libtard snowflake

General US Politics

Poll  

204 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      67
    • No
      82
    • Maybe
      55
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      34
    • No
      77
    • Indifferent
      22


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

I could argue with some of the above points, but if that's really a fight you want to have, you should start a new thread. 

Why say anything if you’re assuming I’m trying to pick a fight? Was anything I said particularly offensive? Because it sounds to me like what you’re describing is a reinforcement of gender norms more than age-based maturity.

A 30-year-old who attempts a relationship with a 14 or 16 year old has maturity issues himself or he’s a citizen in a socially backwards third world country like Pakistan (which was my country of reference if you were curious, because a lot of southern tradition and culture as you describe it reminds me of highly conservative Pakistani culture that I’ve thankfully only seen from the outside). I believe this comparison is a worthwhile one to make, because I’m offering my perspective on young marriage to older people and how even in the best case scenario to your anecdote it’s not comparable to Roy Moore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's somewhat of a call to the same rule authority may have over you in a relationship, or why most people see a problem with a teacher and student relationship, or a boss and worker, or a psychiatrist or doctor and patient from an ethical standpoint. It's possible for a 30 year old to manipulate a teenager into believing that's what they want.

There was a sixteen year old that came through with a sexual assault allegation as well, and he even left a message in her high school yearbook.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/roy-moore-signed-latest-accusers-high-school-yearbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Archer of Red said:

And if anyone asks why Wikileaks is no longer credible, this is the most direct proof we have.

Ironic that “independent whistle blowers” were part of this conspiracy the whole time. Either way, that is playing into Putin’s hands; the whistleblower is selective and unreliable, so what information can we trust?

thank god for NYT, WaPo and to a lesser extent The Hill, The Atlantic, and 538.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”

Seems to be an acknowledgement from Wikileaks that they are in fact, a pro-Trump/pro-Russia source. Not that the "wikileaks is 100% objective no really you gais" will actually acknowledge this.

 

EDIT: It gets even better

Edited by The Gift of Jericho

Share this post


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

Why say anything if you’re assuming I’m trying to pick a fight? Was anything I said particularly offensive? Because it sounds to me like what you’re describing is a reinforcement of gender norms more than age-based maturity.

A 30-year-old who attempts a relationship with a 14 or 16 year old has maturity issues himself or he’s a citizen in a socially backwards third world country like Pakistan (which was my country of reference if you were curious, because a lot of southern tradition and culture as you describe it reminds me of highly conservative Pakistani culture that I’ve thankfully only seen from the outside). I believe this comparison is a worthwhile one to make, because I’m offering my perspective on young marriage to older people and how even in the best case scenario to your anecdote it’s not comparable to Roy Moore.

My apologies. "Fight" was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant "conversation", but I was sleepy and miswrote. I stand by the fact that there's nothing extremely political about the relationships between younger and older people. It's more of an ethical topic, and hence, off-topic within this particular thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Lets not gloss over the fact that this isn’t what Judge Moore is accused of doing.  He’s accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl, while her mother was in proceedings before his court.

…which if true, is not just sexually predatory behavior. It’s an abuse of public office, a violation of The Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys and officers of the court, and behavior that if it had come to light during the course of his judgeship would have been grounds for his immediate removal from the bench + disbarment from the practice of law.

I'm quoting why it actually is political.

And also because it's not about the age gap, it's about the power imbalance, as everyone has been saying. A man who abuses his power in this fashion can't be trusted not to abuse it in other ways. It's very relevant to this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Res said:

I'm quoting why it actually is political.

And also because it's not about the age gap, it's about the power imbalance, as everyone has been saying. A man who abuses his power in this fashion can't be trusted not to abuse it in other ways. It's very relevant to this thread.

 

Exactly. I wasn't trying to make a point about whether Roy Moore was OK or not, I think he's a pervert and he should probably drop out. I was just noting that not all romantic relationships between teenagers and adults are immoral or unwise. 

EDIT: If you want to know my actual opinion on the whole Roy Moore deal, this pretty much sums it up.

Edited by SullyMcGully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a note on that article: Clinton was impeached and Louis CK has been rightly dropped by FX and HBO, had his premier canceled and, thankfully, I've seen a lot of outlets reject his so-called 'apology'. So I'm not sure either of them has normalized anything.

That being said; sure, there's abuse of power everywhere (and yes, there are a few female celebrities in positions of power who've also been accused), from politics to entertainment to religion; has been for decades, and a lot of it has been wrongly tolerated for too long. I'm not sure why Weinstein was finally a tipping point (this is the first time I've really felt public tide turning), but I'm glad, and I hope it means the end of careers for lots of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikileaks is a dangerous organization, and I regret supporting it before I realized that it wouldn't just leak stuff from people I didn't like. Assange's ideology is based on radical transparency; I don't like hyperbole but I do believe that this could lead to collapse. This whole situation really is emblematic of the idea that there are no bad actions, only bad motives that is unfortunately becoming more and more common.

2 hours ago, Res said:

As a note on that article: Clinton was impeached and Louis CK has been rightly dropped by FX and HBO, had his premier canceled and, thankfully, I've seen a lot of outlets reject his so-called 'apology'. So I'm not sure either of them has normalized anything.

That being said; sure, there's abuse of power everywhere (and yes, there are a few female celebrities in positions of power who've also been accused), from politics to entertainment to religion; has been for decades, and a lot of it has been wrongly tolerated for too long. I'm not sure why Weinstein was finally a tipping point (this is the first time I've really felt public tide turning), but I'm glad, and I hope it means the end of careers for lots of people. 

Wait, what was the problem with his apology? I have seen a lot of extremely inadequate apologies from many people accused of stuff like this, and I didn't think his was one of them; it admitted to wrongdoing with no reservations, it made no excuses, etc. Now, obviously I agree with dropping his show and I personally don't think any apology is enough to completely make amends(he has to back it up with action and has to make things right with the individuals he hurt) but I saw nothing wrong with the apology itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Wikileaks is a dangerous organization, and I regret supporting it before I realized that it wouldn't just leak stuff from people I didn't like. Assange's ideology is based on radical transparency; I don't like hyperbole but I do believe that this could lead to collapse. This whole situation really is emblematic of the idea that there are no bad actions, only bad motives that is unfortunately becoming more and more common.

I mean, what we've seen here is very evident that Assange doesn't care for transparency as much as he says he does. The fact that Wikileaks thought that Trump would get him appointed Australia's ambassador to the US is, aside from being fucking disgusting to me as an Australian citizen, emblematic of a rather extreme level of hypocrisy.

29 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Wait, what was the problem with his apology? I have seen a lot of extremely inadequate apologies from many people accused of stuff like this, and I didn't think his was one of them; it admitted to wrongdoing with no reservations, it made no excuses, etc. Now, obviously I agree with dropping his show and I personally don't think any apology is enough to completely make amends(he has to back it up with action and has to make things right with the individuals he hurt) but I saw nothing wrong with the apology itself.

I think that's the point. News outlets rejecting his apology isn't down to anything wrong with the apology, and more saying that his apology isn't good enough. Which is absolutely true, but like you said, he's handling it better than others. *Cough cough* Kevin Spacey *cough cough*

Edited by Archer of Red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archer of Red said:

I mean, what we've seen here is very evident that Assange doesn't care for transparency as much as he says he does. The fact that Wikileaks thought that Trump would get him appointed Australia's ambassador to the US is, aside from being fucking disgusting to me as an Australian citizen, emblematic of a rather extreme level of hypocrisy.

I think that's the point. News outlets rejecting his apology isn't down to anything wrong with the apology, and more saying that his apology isn't good enough. Which is absolutely true, but like you said, he's handling it better than others. *Cough cough* Kevin Spacey *cough cough*

I feel like rejecting someone's apology is saying that their apology isn't good enough AS AN APOLOGY, though. Plus Res putting it in quotes suggests that he didn't apologize enough. Right now my attitude is "good apology, now work to make it right".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until as recently as last month he was still denying the allegations (and rumors have been floating around for years; I had heard enough to avoid his show) and he only wrote the apology once his hand was forced, and his ship was already sinking. His claims of self-reflection ring hollow with that knowledge.

It was better written than most, but it was the absolute bare minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I feel like rejecting someone's apology is saying that their apology isn't good enough AS AN APOLOGY, though. Plus Res putting it in quotes suggests that he didn't apologize enough. Right now my attitude is "good apology, now work to make it right".

As Res mentioned above, his apology isn't bad in itself, but the context behind it basically ruins the gesture. If he actually starts working hard at redeeming himself in the eyes of the public, maybe I'll change my mind, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense, I suppose. I hadn't been following this situation much at all and wasn't aware that these allegations were a consistent thing. I am somewhat reminded of Casey Affleck who had the best handling of this I've seen in that he never denied it and settled out of court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. So now we know Assange and Wikileaks were acting like rats last election we can safely dismiss any good intentions on their part. Having good intentions and willingly enabling a Trump win don't mix, all the more so should they be pro Russian too.

They likely just wanted revenge against the US for forcing their leader to live in a closet and now they have it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the end, the ultimate belief as to why Trump won is because Wikileaks and Russia prioritized digging up dirt on Clinton over Trump? Seems the real fix here would have been to nominate candidates who didn't have a bunch of shady dealings in their past. Is it too much to ask for an honest president every few decades?

Share this post


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

Until as recently as last month he was still denying the allegations (and rumors have been floating around for years; I had heard enough to avoid his show) and he only wrote the apology once his hand was forced, and his ship was already sinking. His claims of self-reflection ring hollow with that knowledge.

It was better written than most, but it was the absolute bare minimum.

The funny thing is, if he acknowledged these claims and made a public apology 2-3 years ago when they started surfacing, he likely would have avoided a lot of the backlash that a lot of these recent sexual harassment/assault claims have been generating. Now he's another big name that's gonna get tossed around like Spacey and Weinstein.

Not saying it would have made his actions any less shitty, but he likely wouldn't have had to have cancelled his tours, a movie, and any other public appearances.

Just goes to show that your past is gonna catch up with you, and you're gonna wear yourself out running from it.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

So in the end, the ultimate belief as to why Trump won is because Wikileaks and Russia prioritized digging up dirt on Clinton over Trump? Seems the real fix here would have been to nominate candidates who didn't have a bunch of shady dealings in their past. Is it too much to ask for an honest president every few decades?

Wishful thinking, but Trump probably won because of many reasons, to narrow it down to one is more than likely wrong.

An area of concern is that we can't trust Wikileaks to be non-partisan if they do this sort of thing, which is kind of the thing they present themselves as independent whistle blowers. There's nothing to really say that Wikileaks didn't have GOP emails as well and decided not to release them as was a concern during the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange is stuck in a really small space no thanks to the US.  I think that would make him anti-US, instead of impartial.  Wikileaks is a cool idea, but it MUST be a neutral source to be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Wishful thinking, but Trump probably won because of many reasons, to narrow it down to one is more than likely wrong.

An area of concern is that we can't trust Wikileaks to be non-partisan if they do this sort of thing, which is kind of the thing they present themselves as independent whistle blowers. There's nothing to really say that Wikileaks didn't have GOP emails as well and decided not to release them as was a concern during the election.

This. The Russia/Wikileaks narrative will likely be paraded around for a while by Clinton Democrats, but it will ignore the other factors leading to her defeat, most of which were more significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

So in the end, the ultimate belief as to why Trump won is because Wikileaks and Russia prioritized digging up dirt on Clinton over Trump? Seems the real fix here would have been to nominate candidates who didn't have a bunch of shady dealings in their past. Is it too much to ask for an honest president every few decades?

I’m not gonna lie; this is a really crappy argument. Clinton had shady dealings that absolutely pale in comparison to Trump.

It’s more complicated than that. As it stands now, it looks like a great part of the reason for the loss is a targeted propaganda campaign that suppressed voters and ultimately bred an “us vs them” mentality that Trump was more than happy to groom and Clinton didn’t participate in nearly as much as Trump.

I mean, this narrative is pushed around a lot but she beat Bernie in the primaries quite fairly and by a significant margin.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


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

As a note on that article: Clinton was impeached and Louis CK has been rightly dropped by FX and HBO, had his premier canceled and, thankfully, I've seen a lot of outlets reject his so-called 'apology'. So I'm not sure either of them has normalized anything.

That being said; sure, there's abuse of power everywhere (and yes, there are a few female celebrities in positions of power who've also been accused), from politics to entertainment to religion; has been for decades, and a lot of it has been wrongly tolerated for too long. I'm not sure why Weinstein was finally a tipping point (this is the first time I've really felt public tide turning), but I'm glad, and I hope it means the end of careers for lots of people. 

his apology seemed pretty genuine to me? as opposed to folks like roy moore or kevin spacey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

This. The Russia/Wikileaks narrative will likely be paraded around for a while by Clinton Democrats, but it will ignore the other factors leading to her defeat, most of which were more significant.

I really, really just want Clinton to go away. If she tries to run again, I'm pretty certain we'll have to suffer another 4 years of Trump. As much as all this information is good to shed light on the scumminess involved with this past election, I also fear that it will embolden Hillary again. "I've finally got my chance!" she'll say once again after 12 years of saying it.

Democrats really need to get rid of the "corporate democrat" image. They'll keep losing middle America.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


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

I’m not gonna lie; this is a really crappy argument. Clinton had shady dealings that absolutely pale in comparison to Trump.

It’s more complicated than that. As it stands now, it looks like a great part of the reason for the loss is a targeted propaganda campaign that suppressed voters and ultimately bred an “us vs them” mentality that Trump was more than happy to groom and Clinton didn’t participate in nearly as much as Trump.

I mean, this narrative is pushed around a lot but she beat Bernie in the primaries quite fairly and by a significant margin.

It's difficult to draw conclusions about an election without a least some measure of time and research.  There has been a movement on both sides to polarize into separate uncompromising camps, of that I think there can be little argument.  But I think I could make as just a much an argument that Trump won the presidency because of the pendulum nature of the American political system.  Basically the 20% of the nation who decide elections (about 80% of people seem to be pretty entrenched in terms of party support) figured we had a Democrat President for eight years, so the appropriate response is a Republican president.  The reason why the country feels so screwy right now is because Democrats as party have done an inept job at winning local races and contesting for governorships and  control of state legislatures, allowing Republicans to gerrymander districts and limit liberal's relative political might(doesn't help that many are concentrated in cities).  On the positives for Democrats, it looks like they will start contesting better for those seats if Virginia is a template.  

But on the other hand, we may just be in a cycle where the only national power the Democrats can have is the Presidency and Republicans will basically control the house and the Senate.  Remember, the Democrats basically controlled both houses of Congress unimpeded from 1954-1994,  

5 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I really, really just want Clinton to go away. If she tries to run again, I'm pretty certain we'll have to suffer another 4 years of Trump. As much as all this information is good to shed light on the scumminess involved with this past election, I also fear that it will embolden Hillary again. "I've finally got my chance!" she'll say once again after 12 years of saying it.

Democrats really need to get rid of the "corporate democrat" image. They'll keep losing middle America.

Eh, she's too proud to go away, but she has no chance of being the Democratic candidate  in 2020, that so rarely happens in American political history, I can only think of 3 examples in American history (Henry Clay 1824, 1832, 1840 William Jennings Bryan 1896 and 1900, and Addlai E Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 and Stevenson was a sacrificial lamb offered at the alter of Eisenhower).  The Democrats have a difficult line to walk though, the corporate part of the party is what I suspect draws in many of the new converts to the left, upper-middle class Americans with college degrees that had classically been a swing group with a slight lean to the right.  They need to run candidates that can win in individual districts.  The national elections just need to run a middle of the road candidate that excites the base because of personality and can win middle-America with moderate policies. 

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.