Mimikyu

General US Politics

Poll   177 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      57
    • No
      74
    • Maybe
      46
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      61
    • Indifferent
      19

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

6644 posts in this topic

On 6/4/2017 at 8:51 PM, Cerberus87 said:

No, I'm not. There are no angels in politics.

Don't let perfect become the enemy of good.

You are right to say that there is no one in politics that is incorruptible, however you then imply that all politicians equally opportunistic and Machiavellian where they will betray core beliefs if it means it helps them get what they want.

With the current political environment, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Hillary Clinton who colluded with the Russians to undermine the election and act like Donald Trump with his inconsistent explanations and firing the head of the FBI for political reasons. Do you think if the Democrats controlled congress they would stone wall as vigorously as the Republicans, or would they put country first to get to the facts regardless of how it would harm the party?


If Hillary Clinton were president and she did this, Republicans would already have brought forward and voted on articles of impeachment. (And depending on how fair the investigations was, enough Democrats on board in the Senate to vote for conviction.) But since the Republicans need Trump to push their agenda, they're going to try and do everything to deflect from the investigation or try to justify Trump's actions.

The Clintons and Obama aren't angels, but they, along with the Democrats arel lightyears ahead of how the Republicans behave.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Black_Knight said:


If Hillary Clinton were president and she did this...
 

...when the Clinton's were in the White House, it was literally a high crime and impeachable offense to lie about getting a blowjob.  

The about-face is unreal. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Black_Knight said:

With the current political environment, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Hillary Clinton who colluded with the Russians to undermine the election and act like Donald Trump with his inconsistent explanations and firing the head of the FBI for political reasons. Do you think if the Democrats controlled congress they would stone wall as vigorously as the Republicans, or would they put country first to get to the facts regardless of how it would harm the party?
 

Yes. And the Republicans' reaction would've been expected.

I do not believe in "good" when it comes to politics. The few good people in politics lack the power to actually change things, for the most part.

A quick look at Bill Clinton's impeachment tells me that, in the House of Representatives, with Republican majority, they passed the impeachment but votes were all over the place, with some Democrats voting for the pressing of the charges and some Republicans voting for acquittal of some of them, though the impeachment was ultimately passed on to the Senate. On the verge of impeachment, when things got serious, Bill was acquitted, in greater part because no Democrat voted to impeach him, as 67 votes were needed and the Republican majority could only get up to 55.

This is why it'll be quite difficult for Trump to get impeached, even though the charges against him are a good deal more serious than those against Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point... if it were Hillary Clinton, the bill would already be drafted regardless of majority. The Democrats have not even drafted a bill to impeach Trump, even if they can't get the necessary votes.

The Democrats have also repeatedly caved into Republican demands only for Republicans to bitch about something something something. For instance, they only blocked Merrick Garland because Obama recommended him; otherwise, Republicans were in love with the guy for all I&P and would've voted for the guy if anyone but Obama put his name forward.

Do not equate the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are pure hyperpartisan scum that want to fuck over the poor and give to the wealthy while preaching their fake-ass Christian ideals and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by assuming otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So Trump is trying to secure his Republican majority in case of impeachment with his new Cuba policies (which is basically back to pre-Obama days)... This guy is not dumb, he only plays the part.

On 14/06/2017 at 0:50 AM, Lord Raven said:

That's the point... if it were Hillary Clinton, the bill would already be drafted regardless of majority. The Democrats have not even drafted a bill to impeach Trump, even if they can't get the necessary votes.

The Democrats have also repeatedly caved into Republican demands only for Republicans to bitch about something something something. For instance, they only blocked Merrick Garland because Obama recommended him; otherwise, Republicans were in love with the guy for all I&P and would've voted for the guy if anyone but Obama put his name forward.

Do not equate the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are pure hyperpartisan scum that want to fuck over the poor and give to the wealthy while preaching their fake-ass Christian ideals and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by assuming otherwise.

Well the bulk of Bernie Sanders' support in the primaries were people who would feel quite at home as high officers in a communist regime, so it's not like there aren't (plenty of) bad apples among the Democrats either.

Edited by Cerberus87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Cerberus87 said:

Well the bulk of Bernie Sanders' support in the primaries were people who would feel quite at home as high officers in a communist regime, so it's not like there aren't (plenty of) bad apples among the Democrats either.

Source? What the fuck are you talking about?

Sanders isn't a Democrat (he was only a Democrat for a year) and the Democrats have never once been anything close to a communist party, and Sanders is nowhere close to a communist.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

Source? What the fuck are you talking about?

Sanders isn't a Democrat (he was only a Democrat for a year) and the Democrats have never once been anything close to a communist party, and Sanders is nowhere close to a communist.

The Democrat party is not a communist party of course (heck, it's not even a leftist party), but make no mistake, the people at the far end of social justice, who were Sanders supporters for the most part, would feel VERY comfortable with mandated cultural regulation in the vein of what occurred behind the Iron Curtain (and really, any totalitarian regime, whether right or left-wing), as long as it suited their interests of course. Artistic freedom should not be an excuse to attack groups of people (like right-wingers love to do), but a "sanitized" sort of culture, devoid of anything "harmful", is not something I find very desirable either. That's what I meant with my comparison to communism, which is the closest example I could find, though there are others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

The Democrat party is not a communist party of course (heck, it's not even a leftist party), but make no mistake, the people at the far end of social justice, who were Sanders supporters for the most part, would feel VERY comfortable with mandated cultural regulation in the vein of what occurred behind the Iron Curtain (and really, any totalitarian regime, whether right or left-wing), as long as it suited their interests of course. Artistic freedom should not be an excuse to attack groups of people (like right-wingers love to do), but a "sanitized" sort of culture, devoid of anything "harmful", is not something I find very desirable either. That's what I meant with my comparison to communism, which is the closest example I could find, though there are others.

Source? Or better yet, expound upon your logic, because this is one hell of a logical leap to make based on, what I suspect to be, a fringe community on tumblr.

The "bulk" of Sanders supporters is a pretty damned lie in that case, depending on your definition of "bulk." Is it a lot of Sanders supporters? Or is it just a fringe subsection? In either case, when one side has plenty of support in terms of their right wing, Christian-Sharia Law, poor-hating, minority-bashing, and environmentally unfriendly policies, it's pretty clear which side is worse and by what order of magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Source? Or better yet, expound upon your logic, because this is one hell of a logical leap to make based on, what I suspect to be, a fringe community on tumblr.

The "bulk" of Sanders supporters is a pretty damned lie in that case, depending on your definition of "bulk." Is it a lot of Sanders supporters? Or is it just a fringe subsection? In either case, when one side has plenty of support in terms of their right wing, Christian-Sharia Law, poor-hating, minority-bashing, and environmentally unfriendly policies, it's pretty clear which side is worse and by what order of magnitude.

A socialist candidate tends to attract Communists, even when they exhaust every opportunity to distance themselves from the concept of a People's Republic. Also, it's less fringe for the sole reason that it's the internet, and that any community larger than 250,000 members is liable to be separated into Nazis and Commies only.

It might not be a lot of Sanders supporters, but the minority is the loudest. People who think that politically-inclined gun violence is usually motivated by the right need to remember the name James Hodgkinson (why did nobody make a thread about that). Vilify the right all you want, remember that all sides of politics are greedy and evil, and shouldn't be trusted in the slightest. Also to address the points in your last sentence: those men will never be Christians, because of the "Camel Through the Eye of a Needle" clause, the fact that Adam's job was watching over all nature, and that the Holy Spirit lit a fire over the heads of the apostles so that all who would listen would hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Source? Or better yet, expound upon your logic, because this is one hell of a logical leap to make based on, what I suspect to be, a fringe community on tumblr.

The "bulk" of Sanders supporters is a pretty damned lie in that case, depending on your definition of "bulk." Is it a lot of Sanders supporters? Or is it just a fringe subsection? In either case, when one side has plenty of support in terms of their right wing, Christian-Sharia Law, poor-hating, minority-bashing, and environmentally unfriendly policies, it's pretty clear which side is worse and by what order of magnitude.

I did not want to deviate from the subject at hand, but you forced me into it. If Democrats are allowed to put all Republicans in the same basket, why are you criticizing me for supposedly using "fringe Tumblr groups" to depict the socialist agenda in the US? Many Trump critics are speaking as if all his supporters were part of the Ku Klux Klan or something, and they use the absolute extreme (videos of white supremacist groups, for instance) to prove their point. The people doing this are not "fringe Tumblr groups". They are the mass media.

Why does this happen? Because Trump is bad for business. That's all there is to it. The human rights we have are just scraps we get so we don't bother the rich for earning hundreds of thousands times more money than we'll ever make in our lifetimes. Mass media is owned by rich conglomerates, those people don't work to support human rights, they work for profit. Trump is promising nonsensical things that will hurt pretty much any large American company in the long run, as "100% certified American labor" is much more expensive than outsourcing your labor to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia or wherever. GM does not want to build cars in the US, they want to build them in Mexico where it's cheaper and laborers have less rights. Trump's anti-immigration policy also hurts these companies, because they look for talent everywhere (which is not a bad thing at all, but is also not for humanitarian reasons) and lax immigration laws help them poach talent from other countries.

Do you think it's funny for example that Ubisoft went full anti-Trump agenda in the latest Far Cry? The conservativism and racism of white rednecks is bad, but don't believe for one second the mockery directed towards them by the urban "intellectuals" from Washington, Manhattan, LA and metropolitan Europeans is any better either. Mutual respect means just that. And it's not even anything new, Christian fundamentalism has been beaten to death in books and media galore. I think it's necessary to hit a sweet spot between freedom and avoidance of prejudice, but we haven't reached it yet so far, because hitting the sweet spot takes time, and most people are impatient and/or want to push their views at any cost.

It sounds a lot like conspiracy theory, but it also explains why a certain mass media conglomerate in my country can be so anti-left locally and so anti-Trump at the same time. The closer to the extremes you are, the worse you are for business. Take France, for example, both Le Pen and Mélenchon would've been a disaster. The only reason Le Pen is considered even worse than Mélenchon is because far-right is associated with fascism, and the Holocaust is the closest example we in the West have of an utterly despicable crime against humanity (it may not have been the biggest one in terms of numbers, but it definitely was in terms of cruelty), which happened to be committed by a far-right, ultraconservative regime. Capitalism is all about business. Coincidentally, ethnic/racial/gender/sexual orientation/whatever agnosticism goes hand in hand with business, because it's all about hiring the best people for the job in order to turn in more profit. A capitalist should be a pragmatist first and foremost. Thus, everybody wins, but the rich win more, as they always have. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

A socialist candidate tends to attract Communists, even when they exhaust every opportunity to distance themselves from the concept of a People's Republic. Also, it's less fringe for the sole reason that it's the internet, and that any community larger than 250,000 members is liable to be separated into Nazis and Commies only.

It might not be a lot of Sanders supporters, but the minority is the loudest. People who think that politically-inclined gun violence is usually motivated by the right need to remember the name James Hodgkinson (why did nobody make a thread about that). Vilify the right all you want, remember that all sides of politics are greedy and evil, and shouldn't be trusted in the slightest. Also to address the points in your last sentence: those men will never be Christians, because of the "Camel Through the Eye of a Needle" clause, the fact that Adam's job was watching over all nature, and that the Holy Spirit lit a fire over the heads of the apostles so that all who would listen would hear.

He's not a Socialist. "Those men will never be Christians" is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy; they consider themselves Christians, appeal to Christians, despite being unchristian.

Quote

I did not want to deviate from the subject at hand, but you forced me into it. If Democrats are allowed to put all Republicans in the same basket, why are you criticizing me for supposedly using "fringe Tumblr groups" to depict the socialist agenda in the US? Many Trump critics are speaking as if all his supporters were part of the Ku Klux Klan or something, and they use the absolute extreme (videos of white supremacist groups, for instance) to prove their point. The people doing this are not "fringe Tumblr groups". They are the mass media.

What Socialist agenda are you talking about? Oh, is single-payer healthcare or government-run healthcare socialism now? The ACA isn't anything close to socialist, and is still a very right-leaning policy.

At any rate, that makes the entire west outside of the US socialist, except for the fact that none of them are, and leaders such as Macron/Merkel/May are not socialist at all.

You're making these huge logical leaps from a fringe. The Christian right in the US is not a "fringe;" it's our legislature, executive branch, and even our Judicial Branch, and I'm not even going to the extremes of calling them KKK members. The KKK first came into this conversation with you, by the way, but I'd like to take this time to mention that Trump protests are quite tame in comparison to Obama protests.

Having that said, yes, places that are not coastal are in general more isolated from immigrants, and have generally voted in favor of a protectionist, anti-immigrant agenda due to a lack of minorities in the immediate area. This actually applies to rural areas in general, coastal or not.

At any rate, you're talking about the mainstream media without mentioning Fox News at all, which is consumed by many more people than any other mainstream media outlet. They tell outright lies and spin the exact opposite narrative - and again, many more people watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC.

Quote

Do you think it's funny for example that Ubisoft went full anti-Trump agenda in the latest Far Cry? The conservativism and racism of white rednecks is bad, but don't believe for one second the mockery directed towards them by the urban "intellectuals" from Washington, Manhattan, LA and metropolitan Europeans is any better either. Mutual respect means just that. And it's not even anything new, Christian fundamentalism has been beaten to death in books and media galore. I think it's necessary to hit a sweet spot between freedom and avoidance of prejudice, but we haven't reached it yet so far, because hitting the sweet spot takes time, and most people are impatient and/or want to push their views at any cost.

The mockery goes both ways. Let's not pretend there's no merit to the mockery, because those kinds of demographics that are being mocked are indeed the ones that are voting in the interest of the Republican Party. You think having contradicting motives is grounds to prevent people from criticizing and often satirizing their viewpoints? The demographics of these places also end up being poor people, some of whom are blatantly racist (not all), who vote for a Republican candidate on the basis of religion and a boogeyman that does not exist. These people are in higher number than you think, and if polls are of any indication, a good 35-40% of those who consider themselves followers of a religion in this country and a good chunk of our legislature support "religious freedom" in the form of things such as denying homosexuals the right to enter their restaurants. There are also a good 30% of people that approve of what Trump is doing.

Besides, where is this mutual respect? If someone votes for a candidate because he tells it like it is - calling Mexican immigrants criminals due to hard crime and not immigration-related crime, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration despite the majority of threats coming from domestically born people, and has a VP that was specifically chosen to appeal to the evangelical right and help their culture - and these people are far from an insignificant voterbase of the Republican Party, then it is an issue. What you're complaining about is a very insignificant part of the Democratic voterbase and one that the Democrats really don't give a shit about, what I'm talking about is a significant part of the Republican voter base and the one the Republican Party actively caters to.

The rest of your post goes into stuff I've already talked about -- identity politics being used to make the proletariat fight among one another whilst the rich feast off hte profits -- but this still does not excuse the fact that the Republicans have been, at every turn, much worse than the Democrats in the United States over hte past 35 years.

But wait, there's more! As it turns out, the democratic side of the aisle has been fairly consistent with their approval/disapproval of policies regardless of who performed them, but the GOP side of the aisle has been very inconsistent with their approval depending on who has been doing it.

There are legitimate grounds of criticism due to the scale of the voters on each side. The scale of the voters I'm talking about are orders of magnitude above the scale of the voters you're talking about.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Raven, I'll refrain to quote your whole post because I don't like the forum's system very much, but I'll address some specific points.

Universal healthcare is a socialist thing. The whole concept of a welfare state is based on a capitalist society accomodating socialist ideals to make things fairer (but, ultimately, not totally fair, as capitalism is inherently based on unequality). This does not mean it's a bad thing.

The things Sanders wanted to do were something I'd fully support if we weren't speaking of the USA as a world superpower. My country has them. It's no European welfare, but it's there. I like that it's there. But the more I watch stuff, the more I feel the US military is our leverage (I'm putting everyone under the American zone of influence in the same basket here, you, me, and pretty much everyone in this forum) against far worse things. The US has done terrible things in the name of "democracy". As of late, most (but not all) of these things were done by Republicans. But without the US, Russia and China will take over, and these are like going 200 years backwards in time. Sanders could implement public healthcare and state-funded university tuition, but he would have to cut money from somewhere else, and the obvious thing to cut from is the military. Perhaps he could find a balance, but definitely not underfund it, as pretty much everyone in the West needs it to ensure we can remain free of those threats.

The Fox News bit is something I genuinely did not know about, and I was honestly surprised to learn that, but it's logical to be that way because it seems to me most of the population in the USA is flyover states. From a foreigner perspective we really do get the view CNN is bigger, I mean we have had CNN on cable here for ages, while Fox News was added only recently. I'm glad you pointed it out.

When I speak of "mutual respect", I mean there are people who treat fighting for civil rights as literal war. When people were split between races by state law, it was, in fact, war (if you were black the state was, literally, your enemy), but we're past that, or at least I hope we are, despite Trump's moves against illegals and Muslims; if this is democracy, let's behave as democrats. Extremists may not be the majority, but they're the noisiest. Since they're the noisiest, mainstream media will go out of their way not to displease them in any way or form (and usually fail in the process, as they get pissed off over anything) simply because they voice their views as "progressive" so they must be the good guys. This does happen in the right-wing as well but the mass media is more progressive these days, at least over here (because progressive is good for business, as said before), so you have to actually venture into the right-wing outlets to find it, the loudest right-wingers (which are usually the worst ones, I'm sure you know that) calling for stuff that suits their agenda, amassing support (since, let's be honest, most people are politically dumb and follow anyone resembling a loud conspiracy debunker) and having the right-wing media acommodate these louder, extreme opinions in an attempt to minimize friendly fire. Mass media has to do it because they need to reach as many people as possible (it's good for business), and in the process they attempt to build a better image of themselves to the general public (or, at least, to the people who watch them).

Elaborating further on it, extremists are way too aggressive and they scare away people who don't necessarily have a stance on the subjects being discussed, they see the way extremists behave and they're immediately turned off by their agendas. This has effectively given the left a very poor image here (with corruption scandals being the nail in the coffin), and I believe it's happened in the US as well, as much of what happens here was directly adapted from the way the harshest liberals behave in America. And in my country it's really funny because the left tries to appeal to the poor, but the poor are usually religious and follow Christian faith, on top of being conservative, therefore subject to all the vices the left supposedly fights against (racism, homophobia, the whole lot). So you have an intellectualized left-wing that lives in its own fantasy world and does not appeal to the people they claim to fight for (the poor). Their votes go to right-wingers instead.

It's complicated. But extremists are always for the easiest solution. Deport all Muslims, allow all Muslims in. People think it's easy. Even the ones that get elected nowadays (like Mr. Trump himself). I'm too young to be a cynic, but the world keeps pushing me in that direction, so what can I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

Universal healthcare is a socialist thing. The whole concept of a welfare state is based on a capitalist society accomodating socialist ideals to make things fairer (but, ultimately, not totally fair, as capitalism is inherently based on unequality). This does not mean it's a bad thing.

The things Sanders wanted to do were something I'd fully support if we weren't speaking of the USA as a world superpower. My country has them. It's no European welfare, but it's there. I like that it's there. But the more I watch stuff, the more I feel the US military is our leverage (I'm putting everyone under the American zone of influence in the same basket here, you, me, and pretty much everyone in this forum) against far worse things. The US has done terrible things in the name of "democracy". As of late, most (but not all) of these things were done by Republicans. But without the US, Russia and China will take over, and these are like going 200 years backwards in time. Sanders could implement public healthcare and state-funded university tuition, but he would have to cut money from somewhere else, and the obvious thing to cut from is the military. Perhaps he could find a balance, but definitely not underfund it, as pretty much everyone in the West needs it to ensure we can remain free of those threats.

America spends a fortune on healthcare from public spending as is. Much more than any other country that *does* have a universal system in place. The purpose of healthcare reform is affordable costs and more efficient bureaucracy -- the latter causes a lot of cuts as is, and a lot of healthcare expenditure is in the bureaucracy that determines who is going to pay. The US basically hemorrhages money with its inefficient healthcare system, and this was even pre-ACA. Source.

Single-payer is more socialist, but a universal system is not inherently socialist. Single-payer has the workers funding the system more or less, but a universal system is not necessarily single payer, and is not inherently socialist. The fact that these systems are either government-run or corporate-run is what prevents them from being socialist, and single-payer is much closer to centrist than socialist. The only thing really socialist about single-payer is when the people elect the bureaucracy that runs the single-payer system, but the fact of the matter is that in a representative democracy (which many democratic countries are) the power leaves the hands of the workers once they cast their vote, whereas in a direct democracy it is very easy to make the argument that it is socialist.

College was also much more affordable for previous generations but with no loss of military; free college may be a stretch, tuition-free college is definitely something that's much more affordable (with the rest of the expenditures not being free). It still doesn't prevent a massive military budget, considering the US' military budget dwarfs most countries and tuition-free college doesn't do that. In either case, you're saying that people in the US should give up programs that makes their lives easier to live just so China and Russia don't take over -- outside of nukes, Russia is hardly a threat to the majority of the world outside of cyber warfare. Trump's current policies do empower China by allowing Americans to regress, which people failed to realize in the entire campaign because they were bickering for their coal jobs.

In either case, military funding also tends to go towards scientific research (for military and non-military purposes -- for instance, I am currently being funded by the Air Force to do my research on 2D Materials and Optics), so even using military funding to fund more schooling is an effective way to reduce military funding. It's an idea I'm throwing out there, but military funding isn't just spent on arming our troops; the furthest thing from it.

Quote

The Fox News bit is something I genuinely did not know about, and I was honestly surprised to learn that, but it's logical to be that way because it seems to me most of the population in the USA is flyover states. From a foreigner perspective we really do get the view CNN is bigger, I mean we have had CNN on cable here for ages, while Fox News was added only recently. I'm glad you pointed it out.

More of the US population is concentrated in the cities, but there are significantly more rural areas in terms of landmass. As it stands, it was only recently that CNN etc have started to pass Fox News in terms of US viewership -- these are a population of voters and people in general that are perpetually misinformed, and when people in the US rail on Fox News it's not something they're pulling out of their asses. Bill O'Reilly being fired being the main catalyst to lower viewership.

Quote

When I speak of "mutual respect", I mean there are people who treat fighting for civil rights as literal war. When people were split between races by state law, it was, in fact, war (if you were black the state was, literally, your enemy), but we're past that, or at least I hope we are, despite Trump's moves against illegals and Muslims; if this is democracy, let's behave as democrats.

We are not. Gerrymandering ensures that minorities have the least voice. Keep in mind that out of the house of representatives, there were far more votes towards Democrats than Republicans yet the Republicans control around 56% of the house and 51% of the Senate.

Currently, there are many forms of segregation that exist in the US, including but not limited to redistricting (basically "get the blacks out of our schools") and gentrification ("black neighborhoods are worth much less than white neighborhoods.") Calling it white supremacist is extreme, but there is still a fight out there, and when the president and much of Congress does not support their civil rights, as well as people wanting to make same-sex marriage a states rights issue (unlike, say, a lot of other things) and of course transgender bathroom clauses being shit upon by our legislature, it becomes very personal. When these people also try to pass bills allowing them to be fired from their jobs for being part of the LGBT+ community, then it's a direct threat to their way of life, especially as transgender people themselves are fighting a completely uphill battle to basically live. Social issues aren't bright and peachy after segregation, and all segregation did is mask the ugly racism alive in the United States. I would like to point out that the racism is much more intentionally abstract, and basically dogwhistle politics. And I quote;

Quote

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 ... and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

And again, this is a concept that is utilized by the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions also did not acknowledge police shootings towards minorities at all, despite the disproportionate amount of retribution from police forces towards black people compared to white people. It's actually a fact that is deeply ingrained in black culture, and many black people I know in the US are given the police talk just to make sure the police don't kill them for being black when they're 15. This is anecdotal, I know, but it seems to be a very common thing among the black community. On top of the fact that there are many police forces in the US that were infiltrated by the KKK (Source) gives more credence to people who try to fight for their civil rights.

Quote

Extremists may not be the majority, but they're the noisiest. Since they're the noisiest, mainstream media will go out of their way not to displease them in any way or form (and usually fail in the process, as they get pissed off over anything) simply because they voice their views as "progressive" so they must be the good guys. This does happen in the right-wing as well but the mass media is more progressive these days, at least over here (because progressive is good for business, as said before), so you have to actually venture into the right-wing outlets to find it, the loudest right-wingers (which are usually the worst ones, I'm sure you know that) calling for stuff that suits their agenda, amassing support (since, let's be honest, most people are politically dumb and follow anyone resembling a loud conspiracy debunker) and having the right-wing media acommodate these louder, extreme opinions in an attempt to minimize friendly fire. Mass media has to do it because they need to reach as many people as possible (it's good for business), and in the process they attempt to build a better image of themselves to the general public (or, at least, to the people who watch them).

I'm merely saying the level of extremism in US Politics has been much more concentrated on the right than the left. The left's extremism is very limited in nature, some anti-fa groups here and there and mouthbreathers on tumblr. The Republican party are a strongly right-wing (and in some cases, far-right wing) party compared to the right-of-center Democratic party, and by nature they are closer to extremists and cater to people who would be considered extremists in any other country. This is the crux of why American politics are fucked up; to which degree our country is right wing is further than many other western countries. That is why this false equivalency just doesn't really work, because our system is inherently broken.

Extreme right wing ideas generally tend to include climate change denial ("why do humans consider themselves so arrogant that they could affect our planet?") and a belief in intelligent design ("the earth was created in 7 days, and Adam and Eve were the parents of humanity, and only a greater power could create beings as intelligent as us" or something to that effect). These are controversial issues in the United States. These are uncontroversial in the rest of the Western world. Our Republican Party, in some ways, has more in common with Middle Eastern governments than Western European governments.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

"Those men will never be Christians" is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy; they consider themselves Christians, appeal to Christians, despite being unchristian.

Most Christians in America are so blind that they are not only being lead by the blind, they are being lead by people who are both blind and deaf. Christians should be social liberals and support such, not support moral "guardians" who are just there to corrupt and divide Christianity. They appeal to Christians because Christians have become lazy, wanting politics to spread the message they themselves need to. Their complacency in politics is biting them in the ass, and sooner or later, they may find themselves turning on their "champions" because politics is often "letter, not spirit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Most Christians in America are so blind that they are not only being lead by the blind, they are being lead by people who are both blind and deaf. Christians should be social liberals and support such, not support moral "guardians" who are just there to corrupt and divide Christianity. They appeal to Christians because Christians have become lazy, wanting politics to spread the message they themselves need to. Their complacency in politics is biting them in the ass, and sooner or later, they may find themselves turning on their "champions" because politics is often "letter, not spirit."

I don't know if you think I'm shitting on Christianity or what, because I'm not. I'm talking about how politicians seize upon Christian identities and convince their voterbase to come out against issues that are largely unimportant to their everyday life just so they can vote. It's the idea of "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Most Christians in America are so blind

i.e., the "real christians" from their perspective

regardless of what you think, they have the greater numbers and louder voices, and each of them believes that they have the lord's blessing, probably to a greater extent than you do. you might as well be pissing in an ocean.

good on you for having a well-calibrated moral compass (from this atheist's point of view), but this sort of selective interpretation between competing camps shows how fraudulent the whole affair is.

Edited by dondon151

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dondon151 said:

good on you for having a well-calibrated moral compass (from this atheist's point of view), but this sort of selective interpretation between competing camps shows how fraudulent the whole affair is.

I'm non-denominational. My dad jokes about how I'm a communist hyper-liberal, but it comes from the fact that Jesus, whether someone believes he is God or just a controversial political figure, he still taught liberal policies and did things many liberals do (goes out and talks to the poor, derides the elite as immoral, condemns violence, breaks up big business, etc.). It may have been in the name of religion, but some of those things are touted by socialists, communists, and anarchists. The "Whole Affair" is what happens when an emperor suddenly changes his stance and decide that "convert or die" is the official stance of the Empire. In some ways, Constantine ruined Christianity, although he is the reason 1/3 of everyone is Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hylian Air Force What the hell are you talking about at this point? It seems wholly irrelevant to what I was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Raven said:

@Hylian Air Force What the hell are you talking about at this point? It seems wholly irrelevant to what I was talking about.

I was responding to him after responding to you. The last post has nothing to do with what you were talking about. Also, Christians need to stop falling in line, then, and fall in love. Just know, my point is this: politicians using religion to garner votes and support is disgusting, as disestablishmentarianism should be the standard for the world going forward, but it seems both the Middle East and the US didn't get the memo on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the point of what i've been saying, i'm not sure what point you're making that's not particular congruent with mine aside from the "they're not true Christians." the fact is that the republican party started using their Christianity to get votes and while that *shouldn't* be the case, it is a reality that we must work around and acknowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think I speak out against religion in government?  The last thing I want is a Christian theocracy - I'm not so naive to think that America will somehow not screw up a la every other theocracy out there.  Hence why I refuse to vote Republican, and why I'm also really mad that I'm living with someone who thinks that Trump is doing a great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eclipse said:

I'm living with someone who thinks that Trump is doing a great job.

Gross.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, eclipse said:

Why do you think I speak out against religion in government?  The last thing I want is a Christian theocracy - I'm not so naive to think that America will somehow not screw up a la every other theocracy out there.  Hence why I refuse to vote Republican, and why I'm also really mad that I'm living with someone who thinks that Trump is doing a great job.

Theocracy is worrisome because quite a few Republicans seem to want to push adherence to biblical law. I don't want the US to become the equivalent of a Christian Saudi Arabia or Iran. I'd feel far more threatened about the Republican politicians pushing through illiberal laws from a position of power than I would other external third party forces.

For a Trump supporter that is willing to discuss it, I figure the most effective method would be to use a Socratic method of questioning rather than attempting to provide counter-arguments. Merely asking them to clarify their points and what "America being made great again" would look like, what things he has accomplished that might make you think he is doing a great job etc, might lead them to the conclusion that they have no in-depth answer for believing what they do. Don't attempt to argue, but try to lead them to explain their position. It's easy to bash Trump as most people have done in this thread for a long time, but it becomes evident that no amount of counter-points seems to be effective. Of course, if they believe what they do for malevolent purposes or through wilful ignorance then really it doesn't matter either way.

Though, if it actually frustrates you to even go that route then it's probably not worth talking politics.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2017 at 3:04 AM, Cerberus87 said:

And in my country it's really funny because the left tries to appeal to the poor, but the poor are usually religious and follow Christian faith, on top of being conservative, therefore subject to all the vices the left supposedly fights against (racism, homophobia, the whole lot). So you have an intellectualized left-wing that lives in its own fantasy world and does not appeal to the people they claim to fight for (the poor). Their votes go to right-wingers instead.

This is off topic, but since we're from the same country, i feel like i need to adress this. The poor being conservative is true, but the consequences it has here in brazil are the opposite of what you said. PT's (which is who i assume you are refering to by left wing, since psol is sort of irrelevant and PCdoB are basically miniPT) bulk of support comes from the poor, specially in the northeast, who are probably the people with the most conservative views in the country, and the consequences it has is that PT gives up and doesn't push liberal social stances in order to keep their votes, rather than losing their votes by enforcing progressivism. That's why they never came in support for drugs legalization, abortion or same sex marriage before it became a non issue due to the stf legalizing it (in 2014 all the 3 of Dilma, Aecio and Eduardo Campos oppenly supported it, and only Marina didn't -while supporting same rights legal unions- due to her own religion). They only lost this support due to the recession they created, and i'm not even sure they really lost it. The poor on Brazil definitely don't vote for the right in significant numbers (or at least didn't between 2002 and 2014).

The Democratic party is in no way comparable to what we have here, and you can be sure people like Obama would be called 'neoliberal' here. They're more social progressive while being more economic liberal (not liberal in the american sense), i.e. more in line with mainstream economics rather than the bizarre economics of 'desenvolvimentismo' most of the left (and a significant part of the right and center) follow here.

 

Edited by Nobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, eclipse said:

Hence why I refuse to vote Republican, and why I'm also really mad that I'm living with someone who thinks that Trump is doing a great job.

Have you asked them why?

I think Trump is doing a great job so far.

He's torn apart NAFTA

Increasing the tariff to encourage business to work in the US

Putting in 1 trillion into our infrastructure 

Hell, I supported his 90 day travel ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.