General US Politics

[Crysta]

I don't let Obama completely off, but at least he flipped earlier...

I expect some politicians to flip-flop from time to time, but at least Obama took the movement and lent credence to it...

Do let me know when it is okay to change your position for political gain and when it isn't.

Spoiler alert: there isn't. These are excuses.

My understanding of politics is that the "one in charge" is never the one in charge.

Yes. It was Hillary behind the evil twisted throne each time lol. Blaming her for her own mistakes is fine, and boy did she make a lot, but holy shit...

I can't say I'm optimistic about people suddenly discarding the caricatures produced in this election.

[Yojinbo]

The thing about it is that Libya is still in a state of civil war as we speak, with four different factions (including ISIS) fighting for control over the country, yet most media stopped reporting on it after Gaddafi was killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)

What makes us think that Syria isn't going to end up the same way?

If you're worried about Syria then I can only recommend taking a good look at what our dear friends from Saudi-Arabia have been doing in Jemen the last few years.

Hint: it's honestly not much different from what IS is doing in Syria. Except nobody's talking about it - 'cause all the money and arms the Saudis are using is actually being provided by ... us, the so-called 'civilized' west. Syria is only talked about in the media because the west wants to get rid of Assad and because it's a great opportunity to make Putin look like the bad guy.

[UNLEASH IT]

Free healthcare is pretty important. I mean, it wasn't an issue with this election, but it's pretty important. Cake is pretty important too. How are you going to live without cake?

Seriously, though, I've noticed you saying stuff along the lines of "literally nothing else matters" a lot, and you have to understand, people don't like being told that causes they support, like free healthcare, which is arguably more important than minority rights because of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (to wit, first you live, then you live comfortably, then you have breathing room to be emotionally satisfied) don't matter.

That sounds like an interesting read. I've held an idea that the lower one's economic status is, the less attention they pay to strictly social matters such as gay rights, women's rights, etc. In my opinion, it's why a lot of countries in Africa, the Middle East and the rest of the developing world tend to rank low on these issues regardless of their religious beliefs. I mean, if you can't put food on the table for you and your family, then why should something like gay rights, or even global warming matter to you?

[solrocknroll]

Because you have no idea what THEY have gone through. Because if they didn't care, they wouldn't have even bothered to acknowledge you. You don't need experience to comfort someone. That's ridiculous. And even if that were so, I can use my own experiences and use anecdotal evidence to claim what I said is right. And they aren't telling you how to think. Just proposing a reality that it's not nearly as bad as you're droning on about. Outsider opinion matters completely and utterly. I said it again, if most of the people in the LGBT movement were like you, I'd vehemently oppose it and attempt to shut down any sort of movements on the account that they are too unfriendly and too radical to do anything. You are not doing anyone favors by acting this way. As the more I see people act this way the less inclined I feel to offer any sort of support or anything short of ire.

If your existence is so flimsily attributed with being gay, you've got more problems than Trump. Or republicans. If you lose rights, there should be the obvious response of "you can gain them back." Or are you just going to roll over and give up? Honestly, if you're not willing to protest and just say "I may as well die," then you've already lost.

@Everyone talking about flopping politicians. Aren't we being a bit harsh there? Who hasn't changed their opinions on things as they've gotten older? What would be more disturbing would be if the person was inconsistent with their changes of opinions. Not that they actually changed their opinion.

lol

So Malcolm X means that the black community shouldn't have rights? What about Susan B. Anthony and women's suffrage?

This is just homophobia under a different package. If you let the actions of others dictate how you feel about us, you obviously didn't care in the first place.

There seem to be plenty of straight people who let their identity define them. Remember the "Locker Room talks?" So basically, the heteronormative society allows people to live for their identity, but I can't? Cool.

@Blah, Maslow's hierachy is stupid and meaningless. Most people would rather be dead if they were truly in a low, low place. Emotional health is more important than physical health typically. It's why suicide is such a rampant issue. The hierachy shows no sympathy for anyone with mental issues. I mean, they're healthy, right?

And considering the huge pushback from conservatives about free health care, that obviously isn't the sticking point issue like you think it is. Free health care and free education should be the norm.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Cykes-dono

[blah the Prussian]

That sounds like an interesting read. I've held an idea that the lower one's economic status is, the less attention they pay to strictly social matters such as gay rights, women's rights, etc. In my opinion, it's why a lot of countries in Africa, the Middle East and the rest of the developing world tend to rank low on these issues regardless of their religious beliefs. I mean, if you can't put food on the table for you and your family, then why should something like gay rights, or even global warming matter to you?

The thing is also that logically people living in poverty regardless of sexual orientation are likely to prioritize economic reform over social reform. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, too, economic reform usually at least in theory helps everyone, while minority reform by definition helps less people. Not saying that it isn't important, and that America has definitely reached the point where minority reform can and should be implemented, but to say that literally nothing else matters is, hey, privileged, because you're in a position where food is on your table every day, so you can worry about things like this.

Edit: two questions: one, how do you know? Have you asked someone living in extreme poverty if they'd rather die than live? Two, even if suicide is an issue, a despressed person won't neccesarily commit suicide. A person who's starving? They're dead.

Edited November 12, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Rezzy]

Do let me know when it is okay to change your position for political gain and when it isn't.

Spoiler alert: there isn't. These are excuses.

It's the reason behind the flip and the timing that matters.

Ideally, a leader should see what is best for the country and change their stance there.

Next most ideally, a politician should see what the majority wants or will want, and help make it so. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt would put him in the first category. A cynic would put him in the second category. But the point is, it's still better than the last category, which is...

A politician sees that a stance has already been enacted or will be imminently and is popular with the majority. Only then do they decide to switch, lest they have a stance that doesn't poll well.

I wish Obama had come around earlier, but he did come around at a time that actually mattered, and may have helped sway overall opinion in a positive direction. Hillary's flip-flop came too late to matter and accomplished nothing, except letting her virtue signal about how progressive she was. I wouldn't be giving Hillary so hard a time with this, if she didn't try to portray her opponents as anti-LGBT, like she had been on our side to begin with.

[Lord Raven]

I really don't know why the flip-flop argument applies purely to Hillary Clinton when the person she lost to was arguably a much, MUCH worse flip-flop than she was in almost every conceivable way. Every single position he has now is almost a 180 from 6-7 years ago.

@Cykes - you know I responded directly to you, right? I want you to offer your thoughts on what I had to say, and I want you to do it with a clear mind.

[Crysta]

It's the reason behind the flip and the timing that matters.

Ideally, a leader should see what is best for the country and change their stance there.

It matters to you. It doesn't matter to me, because it tells me he's perfectly willing to play the political game just as much as his political opponents. If you're willing to forgive him because the ends justify the means, there is no real reason for reason for you to then turn around and disdain someone else for doing the same damn thing just at a different point of time and evidently not as adroitly.

He is a better player than she is.

Bernie is popular because he doesn't really do that.. unless I'm not aware of something he's hedged on. Let me know if he has.

[Rezzy]

I really don't know why the flip-flop argument applies purely to Hillary Clinton when the person she lost to was arguably a much, MUCH worse flip-flop than she was in almost every conceivable way. Every single position he has now is almost a 180 from 6-7 years ago.

@Cykes - you know I responded directly to you, right? I want you to offer your thoughts on what I had to say, and I want you to do it with a clear mind.

Trump's a bit of a wild-card since he's never held office before. My stance on him is I can only go by what he says now, since he has no track record. I'm cautious, but hopefully optimistic. Trump also seems to be one who doesn't give a fig about what polls say, so he at least has that going for him.

I'm primarily venting on why I never trusted Hillary. I think the LGBT community would have been about the same if Hillary had been elected. Now, her policies would not have drawn back any gains, but she doesn't earn any brownie points for me, because she wasn't for us when it mattered. Trump wasn't in politics, so his views were irrelevant at the time.

I don't usually base my views on these things, but when Gay Marriage was a big deal for me a decade ago, I remember HIllary's smug opposition to it. Perhaps it's an emotional argument. And I'm usually against such things, but I remember crying to myself about it, and the hurt is still there.

It matters to you. It doesn't matter to me, because it tells me he's perfectly willing to play the political game just as much as his political opponents. If you're willing to forgive him because the ends justify the means, there is no real reason for reason for you to then turn around and disdain someone else for doing the same damn thing just at a different point of time and evidently not as adroitly.

He is a better player than she is.

Bernie is popular because he doesn't really do that.. unless I'm not aware of something he's hedged on. Let me know if he has.

Obama took a political risk. I can't speak for his personal motivations, but Romney pulled ahead of the polls for a time after Obama made his announcement. This risk "paid off", but seeing the president endorse it may have helped more people see Gay Marriage as main stream. At the time, some people thought it could have cost him the election.

Hillary could have lent her political sway to bring more people over the gay marriage, but she didn't, not until 2013 when it was popular. She didn't put her neck out for gay marriage, Obama did. That is why I give Obama credit, but not her.

I'm not trying to be an Obama fan girl, and I don't like many of his policies, but I'm willing to give him credit where it is due.

[Crysta]

Obama took a political risk. I can't speak for his personal motivations, but Romney pulled ahead of the polls for a time after Obama made his announcement. This risk "paid off", but seeing the president endorse it may have helped more people see Gay Marriage as main stream. At the time, some people thought it could have cost him the election.

He took the risk when he was more confident he could get away with it. It was opportunistic; it wasn't that big of a risk at all.

I have no doubt that if the country hadn't DISCERNABLY moved towards granting LGBT people basic civil rights after 2008 (he was asked about it in 2011 - he was still not on board with it), he would have kept his previous position and played safe.

Because, you know, that's what he did until 2012.

[Augestein]

So Malcolm X means that the black community shouldn't have rights? What about Susan B. Anthony and women's suffrage?

This is just homophobia under a different package. If you let the actions of others dictate how you feel about us, you obviously didn't care in the first place.

There seem to be plenty of straight people who let their identity define them. Remember the "Locker Room talks?" So basically, the heteronormative society allows people to live for their identity, but I can't? Cool.

@Blah, Maslow's hierachy is stupid and meaningless. Most people would rather be dead if they were truly in a low, low place. Emotional health is more important than physical health typically. It's why suicide is such a rampant issue. The hierachy shows no sympathy for anyone with mental issues. I mean, they're healthy, right?

And considering the huge pushback from conservatives about free health care, that obviously isn't the sticking point issue like you think it is. Free health care and free education should be the norm.

And this response makes sense to say to me how? Trying to shove words in people's mouth to try to counter a point they didn't make doesn't work.

This makes no sense. People that claim to be part of a group that act like a jerk are inclined to make people feel like that group is... Well , a group of jerks.

Except he was put on blast for that and is still receiving heat for that as is. And still has other situations that he has to deal with. So I'm not really seeing your point here.

Actually it's not more important than physical health. Most people don't start caring about emotional things until they are absolutely sure that their home life is secure. You can't really be concerned about what dresses you can wear when you don't even have enough money to purchase a pair of socks. Suicide doesn't just happen because of emotional aspects. These emotional aspects happen because of the lack of physical aspects in their lives, or the person may be mentally impaired as well. It's really not that simple.

Yeah, and quite a few people like the idea of free healthcare, and are definitely fine with free education-- for the minimum. Not necessarily college. And I agree, I went and graduated from college, and I don't believe that everyone should have to go if they don't want to. HS education combined with some training / apprenticeship would be enough.

It's the reason behind the flip and the timing that matters.

The reason I can agree with, but the timing might just be that someone legitimately convinced them to believe otherwise. I can see it. For instance, 50 Cent the rapper was actually opposed to homosexuality in his younger years but when he got older, he was more sympathetic towards the idea of it. It's hard to say with Hilary if she truly believes that or did it as a political maneuver. However, considering that we've never really heard much argument for it and more lambasting towards opposition-- I'm inclined to agree it's a political stunt.

[Rezzy]

He took the risk when he was more confident he could get away with it. It was opportunistic; it wasn't that big of a risk at all.

I have no doubt that if the country hadn't DISCERNABLY moved towards granting LGBT people basic civil rights after 2008 (he was asked about it in 2011 - he was still not on board with it), he would have kept his previous position and played safe.

Because, you know, that's what he did until 2012.

I respect your opinion, and the cynic in me didn't want to trust Obama at the time either. I explained why I give Obama a break on the issue, but not Hillary, and I've had this opinion for the past several years. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In fact giving Obama credit is something I don't do often, since there are so many of his policies I don't agree with.

[Captain Karnage]

So I've read Trumps first 100 days, I really like his "Drain the Swamp" plan. I like how he wants to end corruption and destroy major career politicans

[Crysta]

So I've read Trumps first 100 days, I really like his "Drain the Swamp" plan. I like how he wants to end corruption and destroy major career politicans

He's "draining the swamp"...

... with the help of the rancid water that once occupied it.

[Time the Crestfallen]

So I've read Trumps first 100 days, I really like his "Drain the Swamp" plan. I like how he wants to end corruption and destroy major career politicans

Have you seen his transition team? He's filling it with the exact sort of people 'drain the swamp' should be targeting. And this is before you consider that he has three of his own kids on it i.e. nepotism.

Edited November 12, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[UNLEASH IT]

Well I'm seeing a lot of reports about California wanting to secede. Is there anyone here from California who can give some details about it? I know what you're thinking, "Well why don't you look it up", it's just that I'm not very confident about the information I get from websites and news stations anymore.

[Res]

There's a referendum proposed for 2019, but whether it'll happen or not, we'll see (I doubt it. And of course, even if it happens, it won't mean much).

It has some backing from a couple of Silicon Valley bigwigs, which is the only reason it's being talked about.

It's not a solution.

[UNLEASH IT]

There's a referendum proposed for 2019, but whether it'll happen or not, we'll see (I doubt it. And of course, even if it happens, it won't mean much).

It has some backing from a couple of Silicon Valley bigwigs, which is the only reason it's being talked about.

It's not a solution.

Well, though I don't approve of the movement, if they ever decide to go through with it, they should seriously consider getting Colorado (and somehow Arizona and Utah) on board. Yes, California does have a lot of people and produces a lot of food, but they also require a lot of water, especially to produce said food.

Edited November 13, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Crysta]

[Rezzy]

The Civil War pretty definitively made it clear that states can't secede from the Union.

[CyborgZeta]

Rather than secede, they should just kick California out. I personally wouldn't miss it.

[UNLEASH IT]

If there were a hell there'd be a special place for her there for sure.

Despite all the things that she's done, I still wouldn't wish hell on Hillary.

Because the fact of the matter is, Hillary Clinton, until the day she dies (and in the possible afterlife), now has to deal with the reality that she will forever be remembered by history as the candidate who, despite having a campaign worth more than 1 billion dollars and legions of political "experts" at her side, lost to Donald "Grab em by the pussy" Trump, and it was almost entirely due to her own arrogance.

And that reality is hell on earth itself.

Edited November 13, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Crysta]

Rather than secede, they should just kick California out. I personally wouldn't miss it.

This is ironic considering your signature quote.

Though I guess it isn't entirely valid because we're not necessarily friends.

[UNLEASH IT]

Rather than secede, they should just kick California out. I personally wouldn't miss it.

It wouldn't benefit anyone. The rest of America wouldn't be able to survive without the almost massive amount of food and capital produced by California and California, without the resources (especially water) provided from other states to maintain its large population and generate its food and wealth, would collapse under its own weight and become a dried out husk of a state.

So in a way, when you say that you want to kick out California, you are not only wishing death on an entire state, you're also wishing death on a large portion of people in the remaining states.

Edited November 13, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Rezzy]

Despite all the things that she's done, I still wouldn't wish hell on Hillary.

Because the fact of the matter is, Hillary Clinton, until the day she dies (and in the possible afterlife), now has to deal with the reality that she will forever be remembered by history as the candidate who, despite having a campaign worth more than 1 billion dollars and legions of political "experts" at her side, lost to Donald "Grab em by the pussy" Trump, and it was almost entirely due to her own arrogance.

And that reality is hell on earth itself.

Yeah, wishing death on Hillary or calling for people to assassinate Trump is something that people should be throwing around lightly.

No matter how much you disagree with them, they are still people and have a right to certain dignity.

This is ironic considering your signature quote.

Though I guess it isn't entirely valid because we're not necessarily friends.

Not necessarily directed at me, but I hold no ill feelings towards anybody here, and if I come across that way, it's not intentional.