EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9646
| 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
DarkSpearTriant
6 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 09 2018 11:51 DarkSpearTriant wrote: Trump is gonna dominate the election in 2020. First members of Generation Z will be 18 and will overwhelmingly vote Trump! Do you have a reason for thinking that people coming of age to vote in 2020 are more likely to vote for Trump or the Republicans in general? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14102 Posts
On January 09 2018 11:51 DarkSpearTriant wrote: Trump is gonna dominate the election in 2020. First members of Generation Z will be 18 and will overwhelmingly vote Trump! 1/5 young people either vote democrat most of the times they dont vote out of cynicismicism. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 09 2018 12:08 Sermokala wrote:cynicismicism Is this a joke or a typo? | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
On January 09 2018 11:51 DarkSpearTriant wrote: Trump is gonna dominate the election in 2020. First members of Generation Z will be 18 and will overwhelmingly vote Trump! Explain. Most people that age don't vote. Trump is showing significant signs of mental degradation, it's unlikely hell make it to 2020 without being even more of a bumbling idiot than he is right now. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14102 Posts
Joke  | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 09 2018 08:28 crms wrote: How is it not mandatory for elected officials to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips. Well.. It's supposed to be. You see, the safeguard against this is (supposed to be) the voter. Sadly that doesn't really work out in politics, people find it more important to "get dem brown people out" than having an actually intelligent politician. Keep in mind, an intelligent politician, or the intelligent decision, is not always (in fact, rarely) the decision the voter likes. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On January 09 2018 15:06 m4ini wrote: Well.. It's supposed to be. You see, the safeguard against this is (supposed to be) the voter. Sadly that doesn't really work out in politics, people find it more important to "get dem brown people out" than having an actually intelligent politician. Keep in mind, an intelligent politician, or the intelligent decision, is not always (in fact, rarely) the decision the voter likes. This + Show Spoiler + How is it not mandatory for [insert opposition here] to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips. Not to mention, the statement at hand is not nearly as implausible as its made out to be. African Americans tend to be relatively poor. Poor people tend to abuse drugs at higher rates. Unemployment likely plays a role there. Some races (not necessarily blacks) appear to be more predisposed to alcohol addiction. Black culture's own role in explaining some of the African American community's struggles is, at the very least, debatable to the point where one shouldn't be necessarily ostracized for speaking of it. The guy definitely isn't a paragon of intellectual virtue, but the statement isn't much more blatantly false than the median statement made by a politician either. Of course, it's taboo to associate race with any negative characteristics in this day and age, even if you acknowledge that the causal factors have little to nothing to do with skin color itself, so this one gets special attention. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 09 2018 15:54 mozoku wrote: This + Show Spoiler + How is it not mandatory for [insert opposition here] to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips. Not to mention, the statement at hand is not nearly as implausible as its made out to be. African Americans tend to be relatively poor. Poor people tend to abuse drugs at higher rates. Unemployment likely plays a role there. Some races (not necessarily blacks) appear to be more predisposed to alcohol addiction. Black culture's own role in explaining some of the African American community's struggles is, at the very least, debatable to the point where one shouldn't be necessarily ostracized for speaking of it. The guy definitely isn't a paragon of intellectual virtue, but the statement isn't much more blatantly false than the median statement made by a politician either. Of course, it's taboo to associate race with any negative characteristics in this day and age, even if you acknowledge that the causal factors have little to nothing to do with skin color itself, so this one gets special attention. Are you trying to generalise a stupid statement (black people are poor, hence more prone to alcohol addiction), or the blatantly racist one (blacks on drugs are worse than white on drugs because genetics)? Just making sure. Unless of course you want to tie social problems to genetics, too. In that case you make a consistent point, albeit a retarded one. edit: i wouldn't actually call the first one stupid necessarily, if you argue in the context that you chose. That's not the context that dude chose though. He's (very clearly) not talking about social stigmas etc - he's talking (literally) genetics. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18207 Posts
I think it's cynicismicism E: too late. Ah well. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
I didn't watch the video, so maybe I missed something but the quote itself isn't unusually terrible by any objective standard. The outrage, video notwithstanding, appears to be purely a function of the racial context. Compare this to the much more muted (i.e. none) outrage, back in the summer, when Nancy Pelosi labeled a free speech rally organized by a guy who is publicly on YouTube screaming "Fuck White Supremacists!" as a white supremacist rally. By the way, this rally ended up being cancelled by the organizer out of concerns of violence by counter-protesters (presumably spurred on by Pelosi). Racism shouldn't be tolerated, but the aggressively "progressive" camp seems willing to push side all reasonableness in the name of this strange religion of zealous anti-racism. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Really? It's a fucking 2 minute video. Why on earth would i make the effort to explain anything if you can't be arsed watching the clip in the first place? "Why do you think drugs were outlawed in the 30s? One of the reasons why, and i hate to say it, [..] they were, uhm, basically users, basically, uhm, responded the worst on those drugs - it's because their, uh, character make-up, th-their genetics and that." Yep. I totally misrepresented the statement you didn't watch in the first place. edit: apart from the obvious racism, it's even funnier in that context. Who would've thought that a black person, you know, the people you actively, systematically suppressed and exploited "at the time", has a higher chance to go ballistic once unhinged. I'm not even sure it'd count as mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that character and genetic preposition are to blame for a "worse drug response". Racism shouldn't be tolerated, but the aggressively "progressive" camp seems willing to push side all reasonableness in the name of this strange religion on zealous anti-racism. I actually agree. There's a shitstorm currently about H&M and a black kid wearing the wrong hoodie or something, that's idiotic. An old fuck who grew up in a time where blacks weren't even allowed to vote or marry white gals or whatever arguing that blacks respond worse to drugs because genetics, that's a different story. Now, if it were your grampa, i wouldn't care - but if a politician openly points out his thoughts about blacks and it turns out to be a whitewashed view that was very widespread in the 50s, then we need to talk. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Nearly 200,000 people from El Salvador must leave the US in the next 18 months or change their immigration status, the US Department of Homeland Security said on Monday. This announcement came despite efforts by immigration advocates and El Salvador’s government to persuade the Trump administration to continue providing lawful status and the ability to work to Salvadorans who have been protected from deportation since the country was hit by two devastating earthquakes in 2001. “They are Americans in all but their paperwork,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration group America’s Voice Education Fund. “Now, the Trump administration is trying to drive them back to a country engulfed in corruption, violence and weak governance.” El Salvador is the fourth country in four months to lose protection under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, which since 1990 has offered deportation relief to people from regions experiencing armed conflict and natural disasters. DHS said it cancelled the TPS for Salvadorans because the dangerous conditions created by the earthquakes, which killed more than 1,000 people, no longer exist. The country has rebuilt from the damage but is beset by drought, economic issues and gang violence. “The administration has definitely taken the most narrow view of what it could consider,” said Royce Murray, policy director at the American Immigration Council. Christian Chávez Guevara, who has TPS and has lived in the US since 2000 was emotional as he described how this decision would affect his family in a call with reporters. “Our family is going to break apart,” said Chávez, who is married to a US citizen and is the guardian of his 15-year-old US citizen cousin whose mother was deported. He also cares for two stepchildren. “I don’t know what to do,” Chávez said. “There is not a plan for the future now.” The majority of the 195,000 Salvadorans with TPS have lived in the US longer than Chávez, according to a 2017 report by the Center for Migration Studies. The report found 51% of Salvadorans with TPS have lived in the US for more than 20 years and 34% have homes with mortgages. They live mostly in California, Texas, New York and Washington DC. “This is a bad decision,” said Refugees International president Eric Schwartz. “Given conditions in El Salvador, the return of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding residents of the United States who have been here for nearly two decades is just wrong. It’s wrong ethically and in terms of US interests in stability in El Salvador.” Salvadorans with TPS have until 9 September 2019 to leave the US or change their status. DHS acknowledged some TPS recipients had lived and worked in the US for many years but said only Congress could create a pathway to lawful immigration status for the population. “The 18-month delayed termination will allow Congress time to craft a potential legislative solution,” the DHS statement said. This echoes the Trump administration’s justification for ending a program that offered temporary deportation protection to undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca). Trump cancelled Daca, but said he wanted Congress to find a solution that would protect that population. “Alongside the decision to end Daca last fall, we’ve now placed a million people who have worked and lived legally in the US for years – and who have been vetted – we have now taken that status away from them,” said Murray. “No one gains in this scenario.” Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 09 2018 12:16 Lmui wrote: Explain. Most people that age don't vote. Trump is showing significant signs of mental degradation, it's unlikely hell make it to 2020 without being even more of a bumbling idiot than he is right now. Trump's opposition is showing significant signs of mental degradation. They can't deal with a narcissist that acts like a narcissist. They also can't deal with childlike petulance. The current "he's mentally unfit to serve/25th Amendment" wackos don't do the broader opposition movement any favors. (one example) | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The real question is what percentage of people that knew about the “Temporary Protected Status” actually understood that Temporary wouldn’t be the operative word. 2001 earthquakes to 2018 “who cares let them stay if they want” is pretty much says it all. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On January 09 2018 17:58 Danglars wrote: Trump's opposition is showing significant signs of mental degradation. They can't deal with a narcissist that acts like a narcissist. They also can't deal with childlike petulance. The current "he's mentally unfit to serve/25th Amendment" wackos don't do the broader opposition movement any favors. (one example) Isn't the much bigger problem the narcissism and childlike petulance (with access to a nuclear button)? Why do you try to draw an equivalence between the behavior of the guy in charge, and how his opponents respond to him? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10842 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12386 Posts
On January 09 2018 17:58 Danglars wrote: Trump's opposition is showing significant signs of mental degradation. They can't deal with a narcissist that acts like a narcissist. They also can't deal with childlike petulance. The current "he's mentally unfit to serve/25th Amendment" wackos don't do the broader opposition movement any favors. (one example) "Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us." Credit to John Oliver for me knowing about this most excellent speech. The fact that you don't have concerns about the state of the mind who created this and creates similar nonsense on a regular basis is why people shouldn't treat you seriously. | ||
| ||
