U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

People weren't convinced though. It was through judiciary action and a degree of force to *make* it happen.

People were convinced, however. The most populous states already forbid school segregation at the time of Brown, and that popular support resulted in the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 & 1964 being passed by congress. Civil Rights gains would have been impossible & unsustainable once achieved without majority public support.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

No, I don't not want you to vote Democrat, I want you to vote against Trump.

But if you claim my vote for a Libertarian wasn't a vote against Trump, then aren't you telling me to vote Democrat?

Tell me why you think it is fine for Trump to be your president?

I don't really believe anyone who made it to the general election should have been president. I voted for the chill guy from Arizona because he was the least dangerous.

And if you say "Clinton is the same as Trump", then I will have to say you are ignorant.

Which is why I again ask - why is it that Democrats can't present an argument for why I should vote for them, but can only resort to name-calling? You present no reasoning to convince me why she was better, simply insult me for not agreeing with you. That's a line of argument that will see Trump re-elected in 2020.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

A SJW is so consumed by what they believe is their duty to rid the world of hate and discrimination that they themselves become the very embodiment of both.

I find this to be the most vile part of the description; because of its truth. To everyone else, if in your mind fighting for social justice doesn't regress as far as Serovectra's description, maybe you should seperate that from the SJW term. This maybe the same distinction between a true feminist and a feminazi.

---

I'd also like to give my two cents on this whole "whose to blame for Trump" discussion as someone on the other side of the planet where voting is mandatory.

In Australia, if you throw away your vote by leaving it blank or randomly or incorrectly fill it in, you are referred to as a donkey voter. If you didn't use your vote properly, how dare you have the gall to criticize whatever the incoming government does. (Luckily we have a centre-right and centre-left party as our 2 main parties in government so potential for extreme damage is mitigated somewhat.)

But can that same reasoning be applied to the US election this time around? I'm not so sure.

The above reasoning can only apply to people who turn up to vote because they are expected to regardless of what they believe due to the law of the Australian constitution. We don't have an archaeic voting system like in the US which gives more power to certain voters than others. Our entire system does everything it can to get the maximum number of people out to vote (voting is always carried out on a Saturday from a multitude of voting stations).

None of this is the case in the US. Because voting is not mandatory, not everyone is part of the political process as in Australia. The electoral college system mixed with first past the post is bullshit; a system in which the popular vote doesn't match the result will always be shit. Governments, at least at the state level, do voter suppression, limited times for casting votes and having an election day (enshrined in the consitution) on an inconvenient work day.

My point being that, it takes a lot of dedication and planning to go out to vote when it isn't mandatory. If you haven't got a compelling reason to vote FOR someone, why bother going out in the first place?

This leads to the crux point I want to make. A lot of people in this thread have construed that people not voting is akin to them taking an ideological stance that cost the Democrats the election. Using that line of reasoning, then I would agree that fault lies with the voters.

But I postulate something else; that people didn't vote not due to ideological stance but because they disengaged from the election process because there was no compelling candidate or party to vote FOR. With that reasoning, its entirely the Democrats fault. Its their fault that besides going up against the most unpopular candidate in recent times, they had enough dirty laundery out for the public to see that they actually came across as comparable to the Republicans (even if this is completely not the case).

This disengagement was exactly what Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore feared would happen and ultimately what cost Shillary the election to Drumpf (as well as Electoral College being shit).

People that voted 3rd--Party didn't cost Shillary the election so don't blame them.

---

About the people who voted for Drumpf. There's no doubt all of the racists, xenophobes and bigots voted for him considering that his entire campaign pandered to them.

That said, if the Left continues to blame all of the people who voted for Drumpf as said racists, xenophobes and bigots, you guys are on track to lose for the next 8 years.

All you have to do is have frank discussions with people who voted for Trump and see what reasons that they had. Muslims and Mexicans probably weren't their concern.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/lkSGcBtvhnw

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

But if you claim my vote for a Libertarian wasn't a vote against Trump, then aren't you telling me to vote Democrat?

The Libertarian party was never going to win, so voting for them is basically the same as not voting at all. Thats the same thing as saying it's OK for Trump to win.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Haak

Is that what she actually said about Obamacare or are you just making that up?

Hillary herself never said people were racist for opposing Obamacare, she just implied it a lot, because she like most career politicians rarely makes any kind of uncouched statements that can't be re-interpreted or walked back. Plenty of her campaign surrogates made clear that they felt anyone opposed to Obamacare was a racist, though. Regardless, if she had offered a way to make it affordable, I could have been convinced to vote for her.

Originally Posted by Endscape

The Libertarian party was never going to win, so voting for them is basically the same as not voting at all. Thats the same thing as saying it's OK for Trump to win.

So, yes, I am being told I have to vote Democrat or I'm a racist, and no, there won't be any substantive argument to convince me to do so. Gotcha.

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

So, yes, I am being told I have to vote Democrat or I'm a racist

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never accused anyone that didn't vote Democrat of being a racist

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Endscape

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never accused anyone that didn't vote Democrat of being a racist

My apologies, there's a bit of a slippery slope here where " it's OK for Trump to win." becomes "you support Trump" becomes "You're a racist". I voted Libertarian precisely because I did NOT think it was okay for Trump to win, but I did not believe it was right for Hillary to win either. I could have stayed home, or I could have voted for a 3rd party candidate with "no chance" and vote down ballot. I did the latter, because the rest of the government is still important.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

You present no reasoning to convince me why she was better, simply insult me for not agreeing with you.

See, here is the great divide between people in the US and people outside of it. People outside of the US see the campaigns of Trump and Clinton and even though they don't regard Clinton as particularly great either still consider her significantly ahead of Trump. Meanwhile many in the US think like you. Trump = bad = Clinton. Which is why Vallen is so adamantly saying that the US did get the president it wanted in Trump.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by OH&S

But I postulate something else; that people didn't vote not due to ideological stance but because they disengaged from the election process because there was no compelling candidate or party to vote FOR.

There is no option to disengage from the election process.

American voters don't have to vote, and it is their right to not vote. But not voting doesn't disengage them from the election process because they are still citizens, and as such are still part of the government.

My argument is that it is literally wrong that an American can walk away from his or her responsibility as a part of the government itself. An eligible voter is already a government official, and his or her duty is to decide what to do with the vote. And what he or she does with the vote has an influence of who gets into office, even if they vote third party or not vote at all.

The only way to remove responsibility, is to abandon your citizenship.

Frankly I am arguing from the position of what the US government and what a voter actually is. While my opponents are arguing about a fantasy scenario where American voters are separate and irrelevant to the government.

I am arguing that I am using facts, while the opposite side is talking about an America that doesn't exist.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

See, here is the great divide between people in the US and people outside of it. People outside of the US see the campaigns of Trump and Clinton and even though they don't regard Clinton as particularly great either still consider her significantly ahead of Trump. Meanwhile many in the US think like you. Trump = bad = Clinton. Which is why Vallen is so adamantly saying that the US did get the president it wanted in Trump.

I can understand that perspective if we're strictly discussing an overseas viewpoint. Hillary Clinton is definitely the "safer" choice, in that she represented a continuation of decades of American foreign policy. She may be a corrupt plutocrat, but you knew what you were getting. Donald Trump's foreign policy is the same as everything else: press everyone as hard as he can for as much as he can. This might turn out great for the country and we make a lot of beneficial trade deals, or it could be WW3. It all depends upon whether or not he knows when to call, and with no diplomatic experience it's hard to be confident he does.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

My argument is that it is literally wrong that an American can walk away from his or her responsibility as a part of the government itself.

There's a pretty huge chunk of the American population who considers the federal government an imposition they'd rather be rid of entirely, taxes theft, and citizenship an onerous burden that is suffered only because its loss would result in arbitrary incarceration and fines. If given a "Or disband the government" option on the ballot, I wouldn't be surprised to find my state an independent republic within the next 20 years. I think that's pretty far out there myself, but it's not that far from a mainstream idea over here, and I do agree it'd probably be better than a government with even tighter control of the populace.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

People were convinced, however. The most populous states already forbid school segregation at the time of Brown, and that popular support resulted in the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 & 1964 being passed by congress. Civil Rights gains would have been impossible & unsustainable once achieved without majority public support.

It's a good point but at that time I'm referring to the states themselves, given how the US works. Though I guess sentiment grew stronger when the advent of television broadcasting how they were reacting to protests.

We still had to start somewhere with a judicial precedent, and I am somewhat grateful that people's rights in this country are not subject to popular opinion.

See, I'm of the mindset that you can't change people. I don't expect anyone to be "tolerant" because they may have their personal opinions and beliefs. What does matter is the government's ability to safeguard those rights. In other words people shouldn't have to be convinced.

I mean, I don't expect people to accept things like transgenderism or gay marriage. I'm not one of those people ready to call people's names for not agreeing. In my ideal world, this wouldn't be a government thing. But alas...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

There's a pretty huge chunk of the American population who considers the federal government an imposition they'd rather be rid of entirely, taxes theft, and citizenship an onerous burden that is suffered only because its loss would result in arbitrary incarceration and fines. If given a "Or disband the government" option on the ballot, I wouldn't be surprised to find my state an independent republic within the next 20 years. I think that's pretty far out there myself, but it's not that far from a mainstream idea over here, and I do agree it'd probably be better than a government with even tighter control of the populace.

I am sorry, but even if a State goes independent they will still get a government. You speak once again from a fantasy position. If they don't want to be a citizen, they are free to not be by going elsewhere. But until then they are still part of the government. Pretend this isn't true doesn't change that, this is one of those things I called "facts".

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

I can understand that perspective if we're strictly discussing an overseas viewpoint. Hillary Clinton is definitely the "safer" choice, in that she represented a continuation of decades of American foreign policy.

Speaking as someone that lives abroad, most people here don't care about supporting Hillary as a continuation of foreign policy. They're simply amazed that Americans would be OK with Trump being President

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

I can understand that perspective if we're strictly discussing an overseas viewpoint. Hillary Clinton is definitely the "safer" choice, in that she represented a continuation of decades of American foreign policy. She may be a corrupt plutocrat, but you knew what you were getting. Donald Trump's foreign policy is the same as everything else: press everyone as hard as he can for as much as he can.

I wasn't talking about foreign policy only. Trump is so far off what foreigners, especially Europeans, consider acceptable governance.

This might turn out great for the country and we make a lot of beneficial trade deals, or it could be WW3. It all depends upon whether or not he knows when to call, and with no diplomatic experience it's hard to be confident he does.

Trump wants bi-lateral free trade deals. Problem is, nobody has any interest in this since they know they'll get squeezed to the limit by US power. It's no surprise that once Trump scrapped TPP Australia and Japan immediately agreed to hold negotiations with China to create a TPP replacement bloc in the Asia-Pacific region. Likewise the EU is a huge free trade bloc. And currently I also fail to see a real strategy in how Trump and his henchmen want to achieve their goal of coercing countries into bi-lateral free-trade deals. Rhetorically he's starting trade wars with China, Japan and the EU at the same time and he is mistaken if he thinks that those countries will just bow down to the US. Yesterday a German newspaper in an article quoted an anonymous German government official saying if Trump really wants a trade war he can get it.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I am somewhat grateful that people's rights in this country are not subject to popular opinion.

While I agree that people's basic rights really shouldn't be open to popular debate, people don't always agree on where one person's rights begin and another's end, and ultimately, no right is sustainable against an overwhelming majority - theoretically, a 2/3rd majority of Americans could abolish the 1st Amendment if they wanted to (perish the thought!).

See, I'm of the mindset that you can't change people. I don't expect anyone to be "tolerant" because they may have their personal opinions and beliefs.

While I can understand that viewpoint, I think it's important to realize that even if people don't change, they can learn, and often progress and tolerance is won on the margins. While there is true bigotry out there driven by a critical lack of empathy, the majority of people who act out bigotry are typically simply ignorant & scared. Threatening a scared, ignorant person is just going to make them even more defensive. Showing them your hand can convince them there's nothing to be afraid of at all. What this country needs is not more people yelling "bigot". What it needs is more people practicing what they preach and Trumping hate with love. A friend who's gay, muslim, or a latino is worth a thousand people yelling about fascism in the street or on the internet when it comes to actually making this country better.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am sorry, but even if a State goes independent they will still get a government. You speak once again from a fantasy position. If they don't want to be a citizen, they are free to not be by going elsewhere. But until then they are still part of the government. Pretend this isn't true doesn't change that, this is one of those things I called "facts".

Not really arguing against your point, more that as a society of people who historically came here because they rejected government elsewhere, despising the government is culturally engrained here. Fact's don't really measure up anymore than trying to disprove someone's religion with science.

Originally Posted by Endscape

Speaking as someone that lives abroad, most people here don't care about supporting Hillary as a continuation of foreign policy. They're simply amazed that Americans would be OK with Trump being President

Believe me, I'm pretty amazed myself.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

While I agree that people's basic rights really shouldn't be open to popular debate, people don't always agree on where one person's rights begin and another's end, and ultimately, no right is sustainable against an overwhelming majority - theoretically, a 2/3rd majority of Americans could abolish the 1st Amendment if they wanted to (perish the thought!).

It's true, but you gotta admit that hurdle is delibrately set high and if it really comes to that, then all else has failed. Funny enough, people got up and arms about booze.

While I can understand that viewpoint, I think it's important to realize that even if people don't change, they can learn, and often progress and tolerance is won on the margins. While there is true bigotry out there driven by a critical lack of empathy, the majority of people who act out bigotry are typically simply ignorant & scared. Threatening a scared, ignorant person is just going to make them even more defensive. Showing them your hand can convince them there's nothing to be afraid of at all. What this country needs is not more people yelling "bigot". What it needs is more people practicing what they preach and Trumping hate with love. A friend who's gay, muslim, or a latino is worth a thousand people yelling about fascism in the street or on the internet when it comes to actually making this country better.

Well, I do agree that liberals need to stop talking people like they are dumb lol. And some people in this thread. And yes, the thugs that protested against Milo and destroyed other people's property are no better than Milo himself.

I agree that empathy is superior to fearmongering and hatred. And especially passing judgement, really needs less of that.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Trump wants bi-lateral free trade deals. Problem is, nobody has any interest in this since they know they'll get squeezed to the limit by US power.

Agreed. On the other hand, I understand people's anxiety about multinational trade pacts, since they invariably serve the interests of big businesses rather than laborers, and become very difficult to extricate yourself from or alter the terms of once you become a member. Countries really need to be more festidious in protecting their citizens when writing these things, but I don't really agree with Trump's full-Protectionist stance anymore than I agree with his "I don't have conflicts or interest" stance or his "our problems can be solved with a wall" stance.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

Which is why I again ask - why is it that Democrats can't present an argument for why I should vote for them, but can only resort to name-calling? You present no reasoning to convince me why she was better, simply insult me for not agreeing with you. That's a line of argument that will see Trump re-elected in 2020.

Democrats have done this. Clinton herself has given these speeches (though the media never wanted to cover them). You said she offered nothing to you for the ACA, but she repeatedly talked about the law being imperfect and needing improvement. Her website was filled with extensive policy discussions on a great many issues, including the ACA!

Donald Trump never had a policy beyond his wall and Muslim ban, and certainly gave no logistics on how he was ever going to carry it out. His campaign was filled with white nationalist dog whistles, and a selling of nostalgia for an America that will never come back to the rural white poor. Sorry guys, globalization kind of wrecked those factory jobs and automation is here to make sure they never come back. I'm sure you like your iPhone though.

I don't think the Democratic Party had an effective economic message that was able to break the noise of Trump in this media landscape. Part of that is their fault, a lot of it is also the media just loving Trump for ratings. Ultimately though, their inability to effectively campaign for the votes they needed does not mean you avoid responsibility for being totally ignorant on the issues.

I don't think you're a reasonable human being if you look at Trump and his administration, then say that he should be in charge of the most deadly weapon arsenal in the world.

[James Rye]

What really needs to change in america is the 2-party system, like half of the country didn't bother to vote. The Reps AND the Dems don't reach most of the american people. But with your electorate system it will only allow two parties (I remember a cool video which explained using animal pictures how certain systems drive themselves into one/two party systems due its design) plus there is the whole gerrymandering and ofc the PACs, and now the churches will have a word as well. This all just spells trouble and it would certainly be better if like instead of a winner-takes-it-all-even-if-only-one-vote-difference the states would give votes to the 1st and 2nd places, maybe even a third to assure that other parties get representatives into the house.
And that you make it depend on the % so that reps in California gets motivated to go out to vote to get over 30% to grab the 2nd place elector votes for their party and in Texas for the Dems to get there the same. That would also stop making the swing states so incredible important as their elector numbers now won't go to a single guy but several guys. That and this way would allow more red-blue states instead of fully painted blue/red states after each election which gives off a way different view than reality truly holds in those counties.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by James Rye

But with your electorate system it will only allow two parties (I remember a cool video which explained using animal pictures how certain systems drive themselves into one/two party systems due its design)

Classic CGP Grey:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Democrats have done this. Clinton herself has given these speeches (though the media never wanted to cover them). You said she offered nothing to you for the ACA, but she repeatedly talked about the law being imperfect and needing improvement. Her website was filled with extensive policy discussions on a great many issues, including the ACA!

I did hear she planned to improve it, but the incremental tweaks she talked about didn't sound like they'd help us deal with the hundreds of dollars we've been paying in premiums for coverage that wouldn't kick in until we met a 5 grand deductible. Call me crazy, but I had really hoped Obama was going to give us single-payer. Barring that, I think the best solution would be an open market with a government backed pool for chronic conditions.