EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5139
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Some folks are really showing their age here  | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On September 25 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote: Newspapers have been endorsing candidates for as long as there have been newspapers. It is standard every election. Some folks are really showing their age here I wouldn't know, I didn't really follow politics until I became a citizen at which point I didn't even vote and this is the first time I have been paying close attention. Good to know though, another reason to stay away from newspapers. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4744 Posts
On September 25 2016 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Saw this coming from a mile away: I wonder what happened between Donald and Cuban. I remember Cuban on the Nightly Show saying Trump is the guy all the billionaires make fun of, but I feel like that was in response to something Trump did to upset Cuban. I feel like Cuban has an ego just as large as Trump's, but he didn't run... so now he's just attacking Trump relentlessly. Like who cares what he has to say? Two billionaires with too much time and heads that are a few sizes too large. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 25 2016 05:31 biology]major wrote: I wouldn't know, I didn't really follow politics until I became a citizen at which point I didn't even vote and this is the first time I have been paying close attention. Good to know though, another reason to stay away from newspapers. Yeah, get that info from the internet, where you can't hold anyone accountable and the you never get to know the bias of who is presenting it. And they back candidates and don't bother to tell you. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12163 Posts
On September 25 2016 05:31 biology]major wrote: I wouldn't know, I didn't really follow politics until I became a citizen at which point I didn't even vote and this is the first time I have been paying close attention. Good to know though, another reason to stay away from newspapers. Better go back to places where the information is written by people who don't have opinions. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 25 2016 02:59 ChristianS wrote: Well it's hard to tell how I would feel if there were a Republican candidate who stood for debt reduction, restoring rule of law to American government, reducing red tape, and all that other stuff Republicans used to stand for. We may never know, because Donald Trump is not that man. His tax proposals are about as bad for the debt as any we've seen from a nominee in a long time, he only talks about "fixing bureaucracy" or "reducing government spending" in the vaguest of terms, and he's shown blatant disrespect for rule of law. Hell, we catch a criminal and we put them in prison, or give them healthcare while they're in jail, or give them a lawyer, and he throws a fit. He doesn't see why we shouldn't go out there and punish terrorists' families for what they've done. He favors racial profiling and a "stop and frisk" policy across the country's police forces. That kind of justice isn't about rule of law and due process. It's about riling up your friends about how bad the suspect is, and going down there and beating the shit out of him, maybe killing him, because we all just know he did it. It is, again, the type of justice seen in lynch mobs and pogroms and vigilanteism. The candidates that act like they stand for debt reduction, restoring the rule of law, and reducing red tape give it all away. Every single damn time. So when you put Trump up there and then typical RINO that talks nice, we're just repeating the rodeo with one. You chant the Republican slogans during election years, you grow the size of government and do nothing. I can grasp that part of the Trump appeal. Donald Trump hasn't lied about it for his entire political career be cause he doesn't have a political career. He's under no obligation to lie to these people. He does it because he knows their hurt pride and their outrage helps him, and it can be elevated by lying to them and telling them there was no reason their jobs had to go away, it's those dirty liberals and cuckservatives that gave their jobs away in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation or w/e. The more trivial and unnecessary it seems, the more outrageous it is that those people didn't consider these poor and middle class white people's interests. When in reality, the only way to save those jobs (protectionist trade policy) would have hurt those workers just as much. I'm talking about the Trump voters. You malign a population that's disgruntled and wronged by the world. And you also accuse me of throwing wild punches. Sorry, any outright slander of the population voting alongside you is incomplete without the rhetoric of those in elected office. I gather you read what I write, so you may have comprehended my point though you want to address the sides of it and not the front, maybe out of agreement. With time, education, and MAYBE a political class that gets back to the issues and REAL stances worth pushing, we can seek to address voter misapprehensions. The wrong way is to blame the result and criticize only these racists (Clinton & poster term) voting for Trump. It's not really about having a heart. No, I wouldn't tell a grieving black mother that her son deserved to die, or tell a grieving white mother that it was really improbable for an illegal alien to have done this, and it would have been far more likely to be an American citizen. I would tell them I'm sorry for their loss. But Donald Trump isn't just telling victims he's sorry for their loss. He's parading these victims in front of millions of people to try to tell everyone, "this is what illegal Mexicans do." As he's said from the beginning, "they're rapists." Victim worship is a well-worn tradition of racist movements to make followers feel like they're not attacking members of that race, they're defending themselves from that race! That illegal immigrants actually have a lower rate of violent crime than the rest of the population would seem to prove that preventing violent crime is not really a legitimate reason to think we should crack down on illegal immigrants, but by arguing with anecdotes instead of statistics, Trump avoids that issue and continues to explicitly and implicitly slander a whole class of people (who happen to have a different skin color). Worth noting this isn't really equivalent to cases of police brutality. If I kill someone, it's not national news; if a cop kills someone, it is. That's because police are supposed to protect us. If the cop was justified, most people aren't too bothered by the news. But when a black guy calls the police because an armed robber was in his house, and then the cops show up and shoot him instead, it would seem to highlight that the justice system is not working for black people. In the single greatest situation in which you would want the police to come defend you (armed intruders are in your house), he's still better off taking his chances with the armed intruders. If these cases were very rare, and highlighting them was in spite of statistics, it would be the same. But these cases happen frequently, and are indicative of statistical fact – black people are far, far more likely to be wrongfully shot by a police officer. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. Yours and others: Yep. Exhibit A that he's calling Mexicans rapists. Intentional pull-quote for a racial agenda. Crime comes over the border in small amounts proportionally just given the huge volume. A porous border is open season on criminal drug runners. The stories coming daily from the border patrol are bold cartel actions and wanton cruelty from coyote smugglers. When you talk evenly about closing up the border, the mainstream media ignores you. ChristianS ignores you too. But pump up the warnings, and the topic's back on the front burner because the only way to get national attention these days is to get the lynch mob to persecute you for racism. Like Hugh Hewitt on language: HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me. DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right? I can understand your desire to avoid things that look like victim parading. I can even go as far as to say other country's actively racist movements rely heavily on similar tactics, though the end differences are the soul of the definition. But not here. The issue is ignored, deflected, rounded up as "only racists would say and do such things." You wish to say "I never said Trump's immigration policy means he's racist" but you would stand by as any policy close to his is ignored in coverage to the American voter until they get really, really mad about issues close to their heart never entering their discourse. It's in your blind spot, I'm even willing to say you're ignoring it in good conscience of your actions. You also claim to be "opposed to much of the social backlash that currently exists against people and positions viewed as "racist." But you would allow those people to be the dominant vocal force in society and the biggest mouths against less divisive candidates proposing funds be spent on a large border fence/wall/doublefence. You're not going to grab a protest sign and go to Washington demanding attention to illegal immigration that isn't amnesty every ten years. It's not an issue close to your heart or you would sit back someday and realize that a growing snowball of ignorance demands a big, boisterous loudmouth to finally break through the curtain of silence (punctuated by racism shrieking). Jeb Bush typifies an era where the only two acceptable positions on the border were "citizenship/amnesty now" and "pathway to citizenship later" and talk on securing the border (Congress defunded duly passed Congressional law to build that wall. Comprehensive reform types like to ignore that we'd have a secure border if elected politicians were faithful to their legislation). Now, the issue is back where it should be, you must take the border to be of prime importance and dealing with those illegally in this country, criminals if only in the sense of violating duly passed immigration law. We have one guy to thank for that, and it's one of his shining aspects. Just like your cops example, police meant to protect us, so also with the southern border, our immigration laws and border police/INS should protect us from foreign nationals illegally entering our country. Instead, something like one million enter annually (government data for ex. three million over course of 2014-2015). Some commit crimes and are caught only to be deported. Some come back after deportation and recommit. Some never get deported because sanctuary cities illegally prevent them from being brought to justice. Outrage? Nope, it is widely ignored. Citizens and legal immigrants have not been bashing in storefronts or committing violent crime to bring attention to the issue. How do you stop politicians bringing up the victims to hear their story? By hearing their story the first time. No matter how bad it makes your political parties feel. No matter how letting a story like that get retold when it occurs might hurt your re-election stances. No matter how many people like ChristianS would accept the injustice because he can claim the actual crime commission rate of one million new illegal aliens every year is low as a bulk rate. You're in the business of creating the atmosphere of demagogic ideologues. You can't see the things you support end in results of things you would never support. But that's the way of politics. And it's tough coming face to face with some very scary conclusions of your own actions and those of your like-minded thinkers in the aggregate. So this is more or less what I thought, you're throwing out a lot of punches against stuff I didn't really advocate. So let's say you're right about this stuff. Let's say we should abolish affirmative action. Let's say that police brutality really doesn't have anything to do with race. Let's say white people are right to be mad that they're being passed over for jobs and college admissions due to affirmative action. None of that excuses the stuff I'm criticizing in the Trump movement. Slandering Mexicans as rapists is still racist. Birtherism is still racist. Trying to convince everyone that their women and children won't be safe while those illegal Mexicans are still around is still racist. The alt right is still: a) racist af, b) growing rapidly in popularity (in large part because of Trump), and c) enthusiastically backing Donald Trump 100%. It's been a while since we've seen a racial demagogue run for such a high office in the US, but we really still ought to be able to recognize it when we see it. Worth noting that you skipped over the first part of my reply, which actually went into some of the explicitly racist shit Donald Trump has said and done in his lifetime (e.g. really blatantly discriminating against blacks in his apartment buildings because he preferred to rent to Jews and rich white guys). Sigh. Okay, so you deny the logical consequences of politicians lying to their constituents (detailed earlier) and a media and segment of population that don't even see it on their radar. That is the antecedent to the punches I throw. You'll deny they pertain to you because you will not now and may never follow your advocacy to it's end (it may also be that you have other gripes with the status quo of politics that you haven't brought up yet, because I don't actually want to put words in your mouth, truly). Let's say the tenor of the debate shifts from the race of the participants to the issue. I can't allow you a hypothetical that involves abolishing affirmative action because that is a subject we could get into with depth. I just brought it up because you use progress and racial equality not realizing it's a vacuous as me adding in racial realism. You might have an idea in your head of what it means to you, but I only know politicians and a spectrum of political debaters, and some of that racial equality talk comes to some very insane ends. I can't read your mind, so please don't accuse me of ills that come from not being able to read your mind. I'm sorry for not personally responding to your groundwork on "racist things Donald Trump has said and done in his lifetime." I've spent hours and hours on this thread writing, and days reading. Some of those quotes are either bad in other ways, justified given the surrounding political climate, lies and slander, or completely relevant and hardly objectionable. Defending them is pointless concerning the meaninglessness of the term racism in politics and considering the free pass given to the other side on issues where the language is now accepted. In the alternate universe when Bernie and Hillary were roundly condemned as being too extreme for American politics or everyone gets mad at Obama's speeches too, I could see purpose in the exercise. But for now, you'll have to believe what you choose to believe about it. Or find a special pleader for Trump, I did not cast my vote for him in the primary and wanted a better candidate to oppose Hillary. So you'll have to make due with boisterous loudmouth and my deep concern for his temperament, and only contrasts with how radically left the other choice has gone in US politics. I only wish both sobering thoughts were as well understood by both sides. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 25 2016 05:00 Plansix wrote: GH is the only one who gets to hold opinions that are not based on corruption and money. You forgot zlefin. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
While I personally don't mind immigrants, if elected, I would enforce the laws; and I would try to see them all deported (resources permitting), because that's the law. But the amount of resources it would take is vast, and the funding levels aren't that high; it also most likely would be a net loss to get even close to that point, as the cost would be so high that it would override any potential gains. but I didn't read the entirety of your post, and am only responding to a small part of it; so I may've missed something, in which case, oops. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Congress had just one thing to do this month before it left town for its October recess. That was to keep the government funded past Sept. 30. But with just under one week left on what was supposed to be a straightforward task, there's still no deal in sight. There was a fantasy circulating the Senate last week — that senators would be able to wrap up business and head home three weeks early to get back to campaigning (the Senate had been scheduled to be in the first week of October as well). It was such a widely adopted fantasy, many senators had a ready explanation for why it wouldn't be worth sticking around for the rest of September after they got the spending bill done. "I mean, I think doing anything else requires a high level of cooperation, which probably between now and November 8 isn't going to exist around here," said Republican John Thune of South Dakota early last week. Turns out there wasn't even enough cooperation to get out of town early. By Thursday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was dismissing any notion senators were rushing to leave the Capitol. "We're in no hurry to go any place, okay? We have all a lot of time," said Reid to a gaggle of reporters. By the end of the week, negotiations in the Senate were deadlocked. Even in the peculiar world of government spending bills where questions like, "Will the bill run through December or next March?" count as suspenseful, the intensity of this deadlock wasn't something senators seemed to expect just weeks ago. Where things stand now? Reid and Democrats in both chambers say the latest offer by Republicans is a no-go. So far, the only things both sides can agree on are: keeping the government open through December 9, and providing emergency aid to fight Zika without restricting funds for Planned Parenthood. It was progress, but the latest Republican proposal also contains flood aid for Louisiana and other states – without providing any aid for the water contamination crisis in Flint, Mich. Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York says that is unacceptable. "The question is, they want to put Louisiana in, and we said you can't put Louisiana in unless you put Flint in," said Schumer. But treating these disasters as inseparable offends Republicans like Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who says the people in Flint can be taken care of after the election. Flood victims in Louisiana, however, cannot wait that long. "We shouldn't hold folks who right now still have mud in their house and are thinking of throwing the keys to their house on the table of their banker, because they can't afford their mortgage, hostage to other peoples' grief," said Cassidy. There's also a squabble over a provision that would prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission from forcing companies to disclose political spending — it's current law, but Democrats want it out. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15673 Posts
On September 25 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Unsurprisingly Charlotte police are now changing their story. It's nice when cops like Tulsa at least catch charges (she'll probably get off anyway) but what about all the criminal cops that lie to cover these other cop's asses? Starting to think nothing proper will be done until some kinda executive action is taking. Some full on federal accountability thing for police officers. But that would be an insanely hard push. It would need to be a mic drop before the end of a presidency. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On September 25 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Unsurprisingly Charlotte police are now changing their story. It's nice when cops like Tulsa at least catch charges (she'll probably get off anyway) but what about all the criminal cops that lie to cover these other cop's asses? I did a quick google and saw that they've released the video. What in their story did they change? | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
These video releases don't give enough context though. People will act like a 60 second video clip is enough evidence but there has to be more to an investigation that just that. Unfortunately we often don't even get a thorough investigation in cases like these because cops are always given the benefit of the doubt. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
If Denmark can seperate legal and illegal immigrants and their benefit surely the USA can? http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putting-a-price-on-foreigners-strict-immigration-laws-save-denmark-billions-a-759716.html According to the figures, migrants from non-Western countries who did manage to come to Denmark have cost the state €2.3 billion, while those from the West have actually contributed €295 million to government coffers. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On September 25 2016 04:00 kwizach wrote: The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times both endorsed Clinton. Surprise factor zero. Not that it really matters anymore, LA Times circulation is 1/3 what it was 25 years ago. It all comes down to the debates. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On September 25 2016 08:29 Saryph wrote: I did a quick google and saw that they've released the video. What in their story did they change? The reason they were interacting with him in the first place. Cannabis just became a thing today. It's like they think we can't see them. Looking left of frame you can see what Police consider "imminent threat". Even if that was someone we were at WAR with, a soldier could get written up and imprisoned for executing someone like that. We livin in a warzone. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcw35_saLY | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 25 2016 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote: The reason they were interacting with him in the first place. Cannabis just became a thing today. It's like they think we can't see them. Looking left of frame you can see what Police consider "imminent threat". Even if that was someone we were at WAR with, a soldier could get written up and imprisoned for executing someone like that. https://twitter.com/CWatkinsTV/status/779812861556232193 We livin in a warzone. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcw35_saLY Eh, the guy wasn't complying with police orders, which is just a dipshit move. Regardless, the city is probably going to be paying a shitton of money to survivors. I doubt that there will be criminal charges presuming that the guy had his gun in his hand, even if it wasn't raised. If not, then the cops are in trouble. | ||
| ||
