Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      79
    • No
      99
    • Maybe
      68
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      43
    • No
      99
    • Indifferent
      33


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, XRay said:

I just read this opinion article about the left's perception of America on Fox, and it seems kind of weird. Like, I think the right has moved much farther to the right than the left has move to the left.

I concur with the bolded and even go as far as saying that some on the right don't even understand the politics of the right and are just douchebags who want to play the victim and have their way, they side with the right because it's the political party that's more wiling to go along with what they want as evidenced by Neo-Nazis running as Republicans.

The article is an opinion piece and everyone's entitled to their opinion but opinions do have faults and this one reeks of turning a blind eye to current events, blowing its main talking point out of proportion ("the left’s need to constantly trash or see America in a negative light") and the common misconception that "pursuit of happiness" is exclusive to the US (seriously, what fucking year are these people living in?)

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Well yes, if there's systemic issues that some people see and others don't -- for reasons ranging from "I don't want to shatter my current perceptions" to "I'm physically incapable of experiencing this" -- and nobody wants to help because thou doth complain too much, of course nothing gets done and of course people will undermine our country verbally (speaking out) or symbolically (taking a knee.)

That's the kind of badass freedom we live in. People changing their ideology or alliances because people protest too much is petty. Regardless, we as a society need to destroy the concept of left or right because ideology has a wild tendency to blind us to what's real or practical. I stopped considering myself a liberal, leftist, rationalist, or whatever, just a citizen contributing his part.

Exactly and people on the right always want to frame it all as just being attacks on America and nothing more when more often than not it is a call for the country to continue to improve for EVERYONE and uphold the values of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If there's anything the US is best at these days, it might be setting up the worst election in a Democracy in history.

 

The people on the right who are just in it to hate people of color need to be dealt with, it is clear that some in the right are just in it for their stupid racism and hate and are willing to exercise it without reason even towards people on their political side.

Gem from Pence

Quote

Further, the Presidents repeated lies to the American people in this matter compound the case against him as they demonstrate his failure to protect the institution of the presidency as the ‘inspiring supreme symbol of all that is highest in our American ideals. Leaders affect the lives of families far beyond their own ‘private life’.

I guess in a sea of Trump scandals, it's easy to miss a beautiful opportunity to have this fucker sit down in an interview and be put on the spot with this beauty.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always hated the notion that you can't talk trash about America and also be a patriot.

Generally when I talk trash about America, it's because I want America to be better. Comparing America negatively to other countries isn't me going "America is the worst, fuck America"(Well not always. Actually fuck America sometimes, too), it's me going "these other countries are doing really well, we should be doing just as good or better".

If anything, fuck the people who continue to let America be inadequate. There's no reason to take pride in our prison system, our health system, our education system, our goddamn system for picking politicians, etc.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere along the way, blind jingoism got mistaken for patriotism and Conservatives claimed the concept. Mainstream Conservatives are very good at controlling the narrative and marketing, all while claiming that the left are the ones doing so.

150931978633431.png

But it sort of got me thinking about the whole "censorship" deal (outwith the government, so colloquially used.)

A cartoonist was fired for submitting cartoons criticising the right and Trump after the newspaper was taken over by pro-Trump owners:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/business/media/pittsburgh-cartoonist-fired.html

When it comes to videos that are being censored, Conservatives outlets like PragerU like to claim that they are the only ones that are being deplatformed, while left-wing political channels have also seen either videos demonetised or vastly reduced revenue, while channels like PragerU claims is only happening to their political ideology.

Another Israeli cartoonist was fired over anti-Netanyahu cartoons:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/26/israeli-cartoonist-fired-over-animal-farm-netanyahu-caricature

Look at anyone protesting Israeli actions in general or being pro-Palestine and you would see how quickly they get shut down. Or if they support BDS, like I mentioned before, where there is an actual law pending to make it illegal to support by my reading. You don't even technically need to lean left to support BDS.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/text

Sometimes, making laws to crack down on protesting is very much more effective than single events:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.562db0d6d1a5

Religious fundamentalists, which tend to be right-wing, still want to ban various things for moral reasons to this day. You have elected Republicans like Rick Santorum that have signed pledges stating that they want to ban porn. They (elected Republicans) are generally in favour of (keeping) marijuana banned. Most of them are wanting to revert gay marriage. They want to keep abortion laws as strict as possible.

Speaking of which, here's both Steve Deace and Glenn Beck walking off the sets of an interview because they didn't like the questions they were asked. If a left-wing commentator did this, what do you think the response would be?
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/395870-conservative-radio-host-storms-off-hln-set-during-argument-over-religion
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/393854-glenn-beck-walks-out-of-cnn-interview-after-question-on-future-of-media

And well, the big one is college or school campuses. But I've seen this article (which admittedly, does require a little more research on my part. This source is cited well, but have not looked into the validity of such), and the results are actually quite interesting. It mostly seems to be high-profile Conservatives that are turned down from speaking, while the "minor" instances barely get any attention.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisis-a-close-look-at-the-evidence/

The spreadsheet of the dataset is a decent bit to look through. Not exactly the flush of anti-liberal dismissal that I was expecting to see. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3sVBuRAG1LzIZnsq6LB50NUHk/edit#gid=122618086

Yet, and I don't know if I just haven't seen it, I have not seen any of the traditional free speech warriors come out to protest these in outrage. And yet, the way that Conservatives talk about it, you would imagine that free speech issues not upheld by the government are a uniquely left-wing problem. No doubt, it's a problem, but the above stuff is absolutely not unheard of. And this is something that has propagated quite well.This is why if nothing else, Conservatives tend to be very good at marketing.

At least, the ones that want to continue this whole left-right divide. Intelligent ones as part of both will realise that everyone gets triggered by something, and if you are saying otherwise, you're most certainly lying and pretending your shit doesn't stink. And that's to say nothing of the authoritarian nature of some lefties, who I would prefer not to associate with.

Edited by Edgelord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of shit people say and get in trouble for, what is everyone's take on the Sarah Jeong situation? Is she being racist? Should she be fired? is there significant difference between her case and Roseanne's? Do you have to be someone in power or does your race have to be the "privileged" one in the nation for you to be racist? 

I do think she's being racist in some of her tweets and the left is wrong to claim that none of her tweets are racist but I'm kind of indifferent as to whether or not she should be fired like Roseanne. Ultimately it's up to the company they work for whether or not they're fired but I don't see this case having as valid reasoning for employment termination as Roseanne did and the outcome just doesn't really matter barring these tweets and history being used to continue to bar her from finding work elsewhere. Oh and then there's the hypocrisy on the right for calling foul on her "anti-white" tweets while they defend Trump.

1 hour ago, Edgelord said:

Yet, and I don't know if I just haven't seen it, I have not seen any of the traditional free speech warriors come out to protest these in outrage. And yet, the way that Conservatives talk about it, you would imagine that free speech issues not upheld by the government are a uniquely left-wing problem. No doubt, it's a problem, but the above stuff is absolutely not unheard of. And this is something that has propagated quite well.This is why if nothing else, Conservatives tend to be very good at marketing.

Probably because it isn't convenient or useful for them. See an example with Charlie Kirk.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Speaking of shit people say and get in trouble for, what is everyone's take on the Sarah Jeong situation? Is she being racist? Should she be fired? is there significant difference between her case and Roseanne's? Do you have to be someone in power or does your race have to be the "privileged" one in the nation for you to be racist? 

I do think she's being racist in some of her tweets and the left is wrong to claim that none of her tweets are racist but I'm kind of indifferent as to whether or not she should be fired like Roseanne. Ultimately it's up to the company they work for whether or not they're fired but I don't see this case having as valid reasoning for employment termination as Roseanne did and the outcome just doesn't really matter barring these tweets and history being used to continue to bar her from finding work elsewhere. Oh and then there's the hypocrisy on the right for calling foul on her "anti-white" tweets while they defend Trump.

It's a bit different than the Roseanne situation, since Sarah Jeong was more or less reacting to other people with a lot of those tweets. When you put them in a vacuum, they look way different. And to top it off, she never(As far as I'm aware) directly targeted somebody because of their race, which is a huge diverging point with Roseanne, who also was seemingly making those posts completely unprovoked.

Plus, yeah, it's up to the company. The NYTimes wants to keep Jeong, ABC didn't want to keep Roseanne. If the reverse happened, I don't know how I'd feel.

The whole deal is a sticky situation that I don't really want to try to tackle all that deeply, since honestly, it doesn't really affect me. My life as a white man doesn't feel any more in danger with Sarah Jeong at the NYTimes than it was before they hired her.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let he who has no sin cast the first stone."

IIRC, Roseanne's thing happened while she was at ABC.  Sarah's thing happened before she was hired.  I think Sarah is an interesting case of past social media being used against someone - something that I think will become more common in the future.  I also think that people who criticize her should have THEIR social media combed through as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let he who has no sin cast the first stone."

IIRC, Roseanne's thing happened while she was at ABC.  Sarah's thing happened before she was hired.  I think Sarah is an interesting case of past social media being used against someone - something that I think will become more common in the future.  I also think that people who criticize her should have THEIR social media combed through as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 7:48 PM, Lord Raven said:

Honestly I'm sorry for all of this aside but I just do not believe it is worthwhile or productive to talk about Trump supporters as if they were all brainwashed. Thats how this orange whale with tiny hands continues to thrive. I believe ultimately the government has colossally failed its people on all fronts and Trump is both a symptom and a result of all that. Government and public figures deserve verbal scrutiny like that but not necessarily civilians.

It may not be worthwhile or productive, but it is mostly true. The only exceptions are those who support Trump out of greed.  There are judges in this country who send mentally ill self-medicating people to prison to be tortured. They tortured my mom over a false drug arrest. They tortured my friend for a victimless crime. America is a very dark and insidious country that was born out of war, slavery, and genocide. The sickness that was there at the founding of this country is still alive.

Edited by expshare

Share this post


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

Regardless, we as a society need to destroy the concept of left or right because ideology has a wild tendency to blind us to what's real or practical.

I am not sure if that is necessary. Right and left are convenient short hands, and I think most people are pretty moderate in most cases, or are at least willing to compromise.

14 hours ago, Slumber said:

If anything, fuck the people who continue to let America be inadequate. There's no reason to take pride in our prison system, our health system, our education system, our goddamn system for picking politicians, etc.

Sort of reminds that when somebody says they are nice or some vague positive quality, that immediately raises red flags and expectation is that they fall far short of that quality. I guess that also applies to politics when they say will make America great again, since America is laughing stock right now.

14 hours ago, Edgelord said:

And well, the big one is college or school campuses. But I've seen this article (which admittedly, does require a little more research on my part. This source is cited well, but have not looked into the validity of such), and the results are actually quite interesting. It mostly seems to be high-profile Conservatives that are turned down from speaking, while the "minor" instances barely get any attention.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisis-a-close-look-at-the-evidence/

That is interesting. While I do not like conservative speakers, I do not think it is right for campuses to deny their speeches. However,  The article mentions that they do not have much data on right wing/religious schools, so it would be interesting to see how they compare to more well known/public schools.

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Speaking of shit people say and get in trouble for, what is everyone's take on the Sarah Jeong situation? Is she being racist? Should she be fired? is there significant difference between her case and Roseanne's? Do you have to be someone in power or does your race have to be the "privileged" one in the nation for you to be racist? 

I do think she's being racist in some of her tweets and the left is wrong to claim that none of her tweets are racist but I'm kind of indifferent as to whether or not she should be fired like Roseanne. Ultimately it's up to the company they work for whether or not they're fired but I don't see this case having as valid reasoning for employment termination as Roseanne did and the outcome just doesn't really matter barring these tweets and history being used to continue to bar her from finding work elsewhere. Oh and then there's the hypocrisy on the right for calling foul on her "anti-white" tweets while they defend Trump.

Probably because it isn't convenient or useful for them. See an example with Charlie Kirk.

I do think it is racist, but since it is from quite a while ago and it is not targeting a specific individual, I would give her a pass. As long as a person apologizes, I think the public humiliation is good enough and I do not think further punishment is necessary.

The context do also matter in my opinion, I have not read too deeply into it, but she claims she responding to harassment and that she is satiring their language. I personally have no problem with her retaliating that way, and I think an eye for an eye is perfectly justifiable. However, she does need to watch out since not everyone feels that way about responding in kind.

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

IIRC, Roseanne's thing happened while she was at ABC.  Sarah's thing happened before she was hired.

I think that is a big factor as well, although I think firing Roseanne seemed a bit harsh, since she did apologize. She is also a comedian, and I generally give them more leeway since you are not supposed to take their words too seriously.

- - - - - - -

Fuck you, Trump. You are nothing but a piece of nasty ass lard mixed with petroleum. I wish someone would shove a branding iron down your throat and ass to seal your pig holes up. I hope global warming will cause you bigly property damages so you would get a taste of what people are going through here in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Miller is at it again. I'm not surprised about this in the slightest, just putting it out there and wondering if anyone actually is.

And then there's the Chris Collins bombshell that's posted everywhere and after about 8 months or so, the tease between the Trump-Mueller interview ends with Trump's lawyers saying no to the interview. Will Mueller Subpoena Trump and put Giuliani in further self-destruction? Find out next time on #FuckTrump.

Also, isn't the "Religious Liberty Task force" that Sessions wants to put forward a violation of the first amendment?

Trump's EPA allowing asbestos. Which country would benefit most from this? Russia. and they love it

Oh lordy there are MORE tapes and it's not from Cohen or Omarosa

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Stephen Miller is at it again. I'm not surprised about this in the slightest, just putting it out there and wondering if anyone actually is.

Not surprised about assholes being repulsive. That is a huge dick move to people who are practically no different from normal Americans at this point, with the only difference being that they are not technically American.

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Also, isn't the "Religious Liberty Task force" that Sessions wants to put forward a violation of the first amendment?

I think so, but I am not too sure. How I understand it is that the government should make no little to no reference to religion and have a hands off approach. I think that means the government should be religion-blind and basically have a "meh, who cares" attitude, which I assume it also means it cannot promote secularism either, or else that would mean the government is having a stance on religion.

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Trump's EPA allowing asbestos. Which country would benefit most from this? Russia. and they love it

Trump is already showing signs of being senile. Maybe it is best to let him install abestos in his own home to speed up the deterioration of his mind so it becomes abundantly clear that he is unfit to govern.

Share this post


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

Trump is already showing signs of being senile. Maybe it is best to let him install abestos in his own home to speed up the deterioration of his mind so it becomes abundantly clear that he is unfit to govern.

Asbestos is actually crazy useful, and it's only dangerous if you breathe in the fibers. We still use it in a ton of things, the risk is usually only present if whatever it's used in is destroyed (like a building), splitting fibers and sending them airborne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Johann said:

Asbestos is actually crazy useful, and it's only dangerous if you breathe in the fibers. We still use it in a ton of things, the risk is usually only present if whatever it's used in is destroyed (like a building), splitting fibers and sending them airborne.

I still do not want it to be near me though, and I definitely do not want it in my home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're bringing Asbsetos back!?!?!?!?

...omg...that's a toxic torts attorney's wet dream...

(There's guys who legit do nothing but litigate asbestos exposure cases, for plaintiffs who have developed mesothelioma. They're all gazillionaires.) 

 

 


Image result for nj asbestos attorney
 

 

 


^^^

No joke.

That is a standalone business-model for a multimillion dollar law firm

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XRay said:

I still do not want it to be near me though, and I definitely do not want it in my home.

There's a real possibility it already is in your home or someplace you go regularly, not to mention some products you use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, America. So determined to become a laughing stock. I mean....sure, the gun culture or the phobia in regards to healthcare may seem silly to other countries but you can at least explain it as part of America's culture. But Asbsetos? That stuff causing cancer isn't some radical new discovery. Just about every civilized country probably outlawed its use decades ago. Putting it into buildings around here would probably result in some pretty hefty lawsuits if discovered. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh, America. So determined to become a laughing stock. I mean....sure, the gun culture or the phobia in regards to healthcare may seem silly to other countries but you can at least explain it as part of America's culture. But Asbsetos? That stuff causing cancer isn't some radical new discovery. Just about every civilized country probably outlawed its use decades ago. Putting it into buildings around here would probably result in some pretty hefty lawsuits if discovered. 

And thus, Winston Churchill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Just about every civilized country probably outlawed its use decades ago.

You'd be surprised to learn it's very much legal in a lot of countries (particularly developing ones), and most places where it's banned have only done so in the last 10 or 20 years. Canada was one of the major producers up until a few years ago, and are only now banning it. These days it's pretty much all coming from Russia, China, and Brazil (even though Brazil has since banned it's use I believe). It IS something of a wonder material due to how strong and fire resistant it is, and it's certainly in many buildings across the US. If there were a way to ensure that the fibers couldn't become airborne ever, it'd be perfectly safe, since it doesn't do anything to you if you touch or even eat it.

Pretty sure it's used in brake pads still too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump Jr. apparently discovered photoshop. Look closely on Trump's 50% approval number.

Study on the alt-right

Kavanaugh confirmation hearings soon

Quick breakdown of Laura Ingraham's recent demographics monologue

American Renaissance channel referenced in previous video. Couldn't help but cringe when I saw their welcome video.

Melania Trump's immigration lawyer calls out Trump on chain migration

There's also a claim that CNN planted an anti-trump on a panel of "Trump voters" to chime in on how they feel about him. Do note that this source is alt-right and it is rather questionable but this particular story actually seems like it could be legit.

Who would've fucking thought that Americans would want a better minimum wage, healthcare and college?

Stephen Miller's own uncle calls him a hypocrite when it comes to immigration and compares him to Nazis.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 6:41 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Donald Trump Jr. apparently discovered photoshop. Look closely on Trump's 50% approval number.

That is not fake news, that is being smart at using a computer and rounding up properly.

 

- - - - - - -

 

This is just a random thought that came to me, but is it okay to plagiarize Trump's campaign? Specifically, I want Democrats to take their MAGA motto. Melania plagiarized Michelle's speech, so there is a precedent for copying your opponent.

I like the the motto MAGA, because I think it sounds nice and patriotic. It is also pretty vague and void of meaning, so you can basically attach that to any agenda you want. While Democrats do not have a reason to use MAGA before, Democrats do have a reason to use that motto now because America is clearly not so great anymore: our standing in the world has fallen; our stock market's performance is stalling; and while our economy looks great on the surface, wages are stagnant, people cannot afford to buy homes anymore, and all of our export oriented industry are in jeopardy due to trade wars with agriculture seeming like they may need taxpayer bailouts.

There was some discussion among Democrats whether we should focus more on flipping red voters blue or changing non voters to voters, and with some saying that it is not a binary choice and we can actually do both. I guess taking the MAGA motto would be more along the lines of flipping voters and speaking their language.

Instead of framing MAGA around fear like building walls and "protecting" American industry by slapping tariffs on everyone, Democrats can frame MAGA along more positive policies, like reinforcing ACA to help combat the opioid epidemic, actually spending money on infrastructure in rural America, and provide job training to people in dying industries and maybe even help them relocate to better job markets.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was ever a good time for Democrats to use "MAGA" as part of their campaign, I'm not sure if that is now, I think it'll hurt them more than help. Besides, "Make America Great Again" resonates more on the Republican side as it was probably meant to appeal to people who think Reagan was the best.

The other slogan that Trump used (although not as frequently) is "America First" and to that the answer is simply "just no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am just slightly annoyed that Republicans got the cooler sounding motto while Democrats got like... nothing.

It is kind of like how the pseudoscience astrology got the better -ology suffix, while the science astronomy is forced to use -nomy.

Democrats need a rallying cry in my opinion. Maybe something like SAFE: Save America from evil. Does not sound as powerful as MAGA, but the acronym is a real word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats don't need a fancy slogan, what they need are good candidates who can actually inspire people to vote.  They need more to run on than "At least we aren't Republicans" to draw in the left wing vote.

Share this post


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

The Democrats don't need a fancy slogan, what they need are good candidates who can actually inspire people to vote.  They need more to run on than "At least we aren't Republicans" to draw in the left wing vote.

Having slogans help though, at least in my opinion. You got to appeal to the crowd and sell yourself to get the votes. Not having a slogan is not a big deal I guess, but it never hurts to have one.

Just having something in common to chant can help foster unity and solidarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jim jefferies did a bit on that

I don't like slogans but throughout history they've worked so

Edited by Lord Raven

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.