Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

252 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      83
    • No
      100
    • Maybe
      69
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      44
    • No
      101
    • Indifferent
      36


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, XRay said:

What do you mean? Which topics are you talking about?

Civil rights.  I'd like to see the topic before deciding whether or not I care about it, since it can be a rather broad descriptor.

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 1:39 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Do you believe there is such a thing as a "neutral stance" when it comes to Civil Rights?

As a matter of ideological preference--Yes. Individual persons may be truly undecided or ambivalent or disinterested, on-the-issues. As a matter of social utility and political pressure: [NO]

Active support is the force of propulsion for changing the status-quo. Opposition, disinterest, and ambivalence are forces of resistance (political inertia, so-to-speak). Apathy/disinterest/neutrality--though ideologically distinguishable--is therefore functionally equivalent to opposition to change + support for the status-quo.

A "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to support for a civil right, if the status-quo holds that the civil right exists and is protected. (i.e. an "neutral position"  on guns in America is a de-facto position of support for treating private gun ownership as a fundamental civil right)

Conversely, a "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to opposition to a civil right if the status-quo holds that the civil right does not exist or is not protected (i.e. a "neutral position" on healthcare in America is a de-facto position of support for the idea that access to medical treatment is NOT a protected civil right; its a market commodity)

______

Martin Luther King had a great quote on-point:  

"
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate...shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." (MLK; April 16, 1963)


 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 9:47 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Active support is the force of propulsion for changing the status-quo. Opposition, disinterest, and ambivalence are forces of resistance (political inertia, so-to-speak). Apathy/disinterest/neutrality--though ideologically distinguishable--is therefore functionally equivalent to opposition to change + support for the status-quo.

A "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to support for a civil right, if the status-quo holds that the civil right exists and is protected. (i.e. an "neutral position"  on guns in America is a de-facto position of support for treating private gun ownership as a fundamental civil right)

Conversely, a "neutral position" is functionally equivalent to opposition to a civil right if the status-quo holds that the civil right does not exist or is not protected (i.e. a "neutral position" on healthcare in America is a de-facto position of support for the idea that access to medical treatment is NOT a protected civil right; its a market commodity) 
 

 

So I have a question then regarding being neutral. (I'm know I haven't posted here in a while but I'm showing somehow how this site works since they want to join. They love fire emblem and want to talk to others so I'm showing them the forum section) I ask this because I want to know what the stance is.

What if you take a position that is neither apathetic or disinterested (albeit you are still not fully educated on the topic and all it's complexities) but focusing on issues that are more relevant to you. 

For instance, I have my own battles I'm fighting. I really can't expend the time to go help others when my cause is woefully ignored and has nobody on board. Not very many people actively try to propose ideas or solutions that can be put into effect to make a difference or change in the status quo. I have to talk to numerous people and even then, unless I offer some incentive for them to join my cause, nobody wants to pitch in. 

But yet, after I've implemented some changes everyone wants to get mad and question why it wasn't done sooner. They accuse others of not caring. I was going to type more but maybe later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got some enjoyment out of the Trump administration being harder on guns than the supposed gun grabber Democrats and Obama with the reveal of the bump stock ban to be voted on.

As much as I'll give Trump credit for actually getting his Attorney General to sign it, it was never going to be the end all or be all, but the way some gun people act is the doomsday scenario and this is the one thing Trump has done that is unforgivable, which is fucking hilarious.

I saw some of those guys say they have long memories and won't vote for Trump in 2020. Maybe so, but fat chance on the long memory thing. Do these people honestly get taken in by the obvious conman with no convictions? Compromising your own ideals to own the libs.

It'll probably be forgotten about next week knowing how these things seem to go with Trump's base but nevertheless, it was an interesting dynamic.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 9:47 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Martin Luther King had a great quote on-point:  

"
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate...shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." (MLK; April 16, 1963)



 

Seems like an understatement.

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I got some enjoyment out of the Trump administration being harder on guns than the supposed gun grabber Democrats and Obama with the reveal of the bump stock ban to be voted on.

As much as I'll give Trump credit for actually getting his Attorney General to sign it, it was never going to be the end all or be all, but the way some gun people act is the doomsday scenario and this is the one thing Trump has done that is unforgivable, which is fucking hilarious.

I saw some of those guys say they have long memories and won't vote for Trump in 2020. Maybe so, but fat chance on the long memory thing. Do these people honestly get taken in by the obvious conman with no convictions? Compromising your own ideals to own the libs.

It'll probably be forgotten about next week knowing how these things seem to go with Trump's base but nevertheless, it was an interesting dynamic.

Got examples to share? I imagined the gun nuts would flip when I first heard about and the most amusing bit of it is the bolded, remember when they said: "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM WHO'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS"? Now you've literally got law enforcement coming for an accessory that most mass shooters don't even use or know about.

I'm seeing lots of commentators on the left giving Trump credit for this and someone I know on the right asking me what I thought about this bump stock ban. I'm not 100% sure what to think on it because I haven't looked into it much past what a bump stock does but from what little I know so far, I think this is rather insignificant for the purpose of reducing/dealing with mass shootings and it's a better example of "punishing responsible gun hobbyists" than anything being touted by a "common sense gun control" advocates. Maybe I'm wrong and there's more use of the bump stocks in mass shootings than I think there is.

I've heard some speculation that this move was done by Trump to try and distance himself from the NRA for the Russian money and scandals related to Maria Butina. If so, it's even more salt in the wound to Trump voting gun nuts and they got what they voted for.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


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

Got examples to share? I imagined the gun nuts would flip when I first heard about and the most amusing bit of it is the bolded, remember when they said: "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM WHO'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS"? Now you've literally got law enforcement coming for an accessory that most mass shooters don't even use or know about.

I'm seeing lots of commentators on the left giving Trump credit for this and someone I know on the right asking me what I thought about this bump stock ban. I'm not 100% sure what to think on it because I haven't looked into it much past what a bump stock does but from what little I know so far, I think this is rather insignificant for the purpose of reducing/dealing with mass shootings and it's a better example of "punishing responsible gun hobbyists" than anything being touted by a "common sense gun control" advocates. Maybe I'm wrong and there's more use of the bump stocks in mass shootings than I think there is.

I've heard some speculation that this move was done by Trump to try and distance himself from the NRA for the Russian money and scandals related to Maria Butina. If so, it's even more salt in the wound to Trump voting gun nuts and they got what they voted for.

Eh, I was just watching random "2A" guys on youtube. Funny thing is they usually seem to have a "Don't tread on me" flag or slogan, American flag, "liberty or death" or some shit behind them more often than not. Some of them at least admitted that they never trusted the Democrats or Republicans, but I don't know how much of that is covering asses. I saw that most of them weren't very fond of cops if they mentioned them as well, which is an interesting comparison to your more traditional conservative. Also a lot of strongman "I'm not giving them my shit over my dead body" in the comments, but we all know most of these people will never do shit. 

I heard that bump stocks weren't the only thing that were highlight as part of the law and it's redefining what might be considered an automatic weapons, so other accessories like sights may be on the chopping block to some degree too.

It's not really that I find that it's going to make any sort of massive improvement, and it is not something I care about pushing, but it's certainly I didn't expect Trump to take, and I give credit to him on the very few rare occasions when that happens.

It was just more that Trump supporters were all like "bad trump >:(" for two weeks after he sent missiles to Syria and have fully forgotten about it. When the fearmongering comes in about the big bad Democrats coming to take all your guns away at election time those folks will be right back to voting for the same.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


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

US Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce asylum restrictions

Trump's justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch) of course voted for Trump and Ginsburg voted against it from her hospital bed. It's incredible that such a simple decision actually ended up being 5-4...

lol

The mere fact that a) something like this goes to a 5-4 decision and b) that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are very clearly voting along a party line paints a dire picture for what the Supreme Court decisions will be like for the next 3 decades.

My only hope at this point is that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don't die/retire until there's a Democratic president, because if Conservatives get to put a 3rd person on the SCOTUS then the US is going to be completely fucked.

Edited by Time the Crestfallen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

The mere fact that a) something like this goes to a 5-4 decision and b) that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are very clearly voting along a party line paints a dire picture for what the Supreme Court decisions will be like for the next 3 decades.

My only hope at this point is that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don't die/retire until there's a Democratic president, because if Conservatives get to put a 3rd person on the SCOTUS then the US is going to be completely fucked.

...What? Why?

Edited by Pixelman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pixelman said:

...What? Why?

Because considering the SCOTUS Judges that are the most likely to die/retire right now are Ginsburg or Breyer due to their advanced ages and if Trump or someone like him gets to nominate their replacement the outright Conservatives (as far as I understand Roberts can be a bit of a swing vote) would have a 5-4, potentially 6-3 majority for probably at least a decade. Perhaps 'completely fucked' is a hyperbolic statement, but my position is that it would be extremely detrimental to the US if the current iteration of the Republican Party was able to place a 3rd Judge on the SCOTUS.

Edited by Time the Crestfallen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

Because considering the SCOTUS Judges that are the most likely to die/retire right now are Ginsburg or Breyer due to their advanced ages and if Trump or someone like him gets to nominate their replacement the outright Conservatives (as far as I understand Roberts can be a bit of a swing vote) would have a 5-4, potentially 6-3 majority for probably at least a decade. Perhaps 'completely fucked' is a hyperbolic statement, but my position is that it would be extremely detrimental to the US if the current iteration of the Republican Party was able to place a 3rd Judge on the SCOTUS.

At best, no major forward moving/progressive rulings would be made in that time frame. At worst, we'd get incredibly regressive rulings and overturning of old court cases that set precedents.

I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

My problem is that even if Trump goes down, Mike Pence takes over and his appointments will likely be just as bad as Trumps, so even if Trump goes down to Mueller or something we'd still be fucked if a SCOTUS vacancy opens up prior to the 2020 election. There's also the fact that if the Republicans manage to hold onto a Senate Majority, we might learn whether or not Ted Cruz was serious about Republicans indefinitely blocking Democrat nominations to the SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Slumber said:

At best, no major forward moving/progressive rulings would be made in that time frame. At worst, we'd get incredibly regressive rulings and overturning of old court cases that set precedents.

I don't know how this works out, but if Trump does get indicted/investigated for something, is he allowed to still appoint SC justices? Because that might be something of an out until the election, supposing Mueller's investigation yields something on Trump.

Well Obama was not allowed to appoint Judges merely for the crime of being in his final year as president. You'd think being a president that's under investigation would be a far bigger crime than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23-12-2018 at 6:50 AM, Time the Crestfallen said:

My problem is that even if Trump goes down, Mike Pence takes over and his appointments will likely be just as bad as Trumps, so even if Trump goes down to Mueller or something we'd still be fucked if a SCOTUS vacancy opens up prior to the 2020 election. There's also the fact that if the Republicans manage to hold onto a Senate Majority, we might learn whether or not Ted Cruz was serious about Republicans indefinitely blocking Democrat nominations to the SCOTUS.

If anything Pence will nominate people like Roberts, not clearly unqualified partisan hacks like Gorsuch. In that sense your supreme court will be highly unpalatable for the coming few decades, but at least basically competent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23-12-2018 at 5:11 AM, Pixelman said:

...What? Why?

If the supreme court majority becomes extreme right wing activists, they can overrule a bunch of their previous rulings.

Abortion and gay marriage rights were things the SC made legal through their rulings, and those decisions can(and probably will be) overturned if the right wing activists get the majority. 

Chevron deference, the ability of executive agencies like the EPA to decide what kind of policy they want to pursue within their congressional mandate without interference from the courts, is also on the chopping block. Gorsuch really wants to get rid of it. This essentially means that the SC gives itself a say on things like whether or not asbestos gets banned by the EPA, amongst other things. Outside of the obvious balance of powers issue, without chevron deference a right wing(or left wing) court can stonewall any executive agency from doing anything as long as they have a majority. 

Finally there's the religious freedom(and freedom from religion) and discrimination issues. Masterpiece cakeshop was a good example of this. Things like laws for prayer in school, "in god we trust" signs in the state legislatures, etc. Generally accomodating christians in showinghow christian they are, and allowing them to discriminate against jews/muslims/agnosts/homosexuals/transgenders/etc because of their 'religious beliefs'. Considering the history the US has with discrimination against minority religion that's probably gonna make a return as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larverto said:

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh.

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I really wanna see who else is running and what their campaigns are looking like before I commit to a primary contender. 

I like Warren on policy. But I have serious concerns about her ability to mount an effective campaign on the national level. Not sure how the positions that make her such a beloved figure in Massachusetts play in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  (I hope she proves me wrong)
_______

I'm also concerned that if shes running and Bernie's running, you have two far-lefties with the same base that cannibalize each other's support and make it impossible for either one of them to be viable against a candidate that captures the Clinton/Obama moderate bulk of the party. 

Of Warren and Sanders: one has to drop out (or fizzle) very early in the process and the left has to fully consolidate behind the other, if the center consolidates early around--sayyyyyyy--Joe Biden, in the mainstream alternative.

Still very early in the process. But these are problems to anticipate at some point down the road. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also her crusade to prove she's "native american" was distasteful. i'm between 6-10 generations removed from nigerian ancestors according to 23andme--am i black now? i'm even from a black neighborhood!! (i'm ~49% irish/uk and ~50% jordanian/lebanese but look 1000% irish to clear that up.)

if sanders and warren really are both running, which i hope will not be the case, i think it'd be best for warren to move aside. i want a progressive candidate, though!

unfortunately, i think that reality will chime in the next year or so and remind us that not all leftist states are like california. we're going to have to settle for a biden or something.

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody explain to me what it is about Warren that supposedly makes her a "far-left" politician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Yojinbo said:

Can somebody explain to me what it is about Warren that supposedly makes her a "far-left" politician?

She thinks we should be more environmentally conscious and that the rich should pay more taxes.

Which seems like common sense to me, but ya know. America's kind of backwards.

EDIT: Oh, and she supports single-payer healthcare.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2-1-2019 at 6:52 PM, Yojinbo said:

Can somebody explain to me what it is about Warren that supposedly makes her a "far-left" politician?

She's a normal socialist democrat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 12:52 PM, Yojinbo said:

Can somebody explain to me what it is about Warren that supposedly makes her a "far-left" politician?

real talk, pretty much nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting research that's been getting some buzz in the news recently. Political scientists have graphed out prevalence of mental illness in developed nations  over levels of income inequality, and what they've found is:

The Prevalence of Mental Illness is Higher in More Unequal Rich Countries


Its being posited that there's a causal connection here: higher rates of mental illness is caused by higher rates of inequality, because excessive inequality is an environmental stressor on the mental health of the affected populace. 

The theory, if correct, means that as the gap between the rich and the working class widens and ever greater % of a nation's wealth come under the control of a small number of individuals, while a greater and greater % of the population struggles to make ends-meet and support a family on a working class salary, higher percentages of the population will become mentally unstable and act out in a disturbed, deranged, manner. 

A while back in the "general mass killings thread," there was talk of how mass shootings seem more prevalent today then in prior decades + attempts to correlate the apparent rise to other developments. Largely unrelated developments.

...well now...


Image result for us income inequality by year




Image result for mass shootings us by year


...Could it be???

Edited by Shoblongoo

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.