General US Politics

[Rezzy]

3 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, just how bad Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton fared when they got their impeachements (I still count Nixon even if his resignation put a halt to his impeachment process)? True, those ended in aquittals, but the process still went through.

Johnson and Clinton both had the opposite party in charge of the House during their impeachments.  Johnson was Lincoln's VP, but he was actually a Democrat.  He was the one Southern Senator who didn't leave his post during the war.

[Time the Crestfallen]

3 hours ago, Res said:

The similarity between the cakes is pretty funny.

It's not as bad as it looks, surprisingly.
http://orevet.tumblr.com/post/156176660012/completelyhogwashed-pussypoppinlikepopcorn

[Alertcircuit]

23 hours ago, Res said:

In one of first Trump administration orders, Dept of Housing & Urban Dev. suspends reduction of FHA annual mortgage insurance premium rates

Interesting priority. And makes buying a house yet more unaffordable for the ordinary citizen.

I wonder why that happened so immediately. Was Trump behind that decision?

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

He'd have to seriously fuck up for that.  While I have a low opinion of Trump, I think he's smart enough not to terminate himself prematurely.

If even a quarter of the stuff being said about him and Russia is true, he's already impeachable. During a rally he literally said "I hope Russia finds Hillary's missing emails." If he stops keeping the House happy, or if Dems retake it in 2018, he's probably done for.

[Res]

3 hours ago, The Blind Idiot God said:

It's not as bad as it looks, surprisingly.
http://orevet.tumblr.com/post/156176660012/completelyhogwashed-pussypoppinlikepopcorn

Well, that's good! An unexpected decision, but at least it was acknowledged and the original designer credited. :)

Women's March is the largest protest march in U.S. history, so that's pretty cool. And that's not even including the protests that took place worldwide - and on 7 continents!

Edited January 22, 2017 by Res

[Radiant head]

yeah i was at the nyc march today.   the massive crowds give me hope.  

[eclipse]

3 hours ago, Res said:

Well, that's good! An unexpected decision, but at least it was acknowledged and the original designer credited. :)

Women's March is the largest protest march in U.S. history, so that's pretty cool. And that's not even including the protests that took place worldwide - and on 7 continents!

OH, so that's what tied up traffic in downtown today.  They chose a terrible time to do it - not necessarily anyone's fault, but traffic is going to be BAD this weekend, and this was just the cherry on a terrible situation.

[blah the Prussian]

The march in Prague only took up a little space in Wenceslaus Square, and no one even uses the road it was blocking. Overall it was a good experience;'I was there with my friends, although, unfortunately, the vast majority of speakers were utter crap. One even said Trump was planning on bringing America back to a Roman times, which, I believe, is laying it on a bit thick.

[Etrurian emperor]

15 hours ago, eclipse said:

Great in theory, but awful in practice.  How much damage will be done before the next presidential election rolls around?

That was a question more people should have been asking during the election, not after it when its to late. I don't really see a scenario where Trump doesn't cause damage domestically and especially internationally. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Etrurian emperor

[Rezzy]

4 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

The march in Prague only took up a little space in Wenceslaus Square, and no one even uses the road it was blocking. Overall it was a good experience;'I was there with my friends, although, unfortunately, the vast majority of speakers were utter crap. One even said Trump was planning on bringing America back to a Roman times, which, I believe, is laying it on a bit thick.

That just hurts my sense of historical integrity.  The USA wasn't even around back then.  Or do they mean the Native American Tribes will rise up and cast out all the Europeans, Africans, and Asians?

[Excellen Browning]

He means go back in time to the era of the Spanish-American war when America was heir to Rome.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Excellen Browning

[Res]

The outright lies and dismissiveness of all media really smacks of fascism - and is something we should all be staying vigilant about. And yes, all politicians lie, but these lies are particularly big and especially easily fact-checked.

[Rapier]

Ok, I might be putting my foot on my mouth with this, and I haven't actually followed Trump and Clinton's tragectory up to their elections, but I'm seeing Trump's opposition to be as bad as he is. The Women's March case only helped me see how cringy the whole ordeal is.

First, "Trump is not my president!". Yes, he is. He won fairly and legally, unless there is evidence backing up the possibility of an impeachment and a legal clause that can be used for its justification, accept that maybe people disagree with your opinion and prefer another candidate, let it go and move on.

Second, either I am living in a cave and missing out the news (I am, kind of), but Trump has done nothing yet against LGBT/immigrants/minorities-in-general's rights. Protesting against stuff that someone didn't even do is not only pointless, it is also ranty and intelectually dishonest for creating a scarecrow out of someone's position. Despite what Trump said he'd do during his elections, it is pointless to act before anything happens because it does not confirm that he will actually do those things he promised (oh, look, the possibility of a politician who doesn't do what he said he'd do during his elections, or who at least doesn't follow his promises integrally. That's new).

I don't like Trump, I disagree with banning illegal immigrants and the possibility of banning muslims (I... don't really remember if he ever said that), but I must facepalm at both sides, unfortunately.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Rapier

[Res]

23 minutes ago, Rapier said:

Ok, I might be putting my foot on my mouth with this, and I haven't actually followed Trump and Clinton's tragectory up to their elections, but I'm seeing Trump's opposition to be as bad as he is. The Women's March case only helped me see how cringy the whole ordeal is.

First, "Trump is not my president!". Yes, he is. He won fairly and legally, unless there is evidence backing up the possibility of an impeachment and a legal clause that can be used for its justification, accept that maybe people disagree with your opinion and prefer another candidate, let it go and move on.

Second, either I am living in a cave and missing out the news (I am, kind of), but Trump has done nothing yet against LGBT/immigrants/minorities-in-general's rights. Protesting against stuff that someone didn't even do is not only pointless, it is also ranty and intelectually dishonest for creating a scarecrow out of someone's position. Despite what Trump said he'd do during his elections, it is pointless to act before anything happens because it does not confirm that he will actually do those things he promised (oh, look, the possibility of a politician who doesn't do what he said he'd do during his elections, or who at least doesn't follow his promises integrally. That's new).

I don't like Trump, I disagree with banning illegal immigrants and the possibility of banning muslims (I... don't really remember if he ever said that), but I must facepalm at both sides, unfortunately.

 

 

'To be as bad as he is' - really? No one has Trump's power right now. No words from the opposition are going to compare to his words as his words contain the power to actually affect the way the U.S. is governed.

'Not my president' is a slogan explaining that people don't agree with the president's views. Understandably, not everyone wishes to fall in line with a man who's bragged of sexual assault and whose promises go against their believes. I support the right of anyone to protest against their leader - I wouldn't blink if a Brit said 'not my queen' of Queen Elizabeth II (or the same of the prime minister, for example). 

Thirdly, sure, he's only been president for a couple of days. But we've already seen measures introduce to do away with the ACA (with no alternative currently offered). We've already seen the changes to the whitehouse.gov site (with all references to LGBT and disability rights removed, with so far nothing chosen to replace them, and with threatening pages as the new Issues pages instead), we've got yesterday's lies, and today we have the announcement of the intention to withdraw from the UN. All of these are more real than 'Obama's going to take my guns away!' ever were.

[Augestein]

38 minutes ago, Rapier said:

Ok, I might be putting my foot on my mouth with this, and I haven't actually followed Trump and Clinton's tragectory up to their elections, but I'm seeing Trump's opposition to be as bad as he is. The Women's March case only helped me see how cringy the whole ordeal is.

First, "Trump is not my president!". Yes, he is. He won fairly and legally, unless there is evidence backing up the possibility of an impeachment and a legal clause that can be used for its justification, accept that maybe people disagree with your opinion and prefer another candidate, let it go and move on.

Second, either I am living in a cave and missing out the news (I am, kind of), but Trump has done nothing yet against LGBT/immigrants/minorities-in-general's rights. Protesting against stuff that someone didn't even do is not only pointless, it is also ranty and intelectually dishonest for creating a scarecrow out of someone's position. Despite what Trump said he'd do during his elections, it is pointless to act before anything happens because it does not confirm that he will actually do those things he promised (oh, look, the possibility of a politician who doesn't do what he said he'd do during his elections, or who at least doesn't follow his promises integrally. That's new).

I don't like Trump, I disagree with banning illegal immigrants and the possibility of banning muslims (I... don't really remember if he ever said that), but I must facepalm at both sides, unfortunately.

 

 

This is what happens when you win an election through fear-mongering rather than actually running a well thought out campaign. 

They can still dislike him. And effectively, I think America kinda should. They were basically shoved two pitiful elects, and neither particularly delivers. People crying "he's not my president" demonstrates that they do NOT support him at all. It might seem stupid, but it really signifies just how unhappy the people are with their current president. 

It is not pointless to act beforehand. Being proactive is actually a good thing. These people are making sure that their rights are treated with respect, and some of the things that Trump said before the election were dubious at best, and terrifying at worst.  People are doing something before what Res said is actually functionally implemented. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by Augestein

[ping]

45 minutes ago, Rapier said:

I don't like Trump, I disagree with banning illegal immigrants and the possibility of banning muslims (I... don't really remember if he ever said that), but I must facepalm at both sides, unfortunately.

So, uh, literally five seconds of google: http://time.com/4139476/donald-trump-shutdown-muslim-immigration/

It's either incredibly lazy or interlectually dishonest to express doubt if he really said that. He did.

And honestly, the 'let's see what he's really gonna do' excuse is becoming weaker and weaker. You can't just ignore what Trump said during his campain, especially since there are no signs of him softening up. His inauguration speech and how he deals with the media's response to it is completely in line with his previous behaviour.

[Rapier]

EDIT: bbcodes haven't trolled me like this since my Mafia days, hold on Ok, I won the fight vs bbcodes, everything is fine.

 

Ok, multiple people have exposed similar thoughts on the matter, so if I fail to address everyone's point (point, not post) do metaphorically bump me.

Quote

'To be as bad as he is' - really? No one has Trump's power right now. No words from the opposition are going to compare to his words as his words contain the power to actually affect the way the U.S. is governed.

Yeah, Trump actually has the power to back up his words, but since I'm addressing words alone and not weighing what either side can do, I can say that the average anti-Trump protester is no better than the average Trump supporter, or even Trump himself, on ideas and arguments. From things like "hispanics are taking our jobs!11" (hi, Trump campaign slogan) and "wahh I'm black and Trump!America is oppressive!11" (hi, Cracked article about being a black man on Trump America) I don't know which side is actually worse, between the new left and neocons.

Quote

'Not my president' is a slogan explaining that people don't agree with the president's views. Understandably, not everyone wishes to fall in line with a man who's bragged of sexual assault and whose promises go against their believes. I support the right of anyone to protest against their leader - I wouldn't blink if a Brit said 'not my queen' of Queen Elizabeth II (or the same of the prime minister, for example).

The problem with the "not our president" slogan is that it seems as if the opposition does not recognize Trump's legitimate victory and right to be the president, which is what the term made me understand. It's one thing to protest against a president and his beliefs, it's another to implicate illegitimacy when there isn't and refuse someone's obvious legitimacy like a ranty kid. If I missed its meaning, I admit I'm at fault here

Quote

Thirdly, sure, he's only been president for a couple of days. But we've already seen measures introduce to do away with the ACA (with no alternative currently offered). We've already seen the changes to the whitehouse.gov site (with all references to LGBT and disability rights removed, with so far nothing chosen to replace them, and with threatening pages as the new Issues pages instead), we've got yesterday's lies, and today we have the announcement of the intention to withdraw from the UN. All of these are more real than 'Obama's going to take my guns away!' ever were.

Ok, that's a fair point. I didn't know about those things (aside from the whitehouse.gov site thing which I read a few hours ago), thanks.

Quote

It is not pointless to act beforehand. Being proactive is actually a good thing. These people are making sure that their rights are treated with respect, and some of the things that Trump said before the election were dubious at best, and terrifying at worst.  People are doing something before what Res said is actually functionally implemented.

It's not pointless to act beforehand, true, but it is pointless and especially intelectually dishonest to accuse someone of doing something that they haven't done, or call someone for something they haven't done/started doing. Using a ridiculous example to show what I mean, I can't be warned by the staff without breaking the rules, or by merely mentioning that I'll break the rules later. On the latter case, it's reasonable to expect a moderator to tell me that they'll keep a watch on my posts, but it still does not give them the legitimacy or justification for giving me a warn. The Women's March was a protest against things that Trump did not do. That's my point.

Quote

So, uh, literally five seconds of google:

http://time.com/4139476/donald-trump-shutdown-muslim-immigration/

It's either incredibly lazy or interlectually dishonest to express doubt if he really said that. He did.

And honestly, the 'let's see what he's really gonna do' excuse is becoming weaker and weaker. You can't just ignore what Trump said during his campain, especially since there are no signs of him softening up. His inauguration speech and how he deals with the media's response to it is completely in line with his previous behaviour.

I preferred to say that I don't recall if he ever said that so that I wouldn't put words on someone's mouth or make a strawman out of someone. I had my doubts and played safe. Also, yes, I am irredeemably lazy.

I didn't say we should ignore. I say we should stay vigillant and act in due time. See my reply above this quote.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Rapier

[Res]

This is one example of what people mean by 'he's not my president'. Yes, I've heard plenty of people say the latter, but they're not questioning his legitimacy. People do accept that he is the 45th president of the U.S.

[Rapier]

9 minutes ago, Res said:

This is one example of what people mean by 'he's not my president'. Yes, I've heard plenty of people say the latter, but they're not questioning his legitimacy. People do accept that he is the 45th president of the U.S.

Ok, it was a misunderstanding then. All cleared.

[blah the Prussian]

9 hours ago, Rezzy said:

That just hurts my sense of historical integrity.  The USA wasn't even around back then.  Or do they mean the Native American Tribes will rise up and cast out all the Europeans, Africans, and Asians?

Well, it was meant as in women's rights would be like in the Roman Empire, but yeah.

[Rezzy]

3 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well, it was meant as in women's rights would be like in the Roman Empire, but yeah.

I could honestly think of far worse places than the Roman Empire for women's rights, even in modern times.

[Rukina]

1 hour ago, Rapier said:

It's not pointless to act beforehand, true, but it is pointless and especially intelectually dishonest to accuse someone of doing something that they haven't done, or call someone for something they haven't done/started doing. Using a ridiculous example to show what I mean, I can't be warned by the staff without breaking the rules, or by merely mentioning that I'll break the rules later. On the latter case, it's reasonable to expect a moderator to tell me that they'll keep a watch on my posts, but it still does not give them the legitimacy or justification for giving me a warn. The Women's March was a protest against things that Trump did not do. That's my point.

I'm sure you'll find a few reasons on this list.  Feel free to fact check and search for others if none of these suffice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

[Rapier]

29 minutes ago, Sarracenia said:

I'm sure you'll find a few reasons on this list.  Feel free to fact check and search for others if none of these suffice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

ok, but did Trump actually do something, as a president, to harm women's rights (I'm not talking about abortion because it is much, much more complex than that. I can't treat as lightly as I'd treat women having property rights, for example), like sanctioning or revoking a law, or proposing something in the congress, or using his presidential competences/powers in general to promote sexism and minority exclusion? Or was the March of Women purely intended for pointing out his flaws of character (it's what your link does), which doesn't seem to be the case?

that's what I said: it is a protest against things he did not yet do, and might not even do, based on things he said during his election (excluding Rez's points, which are recent). Again, should I be warned if I say I'm going to break the forum's rules two months from now? I'm not saying to wait until he screws everyone over. I'm saying it is prudent to wait until we have confirmation/better evidence that he is going to screw everyone over. Then there will be a justification for a protest.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Rapier

[Acacia Sgt]

I suppose it's an issue about defining where the lines are drawn. It's possible that the lines between "He may do this but we can stop it if it's really going to happen", "He is definitely going to do this but we can still stop it", "He is definitely going to do this but we can't stop it", and "He is already doing it" aren't well defined that people would rather prematurely act than to wait. They don't know for now long they can allow inaction so they start to act up now.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Acacia Sgt

[Rezzy]

30 minutes ago, Rapier said:

 

that's what I said: it is a protest against things he did not yet do, and might not even do, based on things he said during his election (excluding Rez's points, which are recent).

What did I say that you're referring to?

[blah the Prussian]

8 hours ago, Rezzy said:

I could honestly think of far worse places than the Roman Empire for women's rights, even in modern times.

...no, not really. Rome did a lot of good things, but it was shit in woman's rights even compared to other coutnries of the time, such as the Alexandrian successor states, which had Queens either as co-monarchs with their husbands or full on female inheiritance, and Persia, which had female regents and several female monarchs, although admittedly most of those were assasinated pretty quick. So no, Roman women were a little a bit above Saudi Arabia in that they could dress a bit freer, but apart from that it was utter shit. The real thing the Ancient World was good about was LGBT rights.