to go through life, and not assistance from others. We're all discontent with this view because it's out of touch, but it is the view which many Republicans agree with. FYI, you may be far-right economically, but you are right-of-center socially (the alt-right is not), which is pretty clear to me. Civil liberties, but our current system is ensuring everyone the same liberty (also debunked by statistics but we're not going to go into this again when you don't learn the first two times). You are more in line with modern Republicans than Steve Bannon, is how I view it.

The way you word things is reminiscent of the alt-right, and you should be pretty careful about accusing people of being leftists or unamerican, or accusing leftists of doing certain things. Borderline treating it like some sort of disease or problem. If you don't see this, then it's pretty evident you're in here literally thinking in terms of "wins" and "losses" and not "what's genuinely a problem and what do others think?" Even from my side it's interesting to hear how people think differently, and I am naturally abrasive as a person.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Anyways, it appears as though this attack was influenced by ISIS.  https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nyc-terrorist-attack/note-about-isis-found-truck-used-nyc-terrorist-attack-sources-n816276

Damn, we were having a lot of great news suggesting the potential fall of ISIS recently.  

ISIS will never fall. It will be less concentrated in one spot, but there are cells that are grooming young Muslim (and even some non-Muslim) children into doing things like this. A lot of "lone wolf" terrorist attacks from young Muslims are a result of this kind of radicalization, which is why immigration restrictions will not do anything but make young Muslims feel more isolated and more likely to be groomed by these people.

Radicalization has a tendency to happen through the internet these days, because it's where lonely people can find places to fit in for all sorts of reasons.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

I would not disagree with being an "Economic Darwanist", no.  I would mention that I think people who are successful need to work hard and work smart.  There seems to be a belief where you need one or the other, but you really need both.  Mostly I am a core conservative by the website I posted earlier's standards with the exception of foreign policy where I tend to be more liberal (because thinking a big military makes you safe is stupid).

 

What was fine:  Linking the Terrorist to Democratic ideals.  A "Diversity Lottery" program sounded completely unbelievable to me.  I thought, no way Democrats have gone this far?  But then I looked it up and saw it was actually a thing and not an exaggeration.  This should be completely gutted, it makes no sense.  I could have sworn Democrats were saying that there's a consensus between them and republicans when it comes to vetting.  They kept saying that immigrants were currently being properly vetted and that's why we could have more - a lottery program is not properly vetted.  

What is not fine: Blaming a specific democrat (Schumer) for the tragedy.  This is just stupid, no one man is responsible for this program and linking a terrorist attack to a politician is just stupid.  It's also way to earlier to tell if Schumer was really the one pushing for this legislature (I heard some saying he was the architect and other saying he was working to do away with it).  In this sense, I think we need more facts before we start pointing fingers and even then it is hardly appropriate to be overly direct when linking politicians to tragedies.

Additionally, I think a lot of people are talking about the hypocrisy behind politicizing this tragedy immediately vs Vegas.  I actually don't see it.  Even President Trump (to my suprise) waited to politicize the tragedy until we had the facts.  People during Vegas were politicizing it before we had the facts we needed (which is why we had things like Clinton saying silencers would have been worse which is untrue).  We also had people saying that he had machine guns when really he had stocks which even the NRA said shouldn't be legal.  In this case, we know it is directly a result of the Diversity Lottery program which honestly I think even liberals and democrats in this thread will admit is a terrible idea.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Phoenix Wright]

how could you possibly believe in "economic" darwinism? are you aware of the ridiculousness of the wealth gap this country has? social darwinism, even just as an idea, doesn't apply to the us because the odds are so stacked against the working class (read: 50% of the population) to be successful that it's practically impossible for most families to move up.

let alone the idea of darwinism being applied to non-biology topics like human society is really dumb.

[Res]

Uh, the Visa Diversity Lottery program began in 1990... its roots began in the 80s, it's been around for a considerable while.

Edit: Also, all it does is encourage immigrants from areas of the world that normally don't see a high immigration to the U.S. Applicants are still expected to have a clean criminal record and provide a means of support.

To enter the lottery, applicants must have been born in an eligible country. If selected, to qualify for the immigrant visa, they must have completed at least a high school education or at least two years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least two other years of training or experience. They must also satisfy general immigration requirements, such as means of support, no criminal background, and good health.

Eligibility is determined by the applicant's country of birth. In some cases the applicant may use a parent's or spouse's country of birth instead.

Immigration to the U.S. is tough; ordinarily it's hard to qualify unless a) you're extremely well-educated (and a place of employment can prove you're better suited than a U.S. citizen for the job), b) you're extremely wealthy or c) you have a familial connection to a U.S. citizen. The U.S. doesn't have reciprocal visa partnerships with countries in the way many other countries do.

So all the lottery does is say 'okay, every year we'll give 50,000 people who aren't extremely well-educated, who aren't extremely rich, and who don't have a familial connection to a U.S. citizen a chance to apply for a visa'. The applicant still has to meet every other immigration requirement (which again, are pretty strict). 

If both working hard and working smart (or either...) were requirements to being rich, a good 80% of the wealthy people I've worked for should be incredibly poor. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Res

[SullyMcGully]

10 minutes ago, Res said:

If both working hard and working smart (or either...) were requirements to being rich, a good 80% of the wealthy people I've worked for should be incredibly poor. 

Unless somebody (like you) was working hard or smart to keep them that way. The only way you get wealthy is when somebody does the work. While it may not be fair, that money doesn't just appear magically. Lottery money generally doesn't stick around for long.

Isn't that the entire point of getting a lot of money? Not having to work hard and smart? Some people are just content with that. It's not moral or productive, and it doesn't necessarily make one happy, but that's really what you'd expect in a lot of situations.

[Lushen]

57 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

how could you possibly believe in "economic" darwinism? are you aware of the ridiculousness of the wealth gap this country has?

If you're talking about the gender wage gap, it does not actually exist and has been debunked by plenty of credible sources.

There seems to be a misconception that Liberals are the only ones who talk about equality.  Actually this isn't true.  Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity - that High School should be a public service, for example.  Conservatives, in my view, has always been the party of equality of opportunity, while liberals are the party of equality of race, gender, etc.  They don't seem to care as much about opportunity, they care more about equality between races (hence, Affirmative Action which gives whites less equality of opportunity than blacks)

34 minutes ago, Res said:

Uh, the Visa Diversity Lottery program began in 1990... its roots began in the 80s, it's been around for a considerable while.

Yes.  I've been reading into it.  It supports what I said about how you can't blame someone for a policy.  You can't even blame democrats in general for it.   Blaming Schumer is extremely ridiculous because from what I've been reading, he was one of the few democrats trying to get rid of it.  Furthermore, the legislation was perfectly reasonable back in 1990 when we were relatively terrorist-free.  However, I will say this is a failure on the part of the US Gov't as a whole after 9/11.  How this could not be one of the major targets during the mass immigration reform we saw under Bush baffles me.  I will also say that, from what I've been reading, it has been a target of Republicans for years and Democrats have been obstructing it's removal likely due to them thinking with their party rather than their own brains.  That is not an attack on Democrats, but rather politicians as a whole - Republicans were obstructionists under Obama.

Basically, Trump's comments on Schumer were stupid and wrong.  Trump's comments about Democrats obstructing the removal of this policy were extreme, but based in some truth.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

29 minutes ago, Lushen said:

If you're talking about the gender wage gap, it does not actually exist and has been debunked by most credible sources.

Not exactly true. It still exists, but it isn't quite the 77 cents to the dollar that is floated about by all accounts.

I mean, while that figure specifically is mostly debunked, most conclusions still rank the gap to be around 83-90 cents to the dollar. In various situations (and countries) this can fluctuate a lot, there was a report that there was a certain age group in the UK that slightly favored female wages over men.

I haven't seen any credible sources that outright dismisses that it exists and we have a complete 1:1 payment between genders.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure that wasn't what he was talking about. I think it's the worker pay gap in which 51% of workers in the US earn under $30k, and 38% of workers make less than $20k.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Tryhard

[Res]

3 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Unless somebody (like you) was working hard or smart to keep them that way. The only way you get wealthy is when somebody does the work. While it may not be fair, that money doesn't just appear magically. Lottery money generally doesn't stick around for long.

Isn't that the entire point of getting a lot of money? Not having to work hard and smart? Some people are just content with that. It's not moral or productive, and it doesn't necessarily make one happy, but that's really what you'd expect in a lot of situations.

I'd argue inheritance is the main reason a person gains and retains wealth; social connections also contribute, but generally you'll only have the social connections in the first place if you're born into at least *some* wealth.

Anyway, you're right that money means you don't have to work hard and smart, and that's fine! I don't begrudge people who bask in their wealth at all. What I'm arguing is that working hard and smart are neither guarantees to success nor are they the only means by which success is measured. They're definitely not requirements to getting rich.

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

How this could not be one of the major targets during the mass immigration reform we saw under Bush baffles me.

Well, as a whole, immigration requirements have been tightened and made stricter and this affects the lottery winners, too. And if 50,000 people have been given entry every year since 1990 and this is the first major crime committed by a lottery winner, that's not exactly indicative of it failing in any way. 

[Lushen]

20 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Not exactly true. It still exists, but it isn't quite 77 cents to the dollar by all accounts.

I mean, while that figure specifically is mostly debunked, most conclusions still rank the gap to be around 83-90 cents to the dollar.

I haven't seen any credible sources that outright dismiss that it exists and we have a complete 1:1 payment between genders.

What I've been reading is it goes up to 92 cents per dollar.  While you're right this isn't 1:1, it's important to note that 15% (92-77) was subtracted from the gap due to easily explainable reasoning like the fact that Woman just happen to not want to work in jobs that traditionally offer more pay and pregnancies.  The remaining 8% could, in my view, be seen as negligible or made up of other reasons that are not easily explained.  The "Gender Gap" theory generally seems to claim that America is sexist and deliberately pays woman less than men.  Anecdotally, I've heard of more times people are sexist against men such as Woman in Engineering programs and the recent reports of the DNC not hiring cis-gender straight men.  From a general sense, a large portion of the gap has been explained and it is not unreasonable to suggest that the other portions are simply more complex.  I don't see a huge amount of evidence saying that the remaining 8% is exclusively from sexists.   There's also many other things to consider that I have not seen reports on, such as job opportunity (likelihood of being employed), that matter just as much as income.  Just a quick look tells me that woman have less overall unemployment despite our sexist society, why does no one talk about that?

18 minutes ago, Res said:

Well, as a whole, immigration requirements have been tightened and made stricter and this affects the lottery winners, too. And if 50,000 people have been given entry every year since 1990 and this is the first major crime committed by a lottery winner, that's not exactly indicative of it failing in any way. 

But a large portion of the policy was pre-9/11 where, again, we didn't have many problems with Terrorism.   Really all the years before ISIS really took off, the people might have been perfectly fine.  I think there was nothing really wrong with the policy back in 1990 but I don't see how it couldn't be one of the main targets of immigration reform after 9/11.  And "first major crime" is the key phrase.  I imagine there will be a lot of investigation on how the other 49,999*n are doing.  Either way, the idea that we should not vet some individuals just because they basically won a lottery should be seen as stupid for multiple other reasons.  How is merit based immigration controversial?   It seems like common sense to me and I think if Obama was saying it instead of Trump democrats would be nodding their head.

I've said it before, immigrants who come here legally are statistically better members of society because they demonstrate a strong will and desire to be a part of American society.  The same cannot be said for those that come here illegally and the lottery is pretty much a legal way for people to skip the regular process which is just stupid.

The scary thing about this is that other countries have been having issues with immigrants turning to terrorism for the last couple years.  Most of America thought we were safe from what's going on in Europe but now we see that ISIS is perfectly capable of doing the same things in America.  There was supposed to be a parade not too long before this attack, if he waited till the parade we could have seen as many deaths as Nice.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen