EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5724
| 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. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
That's the problem. They aren't a coalition of votes. They're a fully realized, very niche view that most Americans don't hold. They're pure but they're also (purely) irrelevant. I'm going to expand on this a bit. I think the Libertarian Party is a really good example. They are very popular with college students (mostly white). Not college educated, just in college. Young, impressionable adults that can now vote and don't really have a firm grasp on the nation but are learning more every day. And they're learning that a lot of things here are very wrong. Libertarianism sounds terrific. Get the big inefficient government out! Bring in smart people like them to solve the problems of the country! Like uh Reinstating the 14 hour work day. And private roads everywhere. And regulations being thrown out in favor of market forces which sounds really nice if you're standing to profit from it but outside the US where libertarianism is more realized, we call that in general "cheap Chinese knockoff crap" even if it isn't necessarily from China. So here's a party where very few stand to gain a lot and the local support is often less than fully informed over what their agenda would result in. Then there's the big two. I may not agree with every Republican stance, or every Democrats agenda when I vote for one. But I do feel that they represent the majority of my views when I vote for one or the other. This is of course much different locally. For those foreigners reading this - at the state and lower level third parties and "No Party Affiliation" candidates who are marked "NPA" are much more popular and buck the two party system. There is of course the massive issue that if I vehemently oppose what both parties have agreed on I'm shit out of luck. The Iraq War is a great example. There I was, fully opposed to something from before it happened, and I had no recourse. I was of age. I could vote. But every choice was a vote against my interests. So I exercised my constitutional right to assembly and protested in front of the capitol in my state (which happened to be where I lived) and in our nations capital. Did it matter short term? Nope. I got bottles thrown at me along with the insults hurled. I was treated by dipshits as a traitor to the nation. Think the kind of people that support Trump. But look now. I helped shape the way the war was ended and remembered. My small vote, the vote I made with my time, has helped influence how both candidates in this current election shirk away from being associated with the Iraq War. It is a small victory but it is still a victory. So when people say "Well this would be better if we had a coalition government of many different parties" or "You should vote for the Greens" or something of that sort I kinda shrug. Yeah two party isn't ideal, but those small coalitions forming a government are going to do the same thing under a coalition as the Dems/Reps do now. You can see how Republicans are shying away from being associated with Trump because he has the audacity to earnestly believe the stances their own Republican Party supports for votes. I could vote Libertarian. Except I don't want anything they want. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Gary Johnson just is batshit crazy. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7883 Posts
Political opponents have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I have had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It’s not for nothing that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time, when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and insult in many quarters. Today, it’s a world away from the cruel and type of bigotry of that time and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well. 2016 Hillary is so corrupt she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt The drift of the GOP in a nutshell. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
After all, Obama wasn't just elected because of he was charismatic, or because of his policies. He was the opposing polarity to the dissatisfaction voters had in Republicans. If McCain was running in place of Trump today it would look as grim for Clinton as it does for Trump. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On October 21 2016 19:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: Republican nominee, 2008 2016 The drift of the GOP in a nutshell. Do you really, honestly, believe that the Dems are doing any better in the mudslinging department? US politics have been on a steady decline for quite a while now - and it takes two to tango. EDIT: Note, US isn't the only country suffering from this. Just look at the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark - maybe there is something in the air? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On October 21 2016 20:29 Ghostcom wrote: Do you really, honestly, believe that the Dems are doing any better in the mudslinging department? US politics have been on a steady decline for quite a while now - and it takes two to tango. EDIT: Note, US isn't the only country suffering from this. Just look at the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark - maybe there is something in the air? It's war. War is in the air. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14893 Posts
On October 21 2016 19:31 Probe1 wrote: It is a fun comparison but John McCain is the embodiment of American values and an almost unfair comparison. There are few Republicans of the 21st century that can stand in the same room as him. After all, Obama wasn't just elected because of he was charismatic, or because of his policies. He was the opposing polarity to the dissatisfaction voters had in Republicans. If McCain was running in place of Trump today it would look as grim for Clinton as it does for Trump. Maybe 2008 McCain, 2016 McCain is another partisan hack | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
| ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 21 2016 20:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: Trump was very good last night Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo). | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
 | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 21 2016 21:30 GoTuNk! wrote: Considering Hillary wants to start WWIII and has no problem saying it (No fly zone in Aleppo). Some people will argue that you are silly and all, because you said "WWIII", but this is actually true. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18824 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 21 2016 21:45 farvacola wrote: No, it's not, but nice job defending your assertion. Don't you think that the no fly zone on aleppo has a chance of creating a war ? How will you enforce the no fly zone if the russian jets continue to fly over aleppo, will you destroy them ? It's like playing poker : you don't know how the russian will behave. To me it's like the "red line" in regard to chemical weapons : if you don't wish to enforce it, then don't talk about it. If you wish to enforce it, acknowledge it has the potential to create a massive war. On October 21 2016 21:39 Furikawari wrote: US politics could be laughable if I was not convinced that we will have the same shit in France in the coming monthes French politics is as pathetic, but less funny. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Environmental Protection Agency should have issued an emergency order to address the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, seven months before it eventually decided to take action, according to a report from the agency’s inspector general. The EPA’s office of inspector general on Thursday said the agency had the authority and “sufficient information” to act far sooner than it did to address vast lead contamination in the city. “These situations should generate a greater sense of urgency,” said Arthur Elkins, the inspector general, in a statement. “Federal law provides the EPA with emergency authority to intervene when the safety of drinking water is compromised. Employees must be knowledgeable, trained and ready to act when such a public health threat looms.” Flint’s water became contaminated with lead in April 2014, when a state-appointed emergency manager decided to switch the city’s water source to a local river. The state’s environmental agency failed to require the city to use corrosion control to prevent lead from leaching off water pipes and flowing into households. By June 2015, the report said, the EPA’s midwest office was aware that Flint had not been using corrosion control inhibitors, and that the city had exceeded the federal threshold for lead to prompt remedial action. That month, an employee produced an interim memo that identified “major public health concerns in the city of Flint”, according to the report. Instead of issuing an emergency order, the EPA’s midwest office concluded it was legally precluded from taking action because of the state’s activities to address the lead concerns. That was incorrect, the report said. “In the absence of EPA intervention in Flint, the state continued to delay taking action to require corrosion control or provide alternative drinking water supplies,” the report said. “Additional data in August and September 2015 demonstrated lead contamination was widespread, and also demonstrated an increase in the blood lead levels of children living in Flint.” It was not until mid-January that the EPA issued an emergency order, after it “became clear” to the agency’s office of enforcement and compliance that the midwest branch had authority to take action. The inspector general outlined a series of proposed policy changes in a 16-page report that said the agency “must be better prepared and able to timely intercede in public health emergencies like that which occurred in Flint”. The EPA said in a statement it “issued an order to the City of Flint and the State of Michigan as soon as it became apparent that the city and state were failing to address the serious problems with the Flint drinking water system”. It added that it would review the report’s other findings and make appropriate updates. Source | ||
| ||
