General US Politics

[Life]

Now, I am no expert on the US Constitution, so feel free to correct me on this one, but last I checked 'freedom of speech' simply means that you cannot be arrested by the government for your opinion. It doesn't mean we aren't allowed to find what you have to say rude/insensitive/disgusting/otherwise inappropriate nor does it mean that you cannot be excluded from a group for having/expressing an opinion that is against the guidelines of that group. Especially considering that 'freedom of speech' is not a universal thing and several countries have made 'hate speech' illegal.

Last post proved all three of those points wrong. In fact, rather than paint those issues with a broad brushstroke, I am now going to ask you to bring evidence to prove me wrong as I have continuously done.

But I want to talk about this point.

Freedom of speech literally means "freedom of speech". I am free to say what I want. Do you take offense to it? Great. I am still allowed to say it.

A country that bans any aspect of this does not believe in freedom of speech. It really is that simple.

You can try to twist the meaning of the First Amendment all you want but if you ban me from saying whatever I want, then you take away my right to free speech.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Last post proved all three of those points wrong. In fact, rather than paint those issues with a broad brushstroke, I am now going to ask you to bring evidence to prove me wrong as I have continuously done.

But I want to talk about this point.

Freedom of speech literally means "freedom of speech". I am free to say what I want. Do you take offense to it? Great. I am still allowed to say it.

A country that bans any aspect of this does not believe in freedom of speech. It really is that simple.

You can try to twist the meaning of the First Amendment all you want but if you ban me from saying whatever I want, then you take away my right to free speech.

Okay, I've tried my best to discuss this in a polite and civil manner (tried. I haven't necessarily succeeded). I simply stated what I thought was constitutionally freedom of speech as my knowledge of the constitution is lacking as a non-American, even stating before hand that I wasn't sure and that you could feel free to correct me. All you had to do was show me the part of the constitution that proves me wrong and I'd have been fine. But no, now the gloves are off. If you're going to act like a passive-aggressive dick, then I'm going to be a passive-aggressive dick right back.

I'll need some time to find information on the US, which I will do when I get home. But to start off, here's some information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the health of the Indigenous population of Australia (Aboriginals).

http://www.aihw.gov.au/australias-health/2014/indigenous-health/

[eclipse]

The mods don't have a sense of humor.

Anyway, back on topic.

[Lord Raven]

White Privilege: I'm literally going to quote Ben Shapiro on this one and I want you to prove me wrong.

"White Privilege is a leftist term that essentially says 'you are not a person of colour so shut up'. It basically says that when evidence of racism doesn't exist, that person MUST be racist because they are white."

It's not verbatim but it fits.

That's not what white privilege is. White privilege is "there is inherent systemic bias against people of color." It is not necessarily "this black dude didn't get a job over this white dude, therefore the system is racist" so much as "all else held equal, a white person is more likely to be chosen over a black person."

You said so yourself; you cited 99 Problems in another thread to make a point that police treat black men differently to white men.

At any rate, as for the police shootings thing, that's not the primary issue anyway. I'll show you a post I made in another thread that deals with more how black people are jailed and convicted more than white people.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=65214&p=4461517

White privilege exists, and the way Ben Shapiro is describing it is massively oversimplified.

At any rate, the wage gap: http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Finally;

Racial war by police: Once again, I point to the University of Toledo study which points out that 90% of crime against blacks is committed by other blacks.

What is the origin of black violence and why should police be held to the same standard as criminals? You're also talking about a demographic that is historically more likely to be in poverty than white people. Same for all minorities. This is largely due to black people being relegated to ghettos and having to do more dangerous things to make sure they can have food on their table. In the ghettos they do not have access to the same level of education as people outside of them do; I'm from suburbs in Baltimore with above a 90% graduation rate, and like 20 minutes away in the city proper they have a 50-55% graduation rate in those schools (there exist schools that go as low as 30-35%, and my graduating class had 95% retention). They are criminally underfunded with underpaid teachers, whereas I went to two high schools with ridiculously good funding in relatively wealthy areas. The kicker is that my first high school was 90-95% white and my second was at least 60% white (and maybe 10-15% asian). This is anecdotal obviously, but this is a fair representation of many cities in America that do suffer from poverty, and what you will find is that the populations of those ghettos are black and have been historically black.

If you want sources on this then feel free to ask, but that's generally been the idea behind white privilege as I understood it. Shapiro is saying "there's no law against discrimination", but the fact is that the places that need them most - which are full of crime and violence and are majority black - aren't being given any sort of funding to dig themselves out of the mess, and the mostly white suburbs nearby are. That's where the "systemic" part comes in. I can give you really quick numbers by just going to wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Howard County borders Baltimore County, and it's #3 on this list. Loudon and Fairfax border Washington DC, and it's #1 and #2. I have lived in Howard and have family all over Loudoun and Fairfox and believe me that is the highest standard of living in the United States. Montgomery is halfway between them - which is like a good 20-30 miles away - and Harford is #61 which borders Baltimore County. median income in Baltimore City is 38k, which is unranked and much less than the average. Baltimore County, the county that envelopes Baltimore City, has a median income of 63k.

As for graduation rates:

http://www.education.umd.edu/TLPL/centers/MEP/Research/College/MD%20Grad%20Rates_1.2014.pdf

Prince George's County is also an interesting example of this, because it has the largest black population in Maryland, and its public schools are hit or miss. A lot of the public schools there with the largest black populations have relatively low graduation rates, with the public schools with the least black populations have the highest rates. I have friends who have went to those schools and based on their stories they have poor teachers and relatively low funding in comparison to other schools.

I really cannot speak on behalf of the rest of the world, but "white privilege" is a really shitty term. More minorities tend to be of lower income for various reasons and also when they are of "just enough" income, they can face challenges unknown to the people around them simply because most of their neighbors are white, and then there's a sense of mob mentality that takes over. The latter sense gives privilege to a minority group but they lose the social aspect which is equally, if not more, important when it comes to gaining work. Having that said, low income white families have it as bad as low income black families, the difference being that there are more black people in poverty relative to the population (and in general) than white people, and many of our poorest cities have high black populations. I really think that "income-based privileges" and "racial privileges" should be specified, though I don't think white people go into poverty under the same circumstances as black people do, but this is something I can only infer from the arguments I have brought up and not based on any statistical evidence I'm in the mood to dig up tonight.

I'm not a sociology buff in the slightest so my knowledge has completely exhausted, someone else can chime in on why urban areas were more popular for black people before and after the 60s, because I know that is tied to how black people were relegated to ghettos.

When we talk about police violence against black people, we talk about it in comparison to police violence against white people, not in comparison to violence between civilians and criminals. There needs to definitely be reform behind the causes of black-on-black violence, but that is entirely irrelevant to police-on-black violence. The fact is that the police are meant to be above that due to basically being government officials in charge of protecting civilians and upholding the law. They are not meant to be killing people for what amounts to no reason. Civilians aren't supposed to be committing violence on other civilians, don't get me wrong, but the police is held to a higher standard because it is their task as given to them by the government to enforce the law, therefore that comes with the responsibility of following it themselves.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

Yo, you above me. That previous post was a none-too-subtle hint to STOP RESPONDING.

[Thane]

This thread is fascinating to me. While I'm also from the Western world, I'm reminded of the vast cultural differences between my small country and the U.S. Even the concept of bringing up constitutional rights in a debate is such an alien concept to me.

Is this a thread where you can ask questions? Because I would love to hear what Americans think of their politicians talking about vaccine as if it were harmful and not supporting gay marriage. Where I come from, those things are not discussed at all; the anti-vaxxers have no presence whatsoever and any politician who harbored such beliefs and mentioned it even once would've committed political suicide, and not supporting homosexuals' right to marry would've yielded a similar result.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Thane

[eclipse]

Yes, you can ask questions!

The anti-vaccine thing is ridiculous, IMO. Unless you've got a legit medical reason not to get vaccinated, I think you should. I'll let everyone else answer the gay marriage thing, as my stance on it is "meh". Religion plays a nontrivial part in US politics.

[Thane]

Yes, you can ask questions!

The anti-vaccine thing is ridiculous, IMO. Unless you've got a legit medical reason not to get vaccinated, I think you should. I'll let everyone else answer the gay marriage thing, as my stance on it is "meh". Religion plays a nontrivial part in US politics.

Thanks!

What I don't understand is how such a movement could've gained any sort of influence in politics without any shred of science to back them up. Now, I won't pretend my country's politics don't have flaws, of course, but we've thankfully been spared this particular nonsense.

Church and state are separated in the U.S, so why is it so important for the candidates to be religious?

Oh, and finally, why do so many people want to own a gun and refuse tighter control? I've actually never directly asked an American that before, even though I've hung out with quite a few for extended periods of time. Don't all statistics point to owning a gun is more dangerous than not?

Sorry if my questions seem ignorant; I like reading about American politics, but normally, questions like these don't get covered in great detail, and I'd prefer to ask you guys on the other side of the pond these things directly anyway.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Thane

[Lord Raven]

Anti-vaxxers do not have a leg to stand on. This man, on top of the media, is where that garbage came from. I would also like to note that the media itself has fucked up science beyond what science actually is, because of an issue that goes beyond just anti-vaxxers and goes into science in general.

The best paragraph in that article:

After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, or autism and gastrointestinal disease.

It's really questionable why that doesn't get reported. Probably isn't clickbaity. Andrew Wakefield's paper in 1998 got over-reported here most likely due to the thing from that John Oliver segment.

Not supporting gay marriage: I think politicians who preach this also preach other restrictions on LGBT people, so to me it ends up going hand in hand. The thing is that the shift towards a more liberal view of this in our left wing is something that seems very recent, because around 2014 is when gay marriage was legalized nationwide and I remember Obama not being for gay marriage back in 2010, but don't quote me on that. This is actually a new concept for our politicians to adjust to, because now former politicians who were against gay marriage are now in favor of it.

Church and state is separated in the U.S, so why is it so important for the candidates to be religious?

My only response is because the majority of people in this nation are Christian and are afraid of their Christian values being taken away by a non-Christian president. It is actually told to us in schools that freedom to go by whatever christian denomination you wish to be a part of is a reason for our founding fathers to escape to here, and people tend to cling to the word of the founding fathers quite heavily. To me it seems like a bunch of shit, because a lot of very very conservative people I've talked to believe that freedom of religion comes from a more Christian mindset than a generalized mindset. It's really nonsensical.

Oh, and finally, why does so many people want to own a gun and refuse tighter control? I've actually never directly asked an American that before, even though I've hung out with quite a few for extended periods of time. Don't all statistics point to owning a gun is more dangerous than not?

There were more than a few gun control debates on this forum so you can check those out, but a lot of conservatives tend to cling to the constitution, namely the second amendment, and believe it makes them feel safer and it's a form of self-defense. Some are also against regulation because... I never understood this myself, and I hesitate to link a segment from a fake news show because it's just making fun of the guy, but you should probably google this one. The only argument I know is that it's not written into our constitution. Edited August 8, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Time the Crestfallen]

The mods don't have a sense of humor.

Anyway, back on topic.

But...but I had all these sources I was going to use! How will I stroke my e-pen now?! ( ಥ_ಥ)

Yes, you can ask questions!

The anti-vaccine thing is ridiculous, IMO. Unless you've got a legit medical reason not to get vaccinated, I think you should. I'll let everyone else answer the gay marriage thing, as my stance on it is "meh". Religion plays a nontrivial part in US politics.

There are legit medical reasons to not get vaccinated?

[Lord Raven]

There are legit medical reasons to not get vaccinated?

Read the wikipedia article I linked above, because I'd like to go into a little more detail with it.

This is the study.

You'll be in for a surprise when you click this link.

[spoiler=the surprise]Every version of this paper no matter where you go says REDACTED.

However, this aired on NBC in 2000.

I think this became the 2000 version of viral.

ABC news autism, 1999:

You'll find a million of these airing around that time. This was also reported in 1999 on Fox News - which is infamous all over the world. Take a look at it.

Pretty fucking obvious it's slanted. But this movement has been going on for at least 2 decades here and it's so dumb.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Time the Crestfallen]

Read the wikipedia article I linked above, because I'd like to go into a little more detail with it.

<snip>

My response was less 'there's a medical reason to not get vaccinated' and more 'how could their possibly be a legit medical reason to not get vaccinated' (not the emphasis on not). Seriously, that's like trying to divide by zero

[Crysta]

From my experience, most anti-vaxxers either seem to be prone to believing conspiracies in general or have had a traumatic experience which led them to believe the cause was a vaccine. Like, I had this one story of a little girl dying shortly after she got a flu shot circulating around my Facebook feed, and I think that's how it generally starts.

There is more likely another explanation, but that's the conclusion they gravitate to and cling to.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Crysta

[Moblin Major General]

My mom swears the MMR triggered some sort of reaction that caused my Aspergers. Still, she remains pro-vax because she says that Aspergers was worth saving my life from something like the measles, which she contracted several times in her childhood.

[Time the Crestfallen]

My mom swears the MMR triggered some sort of reaction that caused my Aspergers. Still, she remains pro-vax because she says that Aspergers was worth saving my life from something like the measles, which she contracted several times in her childhood.

That's what shits me the most about anti-vaxxers; even if you do believe that vaccines cause autism, how could any parent worth their salt possibly decide that they'd rather their child die a painful death from an entirely preventable disease than be alive with autism?

[eclipse]

Yes, there are people who shouldn't get vaccinated. For example, people who are allergic to latex are out of the Hepatitis A vaccine. However, it's a pretty small percentage of the population, and someone who falls under it has bigger things to worry about than being exempt from a vaccine.

EDIT: I'll get to everything else when it's not 5 AM. IMO I'd rather have better regulations against robocallers who ring me at 4 AM.

Edited August 8, 2016 by eclipse

[Phoenix Wright]

There are legit medical reasons to not get vaccinated?

yeah. a couple years ago i got 3 vaccines (2 in one arm, 1 in the other) which were iirc for pneumonia, hpv, and meningitis. well, later that day i felt pretty terrible--sort of how one could feel after a flu shot, but worse. the next day i was in bed and felt like i was dying--it felt absolutely terrible. i had an apple and a few cups of water over the course of like 14 hrs before i finally told my mom that we had to go to the hospital. well, we went and i was told that i had a fever of 104 (40 cent.) and maybe had sars or something (i don't remember). after several days in the hospital, a liver-shutdown scare, and enough antibiotics to fill a pool, i was sent on my merry way. i even got to be a part of a study and docs still aren't certain what happened. i was told that i wouldn't need to get any more hpv vacs though.

i can understand why people are anti-vaccine. because i know (roughly) how vaccines work, it's much easier for me to accept that this is a freak case. however, i will not deny that i am personally terrified of vaccines now (irrationally so). i haven't needed vaccines in a while, though. parents who are absolutely ignorant of the science cling to very dumb things because they're afraid something is gonna harm their child.

the only way we can combat anti-science and scientific illiteracy is to have a better education system. this forum alone shows me something pretty scary about the general public, tbh.

[eclipse]

yeah. a couple years ago i got 3 vaccines (2 in one arm, 1 in the other) which were iirc for pneumonia, hpv, and meningitis. well, later that day i felt pretty terrible--sort of how one could feel after a flu shot, but worse. the next day i was in bed and felt like i was dying--it felt absolutely terrible. i had an apple and a few cups of water over the course of like 14 hrs before i finally told my mom that we had to go to the hospital. well, we went and i was told that i had a fever of 104 (40 cent.) and maybe had sars or something (i don't remember). after several days in the hospital, a liver-shutdown scare, and enough antibiotics to fill a pool, i was sent on my merry way. i even got to be a part of a study and docs still aren't certain what happened. i was told that i wouldn't need to get any more hpv vacs though.

i can understand why people are anti-vaccine. because i know (roughly) how vaccines work, it's much easier for me to accept that this is a freak case. however, i will not deny that i am personally terrified of vaccines now (irrationally so). i haven't needed vaccines in a while, though. parents who are absolutely ignorant of the science cling to very dumb things because they're afraid something is gonna harm their child.

the only way we can combat anti-science and scientific illiteracy is to have a better education system. this forum alone shows me something pretty scary about the general public, tbh.

That's not irrational. You experienced a very averse reaction to something, you have an idea of what caused it, but you don't have a definite answer.

Irrational would be reading your story and assuming that it will happen to me. That's the logic of someone who I know that didn't want to vaccinate their kid.

[Alertcircuit]

Church and state are separated in the U.S, so why is it so important for the candidates to be religious?

My personal theory is that some Americans don't care strongly about policy (because talking about politics is bad, right?), so they look at how relatable the candidates are. If a candidate shares my values and upbringings, I'll like them more. Combine that with 70% of Americans identifying as Christians, and Christianity becomes a political staple. Plus the reasons Lord Raven said.

[Life]

My personal theory is that some Americans don't care strongly about policy (because talking about politics is bad, right?), so they look at how relatable the candidates are. If a candidate shares my values and upbringings, I'll like them more. Combine that with 70% of Americans identifying as Christians, and Christianity becomes a political staple. Plus the reasons Lord Raven said.

I like to call it "beer factor". As in "can I sit down and enjoy a beer with this guy".

For example, say what you will but Hillary Clinton has absolutely no beer factor. Obama had lots. Bush and Clinton had it in spades.

It gives the voter a sense of "this candidate actually cares about my needs".

[-Cynthia-]

I don't really get why people like Jill Stein. Most of the stuff I've seen that she's written reads like tinfoil hat government conspiracy stuff- which makes her a questionable choice to actually be part of the government. Her highest political office held seems to be the town meeting seat of Lexington, Massachusetts which I don't think is sufficient experience to be president of the United States. Even though our policy positions are similar, I can't in any good conscience think she would actually be the best choice for president.

I already mentioned her Brexit support and walkback, but did y'all know that she decided to tweet about Hillary not having 'motherly values' on Mother's Day? http://americablog.com/2016/05/internet-excoriates-jill-stein-calling-hillary-bad-mom.html Candidates going after the family relationships of other candidates is some Trump level douchebaggery. Stein tried to walk it back by saying that she didn't actually mean anything about Hillary as a mother directly, but I call BS.

Edited August 8, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Time the Crestfallen]

yeah. a couple years ago i got 3 vaccines (2 in one arm, 1 in the other) which were iirc for pneumonia, hpv, and meningitis.

<snip>

Yes, there are people who shouldn't get vaccinated. For example, people who are allergic to latex are out of the Hepatitis A vaccine. However, it's a pretty small percentage of the population, and someone who falls under it has bigger things to worry about than being exempt from a vaccine.

EDIT: I'll get to everything else when it's not 5 AM. IMO I'd rather have better regulations against robocallers who ring me at 4 AM.

I like to call it "beer factor". As in "can I sit down and enjoy a beer with this guy".

For example, say what you will but Hillary Clinton has absolutely no beer factor. Obama had lots. Bush and Clinton had it in spades.

It gives the voter a sense of "this candidate actually cares about my needs".

There's also the fact that the Republican party has consistently said that they've got the working classes backs and offered easy solutions to the complex problems plaguing them i.e. blame globalisation and immigrants, both of which aren't entirely untrue (why hire the American working class when you can outsource or employ immigrants willing to work longer hours for far less?) while the Democratic party has only become more in favour of these things over time, made no attempt to assuage the concerns of the working class and whenever the issue comes up, brow-beats them for being bigots.

[Crysta]

Funnily enough, Donald Trump doesn't drink lol.

[Tangerine]

I don't really get why people like Jill Stein. Most of the stuff I've seen that she's written reads like tinfoil hat government conspiracy stuff- which makes her a questionable choice to actually be part of the government. Her highest political office held seems to be the town meeting seat of Lexington, Massachusetts which I don't think is sufficient experience to be president of the United States. Even though our policy positions are similar, I can't in any good conscience think she would actually be the best choice for president.

I already mentioned her Brexit support and walkback, but did y'all know that she decided to tweet about Hillary not having 'motherly values' on Mother's Day? http://americablog.com/2016/05/internet-excoriates-jill-stein-calling-hillary-bad-mom.html Candidates going after the family relationships of other candidates is some Trump level douchebaggery. Stein tried to walk it back by saying that she didn't actually mean anything about Hillary as a mother directly, but I call BS.

Err, lets not be biased here. The liberal media and democratic campaign has gone after Trump's family plenty.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Tangerine

[-Cynthia-]

Err, lets not be biased here. The liberal media and democratic campaign has gone after Trump's family plenty.

I can't find a source citing Hillary or her campaign saying anything about Trump's family, so if you could be more specific? The media has run some pieces for sure, but the media doesn't speak for the candidate.