General US Politics

[Res]

6 minutes ago, Lushen said:

No, I said the turnout was significantly lower.  If I thought more black voters would vote for trump, a lower turnout would be bad for Trump.  I'm saying a very large percentage of black voters are democrats and their lack of turnout meant a lot less Clinton voters which contributed to her loss.  Trump won in all majority facets and the minority turnout in general was not large enough to overcome this.

Oh, right.

There's a lot of voter suppression to blame for that, although there's also the fact that both parties have a tendency right now to shit over non-white citizens. Those who did vote for Clinton were largely voting against Trump than for the Democrats. 

[Lord Raven]

38 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Perhaps if Clinton hadn't done anything incriminating, Russia wouldn't have had any information to leak to influence the election.... Just saying....

I'm curious, why would they just leak on Clinton and not Trump? Trump has done plenty of sketchy shit that was about as dubious as Clinton, in some cases even more. The email thing was a load of shit, but Trump had a bunch of sexual assault cases lingering including a child sex case lingering (which has a bit of circumstantial evidence here and there). Regardless, the Russia influence was less to do with emails and more to do with online troll factories and the propagation of fake news.

Quote

Here's my problem with the whole Russia thing.  For MONTHS, people have been talking about how big of a deal it is because something could have possibly maybe happened.  While the FBI said Russia did TRY to interfere with the election, they have also said that Trump was NEVER under investigation and that not a single vote was changed (comey said that specifically).  

No. FBI said that Russia did indeed interfere with the election and specified how. Trump was also not specifically under investigation; the Trump campaign was, so it was not a lie to say "Trump is not currently under investigation."

Quote

Democrats are talking about Russia because they think it ill-legitimizes Trumps win.  However, there is no evidence Trump was involved and there is no evidence saying this conspiracy actually did anything.  And this thing has been going on for MONTHS.  At what point do we say enough is enough?  I was watching TV a couple days ago and some woman was asked this question where she replied "well we haven't seen any evidence that he was NOT involved". Since when is this how investigations work?

First of all, you're committing logical fallacies left and right in this thread and then you're commenting on someone telling someone else to prove a negative. This is absurd.

Regardless, there is plenty of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Whether or not Trump is involved personally (and all signs point to him being a patsy) has little to do with anything. For reference, watergate took a few years to conclude, so it's not like they were going to investigate and get all their evidence and make a conclusion immediately; that's not how investigations work. They're much slower and much more careful than you're saying they are.

The Democrats need to focus less on Russia, I agree, but Republicans are also having issue with Russia influencing the election. Furthermore, what do you mean by illegitimizes? He won fairly, unless he colluded with Russia to win, but they're not saying "this is true" but "this is an issue that we must investigate because there's quite a bit of evidence towards this."

Must we really dwell on Russia-Trump collusion conspiracies until we get some imaginary evidence that Trump was NOT involved; that makes no sense.  It's the lack of evidence that legitimizes his presidency.

If the investigation is inconclusive, then it's pretty obvious that they'll stop. As it stands, the FBI believes it's not inconclusive and they continue to talk to more people and find some more evidence here and there. The actions of the Trump administration are also very very similar to Nixon's in a bunch of ways, which lends itself to even more suspicion. I mean, this conspiracy actually has merit, so maybe you should hop off your god-emperor's dick until the investigation concludes?

[Lushen]

43 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I'm curious, why would they just leak on Clinton and not Trump? Trump has done plenty of sketchy shit that was about as dubious as Clinton, in some cases even more. The email thing was a load of shit, but Trump had a bunch of sexual assault cases lingering including a child sex case lingering (which has a bit of circumstantial evidence here and there). Regardless, the Russia influence was less to do with emails and more to do with online troll factories and the propagation of fake news.

Most likely because Trump is not a political figure so they haven't gathered anything on Trump.

If you're going to suggest our president molested a child, you better have actual evidence.  I had typed out a response to some of your other points, but I just deleted it all because I decided it wasn't worth arguing with someone who cites (actually you didn't even cite it) disgusting false reports.  People say this crap EVERY election, and it disgusts me.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

I don't. That's the point. Clinton was under investigation for what was a load of shit constantly but Trump had lawsuits related to sexual harassment and pedophilia.

www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/jeffrey-epstein-trump-lawsuit-sex-trafficking-237983

But Trump is president. Who cares about Clinton?

[eclipse]

So I went out to actually have A Life, and I come back to this.  Good fucking grief.

@Lushen - THIS is required reading.  If you've read it before, read it again.  Here's the important part:

Quote

- If someone asks for sources, please do your best to find them. Ignoring such requests stifles discussion, which is what this subforum is about.

@Lord Raven isn't asking for sources just to annoy you.  Part of it is understanding what influences your views, and how you came to your conclusions.  "Common sense" means fuck-all in this type of topic.  If all you want to do is spout conclusions, with no evidence as to how you got to said conclusions, please make a blog and post your thoughts there.

Oh, right, topic.  I'm really not happy with Clinton's e-mail server.  Part of it shows just how screwed up bureaucracy is, in regards to actually getting the tools necessary for the job.  The other part is that Clinton wasn't able to keep it secure - and if she can't keep a single server under proper lock and key, there's no way I want her in charge of an entire nation's cybersecurity!

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

So I went out to actually have A Life

the hell is wrong with you?

to be honest I think the "B-but Clinton!" has overstayed its welcome. Right, she's not liked, we know that. But she's not the president. You can't defend Trump based on attacking Clinton now.

Most of the Trump supporters I've seen except the hardcore ones have given up publically trying to defend him or talk politics - it's hard to without attacking Clinton, someone you view as worse. After Trump won, it's like everything else he does ceases to matter to these people.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

On 6/29/2017 at 4:54 PM, Tryhard said:

the hell is wrong with you?

to be honest I think the "B-but Clinton!" has overstayed its welcome. Right, she's not liked, we know that. But she's not the president. You can't defend Trump based on attacking Clinton now.

Most of the Trump supporters I've seen except the hardcore ones have given up publically trying to defend him or talk politics - it's hard to without attacking Clinton, someone you view as worse. After Trump won, it's like everything else he does ceases to matter to these people.

I just find it absolutely hilarious that Trump--and they're still behind him--has done everything in his first 5 months that these guys spent the last 10 years telling us made Hillary disqualifying unfit for the presidency; you can't have a president under FBI investigation, with constant suspicion of cover-ups and criminal misconduct casting a cloud over the White House. You can't have a president who mixes public office with private business and profits off of the presidency. You can't have a president who thinks they can't be held accountable for bad behavior and says one thing one day and another thing the next with no sense that trust and credibility matters; who attacks anyone who has a bad thing to say about her as a  liar and a fraud and a politically-motivated hack. That's why Hillary is THE WORST. Trump's great though. Because...reasons...

Edited July 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[PikmTheHero]

5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I just find it absolutely hilarious that Trump--and they're still behind him--has done everything in his first 5 months that these guys spent the last 10 years telling us made Hillary disqualifying unfit for the presidency; you can't have a president under FBI investigation, with constant suspicion of cover-ups and criminal misconduct casting a cloud over the White House. You can't have a president who mixes public office with private business and profits off of the presidency. You can't have a president who thinks they can't be held accountable for bad behavior and says one thing one day and another thing the next with no sense that trust and credibility matters; who attacks anyone who has a bad thing to say about her as a  liar and a fraud and a politically-motivated hack. That's why Hillary is THE WORST. Trump's great though. Because...reasons...

It's most likely a foolish partisan double standard, and at worst a sexist double standard. The point is, double standards are stupid and while we waste time arguing to hell over partisanism, the voices of truth are ignored.

[Shoblongoo]

31 minutes ago, PikmTheHero said:

It's most likely a foolish partisan double standard, and at worst a sexist double standard. The point is, double standards are stupid and while we waste time arguing to hell over partisanism, the voices of truth are ignored.

Oh I'd take it even a step beyond that; worse then "double standard." It's not that they don't know or are in some kind of partisan denial as to what he is. This is willful indifference to character traits that they know to be disqualifying; It is painfully clear that Donald Trump is unfit to carry out the duties of his office. He cannot meet on good terms with world leaders, command the respect or confidence of the security agencies beneath him, or engage lawmakers on pressing issues facing the country. He attacks the free press and the independent judiciary and tweets like his words have all the consequence of a contestant on The Bachelor.  And 40% will purposefully turn a blind-eye to it, for the promise of the regressive policies he's put forth. They will allow an I'll-tempered, unqualified crook to sit the Oval Office if it means they can gut the EPA and rollback the national conversation on criminal justice reform and public healthcare, and maybe deport a bunch of Mexicans.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

In case you were wondering what the rest of the world thinks about Donald Trump:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/worldwide-few-confident-in-trump-or-his-policies/

There's some interesting results regarding approval/disapproval of specific policies (and other statistics on the other pages)

Edited July 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

In case you were wondering what the rest of the world thinks about Donald Trump:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/worldwide-few-confident-in-trump-or-his-policies/

There's some interesting results regarding approval/disapproval of specific policies (and other statistics on the other pages)

Just switched from comcast to dish satellite and get international TV now; my wife watches all the Taiwanese programming, so I get to see a little bit of how Trump is being covered in Asia.

They're running a caterpillar with Trump hair munching through leaves while they play the graphic of Trump body-slamming CNN @ World Wrestling Entertainment, as their coverage of "international news" from America. 

He's not taken as a serious figure. They regard our current president as a cartoon character; something light-hearted and silly to laugh at for comic-relief, between serious headlines. 

I guess if you don't have to live with the knowledge that hes running your country and you're just on-the-outside-looking-in, that's a pretty healthy way to look at it. 

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

34 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Just switched from comcast to dish satellite and get international TV now; my wife watches all the Taiwanese programming, so I get to see a little bit of how Trump is being covered in Asia.

They're running a caterpillar with Trump hair munching through leaves while they play the graphic of Trump body-slamming CNN @ World Wrestling Entertainment, as their coverage of "international news" from America. 

He's not taken as a serious figure. They regard our current president as a cartoon character; something light-hearted and silly to laugh at for comic-relief, between serious headlines. 

I guess if you don't have to live with the knowledge that hes running your country and you're just on-the-outside-looking-in, that's a pretty healthy way to look at it. 

Nothing against the respectable Americans but I have not liked your country and the people in charge for a long time - the foreign policy since WW2 has been nothing short of atrocious, and the United Kingdom government and others have been all too happy to follow convincing ourselves that we're the moral ones. And the domestic policies make it seem like government couldn't care less about individual people, even moreso than other countries.

My own country is one of the more disapproving considering he's at least partly Scottish (or "Scotch" as he says, which is just wrong) on his mother's side.

[Moblin Major General]

27 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

My own country is one of the more disapproving considering he's at least partly Scottish (or "Scotch" as he says, which is just wrong) on his mother's side.

As a Briton, or as a Scott? Also, it seems that Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish (is there a better shorthand for that?) Brits seem to be very critical of their government compared to English Brits. Sadly, England is probably the only part of the Kingdom that has mattered in the last 150 or more years, and they continue to do so (why do you think Brexit got pushed through?).

[Tryhard]

I use "my country" interchangeably when talking about the UK or Scotland, though I would consider myself more gravitating to Scottish than British considering I'm pro-independence, though I don't place much more preferability in identity than that. In this case, he is widely disliked in Scotland, perhaps even more than other parts of the UK. But yes, I would be lying if I said that England didn't have the majority of the political capital in the UK due to population and size and they also probably like Trump a little more down there - but even then they still maintain a 75% 'no confidence' poll in Trump over the entire UK, so he's still not well liked.

34 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Also, it seems that Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish (is there a better shorthand for that?) 

not really. celts, i guess. though that technically contains Brittany, Cornwall (part of England), the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man too.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Nothing against the respectable Americans but I have not liked your country and the people in charge for a long time - the foreign policy since WW2 has been nothing short of atrocious, and the United Kingdom government and others have been all too happy to follow convincing ourselves that we're the moral ones. And the domestic policies make it seem like government couldn't care less about individual people, even moreso than other countries.

My own country is one of the more disapproving considering he's at least partly Scottish (or "Scotch" as he says, which is just wrong) on his mother's side.

...I have a slightly less grim-dark view of our foreign policy since WW2...

For better of for worse, America emerged from WW2 as the greatest military and economic superpower of the modern age. We did so at a time when it was unclear what the post-WW2 political landscape would look like; whether liberal democracy and free trade and human rights would proliferate in a new age of international cooperation. Enabled by all these new technologies in international travel and electronic communications that kept making it more and more inevitable--globalism was now the way of the modern world, and it wasn't good enough to have the kind of nationalist free-for-all that had preceded the great World Wars. Or whether WW2 was just going to be a short lull between WW1 and WW3, and the consequence of the global age was going to be global war on an unimaginable scale. 

There was a power void that needed to be filled. America was the only country in any real position to fill it. And though we've made some truly horrific missteps along the way--going to war in Vietnam, feeding drug lords in Central America, getting into bed with the Saudis--on the whole our advocacy for a vision of globalism that promotes the proliferation of liberal democracy and free trade and international respect for human rights has made the world a better place then it would have been if America had never stepped up to fill the power void at all.

Now what we are seeing today with the rise of Trump is the creation of a new power void. A recognition that America today is weak and stupid and not the hegemonic world presence it once was; the next century will not be shaped by American power, and there now exists an opening for a new superpower to rise as the guiding hand.

...a rapidly growing China.
... a post-Soviet autocratic Russia
...a united union of European states, exerting power together-as-one. (less likely now post-Brexit, but still a possibility)

Most likely, China. 

But so much of the conflict you're seeing in the world today is, I think, a consequence of the global recognition that America is in decline. And while I think its certainly preferable that American should fall out of power then continue to lead the world in its current state. I am unconvinced that if we had stayed true to our early policies of the kind pursued under Eisenhower and Kennedy and the great American presidents of the 20th century--had we not gone so far off the rails--that our continued hegemonic power would be such a bad thing.
 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Original Alear]

Quote

I use "my country" interchangeably when talking about the UK or Scotland, though I would consider myself more gravitating to Scottish than British considering I'm pro-independence, though I don't place much more preferability in identity than that. In this case, he is widely disliked in Scotland, perhaps even more than other parts of the UK. But yes, I would be lying if I said that England didn't have the majority of the political capital in the UK due to population and size and they also probably like Trump a little more down there - but even then they still maintain a 75% 'no confidence' poll in Trump over the entire UK, so he's still not well liked.

Hey, dude, do you really think it makes much sense to dislike him because he has ancestors from the same region you do?

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't look too strongly to Judaism or my varied European heritage to explain what's wrong with me as a person.

As far as I know, you don't vote in American elections. Not your choice, I assume.

And then I turn that logic on its head to type the following.

Quote

There was a power void that needed to be filled. America was the only country in any real position to fill it. And though we've made some truly horrific missteps along the way--going to war in Vietnam, feeding drug lords in Central America, getting into bed with the Saudis--on the whole our advocacy for a vision of globalism that promotes the proliferation of liberal democracy and free trade and international respect for human rights has made the world a better place then it would have been if America had never stepped up to fill the power void at all.

 

I don't think we have to look at the world as a problem America should have solved alone. Maybe no one should have filled the power void. Or maybe the US and other "superpower" countries should have worked together while filling the power void instead of assuming irreconcilable differences (AFAICT, capitalism vs communism). To some extent, maybe the cold war was like that anyway.

Sorry if this post is a bit lacking in substance.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Professor Groeteschele

[Tryhard]

I'm not really opposed to America remaining a superpower, but do they need to do deals with Saudi Arabia? Do they need to be in Afghanistan after 16 years and still sending troops there? 17th years the charm, boys. Do you need to crack down on civil liberties and privacy of citizens on the guise of "defeat terrorism" completely unnecessarily, and participating in torture? Among many other things.

It's funny, because in the opinion of others, the US was the most answered for country 'most dangerous to world peace' in a 2014 poll, and it's not even close.

http://addictinginfo.com/2014/01/07/us-threat-to-world-peace/

Just make better decisions. And most American civilians understand this. It's the people in government that are the problem.

30 minutes ago, Professor Groeteschele said:

Hey, dude, do you really think it makes much sense to dislike him because he has ancestors from the same region you do?

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't look too strongly to Judaism or my varied European heritage to explain what's wrong with me as a person.

As far as I know, you don't vote in American elections. Not your choice, I assume.

I don't dislike him because he has the same ancestors, nor do I really think much of it, but some people might - he doesn't share a lot in common with people here at all. He also had friction regarding his golf course here.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Just make better decisions. And most American civilians understand this. It's the people in government that are the problem.

I blame the citizens too, tbh.

I've said it once; I'll say it a million times: The Beautiful, Ugly thing about Democracy is the People get the Government they Deserve. 

[Xanaxian]

The issue with politicians is that they tend to be inherently self-serving. The U.S. is a superpower, and as such, the natural inclination seems to be to pass legislation that emphasizes that position. There are a lot of things we don't need to be doing, though. For starters, we don't need our nose in everything that happens under the sun, among plenty other issues. 

The country isn't perfect. No country is. Yes, the government does possess the most direct power, and I do believe that their decisions mostly border on inane and selfish. However, it's also at the behest of our citizens - we elect these bozos into power, and we have to face the consequences. But there's a lot you can do in the U.S. that you can't do elsewhere in the world. I can think of a few countries that try to prohibit their citizenry from even the most fundamental of freedoms, such as press, speech, and peaceful public protest. 

That doesn't mean you should take the country at face value, though. Our politics are usually lolitics, sure, but we do have some bright, intelligent, decent people in this country. They're just underrepresented because the majority power right now is rooted in principles of conservatism and antiquity. 

I honestly don't think this consciousness is going to last. Most conservatives in this country are older people who grew up during the Boomer and Gen X generations and earlier. The general attitude towards young people, I think, is more on the moderate or liberal scale, because we're all but realizing that this agenda isn't tipping in our favor at all. So, come 2020 or later, I think we'll see a general shift towards progressive ideas over the course of several years to decades. It'll be a slow burn, and of course the overall consensuses of the people are subject to change overtime, but that's just my take on the subject as someone who has participated in every election since 2012 and makes a usually concerted effort to educate himself about the political climate. 

I could be wrong about everything, but as with any other country, we're continually in a transient state of change. 

[Moblin Major General]

5 hours ago, Xanaxian said:

I honestly don't think this consciousness is going to last. Most conservatives in this country are older people who grew up during the Boomer and Gen X generations and earlier. The general attitude towards young people, I think, is more on the moderate or liberal scale, because we're all but realizing that this agenda isn't tipping in our favor at all. So, come 2020 or later, I think we'll see a general shift towards progressive ideas over the course of several years to decades. It'll be a slow burn, and of course the overall consensuses of the people are subject to change overtime, but that's just my take on the subject as someone who has participated in every election since 2012 and makes a usually concerted effort to educate himself about the political climate. 

I could be wrong about everything, but as with any other country, we're continually in a transient state of change. 

The current voting generation is very liberal, and have grown up in times that many consider more dire and more dangerous than the Baby Boomers. However, the soon to be voting generation is rather conservative. With proper education, Gen Z could possibly make better leaders than previous generations (with proper education. There is a good chance they won't be getting one, what with Bitchy Devos as our Secretary of Uneducation).

[Lord Raven]

The Gen Zers live with their parents too. It's only a matter of time before they're flat on their asses and realizing the reality of wage slavery and student loans that will cause them to shift.

some will still graduate debt free and assume they're not privileged though.

[Res]

21 hours ago, Xanaxian said:

The country isn't perfect. No country is. Yes, the government does possess the most direct power, and I do believe that their decisions mostly border on inane and selfish. However, it's also at the behest of our citizens - we elect these bozos into power, and we have to face the consequences. But there's a lot you can do in the U.S. that you can't do elsewhere in the world. I can think of a few countries that try to prohibit their citizenry from even the most fundamental of freedoms, such as press, speech, and peaceful public protest. 

Press, I guess, if you ignore how hard the current government is trying to undermine the integrity of the press (or how poor quality some of the most popular journalism is in the U.S. - although, granted, that's elsewhere too - i.e. The Sun and Daily Fail in the U.K.).

Speech? Kind of, although 'free speech' is my most hated phrase right now, given how much it's misused and misquoted. Again, something the current government is threatening.

Peaceful public protest is only for very few people these days: Largely white, able-bodied people, especially white women, if we're going to judge by the women's march. What about the reporters who were arrested for covering the Inauguration Day protests? Or the disabled peaceful protestors who were arrested and jailed? Etc. etc. - there's a very narrow definition of what an acceptable protest in the U.S. is. 

The rallying cries of freedom also ignore just how many ways actual freedom in the U.S. is disappearing (or never existed).

[Time the Crestfallen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/donald-trump-jr-s-stunningly-incriminating-statement-to-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.7b7a9ac61fa6

Yeesh.

[Lord Raven]

"Donald Trump clearly has two types of children. Ivanka and Donald Jr. are evil masterminds that plot world domination while Eric and Barron roll the ball back and forth in the corner."

Looks like Donald Jr just joined Eric and Barron. Even the most favorable readings of this don't look good.

EDIT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews&region=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65555680&pgtype=Homepage

stay woke, don't run out of fucks yet

Edited July 11, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Res]

And Donald Trump Jr is now posting the evidence himself.

(And yet, still crickets). 

Edit: Poor Jared Sexton.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Res