General US Politics

[Lord Raven]

Not disagreeing with you that Cruz could act more efficiently, but I don't think Trump is harmless. Sure he's going to have a frustrating time getting anything done with Congress, but he's definitely going to bring us back a few steps in the foreign policy department. There are very few leaders I can see him getting along with, if anything he kind of reinforces the negative American stereotypes.

Oh right, I forgot about the diplomacy parts.

[blah the Prussian]

And me and Hylian Air Force went to all that trouble to compile a list for you of Christian terrorists, Tuvarkz. Are you telling us now it was for NOTHING?

[curse_slayer]

I don't need an IIRC, when I have a ton of family and family friends who are lawyers and doctors in the USA.

Is anyone else amazed we actually have Trump supporters on SF? I'm all for free speech and the right to have one own viewpoint - but I definitely thought we were all more open minded and critical of that. Trump is clearly a fucking idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, and he's not gonna do anything dangerous in office except fart around and do nothing. It's Ted Cruz that really scares me because he knows his shit, and he's an asshole.

I mean I dont need an IIRC either. Literally my whole family is composed of doctors and engineers and nothing else. Others are skeptical.

Definitely agree that Cruz is more dangerous. Ben Carson is also a dick since he would literally implement religious tests for office but he had no chance whatsoever. He could actually implement legislation, although I think the Trump train is too late to be stopped at this point.

[tuvarkz]

Ihi have you met anyone in your life that isn't white? i'm just curious, because I often catch you arguing for really inane shit that tends to be sexist or racist in nature

I'm legit curious, because I've met one Muslim in my life that has had ties to anything resembling terrorism - and believe me I have interacted with significantly more Muslims in my life than the majority of this forum can say they have.

On top of that, the basic sense of anti-constitutional sentiment you're violating for what is effectively a temporary peace of mind is nuts and on top of that selfish and xenophobic. How do you propose we ban Muslims? What if I have family from Pakistan or England that want to visit? What about commerce with Muslim non-Americans that are clearly westernized?

There is absolutely no fucking way you can advocate for an islamic ban because some could be violent. You know that the KKK thinks their values are rooted in Christian beliefs right? That's legitimately the same shit, the difference is that the KKK are full of white people.

Is anyone else amazed we actually have Trump supporters on SF? I'm all for free speech and the right to have one own viewpoint - but I definitely thought we were all more open minded and critical of that. Trump is clearly a fucking idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, and he's not gonna do anything dangerous in office except fart around and do nothing. It's Ted Cruz that really scares me because he knows his shit, and he's an asshole.

Heh, I look at a latino every time I see myself in the mirror (Proud peruvian here). Basically everyone in my home city has mixed descent to a varying degree of european, latino, chinese and black. I only seem to have argued for a) the law being enforced, and b) that there's an existing issue with Islam and muslims (Which do not count as a race because they are ethnically different), plus c) that there's an issue with the culture of law ignoring that there's amongst many black people in the US (Not an issue with black people themselves, of course)

.

The KKK aren't relevant anymore, they've become basically a bad joke these days. Fearing them is just giving them power, when they aren't pulling anything? Heck, outside of the rally where they got attacked, have they appeared in the news out of their own actions of lately? (EDIT: To boot, it's more like they twisted an interpretation of Christian dogma into supporting them, they are a racist group that uses said interpretation to give reason to their beliefs, not a christian group whose vision for a christian US involves taking out black people)

Then who am I supposed to support? Cruz, who rode on the Trump train support only to try and steer it his way when he saw a glimpse of a chance at the presidency? Kasich, who will be a puppet for the GOP establishment(The same could be said of any fourth republian contender if any pops up these days)? Clinton, who is more than bought by all the companies supporting her, not to mention all the scandals? (My country is corrupt as hell, but at least it has the decency to publicly say buying presidential candidates is illegal-reason why peruvian presidents tend to escape the country for a couple years after their term ends.) Sanders, whose ideas I don't think will have a good end at all (And who I happen to not see as a strong head for the strongest country in the world)? I see Donald Trump as a strong, charismatic leader who doesn't have any people behind the scenes controlling him and who like me, happens to be a nationalist. I see someone unafraid to call out when Political Correctness goes too far, and that will not bend the knee to it. Putin seems to like the guy, and US/Russia tensions defusing will be a good thing. I see most of his ideas as sound and viable, so yes, I don't see why I shouldn't support him. (And to note, Trump is winning amongst the Republican blacks, latinos and muslims. If that's a sign that he isn't racist, I don't know what is)

And me and Hylian Air Force went to all that trouble to compile a list for you of Christian terrorists, Tuvarkz. Are you telling us now it was for NOTHING?

And of those, a good group were a) Secular groups that just happened to be composed primarily of Christians (early IRA, and in my country both Sendero Luminoso and MRTA) b) Groups that were just as Christian as the Muslims could be associated as (Mixing Christianity with animism, cult of personality and african religions makes it be a new religious branch, not Christian), c) a group that at least had tacitly the government's approval (Inquisition), or where in the middle of a long stretched conflict where the other side had committed similar atrocities when invading Christian land (Crusaders). Current terrorism isn't entirely Islamic in nature, but it's so to a significantly disproportionate nature.

Edited April 5, 2016 by tuvarkz

[eclipse]

Then who am I supposed to support?

Ever try isidewith? Perhaps your answer is in the third parties, like mine was. There's no one-size-fits-all candidate, and only you know what you value in a presidential candidate. However, it doesn't mean that you should blindly support your candidate of choice, and ignore all criticisms. From my Asian perspective, Trump is not charismatic, he's a loudmouth.

[tuvarkz]

Ever try isidewith? Perhaps your answer is in the third parties, like mine was. There's no one-size-fits-all candidate, and only you know what you value in a presidential candidate. However, it doesn't mean that you should blindly support your candidate of choice, and ignore all criticisms. From my Asian perspective, Trump is not charismatic, he's a loudmouth.

I am aware of the issues with Trump. Also, already took the test, Trump scored highest.

[Magical CC]

Ever try isidewith? Perhaps your answer is in the third parties, like mine was. There's no one-size-fits-all candidate, and only you know what you value in a presidential candidate. However, it doesn't mean that you should blindly support your candidate of choice, and ignore all criticisms. From my Asian perspective, Trump is not charismatic, he's a loudmouth.

I tried it two times. The first time with the prosper of America (including depot all illegal immigrants, deny them wealthfare and send all terrorists to Cuba to torture) in mind and I got Hilary. The second time for fun and I made choices that I thought gonna be bad for America in long run and I got Trump. Now I know I should totally vote for Trump if I am an American. It gonna be fun.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Magical CC

[Butterstroke]

As long as it isn't Hilary or Trump, I am fine.

[Yojinbo]

There are very few leaders I can see him getting along with, if anything he kind of reinforces the negative American stereotypes.

Which leaders specifically are you talking about? Trump will likely get along better with Putin than any candidate except Sanders, he likely won't mind China's neutrality / non-interventionism and the EU "leaders" are fucking cowards who don't even have the balls to call out Erdogan's bullshit.

[Crysta]

Oh, I don't know, all those countries who are predominantly Muslim?

But who likes those guys and who needs their help, anyway, right?

[BBM]

Tuvarkz, considering you see Trump's ideas as sound and viable, I'm not surprised you think the opposite about Sanders, but do you really think Trump has a "stronger head" than Sanders?

[Lord Raven]

tuvarkz i have work to do but i found your points ridiculous but this one is especially ridiculous, imagine how much more effort i'd have to put into the rest of your points

I see Donald Trump as a strong, charismatic leader who doesn't have any people behind the scenes controlling him and who like me, happens to be a nationalist. I see someone unafraid to call out when Political Correctness goes too far, and that will not bend the knee to it.

You mean being out and out racist, blaming Muslims and immigrants for many of our problems, calling Mexicans rapists and shit like that - which is no better in context - as well as reactionary and fear mongering rhetoric over shit he's failed to fact check - is a strong leader? Someone who basically isolates the majority of the country he is trying to become president of?

For the love of god he recently changed his stance on abortion like 5 times in the span of a week. That is not "strong" leadership if he's so fickle about his views on things.

(And to note, Trump is winning amongst the Republican blacks, latinos and muslims. If that's a sign that he isn't racist, I don't know what is)

Probably because Trump would literally do none of this whereas the rest would. The crazy part is that Trump is the lesser of a million evils here, except maybe Kasich. I wouldn't have even minded Rand Paul despite being as crazy as his uncle.

And you're also spouting a lot of the same fallacies that a lot of his supporters seem to spout... even if it's fake news John Oliver still brings up quite a lot of good points, although knowing you, you'll just say that he's biased. Worth a watch minus the Drumpf stuff, which was apparently fake.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

As long as it isn't Hilary or Trump, I am fine.

It's a bad time when I think Cruz is a (slightly) saner alternative than Trump. But I doubt that most of the forum would want either.

[Yojinbo]

Oh, I don't know, all those countries who are predominantly Muslim?

But who likes those guys and who needs their help, anyway, right?

Those countries who are "predominantly Muslim" as you call them either are in deep trouble [Gaza, Palestine, Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria] or are causing the troubles [Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Golf monarchies in general, Pakistan, Iran]. The USA would be better off trying to distance themselves from those countries as much as they can and not getting involved in their business anymore [the key to that of course would be independence from Saudi-Arabian petrol imports]. The relationship between them and the USA are already worsening anyway.

The only people in the region that have the potential to be viable partners for the west in the future are in Iran, Tunisia and the Kurds but the latter will be cockblocked by Turkey forever and Tunisia doesn't have much of an economic value to the USA [as opposed to the EU]. The relationship between Iran and the USA also has good ways to go still.

It's a bad time when I think Cruz is a (slightly) saner alternative than Trump. But I doubt that most of the forum would want either.

Cruz is not saner than Trump.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, stopping support for SA is one of Trump's few good points. Although, Yojinbo, what did poor Jordan ever do to you? I admit its not that powerful, but its still an ally.

[tuvarkz]

Tuvarkz, considering you see Trump's ideas as sound and viable, I'm not surprised you think the opposite about Sanders, but do you really think Trump has a "stronger head" than Sanders?

I completely stopped seeing Sanders as a viable candidate when he got outspoken by a couple of BLM females at one of his rallies. He remains weak. There's many fronts on the which he could've chosen to attack Hillary, but I don't see any of that coming from him. He seems completely unable to play it rough, and that's a heavy issue for a potential US president.

You mean being out and out racist, blaming Muslims and immigrants for many of our problems, calling Mexicans rapists and shit like that - which is no better in context - as well as reactionary and fear mongering rhetoric over shit he's failed to fact check - is a strong leader? Someone who basically isolates the majority of the country he is trying to become president of?

For the love of god he recently changed his stance on abortion like 5 times in the span of a week. That is not "strong" leadership if he's so fickle about his views on things.

Probably because Trump would literally do none of this whereas the rest would. The crazy part is that Trump is the lesser of a million evils here, except maybe Kasich. I wouldn't have even minded Rand Paul despite being as crazy as his uncle.

And you're also spouting a lot of the same fallacies that a lot of his supporters seem to spout... even if it's fake news John Oliver still brings up quite a lot of good points, although knowing you, you'll just say that he's biased. Worth a watch minus the Drumpf stuff, which was apparently fake.

He called illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists, but considering how a good amount of illegal Mexican immigrants end up being repeat offenders, he is making a hyperbole out of it, but for the matter of it he's fundamentally right. While yes, indeed, at the end of the day it's the incompetence of previous American presidence at handling the Middle East that ultimately allowed the rise of Islamic terrorism, those are the countries that are causing the trouble (pointing at Yojinbo's post).

Yes, he's flip-flopped on abortion. The issue is, (As much as I'm a pro-lifer except in extreme cases, such as severe brain damage or the future baby being unable to live without being perma-hooked to a machine, if able at all.) abortion is a delicate, nuanced topic. I would not be surprised that anyone other than the most staunch pro-life or pro-choice. (I remember Trump mentioning he was pro-life a couple months earlier or something, but it was said pretty offhandedly and only to finish stumping a paid shill). It's been a big mistake on his part, but it's a mistake I'm more than willing to understand. Abortion is an important topic, but the economy of the country, international relationships, and dealing with terrorism are bigger issues. And I see Trump being right on all three of those.

Regarding Trump's issues, yes, he's said inaccurate things multiple times, but Politifact has that tendency to mark them as pants on fire lies or outright lies when I'm seeing them as inaccurate statements that need a tuning but have the fundamental message right, hyperboles, or pretty clear baiting (Like when he retweeted the fake White vs black % kill statistics).

And yes, Trump has had failures like any other businessman and perhaps he'd have more money than now if he'd had just let the bank interests stack up, but the fact is, said model is still a considerable improvement over how the US seems to be going right now.

[Yojinbo]

Tuvarzk, you're confusing "strong" with "authoritarian". Sanders isn't weak, he just realizes that there are times when it's better to not try to get his way by force. Trump doesn't seem to realize that and that's why he's seen as problematic and that's why people see links between his policies and fascism. Stubbornness and inability to recognize his own flaws are not signs of strength, they're in fact quite the opposite of it.

[DragonLord]

Stubbornness and inability to recognize his own flaws are not signs of strength, they're in fact quite the opposite of it.

Not to mention when Trump was called out by Anderson Cooper over the situation with Ted Cruz's wife, his response was that Ted Cruz "started it". Naturally Anderson Cooper told him that was the argument of a 5 year old (Even that's too forgiving). Trump is anything but a leader, he can't even take responsibility for his own actions. I can't believe people think he's fit to run a country.

But at the end of the day, his comments are divisive enough to win over the lunatic right. He saw an opportunity and he took it, I'll give him credit for that. I can bet you if he became president, he would run back to the left faster than Mayweather.

Edited April 6, 2016 by DragonLord

[tuvarkz]

Tuvarzk, you're confusing "strong" with "authoritarian". Sanders isn't weak, he just realizes that there are times when it's better to not try to get his way by force. Trump doesn't seem to realize that and that's why he's seen as problematic and that's why people see links between his policies and fascism. Stubbornness and inability to recognize his own flaws are not signs of strength, they're in fact quite the opposite of it.

Except it was specifically a Sanders rally, not a BLM one, and not just Bernie deciding to start talking in public improvisedly. BLM functionally crashed and disrupted the event, and Bernie didn't do anything to stop it. (And to note, Trump hosts his events in private venues, so he's enforcing his right as a host to kick people out).

Yes, there are links between Trump's politics and authoritarianism. I happen to just not care about it.

Edited April 6, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Phoenix Wright]

I completely stopped seeing Sanders as a viable candidate when he got outspoken by a couple of BLM females at one of his rallies. He remains weak. There's many fronts on the which he could've chosen to attack Hillary, but I don't see any of that coming from him. He seems completely unable to play it rough, and that's a heavy issue for a potential US president.

He called illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists, but considering how a good amount of illegal Mexican immigrants end up being repeat offenders, he is making a hyperbole out of it, but for the matter of it he's fundamentally right. While yes, indeed, at the end of the day it's the incompetence of previous American presidence at handling the Middle East that ultimately allowed the rise of Islamic terrorism, those are the countries that are causing the trouble (pointing at Yojinbo's post).

Yes, he's flip-flopped on abortion. The issue is, (As much as I'm a pro-lifer except in extreme cases, such as severe brain damage or the future baby being unable to live without being perma-hooked to a machine, if able at all.) abortion is a delicate, nuanced topic. I would not be surprised that anyone other than the most staunch pro-life or pro-choice. (I remember Trump mentioning he was pro-life a couple months earlier or something, but it was said pretty offhandedly and only to finish stumping a paid shill). It's been a big mistake on his part, but it's a mistake I'm more than willing to understand. Abortion is an important topic, but the economy of the country, international relationships, and dealing with terrorism are bigger issues. And I see Trump being right on all three of those.

Regarding Trump's issues, yes, he's said inaccurate things multiple times, but Politifact has that tendency to mark them as pants on fire lies or outright lies when I'm seeing them as inaccurate statements that need a tuning but have the fundamental message right, hyperboles, or pretty clear baiting (Like when he retweeted the fake White vs black % kill statistics).

And yes, Trump has had failures like any other businessman and perhaps he'd have more money than now if he'd had just let the bank interests stack up, but the fact is, said model is still a considerable improvement over how the US seems to be going right now.

lol, your ability to see sanders' desire for a clean road to candidacy as a weakness is impressive. also, what would have had him do at the rally? it would have been really bad press for him to throw out blm protesters since bad press is bad for any candidate except trump. he went on to speak to 15000 people later that night, uninterrupted. he's done most of his speeches uninterrupted. do you really think trump saying "throw them out" is strength? when he incites violence against those who think differently, is that strength?

with the leak of the panama papers, i don't see how free market capitalism can still be supported by anyone. it's an old and very dumb idea.

like what, specifically? would you call this a mild inaccuracy? it's a flat-out lie, and you're falling for the lies.

a businessman that would have more money if he took his original money and left it in the bank is no businessman. the shit you're willing to put up with because trump is on the republican ticket is insane. and how is the "model" an overall improvement?

from his website:

1. If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.

"i win"? what the fuck did these people win? being some of the poorest people in the united states? his tax reform doesn't hold up to scrutiny. i mean, conservatives are so adamantly against taxes, but do you realize that taxes are pretty much what holds a society together?

Except it was specifically a Sanders rally, not a BLM one, and not just Bernie deciding to start talking in public improvisedly. BLM functionally crashed and disrupted the event, and Bernie didn't do anything to stop it. (And to note, Trump hosts his events in private venues, so he's enforcing his right as a host to kick people out).

Yes, there are links between Trump's politics and authoritarianism. I happen to just not care about it.

authoritarianism is historically the antithesis of american politics.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Sunwoo]

I completely stopped seeing Sanders as a viable candidate when he got outspoken by a couple of BLM females at one of his rallies. He remains weak. There's many fronts on the which he could've chosen to attack Hillary, but I don't see any of that coming from him. He seems completely unable to play it rough, and that's a heavy issue for a potential US president.

According to tuvarkz: being a mature adult is "weak".

Okay.

[Crysta]

I suspect he thinks Sanders should have cussed those uppity females out and ejected them from the rally, as a display of his incredible strength and charisma. No one outspeaks a real man!

re: the strained relations between us and the Muslim world - pretty sure we'd need to at least talk to them to be effective in any strategy against ISIL, or are we proposing we completely ignore them, too? That seems contrary to Trump's solution of going in there and bombing and torturing suspected terrorists.

EDIT: Anderson Cooper - Bradley Cooper is an actor.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Crysta

[DragonLord]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper - Bradley Cooper is an actor.

Thanks for that, got them mixed up since both were involved in Trump related headlines recently. It's been edited now.

Edited April 6, 2016 by DragonLord

[Alertcircuit]

tuvarkz, I see where you're coming from on the Sanders thing, but I disagree that what he did there determines how much backbone he has. Bernie is an ally of BLM, and even if he disagreed with their hijacking of his podium, I don't think he wanted to remove them because he generally agrees with what they say anyway, and the media backlash just wouldn't have been worth it. As for his bout with Hillary, he probably wants the Democratic primary to be as clean as possible, to make the party look great in contrast to some of the outright dick measuring contests in the GOP. He's playing the "bigger man" card whilst keeping the party from getting too divided in case Hillary is the nominee. If it goes well, he gets the nomination and probably the presidency. If it doesn't, he potentially gets a President Clinton who publicly shares a good chunk of his ideas, and can't act against them without voter backlash.

[Phoenix Wright]

whereas hillary clearly is in it to simply win. her new strategy calls not for change, but just to beat bernie sanders, then "unite the party." she ain't gonna do shit. not that bernie would actually be able to get anything too radical done, due to the stubborn conservative congress, but i'd rather vote for a president that advocates for change than literally admitting the number one goal is to beat your only opponent.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Phoenix Wright