-
Sooo... I'm surprised this hasn't really come up on the forum yet.. What do you folks think about the 2016 US Election? Here in the states, it's being talked about everywhere you go, and so much that many folks just can't wait for it to be over and done with. I've heard that on facebook (which I don't use), talk of politics have cause a lot of misery and unfriending.
This is by far, the nastiest US presidential election that I can recall, yet also, the most interesting given the angles in play. We have one candidate accused of grabbing women, one being investigated by the FBI ( a criminal investigation ) , 1 Democratic National Comittee member forced to resign, her replacement fired by CNN, a shit storm of rather damning hacked email to chew on, evidence of election fraud (DNC colluded with Hillary against Bernie Sanders), lampooning of a disabled reporter, fainting spells, the spitting up of wads of snot before an audience, a VP candidate skidding off the runway in a private plane, and more.
(https://www.askideas.com/media/48/Trump-Or-Hillary-Top-Socket-Or-Bottom-Socket-Funny-Meme-Picture.jpg)
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/de/de18b31a67406035b1d454013eededa445a323a5c6721e9cbb06d4a67a4645a1.jpg)
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/de/de18b31a67406035b1d454013eededa445a323a5c6721e9cbb06d4a67a4645a1.jpg)
+1 :whistling:
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/de/de18b31a67406035b1d454013eededa445a323a5c6721e9cbb06d4a67a4645a1.jpg)
This gets my vote. :thumbup:
-
Not for the light hearted, I suppose....
Hmm... that's odd. Why is my mic on?
o.O
-
What do you mean, there are other animals besides donkeys and elephants in this world?! ???
-
(https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/2016election_kangkodos.jpg)
-
Anybody read the Archdruid Report?
I've been following that for years. This years election is no big surprise... the people are starting to feel the pressures and are stomping about trying to figure out what to do... drastic times lead to drastic measures... and the consequences of that is not going to be enjoyable no matter what.
Interestingly, the author of the blog... who one might stereotype as very liberal... seems to think that Clinton will be the worse option... as it will perpetuate the environment and feelings that caused a large swath of the electorate to put up someone like Trump. His fears seem to circle around... who will fill Trumps shoes when Clinton get's in, and the electorate are even more pissed in 4 years... and will those shoes be jackboots.
Any political sounding posts from 2016 archives are worth checking out, if only for a different perspective.
Here is a recent one...
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-coming-of-postliberal-era.html (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-coming-of-postliberal-era.html)
Most likely voting Johnson here... simply because I don't want to vote for either of the other two.
-
The FBI blames Russia (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html). And the Iron Curtain gains weight. Propaganda is the battlefield of WW3.
-
Do you know when in history books maps start getting all flaggy and arrowy? Just a few pages before those is a paragraph called "Factors leading up to..."
We're currently in that paragraph.
-
from the above link... i think this sums up how we got to where we are:
American liberalism, as already mentioned, was a movement of the educated elite; it focused on helping the downtrodden rather than including them; and that approach increasingly ran into trouble as the downtrodden turned out to have ideas of their own that didn’t necessarily square with what liberals wanted to do for them. [/quote}
-
from the above link... i think this sums up how we got to where we are:
American liberalism, as already mentioned, was a movement of the educated elite; it focused on helping the downtrodden rather than including them; and that approach increasingly ran into trouble as the downtrodden turned out to have ideas of their own that didn’t necessarily square with what liberals wanted to do for them.
[edit] hmmmm... wrong button... sorry for the dup
-
The FBI blames Russia (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html). And the Iron Curtain gains weight. Propaganda is the battlefield of WW3.
Didn't read the article, but destroying people's reputations by claiming that they are working with the Russians goes back to the days of McCarthy. ( Colloquially known in the US as McCarthyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) )
In the US, accusing someone of being in league with "the Russians" is more damaging than accusing someone of being a Nazi ( among those who were around for the cold war). It's ironic how Hillary Clinton has been using this tactic along with her insinuation that Trump cannot be trusted with the "nuclear codes". This is fear mongering and hypocrisy at it's finest. ( I suspect that Hillary is projecting her own inner evil self onto Donald, but I'll leave that for another thread if we ever get into armchair analysis of candidates )
As for what got us in this mess, I agree with Thoss's point to a degree, but I think some of it is the result of technology, communication over the Internet, cross-pollination of ideas and the non-physical boundaries that now divide people. Ie. It used to be that one's acquaintances were people who were geographically close. That changed as transportation advanced ( ie. Boats and Planes ), and again when the Internet was born. Today we have cell phones and tablets that make people half way around the world closer to us than the person next door. I think this results in stronger grouping of people with similar interests, and alliances that are not limited to geography.
-
but I think some of it is the result of technology, communication over the Internet, cross-pollination of ideas and the non-physical boundaries that now divide people. Ie. It used to be that one's acquaintances were people who were geographically close. That changed as transportation advanced ( ie. Boats and Planes ), and again when the Internet was born. Today we have cell phones and tablets that make people half way around the world closer to us than the person next door. I think this results in stronger grouping of people with similar interests, and alliances that are not limited to geography.
lot of truth there, our abilities to communicate as well as rile each other up is huge... plus... all this hoopla with trump and clinton... nothing new, we just have access to the information now... kind of like me with my parents when I got older and became a parent myself... realized they didn't know what the hell they were doing now that I can see behind the curtain... (and neither do I, but I act like it to my kid!)
-
So true.
One of the problems that I see now is that there's a steep curve to understanding politics, and an even steeper one once you realize that there's no single source of information that is *correct*. Learning to research, question, and piece together biased information and to reorganize it into a coherent story that you *think* makes sense is a skill in itself.
This is why I got into electronics and programming when I was younger. Computers don't lie. They're comparatively easy to understand once you realize that 99% of the time, you are the one who is wrong :p
-
... destroying people's reputations by claiming that they are working with the Russians ...
No, it's less about blaming people to promote communism (a concept most Americans fear but don't understand), but blaming Russia to abuse propaganda to destroy the whole political system of the USA.
But in an era of founded mistrust against the mighty (conservative politics has only one goal, conserving the might of the mighty), condemning the revelation of the crime is so much more common than condemning the crime as such.
Our own government already reached a threshold of "fear of communism", or in this case, transparency. Some notoriously conservative members blame a promoted act to reveal lobbyism in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) as a risk to denounce "normal citizen talking with politicians in their offices" in public. Completely false, of course. But after stopping the handout of ID cards for stakeholders to enter the Bundestag via faction offices, they appear to get more nervous. Germany is still among the last few countries not yet ratifying laws against bribery of parlamentarians.
Recently I saw one of many crime series in the TV, and I remember one quote:
"Do you know the story of the honest politician entering the government? ... Me neither."
By the way, the mud-wrestling enters the nuclear phase now, pulling child abuse accusations. Boy must they be desperate.
-
One of the problems that I see now is that there's a steep curve to understanding politics, and an even steeper one once you realize that there's no single source of information that is *correct*. Learning to research, question, and piece together biased information and to reorganize it into a coherent story that you *think* makes sense is a skill in itself.
This I struggle with... I think I have given up out of pure exhaustion... i try to look into different issues and form a real consensus, and it is nearly impossible to just figure out. There are so many scenarios and what-ifs and buts... And then there is the problem with really having no idea which candidate will be best to handle future situations that we don't even know about. Something could happen that clinton would be better, or trump, or johnson, or stein... who knows!
It's just easier to follow the consensus from your family... your church... your peer group... or just a party and be done with it.
That's what I am going to do... decide which party sounds the best to me... then vote party line, and if they put up a shitty candidate, or don't campaign enough... well they should try harder.
Unless it is like my local rep and I know that person is a jackass from interacting directly with them... otherwise it's all hearsay or bullshit.
-
Because it was just even posted @Fefe (https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a6e5981c):
Twitter #1 (https://twitter.com/Impolitics/status/793920971208060928)
This will always be remembered as the presidential election in which the KKK, the KGB and the FBI all supported the same candidate.
Twitter #2 (https://thinkprogress.org/fbi-launches-internal-investigation-into-its-own-twitter-account-8d5fc2a81fdc)
FBI launches internal investigation into its own Twitter account
An FBI tweet may have crossed the line.
Suddenly I remember criminal TV series where FBI agents seem to rush into a building for the only purpose to compete in the volume of their voice shouting "F - B - I !!!!"
-
Twitter #1 (https://twitter.com/Impolitics/status/793920971208060928)
This will always be remembered as the presidential election in which the KKK, the KGB and the FBI all supported the same candidate.
So then hypothetically speaking, if Putin or Hitler votes for a given candidate, then that makes the candidate a bad choice? This is something that I sharply disagree with. The candidates have no control over who votes for or voices support for them.In the case of David Duke, the guy knows damn well that his endorsement is poisonous given the amount of hatred people have for the KKK. If he really wanted Trump to succeed, he would not endorse him openly. It would make more sense for him to secretly encourage others to vote for him. The same with Putin. He's probably a lot smarter than David Duke and far more aware of how politically poisonous his verbal endorsement is.
The claim that "the Russians" hacked the DNC / Clinton email was fabricated by Hillary in order to divert attention away from the crimes that her email reveals. She claimed this several times and even claimed that our 15 Intel agencies agreed with her. If I recall correctly, a statement was release afterwards that this was not true. I'll try to dig it up if requested. The other problem with her claim is that it's not specific.
Why did she blame an entire country? Why didn't she claim that it was the RFB or KGB or some specific group. The answer is simple. She didn't know who did it. It was easer to just stoke cold war fears and take a gamble with a made up story. If it turned out to be some Russian agency, then she gets to claim that she knew it all the time. If it turns out to be someone not from Russia, then she just needs to make up another story. You can see this kind of pattern of lying if you look at her history. It's very typical for her and is one of the things that many Americans dislike about her.
-
Different supporters support the same candidate vor very different reasons. This could be a hint how blurry their position or reputation is. No surprise that a large part of the population feels forced to vote for "the lesser evil". Yet they still see only two candidates. Who would want to vote for a minority in such an election system where "the winner takes it all"?
-
The other candidates - Jill Stine and Garry Johnson are so unpopular at this point, that voting for either of them is a wasted vote. Unless things change dramatically ( ie, if Hillary is charged with a felony ), neither of them will come close to winning. In this case a vote is better spent either electing a candidate or stopping the other.
Curious, what did you mean by this? I'm not sure I follow what you were saying. How would Russia's abuse of propaganda destroy the whole political system?
"No, it's less about blaming people to promote communism (a concept most Americans fear but don't understand), but blaming Russia to abuse propaganda to destroy the whole political system of the USA."
-
Both candidates are already so unpopular that either victory could cause riots. No matter which kind of government will be established, a large percentage of the population won't accept it. There are no more political "heroes" (like Obama was able to promote himself); too many scandals have been revealed on both sides. Conspiracies against co-candidates in the own party, campaign donations from dubious partners, manipulation of the opposite camp via insiders... a lot more subtle than public mud wrestling. And international media (also from Russia, but not only), possibly even IT hacks and revelation of secrets, took their part in this whole pushing and shifting of opinions.
-
I still don't understand the view that voting for johnson or stein is a wasted vote... will they win. No. Is picking the winner the only point of voting?
I say no. Let's assume 1,000,000 voters like a third party, but vote clinton and trump cause they believe they are forced to.
If clinton gets a million more votes than trump, or vice versa... and those million votes were the people who didn't really like either, then those votes were wasted because they were unnecessary. 999,999 of those votes could have voted third party but the winner would have been the same...
The value in those 999,999 third party voters would be twofold.. one they vote for who they like (yes wer are assuming here)... and two their votes send a message.
If the greens or libertarians get just 5% of the vote... that would send a huge message and has never happened before... especially if they would get 10%.
If Gary wins his home state of New Mexico... there are senarios where that would throw the vote to the House... which would at least be interesting.
Also, unless you live in a swing state... you are basically free to vote for any thrid party without much concern of changing the outcome for your state.
To me, if I don't like the two main candidates... my vote has the most value if I vote third party. Just to use my vote as a voice and message.
-
That's just one of the most important points about elections, Thoss. There is an important difference between voting for a minor party, or not voting at all: If you don't vote, you will partially support the winning party just by reducing the amount of opposition. (Apart from the impact limit of percentage thresholds, which is being debated already in Germany, since the EU parliament does not have them, allowing minor parties to enter with only one seat.)
In Germany, during the last federal election, the Christian Union parties got about half of the given votes, which is instead just about a quarter of the possible votes, because only about half of the allowed people gave their vote at all. In this year, a right populist party (AfD) was able to win many of previous non-voters in local and state elections and suddenly became the second strongest in some areas.
I doubt that any third or fourth party in the USA would have such an impact, because there are too many habitual voters, I guess... I wonder how many US citizen do not even know there are any more parties.
P.S.: The Democrats recently made one of the worst possible mistakes during an election battle ... telling the truth: Hillary Clinton announced to need to close coal mines. Fear of employment loss in an area of habit and tradition costs more voters than hope for progress in new areas could possibly win.
-
I still don't understand the view that voting for johnson or stein is a wasted vote... will they win. No. Is picking the winner the only point of voting?
It's what people say when they have no idea how politics work. That's why you don't understand it.
-
Let me put the wasted vote argument this way:
Assume that %49 are voting for A, and 49% are voting for B, and you vote for C
The effect your C vote has:
1. It shows your dissatisfaction with A and B
2. It makes the pool of votes smaller for the main candidates
3. It does not support or negate either of the eligible candidates ( given the percentages above)
4. It concentrates the voting power of those who vote for A and B ( this happens also if you don't vote )
Regarding #4, the amount of power you have as a voter is 1 in (number of people voting )
[ it's actually more complicated than that]
If on the other hand, people were to ditch the main candidates, then yes, C could become viable.
[ and I really thought that this would be the year that the greens or libertarians would shine ]
This leads to the problem of knowing whether or not a candidate is viable or popular enough. As much as I dislike the use of unscientific polls, they seem to indicate that currently the smaller candidates have a tiny following despite how much people trash talk the main candidates. My guess is that most people don't want to take a chance voting for an unproven or less popular candidate. They would rather vote against or for one of the main candidates.
Now this completely overlooks our electoral college system which basically says that each state votes for the candidates, so as Thoss indicated, if you live in a states that heavily supports A or B, then that's how your state is going to vote.
But people still need to vote for whoever they feel should be elected despite all this. Polls are not fortune tellers. People's sentiments are subject to change, and entire states do flip from A to B or C now and then. If you don't vote because you live in an A or B state, then you forfeit your power to flip your state in your favor.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmxSv-brC-I/UMoh1F7A_2I/AAAAAAAAD6s/Z1whmiDv2ts/s1600/stop-stop.gif)
-
Pretty sure I agree with what you are saying Rigwyn :)
Another reason I am game for voting 3rd party if I don't like one of the mains is that everyone complains about a two party system... winner takes all favors a two party system... I don't like it, you probably don't like it, others probably don't like it... unless you are in Congress.
But, how does that change? Complain too our representatives that we want them to overhaul this system that gives them a lot of power? Not gonna happen... Only way I see is... stick it to those who like things as they are... by voting for a spoiler... if a 3rd party screws up the elections often enough... say every time, every two years local and up... one of the major parties will get pissed... and then we can start talking about amending our voting system...
but, if we all fall in our proper line as good little piggies... they win, and things continue as is.
Not that I vote every single time, but willfully choosing not to vote seems silly, I certainly agree with that Rigwyn.
-
I agree with you there. I guess for the individual, the choice is 1. try to influence candidates A and B, or 2. try to push for third party. For me personally, I'm choosing to vote against a particular candidate this year.
An interesting question is why didn't the third party candidates get a strong following this year given all the hatred towards the popular candidates. For me, I looked at Jill's website and just felt that she didn't really match the things the I feel are most important. Likewise, neither Jill or Gary seemed to be aggressive enough to "take" the votes they needed. Both seem to be very passive which for me, does not sit well.
Regarding Ligh's comment about the democrats telling the truth, that was one of the few times that Hillary did tell the truth and yes, it bit her in the ass, hard. The main problem with Hillary is that she has an astounding record for lying and deceiving people, AND getting caught. Because of this, she struggles with being branded as dishonest and untrustworthy. Even her supporters will tell you this, but they'll say they would rather vote for her than for Trump....
I think like the last few elections, more people are probably voting "against" a candidate instead of voting "for" a candidate.
For anyone who's really interested in seeing the Democrat's dirty side, take a look at wikileaks.org or log onto twitter and check out @wikileaks or #PodestaEmails. You'll be shocked at some of the crap that has been uncovered.
-
Not that I vote every single time, but willfully choosing not to vote seems silly, I certainly agree with that Rigwyn.
It doesn't matter what they all tell you: "not voting means you're just content with whatever happens, not voting means you're not a patriot" etc etc.
Not voting means you don't endorse any of the candidates. And that's fine. You can not vote and still be critical of what you get. That's one of the perks of democracy: you're as free to vote as you're not to. Voting blindly for family solidarity is okay. Voting out of spite is okay. Not voting is okay. Screwing up your vote so it's null is okay. Just don't vote blank, because in that case, the candidate with the most votes will get those, and it'll mean you didn't care who gets elected, you'll support them regardless.
Vote, or vote not. There is no try.
-
As I already mentioned: about 50% non-voters made the last near-absolute majority of the Christian Union parties possible (which created the political stall in federal politics with a "great coalition", leaving a mere 5th of opposition with no real legislative power). Now that many previous non-voters consider voting for the populists, the real percentage of consent in the population gets more obvious.
I may not enjoy right-wing populism gaining power, but I do enjoy the political map getting "more colourful". We just need more left-wing alternatives to fix the balance. That's a real lack in times when previously conservative parties appear to move further to the left than social democrats... The question which party to vote for to push the overall politics into a desired direction is no more trivial.
But OK, back to the US.
-
If you do not vote at all, your message is: "I do not care."
If you want your message to be "I do care, but I do not like any of the candidates," you take the effort to vote, but make your vote void. You do not check a box for any candidate, you write a message on the ballot sheet, whatever.
In the current US situation, it is really the choice between two evils, with IMHO Clinton being the lesser one in comparison with Trump.
I would have much prefered Bernie Sanders - competent, respectful, calm. Maybe too calm for the media dominated campaigns, not glamourous enough.
-
As a "socialist", Sanders is not conservative enough, is a threat for the free economy market. He had to be silenced. He was an obstacle in the American Way.
-
In the current US situation, it is really the choice between two evils, with IMHO Clinton being the lesser one in comparison with Trump.
lesser one for your country or in general?
-
An interesting question is why didn't the third party candidates get a strong following this year given all the hatred towards the popular candidates.
That is a pretty good questions... and I think the passive appearance that you talk about is probably the key. Stein is Green and passive... Johnson is timid and weak appearing... and I think the populace feels we need a strong personality to face the others. Just try to imagine and argument between Putin and Johnson... Johnson would be owned and probably wouldn't even realise when he is being manipulated.
(that paragraph is the best weapon to get me to vote for trump... I am still fighting that off though)
Not voting means you don't endorse any of the candidates. And that's fine.
I agree with you here... I think when I discussed not voting being silly, was those that don't ever vote out of apathy or thinking their tiny vote doesn't matter. That I think is silly.
As a "socialist", Sanders is not conservative enough, is a threat for the free economy market. He had to be silenced. He was an obstacle in the American Way.
This is interesting to me coming from your perspective (admittedly, I don't know you that well). I was a Bernie fan in the beginning, but always felt that I might be too ignorant to know whether or not that is a good idea.
Socialist ideas are tantalizing to me as they just sound like good ideas, buts it's the question of how they shake out in reality that I never know, and I can't ever get a hold of the economics of the situation.
The future I have chosen to see and swallow... I just don't think socialism will work as the ideas of us being a cohesive group is going to go backwords a bit I feel. Which throws me over towards the libertarians...
-
Thoss, sorry for forgetting the {SarcMark} ;) — That was not my opinion, only explaining the reason why he had no chance (e.g. why there was an inner-democratic conspiracy). I would have wished him fairness.
The longer we have a conservative government, the more I see our society shifting from a former "social economy market" as proposed by Ludwig Erhard ("wealth comes with responsibility") towards an asocial "free economy market" where the poor are blamed for not using chances the rich already used off. And the worst betrayal was done by so called "social democrats" (yes, I mean Gazprom-Schröder). They created a system where pensioners will be poor if they did not save up, but precarious workers today are already too poor to have anything left to save. Pensions could have been saved instead by not excluding clerks and politicians from shares into retirement funds. But as you know, "crows don't pick each others' eyes" (the German version of "there is honour among thieves").
I'm missing an alternative to the "lizards". But even our one and only "Left Party" is most active in losing credibility. Pirates did the same, fighting over each other instead of against the machine.
-
If I could vote between the two, I would rather vote Trump. Even before being president Hillary seems to be a total war hawk. With her as president the foreign policy of the US will be surely more aggressive than it is currently under Obama.
sources which backup my claim that she seems to be a hawk:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/
(a German documentary - not in English: http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Monitor/Falkin-im-Wei%C3%9Fen-Haus-Die-aggressive-Au/Das-Erste/Video?bcastId=438224&documentId=38448308 )
-
I remember this point of view... and on the other hand, if Trump makes it, we could bet on him being kept away from final decisions as good as the rest of the political establishment can. He himself already offered leaving most activity to the vice president. He is just another Zaphod Beeblebrox, after all: Perfect to distract from the real power.
-
Let`s put it this way - do you really want an Octarch openly financing rogues and Onyx Daggers, whose people gather at strange Blackflame rituals? If you`re not a member of their cult and/or a "used mindless lump of flesh" (c), I guess not.
In Trump`s case it`s probably the same, only not THAT blatant, which is why he has a much better chance of winning.
He`s a different puppet, but the puppeteers are the same.
That kind of "choice" is an illusion and has always been.
But sure, there will be change - prepare to be sacrificed to their only Lord and Master. And I mean, literally.
Mairon takes his Guy Fawkes mask off and remembers that it`s already the 6th.
-
In the current US situation, it is really the choice between two evils, with IMHO Clinton being the lesser one in comparison with Trump.
lesser one for your country or in general?
Considering the international importance of the USA, it is almost the same. I am German, and live and work in Luxembourg.
Someone with such a lack of self-control and respect, who openly asks his followers to commit crimes ("Don't give them back their coats", "Hit everybody who wants to throw tomatoes"), who values women only for their looks, for whom compromise means "I want it all", etc, pp, at nauseam - someone like this is simply unfit for such an important position.
-
Regarding Mishka's point on the significance of voting, I would say do a simulation with a small voting pool of 5 voters and see how you feel about those numbers. Yes, one's reason for not voting may vary, but the mathematical effects are independent of one's reason for doing so. When you don't vote, you effectively submit your power to choose to the rest of the voters.( This gets tricky with the electoral college system ). If you vote for an underdog, you at least get to document your dissatisfaction, but in a veiled way.
As pointed out earlier, getting non-voters to vote has had a huge impact in the past. Some say It's what got Obama elected.
I don't want to take sides on Hillary vs Trump, but I do want to point out that one should strive to think deeply about their basis for their convictions. Do i chose X because I like the way a certain piece of propaganda sounds and feels, or do my convictions run deeper. Am I blindly agreeing with what "everyone" is saying because "everyone" must be right, or have I actually evaluated the truthfulness of such statements and realistically weighed them.
There's a lot of nonsense going around in the news and a lot of serious stuff too. The nonsense is easy to repeat and remember. The more serious stuff takes time to read, comprehend and digest. It takes time and effort to come to a reasonable conclusion once you get past the learning curve.
Perhaps now would be the time to invest in booze and aspirin.
-
Regarding Mishka's point on the significance of voting, I would say do a simulation with a small voting pool of 5 voters and see how you feel about those numbers. Yes, one's reason for not voting may vary, but the mathematical effects are independent of one's reason for doing so.
Your sample is too small to illustrate your point. It's much, much more complex than that, at least in the majority of countries. Still, it doesn't matter: the ultimate executive power doesn't come from the President, except for matters depending on foreign policies. What matters is who you have voted as your representative, and how many like him are in the House. Is there a 47% republican, a 39% democrat, and a 14% of the other parties? That's what matters in the long run, they're the ones who will pass the bills, where the real politics are done. The dangerous outcomes of these elections are because of how the US will show themselves to the world.
[...] When you don't vote, you effectively submit your power to choose to the rest of the voters.
Nope, I didn't say that, never said that. When you vote blank, you submit your power. When you don't vote, you don't agree with any candidate. When your vote is null, it's a more active way of disagreeing. But not voting doesn't mean you "submit" to anyone. That's demagogic used to get people to sway for either side. Don't fall in that fallacy.
If you vote for an underdog, you at least get to document your dissatisfaction, but in a veiled way.
Not if it's just a noone that you don't know at all. Information is power. Always be true for yourself. Voting out of spite isn't right, and can/will get you in more trouble than you wanted to avoid. I have friends who are voting for Trump because they don't want Hillary and vice versa. Think about how screwed they'll be when they see what they actually supported.
Perhaps now would be the time to invest in booze and aspirin.
Pass the bottle. Have you actually taken a look at Europe? In the US even with the lower wages you still get lower taxes and an all around cheaper way of living, and the median US citizen will have at least 20 jobs before getting the one they'll stick with for the rest of their lives. In most European countries that's unthinkable. You either spend half your life between jobs, or go into government, or get lucky enough to land a job right after finishing your education, and then you grow roots there.
Even if your two candidates are war mongering nutjobs using and abusing demagogy, slander and low blows to get at each other so they can gain more votes, you aren't faced with the threat of left-winged extremists/populists. Take a look at Venezuela, and extrapolate it to countries like Greece, Spain, Italy... It's scary.
But there's nothing we can do now other than brace ourselves and hope for the best now. May God takes mercy on our souls.
-
Nope, I didn't say that, never said that. When you vote blank, you submit your power. When you don't vote, you don't agree with any candidate. When your vote is null, it's a more active way of disagreeing. But not voting doesn't mean you "submit" to anyone. That's demagogic used to get people to sway for either side. Don't fall in that fallacy.
If there are 5 people voting, then each person has 1/5 say in who is elected. If one person decides not to vote, then each person has 1/4 say in who is elected. If four people sit out, then one person gets all the say in who's elected. This is what I mean by submitting your power. Yes, in a realistic situation, the numbers are scale much higher and individual votes contribute to the state's vote. I don't see how that argument is demagogic in nature, perhaps I don't understand your point.
Not if it's just a noone that you don't know at all. Information is power. Always be true for yourself. Voting out of spite isn't right, and can/will get you in more trouble than you wanted to avoid. I have friends who are voting for Trump because they don't want Hillary and vice versa. Think about how screwed they'll be when they see what they actually supported.
So then your friends should vote for Hillary because that way they're not voting against her because voting "against" is bad? I think what you said might have came out a little funny there. This year in the US, there are only two candidates who currently have a chance at winning. Whether you vote for or against is irrelevant. ( You could say Stein and Johnson have a chance if you want to split hairs, but it's tiny based on polls which show that people are mostly split between crooked hillary and Trump )
Pass the bottle. Have you actually taken a look at Europe? In the US even with the lower wages you still get lower taxes and an all around cheaper way of living, and the median US citizen will have at least 20 jobs before getting the one they'll stick with for the rest of their lives. In most European countries that's unthinkable. You either spend half your life between jobs, or go into government, or get lucky enough to land a job right after finishing your education, and then you grow roots there.
If by Europe, you mean a country in the Eurozone, I'de said no for now. It looks like the EU is just as corrupt as the US right now. If you mean GB, I'd wait until the Brexit debacle is squared away. I think there's still some uncertainty there. On a similar note, there's been talk of people wanting to flee to Canada in the event that the election doesn't go their way. It's just something we started saying ever since Obama ran for president. It's not something we would really do. ( I mean the Canadians seem like nice folks and all, but it's a bit drastic )
Even if your two candidates are war mongering nutjobs using and abusing demagogy, slander and low blows to get at each other so they can gain more votes, you aren't faced with the threat of left-winged extremists/populists. Take a look at Venezuela, and extrapolate it to countries like Greece, Spain, Italy... It's scary.
You know, a while back when Dilma was in the news quite a bit, I sat back smugly and said to myself, "I'm glad I don't live in a country like that." Now I see the US is not much different... yet.
And sadly, there is no god to pull us out of this mess. This is nature's way of recycling that which fails to thrive. Perhaps there's some comfort in knowing that we're not alone. lol
Have you read the Wikileaks on the Clintons? If not, make a twitter account and check you @wikileaks or #podestaemails. The corruption and fraud in the Clinton family is absolutely astounding. More so is the fact that they have folks high up the ladder like the Attorney General ( who the FBI reports to ) and the president himself supporting the Clintons.
This is what really rattles most folks in the US. The justice system is supposed to be flat. All citizens are supposed to be treated equally. Unfortunately as in the novel "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, the rules seem to be changing so that "Some folks are more equal than others."
-
pertinent Nov 2 post:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-last-gasp-of-american-dream.html
-
pertinent Nov 2 post:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-last-gasp-of-american-dream.html
For any that can't get through the whole thing: "It’s by no means certain that a Trump presidency will stop that from happening, and jolt the United States far enough out of its current death spiral to make it possible to salvage something from the American experiment. Even among Trump’s most diehard supporters, it’s common to find people who cheerfully admit that Trump might not change things enough to matter; it’s just that when times are desperate enough—and out here in the flyover states, they are—a leap in the dark is preferable to the guaranteed continuation of the unendurable.
Thus the grassroots movement that propelled Trump to the Republican nomination in the teeth of the GOP establishment, and has brought him to within a couple of aces of the White House in the teeth of the entire US political class, might best be understood as the last gasp of the American dream. Whether he wins or loses next week, this country is moving into the darkness of an uncharted night—and it’s not out of place to wonder, much as Hamlet did, what dreams may come in that darkness."
-
Waking up, and I just can't believe it... Did you guys serioulsy voted for Donald ?
/me claps for all Americans who didnt went to vote... you made it guys, you made it... Congrats.
-
Did you guys serioulsy voted for Donald ?
Damn right, I did.
As for the loser,she got a swift spanking by the American people. Let's just hope the FBI does the right thing and throws her stupid ass in jail.
-
Damn right, I did.
Noone here were expecting more from you Rigwyn... \\o//
some were happy to see Hitler becoming the Chancellor... the history showed them they were wrong, let hope this wont have the same ending.
-
well IMO it doesn't really matter which one you voted for, both were so bad candidates.
-
Damn right, I did.
Noone here were expecting more from you Rigwyn... \\o//
some were happy to see Hitler becoming the Chancellor... the history showed them they were wrong, let hope this wont have the same ending.
Investigate Hillary's astonishing record of lying, cheating, dishonesty and betraying those she makes promises to, then tell my about Trump or any other candidate being a tyrant. BTW, the FBI currently has several criminal investigations open against Hillary and her fake charity. Anyway, the horse is dead. No need to beat it further.
-
Great, global(ist) nuclear war postponed for some time and now we all can play PS instead of dying in hellfire. Time to bathe in SJW tears, drink champange and light a doobie - we are still alive!
-
I feel there is some truth here...
More specifically, Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness.
... It's not about his ideas, or policies. It's not even about him. It's about vengeance for social oppression.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr
-
Investigate Hillary's astonishing record of lying, cheating, dishonesty and betraying those she makes promises to, then tell my about Trump or any other candidate being a tyrant. BTW, the FBI currently has several criminal investigations open against Hillary and her fake charity. Anyway, the horse is dead. No need to beat it further.
Of Course, Hilary Lies, cheats and betrays his friends, she is a politician... what are you expecting from them ? but they are all the same... Like Octarchs, they are all corrupted... :)
-
Like Octarchs, they are all corrupted... :)
+1
-
#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain will accomplish nothing but bolstering Trump's support. He's already the lowest of the low. He's the underdog. Making fun of his name is only going to help him. Honestly, Oliver's exposé was excellent on its own, but the playground-tier bullying tactics ruined it. Now he's made it easier for conservatives to dismiss the exposé.
If progressives and the media didn't lie about him constantly, he wouldn't have as much support. You're repeating company-bought rhetoric and making people want to support him.
(http://i.imgur.com/NuzS6up.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-8kmPJKGgM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mLzFeqWePo
-
And we're surprised that the liberal Democrats and progressives (or whatever those bearded beatniks from Portland,Oregon call themselves) freaked out when Hillary lost? When you deal with kids, you learn to not let their expectations get too high knowing how incapable they are of dealing with sudden disappointment and terrible, evil words like "no". I understand feeling disappointed, but the carrying on that we're seeing in the news is just embarrassing. I won't comment on the hypocrisy and violent behavior on the part of the Democrats as those we see on TV are probably a poor representation of the rest of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYNukv5rWCY
https://youtu.be/32hdl8Pb_m4
-
To me it kind of devalues the point up protesting and uprising... nothing has happened yet except some free speach words and an election... if trump does horrible things as president, ok, let's protest... but erm... nothing has happened yet but a bunch of campaign talk...
and the calls to recount... shattering the faith (however illusional it really is) but shattering it none the less by deligitimizing the results the states have made won't bode well for us in the long run.
This is what I really worry about, because both sides do the same when they lose...
-
Regarding the recount, I don't understand how it took some states so long to count their damn votes. It's not like they need to hire people and count ballots like the did when Bush Jr. ( aka Dubu-yah ) was elected. If that's what they are doing, then they need smacking. :)
And if Trump tanks, he can be impeached... but for that you really need to be a hot mess like Hillary's husband was. ( Funny, Lying under oath got Bill Clinton impeached while lying under oath five times in the same day got Hillary sympathy from female voters )
Regarding protesting, I remember when the Occupy Wall Street movement rolled into Manhattan. People complained out in the streets, but it did nothing but spark laughter and jokes among the middle class people ( mostly 99 percenters )who worked indoors and really did not see them. The Democrats did their sit-in protest in congress this year, but again, a lot of noise and attention, but no results. I'm left wondering just how often such protests are actually effective. The BLM protests in the south didn't stop people from getting shot up by the cops, but it did manage to to trash and destroy their own neighborhoods and ruin their reputations. If people are going to protest, they should really think beyond the picketing and shouting and ask themselves how things will play out beyond that point.
-
protest marches that aren’t backed up with effective grassroots political organization are simply a somewhat noisy form of aerobic exercise.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html
-
Somehow, I think most folks would prefer to lay on the ground, shake their heads and kick their feet than to actually organize and make some sort of change.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-09-21-1442868945-9700882-amyfloor.gif)
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-09-21-1442868945-9700882-amyfloor.gif
And yes, that's Amy Schumer ;D
-
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html
I know some fairly thoughtful people whose reaction to the election’s outcome wasn’t histrionic at all—it consisted of various degrees of shock, disorientation, and fear. They felt, if the ones I read are typical, that the people who voted for Trump were deliberately rejecting and threatening them personally. That’s something we ought to talk about.
To some extent, to be sure, this was a reflection of the political culture of personal demonization I discussed in last week’s post. Many of Clinton’s supporters convinced themselves, with the help of a great deal of propaganda from the Democratic Party and its bedfellows in the mainstream media, that Donald Trump is a monster of depravity thirsting for their destruction, and anyone who supports him must hate everything good. Now they’re cringing before the bogeyman they imagined, certain that it’s going to act out the role they assigned it and gobble them up.
The number of times I've been called a sociopath, an idiot, an a**hole, a c***, and "reprimanded" for vocally disagreeing with this demonization has convinced me that political ideology can be no different from fundamental religion. Communism and fascism make much more sense to me now. (Not that they are viable, but that people "believe" in them.)
A week before the election, a group of progressives harassed me on Skype simply because I did not believe in their ideology. And come to find out one of my other progressive "friends" had been feeding them quotes from me and what I talk about in my own circles. So, I've had to do some contact-cutting to avoid their witch hunts for having non-politically-correct opinions. There's a lot of other online BS, but this was meant to be one example.
Honestly, online harassment doesn't bother me, but the fact that someone who I thought was a friend would do those things, and then those people (who I know on a first name basis) would do that over politics... It's eye-opening.
The worst of it, though, is that I can't state my opinions in public without fear of retribution. I was never a Trump supporter, but I considered buying a hat just for laughs. Then I realized I would probably be physically assaulted for wearing it where I live. That's not something I'm saying lightly.
I guess I'll contribute a blog:
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2016/11/aftermath.html
And another:
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2016/11/bad-historical-analogies-us-is-not.html
-
It was a kind of proof for the aphorism which developed from the proverb:
(ger.) "Der Klügere gibt nach." - (eng.) "The cleverer give in." ==> If the cleverer give in, the dumber rule.
In post-factual times, though, the "cleverer" is the helpless, because facts and arguments now lose against feelings. We need a new and "even cleverer" strategy.
"Doch mit Vorurteilen urteilt es sich eiliger." (Thomas D., Die Fantastischen Vier) ~ Bias judges faster. Considered arguments suffer obsolescence.
-
Communism and fascism make much more sense to me now. (Not that they are viable, but that people "believe" in them.)
If you ask me, people believe in them because:
A. They want someone to take care of them so they can remain children.
B. They think hard working, rich people will gladly support their lazy asses.
C. They are imitating stellar intellectuals like Colin Kaepernick /end sarcasm
The scary part is when the rich people leave the country and take their business with them and they'll do this to save money. They end up setting up shop in poorer countries ( like India, Ireland, Mexico ) who value their business and are willing to give them lower corporate tax rates so that their citizens can get good jobs or just so they can get some of that nice tax money to pay for roads and schools. Liberal presidents like Obama will tell you that we are doing a good thing. We are supporting other countries by giving them jobs and money and that If you disagree, you are a racist.
Sure, we can still buy their i-Pads, Microsoft bit-rot 2008 and barely American cars, but eventually, they will end up selling us crappy versions of these products ( see: Disruptive Innovation ) because we won't be able to afford to pay for them. Just look at the shitty 5 year old $300 to $600 computers they sell in Best Buy nowadays.
It's kind of hard to have nice shit when you work around the clock at Burger King ( sold to Tim Horton's, a Canadian company ) for minimum wage (because the good jobs are over-seas) and don't have time to play with your shit anyway. Likewise, you would not be able to afford to power all that Japanese elecro-bling because that power from NYSEG, Avangrid, Elektro or Scottish Power costs too much money! ( Oops, sorry. These power companies were sold to Iberdrola - A Spanish company ) That's where we are headed, and that's one of the reasons why I voted for Trump.
-
New facts and feelings...
- Trump is considered to be like Batman (http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/01/03/trump-and-the-batman-effect/)
- Trump plagiarizes the speech of Bane (https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/822495850899374080)
- Trump plagiarizes the inaugural cake of Obama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2017/01/21/trump-had-a-huge-luxurious-inauguration-cake-was-it-plagiarized/?utm_term=.b738ff52612e)*
- Trump creates an alternative reality by declaring alternative facts (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/alternative-facts-kellyanne-conway-233998)
(http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/34797.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34797.jpg)
*The Cake Is A Lie!
-
On a lighter note, we now have a wave of women who are trying to defeat Donald Trump by using their vaginas. I'm not kidding, apparently this is a thing now. Look up "pussy hat" if you don't believe me. Why they would resort to using their vagina as a tool is far beyond my comprehension. I would argue that this is the wrong tool for the job, but what do I know.... >.>
If men tried to pull this kind of crap off, they would be laughed at and called "dick heads". Sadly, we don't have a similar slur in English for the female anatomy. The closest one I can think of is "Asshat."
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Womens-March-MadisonWI-Jan212017-02.jpg/1024px-Womens-March-MadisonWI-Jan212017-02.jpg)
(https://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2017/01/3067204-slide-s-14-the-pussyhat-project.jpg)
-
Possibly related to both "pussycat" (due to the cat ears) and "Pussy Riot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot)" (the female Russian punk rock band who used to wear a knitted face mask, the "balaclava").
-
On a lighter note, we now have a wave of women who are trying to defeat Donald Trump by using their vaginas. I'm not kidding, apparently this is a thing now. Look up "pussy hat" if you don't believe me. Why they would resort to using their vagina as a tool is far beyond my comprehension. I would argue that this is the wrong tool for the job, but what do I know.... >.>
If men tried to pull this kind of crap off, they would be laughed at and called "dick heads". Sadly, we don't have a similar slur in English for the female anatomy. The closest one I can think of is "Asshat."
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Womens-March-MadisonWI-Jan212017-02.jpg/1024px-Womens-March-MadisonWI-Jan212017-02.jpg)
(https://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2017/01/3067204-slide-s-14-the-pussyhat-project.jpg)
Rigwyn where did you find this picture of me!?
-
Rigwyn where did you find this picture of me!?
lol
Possibly related to both "pussycat" (due to the cat ears) and "Pussy Riot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot)" (the female Russian punk rock band who used to wear a knitted face mask, the "balaclava").
I'm sure someone thought this was a great idea at first.
A lot of what we are seeing right now is propaganda. People are saying all kinds of nonsense because it sounds catchy and trendy, or because it's the opinion of their favorite celebrity. I think I have a better understanding now of why the government tends to spy on Hollywood (celebrities).
-
(http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34803.jpg)
reminding us of
(http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/34802.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34802.jpg)
_
P.S.: Never mess with secret services!
(http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34804.jpg)
-
Rigwyn "YOU KNOW NOTHING JOHN SNOW" 2.7 million vaginas cant be wrong...but oh so right...refute this...I dare you. Just don't be crotchity about it :P
-
Dear Siteya,
WINTER IS COMING !
Sincerely,
Some Bastard
-
Trump's inquiry on possible election fraud (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-punitive-voter-fraud-investigation/514424/) has an important exception:
The White House says an inquiry into baseless claims of illegal voting will spare states that voted for the president.
If we do it, it is fine because we are the good.
Greenpeace has a different opinion:
(http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/34807.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34807.jpg) (http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/34808.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34808.jpg)
-
What does this even mean?
Resist what?
-
I guess it may be related to the cuts of the EPA Grants. Who needs an environment, why protect it, when that would limit the profits? *scratch ear* We need American cars built in America!
-
Well, it's kind of hard to resist budget cuts. When your funding is cut, you don't resist. You plead and negotiate.
Perhaps the sign should say "Plead and Negotiate" instead?
-
Wow, guys, you sure know how to derail an argument quickly. But even though we all know how scary is Trump, we're all failing to see the whole picture.
On one corner, we have a "self made" billionaire. A guy that started with one million and ended up with two thousand (aka, two billion) or more, of whom has been said that "if he had invested it intelligently and dedicated his career to finger painting, his net worth would be eight billion dollars." This guy, this amazing guy, has been the target of many mockings and the victim of failed products, all branded with his name in diamonds (Trump steaks? Trump vodka? No? Anyone?). And while he might realize he's not smart enough to rule a country on his own, he's smart enough to surround himself with capable people... who am I kidding. He's putting his friends in charge, and they're just like him, or worse - like Mike "Shock The Gay Away" Pence.
On the other side, however, we have something that might even be less appealing... We have a former Secretary of State that seemed to care little about the finesse of exterior politics, and would rather exert brute force than talk it through. I guess that's why she got replaced with the second administration. A woman that's currently being investigated by the FBI while she's trying to punish the whistleblowers that did nothing but expose her lies and plots. Clinton's friends rigged everything they could and the mother to get her to win her the seat of the Democrat candidate, robbing Bernie (whom really had the popular vote, and not her) of a most deserved victory.
But Bernie... It makes me laugh. In some regards, the USA still lives in the dark ages of the 50's through the 80's, when the threat of comunism loomed over the "allies" and grew stronger in an otherwise failing macrostate. The americans seem to still live in that era, and anything that means social progress (which is what the US needs the most now - veterans whilting away in the streets, students working 2 full-time jobs to pay tuition, single mothers not eating so that their children can) is labeled as "dirty comunism" and "taking away muh freedumz." Bernie could've never really won. That would've made the US into Europe 2.0.
Now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done and why are the same guys sitting in the Congress for 30 years.
-
Populism. Try to understand the last argument for building a wall to Mexico: Trump promised it to save thousands of lives by naming people who were killed by immigrants. He may not have said it in such terms, but narrowing the focus in such a way produces an image as if every immigrant is a potential killer. I bet he wouldn't dare to name immigrants who have become tax paying citizen. Populists generalize minorities to universal threats, to present themselves as the only and easiest solution. And countering a flood of emotional blathering with the facts required to disprove them would just take too long, they don't grant their opponents enough time to react reasonably. It's also known as Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop).
This even belittles the promise of this wall saving billions of dollars. After costing possibly dozens of billions, especially when taking into account the ground along larger sections of the border which makes building walls very complicated. How the payment by Mexico will be enforced remains questionable. But at the same time, relations to Mexico will advance to a new level. As a computer scientist, I sense a "logical conflict".
-
I sincerely don't think socialism is the correct solution to help America's lower class. If you remain poor in America, you're not handling your money well. You're wasting it on weed, booze, clothing, games, an addiction, or whatever you fancy. That's assuming you're not struck with random illness, but that's not just a lower class issue. Spain is a lot different. The poor here tend to be poor because they repeatedly make terrible decisions.
-
That nicely sums up the position of the "neo-liberals": You are poor because you are too stupid to use your chances, not because we leave you hardly any chance to use.
Unable to handle your money well? ... Do you really consider it impossible that there is just not enough money left to handle for some? "Whatever you fancy" ... that can be nothing after you paid your rent, your taxes, and the cheapest food you can afford. Nothing left to even go out and have a drink. Despite having two precarious jobs a day.
-
I sincerely don't think socialism is the correct solution to help America's lower class. If you remain poor in America, you're not handling your money well. You're wasting it on weed, booze, clothing, games, an addiction, or whatever you fancy. That's assuming you're not struck with random illness, but that's not just a lower class issue. Spain is a lot different. The poor here tend to be poor because they repeatedly make terrible decisions.
The poor people in Spain are poor because they make bad decisions, mostly. Even if there are some just people that get screwed over by the banks and such, the vast majority of poor people are just poor because they waste it. Don't forget it, poor people are the same everywhere. We're not a country of hobos and sloths.
-
Populism. Try to understand the last argument for building a wall to Mexico: Trump promised it to save thousands of lives by naming people who were killed by immigrants. He may not have said it in such terms, but narrowing the focus in such a way produces an image as if every immigrant is a potential killer. I bet he wouldn't dare to name immigrants who have become tax paying citizen. Populists generalize minorities to universal threats, to present themselves as the only and easiest solution. And countering a flood of emotional blathering with the facts required to disprove them would just take too long, they don't grant their opponents enough time to react reasonably. It's also known as Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop).
Populists appeal to the poor and working class. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we're talking about someone who pretends to be a populist in order to get votes, that's a different thing. I can give you examples of that. Obama claimed to be a populist and both him and Sanders would probably label themselves as populists. I believe Obama would argue that Trump is more of a wolf in sheep's clothing - someone who pretends to be a populist just to get their votes.
In this regard, Trump is kind of in between. He's taking a very Republican stance in asserting that businesses needs to be cared for. Without them, there are no jobs. At the same time he's against the current ( well, previous now ) establishment. The Democrats traditionally support the people and communities instead of the businesses, but it's not that simple.
This even belittles the promise of this wall saving billions of dollars. After costing possibly dozens of billions, especially when taking into account the ground along larger sections of the border which makes building walls very complicated. How the payment by Mexico will be enforced remains questionable. But at the same time, relations to Mexico will advance to a new level. As a computer scientist, I sense a "logical conflict".
Just as the Eurozone needs it's walls and border protection, we do too. You guys know what happens when you just let swarms of people into your country unchecked. We have the same problem with Mexico. Without passing judgment on the individuals, the problem is with controlling who gets in and ensuring that those who work here pay their dues and obey our laws. As for paying for the wall, it will probably be in the form of tax on money and goods crossing the border.
As someone who is from Europe, do you really think that putting up a wall to protect your border makes you a racist or a xenophobe? We have a lot of people here ( mostly democrats ) who are saying this without really thinking about it critically.
I sincerely don't think socialism is the correct solution to help America's lower class. If you remain poor in America, you're not handling your money well. You're wasting it on weed, booze, clothing, games, an addiction, or whatever you fancy. That's assuming you're not struck with random illness, but that's not just a lower class issue. Spain is a lot different. The poor here tend to be poor because they repeatedly make terrible decisions.
We have people here who try to make a lifestyle out of living off of Welfare ( public assistance ). They would rather not work and collect a handout and live in crappy conditions than to do some work and earn their way. Some of them end ho spawning lots of kids in order to get more money from the government. Yes, like over there, there are many reasons for not doing well financially.
-
You are poor because you are too stupid to use your chances, not because we leave you hardly any chance to use.
What's "we?" The government? Do you expect the government to provide you happiness?
Do you really consider it impossible that there is just not enough money left to handle for some?
I know poor people who live more lavishly than I do. They buy more than I do, go out more than I do, abuse substances more than I do, fight more than I do, unnecessarily break the law more than I do. That's the majority of poor I have met. Those I have known who started out poor and did not do any of those things did not stay poor for long.
I once had more sympathy for the poor until I immersed myself in their culture. And once upon a time, my family was poorer than theirs, yet mine managed to rise up through wise decision-making.
That's just what I've witnessed, though. There's plenty of statistics to back up my claim.
-
As usual ... don't generalize. There may be some people who are poor because they buy unnecessary things, but that doesn't mean that every poor person wastes their money; many are just unable to improve their situation without help (e.g. finding a better paid job despite their age or lack of higher education, not to mention the investments to move to another home). Also there may be criminals among migrants, but that doesn't mean that every migrant is criminal; many just even survived and would possibly be already dead if they didn't escape.
And "we" is not just the government. It means the whole society. Compared to many other countries, the society of the USA is quite "asocial", in the meaning that it cares less about those who need help to handle their lives. The free economy market and liberal politics, guiding the media as well, conditioned the people to believe in selfishness, everyone being responsible for their own fate, but less for the wealth of the whole society. Capitalism, fuck yeah.
The fact that Americans on the average fear only few things more than Communism and Socialism is a proof in itself that most people do not even understand these concepts. – "Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people." – Propaganda of the upper class makes the middle class believe that they would suffer if everyone cared a bit more about everyone, according to each ability to do so.
Do you know the difference between the average income and the median income? Do you earn more than the median? 50% of of your population does not. And how far apart are median and average in your country? The further apart, the less equal the income is spread across the population, because top wages have more impact on the average income, but are available to only few people. Can you imagine how many teachers, paramedics, or elderly nurses you could pay with a managerial salary or top athlete transfer? These are benchmarks for "asocial societies".
And you can see all over Europe how people increasingly feel their societies becoming more asocial by their economy markets getting more "free" and similar to the American Way. More and more people feel left out by the politics of the governments they once voted for, leaving only choices between not voting anymore at all, or voting for populists. As if there is no party to vote for which claims to make the society more social ... oh, wait, there are some. But people are afraid that social politics would make them poorer, not realizing that they are already poor enough to profit from more social politics instead, shrouded by the horrors of neoliberal and populistic propaganda.
-
For a while Ligh, I was more on the Liberal/Democrat side. I've recently changed my mind about this, so I might have agreed with you on more of this a year or two ago.
As usual ... don't generalize.
I'll remember that.
There may be some people who are poor because they buy unnecessary things, but that doesn't mean that every poor person wastes their money; many are just unable to improve their situation without help (e.g. finding a better paid job despite their age or lack of higher education, not to mention the investments to move to another home). Also there may be criminals among migrants, but that doesn't mean that every migrant is criminal; many just even survived and would possibly be already dead if they didn't escape.
I agree, however with immigration, it's a mixture problem. If 5% of the refugees or immigrants from one country wants to abolish your country, then how many of those people should you let into your country? 1,000? 5,000 ? 50,000? How about half a million? We argue that 95% of these people are probably honest, decent folks, but that doesn't mean we should over look the 5% who wants to destroy our culture and replace it with Sharia law. I'm not saying don't let any of them in, just that you need to take the minority of troublemakers in the population seriously. If culturally, these people don't see anything wrong with raping women in the streets for fun or because they think they look like whores, then that should be taken into consideration too.
And "we" is not just the government. It means the whole society. Compared to many other countries, the society of the USA is quite "asocial", in the meaning that it cares less about those who need help to handle their lives. The free economy market and liberal politics, guiding the media as well, conditioned the people to believe in selfishness, everyone being responsible for their own fate, but less for the wealth of the whole society. Capitalism, fuck yeah.
Let's refer back to the earlier comment about not generalizing ::| ;D
In the US, we have population that's pretty evenly split down the middle. Half the country is Republican, half is Democrats. The Republicans tend to believe in the free markets - or letting supply and demand drive prices, profits and production. The have traditionally been Christian and tend to align with Christian teachings and morality. They also believe in supporting businesses so that we have jobs and money to work with. The Democrats traditionally tended to be more on the liberal side - less religous, LGBT supporters, etc. They believe in giving money to charities and supporting the people directly while letting businesses fend for themselves. They seem to believe that if we give more money to social causes - ie. public schools, public health services, and monetary support for every afflicted group imagninable, then society will be better off.
Some folks here are cold and ruthless while some are charitable and selfless.
The fact that Americans
Dammit... what happened to my cookie cutter... the one we use to make new Muricans with so they all look the same ... >.>
on the average fear only few things more than Communism and Socialism is a proof in itself that most people do not even understand these concepts. – "Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people." – Propaganda of the upper class makes the middle class believe that they would suffer if everyone cared a bit more about everyone, according to each ability to do so.
I heard Angela Merkel let a wave of Syrian Refugees into Germany. How's that been working out for you guys?
More important, do the Italians, British, French and Spanish have similar opinions on this?
Do you know of any countries where Communism and Socialism is actually working?
Would you want to live in said countries?
Denmark may be the exception here, but I understand they don't have pure socialism, but rather a mixture or socialism and capitalism and a culture that works well with this.
Do you know the difference between the average income and the median income? Do you earn more than the median? 50% of of your population does not. And how far apart are median and average in your country? The further apart, the less equal the income is spread across the population, because top wages have more impact on the average income, but are available to only few people. Can you imagine how many teachers, paramedics, or elderly nurses you could pay with a managerial salary or top athlete transfer? These are benchmarks for "asocial societies".
In the US, Democrats would probably agree with your statement. I however, take the Republican's side on this matter.
1. People who work longer, harder or smarter and earn more deserve to keep what they worked for.
2. Nobody should be forced to hand over their hard earned money or goods. (That's called theft )
3. We pay taxes to support our country.
4. Those who are helpless and thus truly in need should be taken care of.
4. You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. ( the exception would be in complying with the laws )
Therefore, if you work your ass off and earn twice as much money as me, then I have no right to demand you to give me some of your money in order to make our wallets "EQUAL". In this case, inequality is fair. Equality in this example, would be a violation of your right to work hard and get ahead. It would also discourage you from working harder and encourage me to be lazy.
And you can see all over Europe how people increasingly feel their societies becoming more asocial by their economy markets getting more "free" and similar to the American Way. More and more people feel left out by the politics of the governments they once voted for,
BREXIT
leaving only choices between not voting anymore at all, or voting for populists.
Again, populists are politicians who are for the people - ie Democrats.
As if there is no party to vote for which claims to make the society more social ... oh, wait, there are some. But people are afraid that social politics would make them poorer, not realizing that they are already poor enough to profit from more social politics instead, shrouded by the horrors of neoliberal and populistic propaganda.
I don't think socialism worked out too well in Russia, and as for communism, I don't think I would ever want to live in China, North Korea or Cuba. Can you think of a communist or socialist country where you would want to live? I can't.
-
Eastern European here.
Guys, please don`t idealize socialism/communism. Just don`t do it.
The people here know perfectly it leads only to living hell with "1984" taken as an instruction manual.
-
We may have a different opinion about the meaning of the term "populist". My interpretation is closer to "politicians who tell the people what they want to hear at first before derailing the topic". ;) Populists, as I know them, offer simple solutions to difficult problems, present themselves as the messiah in times of despair. But their solutions are often based on fear, hate, separation, promising security after declaring terror (which means originally: fear of violence). The result of raising security is a loss of privacy, freedom, democracy. The same politicians are about to establish terms and habits of Nazi times in Germany again.
Regarding any established socialistic or even communistic society ... no, I don't know of any flawless example. Some central and south american countries implemented parts of it. But after all, corruption and dictationship is present as well. Therefore I only referred to their concepts, in theory. And I keep returning to the "social economy market" as proposed by Ludwig Erhard, over and over again. In relation to the french term "noblesse obligue", there is also an important concept in the german constitutional law (§14.2): "Eigentum verpflichtet" (property obliges). Private property shall not be used to harm the common wealth. In other words: "If you have more than enough, build a longer table, not a higher fence." The Christs amoung our readers may know the 10 Commandments better than me, at least by their words; whether they live by their meaning, is a different topic.
One of the most important reasons for crime is poverty. Less people would be forced to steal if they didn't hunger. Of course, there are more reasons for crimes, like lack of education (also often based on poverty), mental issues (born psychopaths do exist as well); even boredom (how many rich people committed crimes for the thrill). I find the lack of sustainability in the modern free market economy ... somehow "fascinating", just as Spock would have used this term. Hardly any kind of (craft/trade/artisanry?) would deplete its resources as ruthless as the "market" does it today: The solvent customer. The more people get insolvent, the less people can buy your products. Am I the only one who realizes how stupid a spreading gap between upper and lower society classes is? Yet, the gap keeps spreading more and more. Thanks to conservative and neoliberal politics, guided by lobbyism. Greed will ruin the nations.
One closing point regarding the republican view: Those who "work their ass off" often just earn much less than those who are hardly relevant for the gross national product. And I doubt that republican politicians are the first to change this injustice. German politicians legitimate the amount of their daily allowances by lowering the risk of bribery; but bribery with cash is obsolete, the real bribery happens with promised manager positions after their political carreer, in their lobbyist's companies (a.k.a. "revolving door effect").
-
Eastern European here.
Guys, please don`t idealize socialism/communism. Just don`t do it.
The people here know perfectly it leads only to living hell with "1984" taken as an instruction manual.
I don't usually comment on this because i don't care enough but what you are basically saying is that you shouldn't like socialism/communism just because you "shouldn't"? ::) If you say something that radical you should be able to prove it, i want to hear your reasoning.
-
The meaning is rather: Don't believe that there has been real socialism or even communism in eastern Europe after 1945. It was announced as such, but in fact something different. State-directed economy, combined with a pseudo-democratic form of dictatorship, mistrust, surveillance, denouncing. Certainly no philantropy, though.
-
The meaning is rather: Don't believe that there has been real socialism or even communism in eastern Europe after 1945. It was announced as such, but in fact something different. State-directed economy, combined with a pseudo-democratic form of dictatorship, mistrust, surveillance, denouncing. Certainly no philantropy, though.
No, i don't , but the point is rather that since Mairon had a statement that he would back it up :P
-
I`ll back it up by one word, Dilihin: USSR. (Google is your friend)
The point is that under socialism you won`t be sitting here on the forum writing posts and discussing things. You will be starving to death in a gulag, where there is certainly no internet.
The "care about people" thing is just a smokescreen. If you are old enough to start discussing such a topic, you should probably realise it too.
-
What most seem to miss about this election is that Americans in the heartland think our government is broken, which it is. It has gotten to the point that one cannot take a dump without the government telling you how much water you can use to flush. When the government pays people not to work many will never try to find a job. That makes them slaves of that government and when the money runs out they either die or do whatever they are told to do.
Socialism has been tried many times and always fails. The early Christians tried, the Pilgrims, and the hippie communes of the '60s and '70s. Good ideas don't work unless everyone puts their all into it. The problem is that there are those that want a free ride or feel that they contribute more than others.
The American Dream is being crushed by our own government and people have finally begun to wake up to that.
-
A socialism or communism like system could work. If not today, perhaps in the future when artificial intelligence and machines do most of our work. Scienties believe a superintelligent AI could be about 2 to five decades away, with a 50% likelihood or something like that I read in some book.
If it is not a socialism like society by than, very few people (or even robots) will own almost everything. Even today the eight richest people own more than the poorest half.
-
@cdmoreland : The problem is, when people are fed up from their governments they tend to vote for extreme right-wing... Which never makes things better. :<
@Calmus : Even coming from a country more left-winged than the US (France), and even being quite the left-winged type myself, I don't believe in communism at all. It's too much of an utopia.
And as for AI... Do you really believe we can develop a society with more and more machines and better and better AI for these machines, to the point humanity almost don't have to work anymore, without having the machines contest it ?
If it comes to the point that robots equal fully-grown humans, I don't think the situation would last long... Why, you'll ask ? Because, it would be kind of creating a new triangular trade, with the only difference these new slaves would be made of metal and wires instead of flesh, and that we'd create it.
The farer AI comes, the closer we are from coming to a point where it will actually be sentient. And if we make it to this point, we'll have to acknowledge them rights.
-
I`ll back it up by one word, Dilihin: USSR. (Google is your friend)
The point is that under socialism you won`t be sitting here on the forum writing posts and discussing things. You will be starving to death in a gulag, where there is certainly no internet.
The "care about people" thing is just a smokescreen. If you are old enough to start discussing such a topic, you should probably realise it too.
I think your point was more like "Communism has never worked before and is likely to fail." Communism/socialism is very great idea itself and its totally fine to idealize it, it just hasn't worked well before (thought USSR worked definetly better than the old tsar system so it was improvement to old clearly)
-
You don`t get it, mate. The power will never belong to the people, but to the "privileged elite" who are most definitely mindcontrolled by the Black Flame (well, I won`t mention how it`s called in RL, `cause there are even laws against it (free speech my ass) but it is full known as well) with the only difference that under socialism/communism you`ll be more oppressed and that will be for real. But if you think USSR wasn`t that bad and Stalin dindu nuffin (as well as all the other assholes), then maybe it`s the way to go!
Anyway, to implement a fair socialist system you need great inner change of consciousness and conscience in most people. People are lazy and stupid. Nuff said.
-
Mairon, you are right, but there are many of us in the USA that understand that and we will keep fighting for freedom. "God bless the republic, death to the New World Order! We shall prevail!"
btw, Trump is no "right-winger" by any stretch of the imagination. Many fear he is not far enough to the right.
-
Mairon, i wasn't saying it wasnt thst bad, but things actually got better in there with communism, not enough of course but was clearly a improvement to old country. Only reason stopping communism is because how selfish and stupid humans are.
-
Mairon, you are right, but there are many of us in the USA that understand that and we will keep fighting for freedom. "God bless the republic, death to the New World Order! We shall prevail!"
btw, Trump is no "right-winger" by any stretch of the imagination. Many fear he is not far enough to the right.
So he's just an idiot?
-
President Trump was a Democrat for most of his life and he is not a small government advocate. My hope is that he can return some powers back to the states. The best I can say for him is that he is a capitalist and not a socialist.
-
Mairon, you are right, but there are many of us in the USA that understand that and we will keep fighting for freedom. "God bless the republic, death to the New World Order! We shall prevail!"
btw, Trump is no "right-winger" by any stretch of the imagination. Many fear he is not far enough to the right.
So he's just an idiot?
I'd rather say a madman. A dangerous madman. Even for those of us who aren't from the US. His absolute lack of any sense of diplomacy could lead to explosive consequences, be it through a conflict with Europe, Russia, or, more probably, with China - their relations already began deteriorating.
-
He`s a psycho, that`s obvious. They all are.
But at least he`s not going to blow the whole world up in nuclear hellfire immediately just because some hackers changed their IPs to Russian ones.
His bosses (or, should I say, owners?) know full well they are not going to endure the level of radiation even in their underground shelters, that is if the globe won`t crack like a nut. It`ll be worse than Fallout - the Earth will most likely resemble Mars.
-
I don't have a response at the moment since I'm lazy, but I just want to pop in to say that somehow you guys are having the most reasonable discussion of politics on a forum I've seen in a long time. lol
-
I don't have a response at the moment since I'm lazy, but I just want to pop in to say that somehow you guys are having the most reasonable discussion of politics on a forum I've seen in a long time. lol
Maybe because we all agree with the same thing. Mostly. But what the hell do I have to say in this? I'm not even a US citizen. Also, meme time:
(https://i.imgflip.com/1iiohd.jpg)
-
[...]
@Calmus : Even coming from a country more left-winged than the US (France), and even being quite the left-winged type myself, I don't believe in communism at all. It's too much of an utopia.
And as for AI... Do you really believe we can develop a society with more and more machines and better and better AI for these machines, to the point humanity almost don't have to work anymore, without having the machines contest it ?
If it comes to the point that robots equal fully-grown humans, I don't think the situation would last long... Why, you'll ask ? Because, it would be kind of creating a new triangular trade, with the only difference these new slaves would be made of metal and wires instead of flesh, and that we'd create it.
The farer AI comes, the closer we are from coming to a point where it will actually be sentient. And if we make it to this point, we'll have to acknowledge them rights.
If we progress further with AI intelligence research through the next few decades, I believe it's very likely that (Artificial) Superintelligence will end all our intellectual work. Superintelligence will be the last invetion we have to make. Thats the opinion of some scientists, such as Nick Bostrom and Sam Harris.
Interesting TED Talks of those:
https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_bostrom_what_happens_when_our_computers_get_smarter_than_we_are (https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_bostrom_what_happens_when_our_computers_get_smarter_than_we_are)
https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it (https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it)
-
As a person who did some minor programming, I respectfully disagree, Calmus. However, just to some extent.
A machine, no matter how advanced it is, is just a set of programs shaped in a particular sequence.
It`s not the AI itself that is very likely to wipe us from the face of the Earth - people will ensure this themselves via the minds of those who will create the AI in the first place. And I have a feeling that the moods and intentions of such creators correlate pretty well with the stereotypical machines` idea of destruction of the human race.
-
the AI topic would we great for another thread. I'm very interested in and but am holding back.
-
BTW... the criteria to select the muslim states the entry ban applies to is totally justified (http://imgur.com/gallery/jxPlC)!
-
I'll just drop this here:
https://mic.com/articles/166845/the-list-of-muslim-countries-trump-wants-to-ban-was-compiled-by-the-obama-administration#.S6DqpAGlD
-
BTW... the criteria to select the muslim states the entry ban applies to is totally justified (http://imgur.com/gallery/jxPlC)!
That list was compiled long before any presidential candidates were announced for the recent election. But Rigwyn probably got to that point first.
-
As far as I understood, this list was made earlier, but for a different purpose; at least not for a complete travel ban (which is partially unjust, as judges ruled in several cases).
By the way, there are a few more non-accidents (https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.debhsdul0). Chapter 6 points into an interesting direction...
(http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34792.jpg)
Fear and Loathing in United Soviet America!
Just because you Americans are more afraid of Communism than of Fascism. Generalization FTW.
-
No, we Americans are afraid of socialism no matter the form. Obama gave us a big dose and it made us sick. ;D
-
Fascism - do we need to consult the dictionary? You are usually very good about carefully choosing your words. Trump is trying to make America amenable to businesses.under Obama's rule, jobs and businesses left the country for this reason. Outsourcing can be good but too much is very bad.
Fear of socialism - Yeah, I'm afraid of socialism and rightly so.
Putin - would you rather the US have a business relationship with Russia or a nuclear bloodbath? I would side with trump in choosing a business relationship if possible.
-
Under Obama's rule, jobs and businesses left the country for this reason. Outsourcing can be good but too much is very bad.
[citation needed]
-
Under Obama's rule, jobs and businesses left the country for this reason. Outsourcing can be good but too much is very bad.
[citation needed]
Those of us who live here have watched it happening.
-
I can get you a list later. Some examples are our steel and auto manufacturing industries, apple, Microsoft and many it jobs. Manufacturing in general has moved to China and Mexico. Telephone jobs like phone Tech support jobs moved to India. Where possible, us businesses try to save money by outsourcing at our country's expense.
The latest trend is basing your business in the Cayman islands, Ireland or other countries who offer businesses lower tax rates and less. By doing this, businesses pay the US zero dollars in taxes and another country a smaller rate like 10 percent. That's a huge sum for big companies like Apple.
This also means that US citizens need to pay more in taxes to make up for this.
-
I can get you a list later. Some examples are our steel and auto manufacturing industries, apple, Microsoft and many it jobs. Manufacturing in general has moved to China and Mexico. Telephone jobs like phone Tech support jobs moved to India. Where possible, us businesses try to save money by outsourcing at our country's expense.
The latest trend is basing your business in the Cayman islands, Ireland or other countries who offer businesses lower tax rates and less. By doing this, businesses pay the US zero dollars in taxes and another country a smaller rate like 10 percent. That's a huge sum for big companies like Apple.
This also means that US citizens need to pay more in taxes to make up for this.
So for something that happened during Clinton and Bush's administration, as well as Obama's, and maybe even before them, now Obama is to blame? You mean to tell me a company like Apple, that has been declaring their taxes in countries like Ireland, started doing so when Obama got in the power? Is that it?
The whole "CHINA" argument is getting old. If you don't like Obama, find a more solid ground upon which base your arguments.
-
Yes, this is a trend that has been happening long before Obama. Under Obama's 8 year term , nothing was done to stop this. He had plenty of time. Previous presidents are just as much to blame, don't get me wrong there. What is unfortunate is that this problem continued to fester for the last 8 years as our national deficit slid from 7.3 trillion dollars in the hole to 19.9 trillion dollars in the hole. I know Obama is not a financial wizard, but as president, it was his job to manage this and hire whoever he might need in order to develop a plan and get this under control. Adding a trillion dollars worth of debt per year is not OK when you don't have an extra trillion dollars per year in income to cover it. It's simple math. This is how you go broke.
Details on US Budget Deficit:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
On Budget Deficits by President:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp
Regarding China, it was not the main focus of this post, just an example of countries where our jobs have been exported to. Again, outsourcing and buying products from abroad is not necessarily bad, but if you over do this, the effects can be crippling.
-
Under Obama's rule, jobs and businesses left the country for this reason. Outsourcing can be good but too much is very bad.
[citation needed]
Companies that moved overseas under Obama:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/08/27/businesses-move-inversion/
Pfizer
Medtronic
Tim Hortons
Liberty Global
Chiquita Brands
Eaton
From this top 10 list:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/10-iconic-us-companies-that-have-moved-headquarters-abroad.html
Burger King
Budweiser
Medtronic
Purina
McDermott (Construction)
Seagate ( Hard drive company )
Good Humor
Frigidaire
Actavis/Allergan
Lucky Strike
Largest Tax Inversions:
http://www.ibtimes.com/five-biggest-tax-inversion-deals-1668382
Regaring Mexico and the Automobile industry:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/15/more-companies-moving-to-mexico-finding-fewer-laborers-to-fill-jobs/
-
The deforestation of reason continues...
Trump fires government's top lawyer after she defied him on travel ban (http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/31/us-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates-defies-trump-travel-ban-saying-not)
Look, coming into this country is still a privilege, we’re the greatest country on earth. And being able to come to America is a privilege, not a right, and it is our duty and it is the president’s goal to make sure that everybody who comes into this country to the best of our ability is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully.
#WeAreNotWorthy
(http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/34824.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34824.jpg)
-
She disobeyed him. What do you expect? Of course he fired her stupid ass. I would too.
Worthiness? Dude, it sounds like you are reading a lot of news from the political left. In the us, the vast majority of the mainstream news outlets are heavily biased towards the left. To get a balanced view, you need to read news from the right too.
-
I am not rich enough to afford a conservative opinion.
-
She disobeyed him. What do you expect? Of course he fired her stupid ass. I would too.
Worthiness? Dude, it sounds like you are reading a lot of news from the political left. In the us, the vast majority of the mainstream news outlets are heavily biased towards the left. To get a balanced view, you need to read news from the right too.
Who wouldn't disobey him? Only lobbyists loaded like he is, who know nothing abou the lower and middle classes. And don't make me laugh about being biased towards the left. What left wing do you have in the US? Do you even know what true socialism is? We're fed up on it in Europe, but if we complain about a soon to be fascist dictator is for a good reason - we've had some of those already.
You're one to speak about non-bias. You're using Trump's same strategy of supporting your arguments on castles in the air, with barely no sources except when you're called out on your crap, and then you scramble to find something quick that you think will make us shut up. Meanwhile, mortgages are raising, honest workers are getting more difficulties to keep working and even live in the US, and your lower and middle classes are growing even poorer - and that just in 8 days. Suit yourself.
But don't call us biased, when you most decidedly are, too. You are henceforth barred from using the bias argument, so we can see if you can support your points properly without it.
-
I am not rich enough to afford a conservative opinion.
And you, stop egging him on, and contribute with a well thought post instead of trying to flame him for your own fun!
-
She disobeyed him. What do you expect? Of course he fired her stupid ass. I would too.
Worthiness? Dude, it sounds like you are reading a lot of news from the political left. In the us, the vast majority of the mainstream news outlets are heavily biased towards the left. To get a balanced view, you need to read news from the right too.
Who wouldn't disobey him? Only lobbyists loaded like he is, who know nothing abou the lower and middle classes. And don't make me laugh about being biased towards the left. What left wing do you have in the US? Do you even know what true socialism is? We're fed up on it in Europe, but if we complain about a soon to be fascist dictator is for a good reason - we've had some of those already.
You're one to speak about non-bias. You're using Trump's same strategy of supporting your arguments on castles in the air, with barely no sources except when you're called out on your crap, and then you scramble to find something quick that you think will make us shut up. Meanwhile, mortgages are raising, honest workers are getting more difficulties to keep working and even live in the US, and your lower and middle classes are growing even poorer - and that just in 8 days. Suit yourself.
But don't call us biased, when you most decidedly are, too. You are henceforth barred from using the bias argument, so we can see if you can support your points properly without it.
You asked for a citation and I gave you a bunch. Was that not enough? Should I Google some more for you or are you able to do that yourself?
As for left and right, when we speak of the left in the us, we are speaking of democrats and liberals . They are left of Center. When we speak of the right we are talking about republicans and conservatives. More commonly we refer to communists as communists and socialists as socialists.
I don't claim to know what it's like to live under socialist rule. I just know it's something that I would not want.
Not sure what your issue is.. are you just breaking my balls or does your butt hurt?
Oh, ps.
You biased, bro? Kek
-
As for left and right, when we speak of the left in the us, we are speaking of democrats and liberals . They are left of Center. When we speak of the right we are talking about republicans and conservatives. More commonly we refer to communists as communists and socialists as socialists.
This may be one of the main reasons for confusion in trans-continental political discussions: The same word may have different meanings to different audiences. And in addition, different people will have a different opinion where they see a center on the political scale. Originally, "left" and "right" was merely the position of the seats in the parliament...
Contributing with a well thought post about what "left" and "right" political concepts mean to me is not easy. Certainly it would reach a "tl;dr" amount. Summing it all up to only one attribute won't be valid; but as a most important, I see "left politics" as rather related to altruistic motives (supporting the common wealth), and "right politics" as rather related to egoistic motives (supporting the personal wealth). And if I am not completely wrong, then the recurring reports of a widening gap in the society seems to confirm that the previous politics was mainly "right", and conservative politicians want to conserve this gap.
-
I didn't need any googling to know your sources weren't precisely concise. Your center is what we call the right in Europe. The european center is what you'd call democrats. What we call the left you'd call communists, what we call center you'd call them socialists. You'll never live in a socialist rule, no matter who you vote.
I am neither breaking your balls not being butthurt. You never address the main points in our arguments when you're afraid we might be right, and resort to mocking us and trying to justify yourself.
-
Summing it all up to only one attribute won't be valid; but as a most important, I see "left politics" as rather related to altruistic motives (supporting the common wealth), and "right politics" as rather related to egoistic motives (supporting the personal wealth).
Wow. No.
I'm going to speak about the United States' left and right in general terms, not all-encompassing. The right is individualist. The left is collectivist. The right's version of altruism is charity. The left's version of altruism is socialism. The right focuses on negative liberty. The left focuses on positive liberty. The right is closer to libertarian. The left is closer to authoritarian. The right focuses on economics. The left focuses on welfare.
@Mishka, socialism already exists within the United States.
Also, the fear of socialism is well-founded, especially for a country which was relatively immune to its spread but was able to witness the eventual horrors it wrought upon the countries from which many of our families left not so long ago. The entire premise for socialism in the sense of Marx is anti-liberal, anti-individual, and authoritarian in its judgement. Europe was very taken with the concept for a long time. Being that America was fairly isolated, it did not view socialism as "the norm" and was better able to see the connections between socialism and European conflicts and tragedies. Not to say that capitalism does not have its issues, but capitalism does not force "utopia" upon its citizens.
-
I am not rich enough to afford a conservative opinion.
I'm too poor not to be conservative! I have the freedom to keep trying and it would be a lot easier without the government regulations making it almost impossible. People won't be dying in the streets if we dial-back the ACA aka Obama Care. The goal of helping people up is noble but the current system put in place by Progressives makes it hard to get off the government tit.
-
I didn't need any googling to know your sources weren't precisely concise. Your center is what we call the right in Europe. The european center is what you'd call democrats. What we call the left you'd call communists, what we call center you'd call them socialists. You'll never live in a socialist rule, no matter who you vote.
I am neither breaking your balls not being butthurt. You never address the main points in our arguments when you're afraid we might be right, and resort to mocking us and trying to justify yourself.
btw - i wasn't trying to shoot you guys down. Typically I ignore points if i agree with them and comment on the ones i disagree with. If this comes across as dodging then I'll try to make more of an effort to explicitly state the points i agree with.
The butt hurt comment was just me being a troll for shits and giggles... I can't help doing that now and then. :)
-
Why are we still arguing about this? The US has been overtaken by a treasonous, fascist coup. Even those of you who were pro-Trump prior to the election must see that by now. Now there is nothing left to do but civil disobedience.
-
Why are we still arguing about this? The US has been overtaken by a treasonous, fascist coup. Even those of you who were pro-Trump prior to the election must see that by now. Now there is nothing left to do but civil disobedience.
Oh come on Ralas, I enjoy a good debate, but I can't have fun with you if you just use emotionally loaded words.
There was no coup. Mr. Trump won the electoral vote even though the DNC and the Democrats cheated. What the Democrats are trying to do right now is a lot closer to an attempted coup than anything else. Admit it. The Democrats and Liberals would love to stage a coup right about now.
While it's trendy to call people who you do not like "fascists" nowadays*, I don't think that's the best match. We do not have an authoritarian government and we have freedom which does not work with fascism. We also have the ability to impeach a president if need be which happened to Hillary's husband for lying under oath just like Hillary did years later. He was impeached, but not removed from office.
Treason? No, however Obama giving 200 million to Palestine ( Israel's worst enemy ), the Iran nuke deal, the 1 billion+ dollars John Kerry subsequently gave to Iran, and Hillary's acceptance of huge amounts of money from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar via her fake charity, her fake news and the MSM's fake polls are not technically treason, but are damn close.
-
Apropos trendy ... "he did not lie, we just didn't (want to) believe him" worked in Germany in 1933 just as well as in the USA in 2016. Let's hope the result won't be the same. Or ... no. Not hope. Prevent it.
For your entertainment, here are some Propellerheads (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8).
_
::| Post 7000.
-
::| Post 7000.
Damn, LigH ;D
-
Oh come on Ralas, I enjoy a good debate, but I can't have fun with you if you just use emotionally loaded words.
*Accurate, descriptive words.
There was no coup. Mr. Trump won the electoral vote even though the DNC and the Democrats cheated. What the Democrats are trying to do right now is a lot closer to an attempted coup than anything else. Admit it. The Democrats and Liberals would love to stage a coup right about now.
There was in fact a coup. Trump has essentially admitted to collaborating with hackers who were working for Putin. The Russians released their "dirt" on her and spread anti-Hillary propaganda (most of which was easily debunked by anyone literate). Trump also collaborated with Comey to to re-open the investigation the week of the election, thus reminding the public of the whole emails "scandal," only to then admit that there was nothing there. All of this was intentional to lead the sheep who have been hearing Hillary slandered for so long that they don't question it anymore into voting for the most unfit candidate of all time.
While it's trendy to call people who you do not like "fascists" nowadays*, I don't think that's the best match. We do not have an authoritarian government and we have freedom which does not work with fascism. We also have the ability to impeach a president if need be which happened to Hillary's husband for lying under oath just like Hillary did years later. He was impeached, but not removed from office.
Muslim Ban Executive Order, Anti-gay, "religious freedom" executive order, Bannon (a KNOWN anti-semite) having anything to do with the presidency whatsoever, DeVos, an anti-education person in charge of education, a climate change denier in charge of the EPA, refusal to obey court orders declaring his executive orders unconstitutional, the prohibition of government scientists speaking out (seriously, follow the rogue nasa twitter)... The list goes on. The point is that Trump scapegoated Muslims and Latinos to gain favor. Because the "us vs them" mentality is simple and appeals to the simple-minded. Remember who else used it? If you don't think this constitutes fascism then you need to look the word up.
Treason? No, however Obama giving 200 million to Palestine ( Israel's worst enemy ), the Iran nuke deal, the 1 billion+ dollars John Kerry subsequently gave to Iran, and Hillary's acceptance of huge amounts of money from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar via her fake charity, her fake news and the MSM's fake polls are not technically treason, but are damn close.
Have you been to Israel/Palestine? As a Jew I have. I'm as pro-zionist as anyone but the only solution is a two-state solution. I saw barely clothed people on dirt settlements among ancient buildings behind giant barbed-wire fences. Palestine is not a country and thus you cannot call them Israel's worst enemy. It is unfair to let the worst of them (Hamas, the PA) speak for them. Yes, those two organizations are evil. But that wouldn't stop me from feeding emaciated children either.
As for all the fake charity stuff--I would appreciate sources. I've heard these claims quite a bit, but it grows tiresome having to google and debunk every piece of anti-Hillary propaganda the Russians produced. So far nothing has held up to a simple googling, but i'm gonna give you a bit more credit and assume you have a credible source, of which I would appreciate a link. It hardly matters now anyway.
-
She disobeyed him. What do you expect? Of course he fired her stupid ass. I would too.
Let me remember... Are the US Trump's personal company ? Is he an almighty God ? Have civil servants to agree with the President on any topic ?
Hmmm... I don't think so.
Dude, it sounds like you are reading a lot of news from the political left. In the us, the vast majority of the mainstream news outlets are heavily biased towards the left. To get a balanced view, you need to read news from the right too.
Let's prove us you read/watch/listen to news from the every political opinions. Then you'll have the right to give that argument again.
But oh well... I'm sure you don't, and it would be nonsensical to do that anyway. It doesn't make sense to try reading just every newspaper you can get. And the result would be that you get several people sharing divergent opinions... You'd only get a bunch of contradictory more or less biased opinions on facts, and no clearer mind on the things...
What can you do to get a pure, absolutely neutral viewpoint ? Nothing. To try determining what is honest and what is biased, people can only use objective facts (like that (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Inauguration_crowd_size_comparison_between_Trump_2017_and_Obama_2009.jpg)), and logic.
My courses include English oral tests every two weeks. Those are based on US or UK newspaper extracts, on which we have to react. We don't always have left-winged newspapers. Nor always right-winged newspaper. Does that mean every info we get is neutral ? Of course no. And we have to use our own mind to make up our own opinions on the various subjects.
-
anti-Hillary propaganda (most of which was easily debunked by anyone literate)
debunk every piece of anti-Hillary propaganda the Russians produced
Whoa, buddy. Shilling for Hill much? Did she pay or threaten you with "disappearance under mysterious circumstances"? `Cause there is no way in Hell anyone sane would vote for that hag otherwise.
-
anti-Hillary propaganda (most of which was easily debunked by anyone literate)
debunk every piece of anti-Hillary propaganda the Russians produced
Whoa, buddy. Shilling for Hill much? Did she pay or threaten you with "disappearance under mysterious circumstances"? `Cause there is no way in Hell anyone sane would vote for that hag otherwise.
One could say there's no way in Hell anyone sane would vote for Trump... :innocent:
-
Calling Trumps win a "coup" is nonsense. If media were to tell you what party or canditate to vote for, it would also not be called a coup.
Here you can read what is refered to as coup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
I personally don't mind much that Trump is president of the US. As long as he doesn't start new wars and keeps his promises against new foreign state interventions - apart from fight against Islamic State, I actually think it is the lesser of the two evils.
-
Whoa, buddy. Shilling for Hill much? Did she pay or threaten you with "disappearance under mysterious circumstances"? `Cause there is no way in Hell anyone sane would vote for that hag otherwise.
Why not? Do you have anything bad to say about her, anything at all, that isn't easily debunked? Because when you look at all the reasons people have for hating her, the vast majority of it is baseless. I have yet to see a solid argument against her that some quick research won't disprove.
And it's a coup because Trump worked with the Russian government and the head of the FBI to knowingly spread misinformation about his opponent and to wrongly bring about suspicion of her in the week prior to the election (again, the feds admitted they had nothing on her, but by then the damage had been done) in order to subvert the will of the people (remember by at least 3 million popular votes) and steal the election.
It gets frustrating making well-articulated, carefully crated posts only to see people spew the same baseless garbage, so please don't expect a response if your next posts are of the same quality.
-
Whoa, buddy. Shilling for Hill much? Did she pay or threaten you with "disappearance under mysterious circumstances"? `Cause there is no way in Hell anyone sane would vote for that hag otherwise.
Why not? Do you have anything bad to say about her, anything at all, that isn't easily debunked? Because when you look at all the reasons people have for hating her, the vast majority of it is baseless. I have yet to see a solid argument against her that some quick research won't disprove.
And it's a coup because Trump worked with the Russian government and the head of the FBI to knowingly spread misinformation about his opponent and to wrongly bring about suspicion of her in the week prior to the election (again, the feds admitted they had nothing on her, but by then the damage had been done) in order to subvert the will of the people (remember by at least 3 million popular votes) and steal the election.
It gets frustrating making well-articulated, carefully crated posts only to see people spew the same baseless garbage, so please don't expect a response if your next posts are of the same quality.
[citation needed]
-
It gets frustrating making well-articulated, carefully crated posts only to see people spew the same baseless garbage, so please don't expect a response if your next posts are of the same quality.
If someone told you Hillary was a virgin you would believe that, too.
-
It gets frustrating making well-articulated, carefully crated posts only to see people spew the same baseless garbage, so please don't expect a response if your next posts are of the same quality.
-
There was in fact a coup. Trump has essentially admitted to collaborating with hackers who were working for Putin. The Russians released their "dirt" on her and spread anti-Hillary propaganda (most of which was easily debunked by anyone literate). Trump also collaborated with Comey to to re-open the investigation the week of the election, thus reminding the public of the whole emails "scandal," only to then admit that there was nothing there. All of this was intentional to lead the sheep who have been hearing Hillary slandered for so long that they don't question it anymore into voting for the most unfit candidate of all time.
I'm going to agree with Calmus that this was not a coup by definition. Your point is that the FBI was involved. I get that, but I would counter that by pointing out that she had been under investigation by the FBI well before she decided to run for president. Her email problems go back to the Benghazi incident. Was it fair for the FBI to get involved as they did? I don't know. I think the timing of that was unfortunate, but it she wasn't under criminal investigation in the first place, this would not have happened.
Muslim Ban Executive Order, Anti-gay, "religious freedom" executive order, Bannon (a KNOWN anti-semite) having anything to do with the presidency whatsoever, DeVos, an anti-education person in charge of education, a climate change denier in charge of the EPA, refusal to obey court orders declaring his executive orders unconstitutional, the prohibition of government scientists speaking out (seriously, follow the rogue nasa twitter)... The list goes on. The point is that Trump scapegoated Muslims and Latinos to gain favor. Because the "us vs them" mentality is simple and appeals to the simple-minded. Remember who else used it? If you don't think this constitutes fascism then you need to look the word up.
1. The countries in question were selected by Obama. They are countries that pose a significant risk to us. There are many other countries where 95 to 100 percent of the population is Muslim, so to argue that it was a ban against Muslims does not hold up well there. If it was a ban against muslims, you would see all Muslim countries blocked. I will however concede that we cannot know his personal intentions and there could certainly be some overlap in intentions.
2. Trump is not anti-gay or anti-lgbt. If you believe this is so, then please provide a citation of some sort. I can understand however, how being that he is a Republican and christian, people would assume that he is therefore anti-lgbt.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/34308524/trump-to-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections/#page1
3. Religious freedom EO - I'll side with you on that, Ralas. I'm agnostic and truly detest religious folks exerting their ideology based moral superiority over others. However, I do find some common ground when it comes to protecting individual freedom. I don't want to sidetrack too much here.
4. Bannon - On the surface, he makes me cringe. I don't really know enough about to him to comment for or against. I don't read his website because it looks way too sensationalist for my taste. I am aware of his fallout with Steve Shapiro who's views and logic I respect, but have yet to deep dive into that controversy.
5. DeVos comes across as an idiot. I like the fact that Trump is pulling in successful people but I don't know if she's responsible for her own success or if she just spends her husband's money on shit. I'll refrain from commenting on her for now.
6. Regarding the EPA, I haven't followed this closely. In business, it's common to limit public communications to company officials who are vetted to speak on behalf of the company. I don't know if that's where he was going or not with this. If he was trying to silence those who disagreed with him, then I'll agree that that is bad.
[/quote]
The point is that Trump scapegoated Muslims and Latinos to gain favor. Because the "us vs them" mentality is simple and appeals to the simple-minded. Remember who else used it?
Hillary Clinton? Ie. "Basket of Deplorables", "uneducated white people"
Bernie Sanders? ie. "The One Percent"
If you don't think this constitutes fascism then you need to look the word up.
I have a different point of view on this. Yes, Hitler scapegoated the Jews, Romanians, and other minorities at a time when a lot of people were impoverished and that was indeed a part of what made his movement fascist, but there's more to fascism than just that. Do you think Hitler would have made traction if it wasn't for the circumstances that lead up to that point?
If we didn't have a problem with illegal Mexican immigration and with terrorists who come from a hand full of countries that happen to be Muslim, then his argument about strengthening our borders and clamping down on immigration would not have had any traction. He did not manufacture a false idea that we have these problems, we have had these problems for a long time, but they have not been addressed effectively. Obama deported more illegal Mexican immigrants than any other president in US history (http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/). Does that make him a racist or an institutional racist? No. But if Trump did that, people would be screaming "racist". What is wrong about Obama's solution is that he failed to slow the flow of them into the country and in addition to that, whatever has been causing them to flee Mexico has not been fully addressed either*. If these two issues were properly addressed they we would not need to send so many illegal immigrants back home.
*recently, the flow of immigrants has slowed down due to us jobs moving to Mexico... but let's not run in circles here. We need those jobs back for fellow Americans.
(revised after spotting a fallacy on my part)
Hitler didn't just scapegoat Jews. He deliberately demonized all of them by claiming that they were sub-human and thus not redeemable. As we know, this went far beyond name calling. This is not the same as limiting or blocking immigrants from enemy territory into the country. In the case of Mexico, we do allow immigrants in but they need to wait their turn, and they need to be properly vetted first. In the case of Syrian refugees, many cannot be vetted as a result of not having documentation through no fault of their own. Equating Trump with Hitler will certainly evoke an emotional response with torches, pitchforks, gas masks and rocks, but it's not a good comparison.
Have you been to Israel/Palestine?
No, I only know what I see on the news and when I read about online. I also struggle to understand what's going on over there.
As a Jew I have. I'm as pro-zionist as anyone but the only solution is a two-state solution. I saw barely clothed people on dirt settlements among ancient buildings behind giant barbed-wire fences. Palestine is not a country and thus you cannot call them Israel's worst enemy. It is unfair to let the worst of them (Hamas, the PA) speak for them. Yes, those two organizations are evil. But that wouldn't stop me from feeding emaciated children either.
I'll defer to you on that point. I was under the impression that Hamas and Hezbollah were terrorist organizations who were working with or funded by Palistine and that Jews and Palestinians hated each other with a passion. Given this, I would think that giving the Palestinians a ton of money would only fuel the conflict, but I could be wrong.
As for all the fake charity stuff--I would appreciate sources.
Fair enough. Let me see what I can find.
I've heard these claims quite a bit, but it grows tiresome having to google and debunk every piece of anti-Hillary propaganda the Russians produced.
Can you give some example of propaganda that the Russians produced? There's a difference between propaganda and truth. If they pointed out some wrong doing of hers, that's not the same as trying to defame her with lies.
So far nothing has held up to a simple googling, but i'm gonna give you a bit more credit and assume you have a credible source, of which I would appreciate a link. It hardly matters now anyway.
The majority of the information about her charity comes from the Clinton and Podesta emails that were leaked by Wikileaks. I'll try to dig up what i can without relying too much on Wikileaks. I believe some of her email was released by the FBi in redacted form. I really don't want to spend hours and hours on this....
One of the problems with all of this is that unlike science, we have to work with both facts and information of lesser value. We need to look at what is likely and unlikely and we cannot always come out with a conclusion that is absolute or testable. I hate that about politics.
-
Dude, it sounds like you are reading a lot of news from the political left. In the us, the vast majority of the mainstream news outlets are heavily biased towards the left. To get a balanced view, you need to read news from the right too.
Let's prove us you read/watch/listen to news from the every political opinions. Then you'll have the right to give that argument again.
I do read and listen to news from both the left and the right. For political news, I follow Fox, TheHill, CNN, France24, CSpan, Reuters, NPR, Wikileaks and a few other sources. I chose to use a few sources only since
A. there are just too many sources to follow.
B. Most of the news is the same stuff just printed under a different website.
But oh well... I'm sure you don't, and it would be nonsensical to do that anyway. It doesn't make sense to try reading just every newspaper you can get. And the result would be that you get several people sharing divergent opinions... You'd only get a bunch of contradictory more or less biased opinions on facts, and no clearer mind on the things...
What I find is that not all news sources will report all the news. Some sources deliberately do not report certain events. It's sometimes stressful to read lots of opposing views.
What can you do to get a pure, absolutely neutral viewpoint ? Nothing.
I agree with you %100. That's why i use multiple news sources. They are all biased one way or another.
To try determining what is honest and what is biased, people can only use objective facts (like that (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Inauguration_crowd_size_comparison_between_Trump_2017_and_Obama_2009.jpg)), and logic.
This is something I absolutely hate about politics.I assume everything is biased and then try to deduce what is truthful using my own judgment and the judgment of journalists who I think are good.
Where possible, I try to find direct quotes and video footage on Youtube. I don't trust the opinions of news commentators and unfortunately, most of the news is just the reporters opinion about this news. CNN is very guilty of this.
My courses include English oral tests every two weeks. Those are based on US or UK newspaper extracts, on which we have to react. We don't always have left-winged newspapers. Nor always right-winged newspaper. Does that mean every info we get is neutral ? Of course no. And we have to use our own mind to make up our own opinions on the various subjects.
Yes, we call this "Critical Thinking." :) I wish more people would do it instead of just reacting to buzz words and celebrity rants.
-
Why are we still arguing about this? The US has been overtaken by a treasonous, fascist coup. Even those of you who were pro-Trump prior to the election must see that by now. Now there is nothing left to do but civil disobedience.
I'm surprised that you've actually come to believe this. Wait, no, I'm not. You live in one of the most progressive areas on the West coast.
Ironically, the closest thing we have to fascists in America is Antifa.
Apropos trendy ... "he did not lie, we just didn't (want to) believe him" worked in Germany in 1933 just as well as in the USA in 2016. Let's hope the result won't be the same. Or ... no. Not hope. Prevent it.
The United States is not at all right now similar to the way Germany was then. You're undermining your own cause with ignorant rhetoric.
Trump has essentially admitted to collaborating with hackers who were working for Putin. The Russians released their "dirt" on her and spread anti-Hillary propaganda (most of which was easily debunked by anyone literate). Trump also collaborated with Comey to to re-open the investigation the week of the election, thus reminding the public of the whole emails "scandal," only to then admit that there was nothing there.
He didn't essentially admit to anything. And, as far as I know, there's no hard evidence that Russia was the one that did the hacking. Just because an IP is located in Russia doesn't mean that you're being hacked by Russia as a state. I've even had a Russian IP before. I guess everything I did while using that address was logged under "probably Putin!" Also, all we have about Comey collaborating with Trump is a letter from a Democratic senator. You're stating things as facts even though you have no proof for them yourself.
Muslim Ban Executive Order, Anti-gay, "religious freedom" executive order, Bannon (a KNOWN anti-semite) having anything to do with the presidency whatsoever, DeVos, an anti-education person in charge of education, a climate change denier in charge of the EPA, refusal to obey court orders declaring his executive orders unconstitutional, the prohibition of government scientists speaking out (seriously, follow the rogue nasa twitter)...
There's no Muslim ban. There's a ban on certain countries for immigration. Trump is pro-LGBT. Bannon isn't an anti-semite. He hires Jews about as much as any other businessman, and the woman who started that rumor was his ex-wife who was trying to collect alimony. Mainstream and progressive news outlets latched onto it so they could pin Trump. I take issue with the way his administration is handling climate, energy, and education, so that's not a point of contention for me. I haven't seen him make any unconstitutional orders, but I may be ignorant of a recent development. The rogue Twitters are "rogue" because they are afraid of reprisal from their bosses, not Trump specifically. In no way is any of this particularly fascist, unless you're using the term in the way a grumpy teenager who just discovered anarchism would.
-
*steps back in...
That was a good bit of reading! Enjoyed it too, somebody mentioned a few pages ago about this being a good political discussion... I tend to agree.
A few months down the road I guess my feelings are in the realm of "hoping for the best"... I did my 3rd party thing, but I think that I am glad that trump got in, regardless if he crashes and burns or not.
The way I see it is that our history got us to where we are... and where we are feels significant, the majority of the states felt that we are headed in a bad direction... and Hillary was a part of that history leading to here. If you are heading in a bad direction the only way to change course, I feel, is to take some risks. Trump is the risk... Hillary was staying on the same path... I hope the risk turns out good in the long run. I cannot predict what that will look like or how messy it'll be along the way.
I am ok with the US choosing the risky option to try and institute some change... it could turn out bad, as is part of a risk, but at this point, I still fear where we would have ended up had we stayed course... the reaction, I believe, would have been even more intense down the road. That scares me more than the risky choice we are dealing with right now.
deep down I think the current way of life is not going to stay no matter what choices are made, so we had better get started figuring out what the next is. Steady State Economics has recently peaked my interest, but I remain too ignorant. Adam Smith seemed to make it sound really bad but inevitable... some more modern writers seem more optimistic. I'll need to learn a lot more.
-
Stop blaming Trump. Since this so-called "Freudian Slip" (which I saw on TV, but cannot find any video clip with it via Google?!), we know the truth now:
(http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/34840.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/34840.jpg)
_
P.S.: Joseph Crowley said it in a speech on the House Democratic Agenda (https://www.c-span.org/video/?423234-1/house-democrats-say-president-trump-diving-country) (right in the introduction).
-
These are democrats, of course they are against Trump.
Instead of arguing about if it's a Muslim ban or a country specific ban, it would be better to debate if the ban should be in place.
It's also good to ask if your choice is based on how you feel or if it is a rational decision. Some rational decisions don't feel good, and that's ok.
Ie.
If you argue that the ban is wrong because telling people that you are open to letting the Syrians in makes you feel good or morally superior, then your criteria for deciding is flawed.
This isn't about making ourselves feel good, it's about doing what makes the most sense.
I don't think liberals get that.
-
Well, I hope the decision of a Federal Judge that this declaration was unjust was based on rather objective than subjective arguments. You know, constitution, the written law, and such.
The reply about a "so-called judge" was surely the opposite...
-
We shall see...
There's an interesting article about the constitutionality of the ban here. It argues both for an against the ban.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/03/is-trumps-travel-ban-constitutional-immigration-law-experts-from-both-sides-weigh-in/
-
objective decisions or subjective... I don't believe people make rational decisions in such instances because the details are complicated to the point that claiming rationality is nearly irrational in and of itself.
It's all based on feelings.
Trump seems to be one of the few that knows this to the level to use it against whomever he is "dealing" with.
If Trump doesn't become all of our fears, we should give him props, even if he does a "bad" job relatively speaking... because he seems to have the tools to completely own the country (and potentially others) if he wanted to. Just because he understands what causes people to react. So if he doesn't attempt to rename the planet TrumpPlanet, he must have chosen not to try.
<insert discussion about the needs for limits to power>
-
I don't follow american politics much, and don't know much about the elections really and don't have strong opinion about it, but i wonder if this is just beating a dead horse all over again? It seemed just a choice between two bad canditates, neither being much better than another. I don't know, but i can't see much difference between the two, both bad choices....
-
The medium IS the message!
-
This week I overheard an interesting point of view in a German talk show...
Disasters always need to happen first before we are going to prevent them.
Trump's bulldozer politics may be the kind of disaster the democracy all over the world just needs to get new support. He kicks a lot of asses; hopefully many enough and soon enough. The coming elections in European countries are surely impressed by his recklessness.
No one is completely useless - he can still serve as a bad and frightening example.
But wait, there is one more thought...
More and more "experts" tell now how certain they are that Trump will be deposed. (I am no expert, but I was quite certain about that already long ago.) What if that's just the point? Is it possible that Trump never intended to complete his term of office? In this case I wonder what kind of rules you have, is there a minimum required activity to receive a pension afterwards, and which amount and duration will it have? Does it pay to have been US president for just a minimum of time?
-
President Trump isn't even taking his salary so I don't think he's worried about his pension. ;D
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/oaZk0WNSO7fXi/giphy.gif)
-
In this case I wonder what kind of rules you have, is there a minimum required activity to receive a pension afterwards, and which amount and duration will it have? Does it pay to have been US president for just a minimum of time?
pffahahaha
You're clearly ignorant of our politics and government. Maybe you should stick to discussing the governments of which you are more knowledgeable.
-
In this case I wonder what kind of rules you have, is there a minimum required activity to receive a pension afterwards, and which amount and duration will it have? Does it pay to have been US president for just a minimum of time?
pffahahaha
You're clearly ignorant of our politics and government. Maybe you should stick to discussing the governments of which you are more knowledgeable.
same for everyone in this thread
-
In this case I wonder what kind of rules you have, is there a minimum required activity to receive a pension afterwards, and which amount and duration will it have? Does it pay to have been US president for just a minimum of time?
A person can only serve as president for a maximum of 10 years. When elected, you get a four year term and a chance to try to get re-elected. The only way to serve for 10 years is if a presidency was terminated and you filled in for that president for 2 years, then got re-elected twice afterwards.
The salary for president is about $400,000 plus benefits. ( ie. expense account, Secret Service security detail, etc.. )
For retirement its close to $200,000 per year for life with benefits.
http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html
As far as I know, these amounts are not based on performance or time as they typically are in the the workplace.
President Trump isn't even taking his salary so I don't think he's worried about his pension. ;D
And he's not the only wealthy person to do so. George Washington did this, so too did Mayer Bloomberg ( former Mayer of New York )
-
Thank you, Rigwyn, for teaching instead of scolding.
And regarding my own government ... yes, I should be so proud now to have a new Federal President who may have been involved in the torture of an innocent person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank-Walter_Steinmeier#Murat_Kurnaz_torture_case).
-
You deserve to be scolded. You continuously make assertions on a topic while lacking the appropriate level of knowledge to make honest statements. It's baiting via ignorance.
-
You deserve to be scolded. You continuously make assertions on a topic while lacking the appropriate level of knowledge to make honest statements. It's baiting via ignorance.
Well only i can do is quote Mishka here
same for everyone in this thread
-
Those of us who have studied the workings of the US government and American politics would disagree.
-
Why not? Do you have anything bad to say about her, anything at all, that isn't easily debunked? Because when you look at all the reasons people have for hating her, the vast majority of it is baseless. I have yet to see a solid argument against her that some quick research won't disprove.
Sure I do. She is literally Dolores Umbridge (with the only difference the latter wasn`t on her last legs). I don`t even know whether that can be worse than being called Hitler. And I guess not that easy to debunk too. Kek.
Also Wikileaks and Co posted everything worth knowing about her, including the Spirit Cooking stuff. Yeah right, you really have to be a competent and trustworthy politician for your stuff members to engage in satanic rituals with spilling of menstrual blood and semen. Way better than just bragging about pussy-grabbing (which is actually true, btw, and does not change depending on how cucked a person trying to understand that fact of women`s behaviour is). This satanic stuff is, of course, just a tip of the iceberg.
same for everyone in this thread
The only thing you need to know about politics is stated in the seven books located in the Hydlaa sewers. Go read them.
-
I was far more concerned about her chronic lying and her acceptance of millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments ( foreign as in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc ) than with the spirit cooking thing. I was actually willing to give them all a pass on it and write it off as a weird performance art thing. I didn't buy the Pizzagate allegations either and kind of wish those were never made. They didn't sound credible to me. I do wonder though, how seriously folks in the "bible belt" took those allegations.
The thing about her accepting enormous donations from foreign governments that are not very friendly with us is that there's this unwritten rule that when you "donate" a shitload of money, you expect something back in return. They are not really "donating" but instead "buying" something. A prime example of this is the way that so many rich people got jobs as US Ambassadors to other countries when Hillary was Secretary of State. These folks donated shit loads of money ( Upwards of a few million dollars) prior to asking for these positions.
You have to stop and ask, "If I'm a multi millionaire and I make tons of money from my own investments, then why would I donate millions of dollars in order to get a government job that pays dirt?" If you look at the numbers only, it's a gigantic loss and waste of time. But these are financially savvy people. While these positions don't pay very much, they do give the people who take them opportunities to make "connections" with other very powerful people and in some cases, foreign leaders. ( expect "favors" to be exchanged under the table ) Those connections can translate to lots of huge business opportunities for those who know how to play this game.
-
*reads Rigwyn's sig...*
you been reading Scott Adams' blog?
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156857834926/sam-harris-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in-ben
Better link, talks about magic too:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157277690511/how-to-persuade-the-other-party
-
The only thing you need to know about politics is stated in the seven books located in the Hydlaa sewers. Go read them.
If all people need to understands about politics would be as simple as 7 books then the world would be much better place...
-
I wouldn`t be so sure about that is this particular case, Dilihin.
-
*reads Rigwyn's sig...*
you been reading Scott Adams' blog?
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156857834926/sam-harris-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in-ben
No, but I've read about that same concept elsewhere - learning to "speak the language" of the person you are debating with. As for the discussion on fairness vs morality, another division that I've read about between Republicans and Democrats is that of using logical arguments vs. emotional arguments. ( Some people are swayed more buy the emotional content of the argument than by the logical content )
As for this reference to Ben and Harris, I'll have to google that.
Thank you, Rigwyn, for teaching instead of scolding.
And regarding my own government ... yes, I should be so proud now to have a new Federal President who may have been involved in the torture of an innocent person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank-Walter_Steinmeier#Murat_Kurnaz_torture_case).
I read a little about the case, but don't know what Steinmeier's reason was for not accepting Murat.
-
As for this reference to Ben and Harris, I'll have to google that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60
I know too much...