EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5913
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote: Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history? It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible It is in the running for volume of drama. However, the third US election ended with the vice president killing his political rival, war compatriot and long time friend in a duel for not endorsing him. But this was back when the runner up in the general election was vice president. I still think that wins for quality of drama. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote: I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. I think in context this blows it far out of the water though. The existential crisis of America today would not rate to that of a pre civil war America. It's fairly incredible that I agree with certain posters in this thread that I honestly never thought I would. For shame. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:30 bo1b wrote: I think in context this blows it far out of the water though. The existential crisis of America today would not rate to that of a pre civil war America. It's fairly incredible that I agree with certain posters in this thread that I honestly never thought I would. For shame. I'm not sure what you're saying; while I'm inclined to suggest that literally nothing in US History can trump the secession crisis incident to the Civil War, arguments of comparative history are largely useless so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, if I'm understanding you correctly. Current times are interesting enough in their own right  | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
McCarthy was a pretty dark time in US history for a lot of people. It was when members of the government would attack people for who they knew and what books they read. And for law enforcement like the FBI, it was an era they would like everyone to forget. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:34 farvacola wrote: civil war was pretty positive from a nation building perspective. could do without the war, but that blood was not spilled in vain. I'm not sure what you're saying; while I'm inclined to suggest that literally nothing in US History can trump the secession crisis incident to the Civil War, arguments of comparative history are largely useless so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, if I'm understanding you correctly. Current times are interesting enough in their own right | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:38 oneofthem wrote: civil war was pretty positive from a nation building perspective. could do without the war, but that blood was not spilled in vain. That's an extremely controversial notion though, that the blood spilled during the Civil War was not in vain. Many would point to the failures of Reconstruction and the Jim Crow Era, along with still present systemic North/South splits on issues, as evidence that the Civil War was ultimately ineffective at addressing the issues that gave rise to its occurrence. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment nor am I sure that it means that the Civil War was fought in vain, but it suggests that qualifying various periods in history as good or bad relative to over-isolated variables is mostly a fools errand without a lot of time, patience, and a willingness to get historiographically dirty with breaking up assumptive bases. In other words, reference to the Civil War notwithstanding, this election cycle certainly can stand on its own with regards to noteworthy implications. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:36 Plansix wrote: Trump is very similar to McCarthy in how he is running, his attacks on the press, his general themes of running based on fear, misinformation, and claims that he never backs up. McCarthy was a pretty dark time in US history for a lot of people. It was when members of the government would attack people for who they knew and what books they read. And for law enforcement like the FBI, it was an era they would like everyone to forget. Hmm... I suppose that's one reasonable comparison. That sounds a lot like the Congressional Committee witch hunts as well. That both campaigns insinuate that the other candidate should be in prison is definitely something that could be compared to that era, but I think there's something more there. The Wikileaks aspect also adds it's own flair to this election. It's not the first time someone leaked something but it never happened at this scale with this degree of public accessibility before. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:23 LegalLord wrote: @Gotunk For fucks sake, at least spoiler the images. I'm not interested in seeing that shit every time I re-read this page. Nor is anyone else. As a Clinton voter you should embrace the flailed heads of animals at the very least. Hillary has shown a deep affection for people that sacrifice animals to ancient eastern deities and consume semen mixed with breast milk and blood while cutting themselves with knives. One might say this shows a lack of judgment of Clinton's part, but those people are as we all know now in this thread: sexists, misogynists, racists and deplorables. The above paragraph isn't even satire anymore, thats how bad Clinton zealots have become. You all know people in this thread would defend human sacrifices if it made their candidate look bad. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
Trump stands for all that is wrong with American culture, Hillary stands for all that is wrong with American politics. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Reivax
Sweden214 Posts
Considering that he will most probably not win the popular vote and many of the people who are voting him dislike him, POTUS-heckling might be a pretty big gold mine in the Trump Presidency era (virtual high-five to everyone who remember and laughed at "I need a visor" and gabble gabble.) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
And quotes like that stand for everything that is wrong with a culture that thinks important topics can be summarized via tweet-length snippets of pseudo-pithy nonsense. The sun also rises. On November 04 2016 23:52 Reivax wrote: Question for the Americans, how disrespectful may entertainers/comedians be of the office of President of the United States? Is there any limit or is it all protected under the First Amendment? Considering that he will most probably not win the popular vote and many of the people who are voting him dislike him, POTUS-heckling might be a pretty big gold mine in the Trump Presidency era (virtual high-five to everyone who remember and laughed at "I need a visor" and gabble gabble.) There are two major considerations: 1) Is what is being said slanderous or defamatory? (The answer to this is almost always no because the legal protections afforded speech regarding public figures are very prominent here in the US, particularly in the area of political speech) 2) Is what is being said a "true threat"? (The answer to this is also almost always no; a recent US Supreme Court case, Elonis v. US, even further beefed up the requirement that someone subjectively intend to harm someone in order for their speech to give rise to criminal liability. For the most part, a court needs to actually think that you wanted to harm or kill someone in order for them to curtail threatening speech) For the most part, we can say whatever we want about our politicians. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4383 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:26 farvacola wrote: I doubt it; the elections leading up to and surrounding the Civil War likely put this one to shame in that department, though it's virtually impossible to go about qualifying such an observation. Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. A Clinton win, just 11 days after a fresh FBI investigation launched? No, that ain't healthy for civil order either. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:52 Reivax wrote: Question for the Americans, how disrespectful may entertainers/comedians be of the office of President of the United States? Is there any limit or is it all protected under the First Amendment? Considering that he will most probably not win the popular vote and many of the people who are voting him dislike him, POTUS-heckling might be a pretty big gold mine in the Trump Presidency era (virtual high-five to everyone who remember and laughed at "I need a visor" and gabble gabble.) generally comedians and entertainers can talk a lot of smack about the president. it's more lately that outright non-joking obstruction and such have become the norm (compare all the obama is a traitor stuff to bush who got made fun of for being kind of a dolt). trump has stated he's willing to prosecute those who criticize and poke fun at him and curtail first amendment rights, and by his past actions i wouldn't doubt that he would try. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:52 Reivax wrote: Question for the Americans, how disrespectful may entertainers/comedians be of the office of President of the United States? Is there any limit or is it all protected under the First Amendment? Considering that he will most probably not win the popular vote and many of the people who are voting him dislike him, POTUS-heckling might be a pretty big gold mine in the Trump Presidency era (virtual high-five to everyone who remember and laughed at "I need a visor" and gabble gabble.) Everyone railed on Bush when he was president. You can say pretty much anything you would be allowed to say to anyone else. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:52 Reivax wrote: Question for the Americans, how disrespectful may entertainers/comedians be of the office of President of the United States? Is there any limit or is it all protected under the First Amendment? Considering that he will most probably not win the popular vote and many of the people who are voting him dislike him, POTUS-heckling might be a pretty big gold mine in the Drumpf Presidency era (virtual high-five to everyone who remember and laughed at "I need a visor" and gabble gabble.) Comedians have a pretty free pass. If your funny its fine, if your not, you will get ignored and its still fine. And even as far as entertainment is concerned you are allowed to be as liberal with the how you portray the office. At the end of the day its fiction. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The government, delivering the last major snapshot of the economy before Election Day, reported on Friday that employers added 161,000 workers in October, a performance that suggested a healthy outlook for the months ahead. The official unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent, from 5 percent. And average hourly earnings rose 2.8 percent year over year, a level not reached since 2008. “It was pretty positive across the board,” said David Berson, chief economist at Nationwide Insurance, adding that “most importantly, we got a nice jump in average hourly earnings and that actually corresponds with other data.” While the final weeks of the presidential campaign seemed to be preoccupied with everything but the economy, Friday’s report from the Labor Department refocused attention — at least briefly — on the crucial bread-and-butter issue: jobs. For the candidates, the latest employment report serves as a Rorschach test, allowing each side to offer its own distinctive narrative of the economy’s performance and prospects. As Vincent Reinhart, chief economist at Standish Mellon, explained, “The main message is from the payroll report: Jobs are being created and earnings are going up.” But a report that goes “right down the middle of the fairway,” he added, “means you can spin it any way you want.” Donald J. Trump, who was propelled to the top of the Republican ticket in part by nagging economic anxiety and a surge in voter anger among the white working class, has emphasized the negatives. He has argued that jobs have been disappearing, highlighting the continuing loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs as production moves to other countries. October’s report showed continued decline in that sector, with the loss of 9,000 jobs. The Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has emphasized the progress that President Obama made in digging the country out of the recession, pointing to the creation of roughly 15 million jobs since 2010. The data on Friday also showed that more jobs were created in August and September than previously estimated. The revisions showed 44,000 more positions had been created, bringing the monthly average over the last three months to 176,000. Even more encouraging was the robust bump in wages, the most concrete sign that the labor market is tightening, and that ordinary workers are finally getting a slice of the rewards. Source | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On November 04 2016 23:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Decent chance whoever wins that there will be a civil war in the US again. We're just looking at polar opposites the two sides here. Can you imagine for instance San Francisco if Trump wins? Chaos.Ungovernable.Guaranteed riots in the streets, guaranteed. The thing about hippies is that they don't have the guns. Mass unrest ok, but civil war is a long shot. In the end who cares about a few broken windows. | ||
| ||
