U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[-Antares-]

Holy horses, people. You are not listening! If I'm not making sense, then why don't you read the posts of Ithekro and, god forbid, frivolity, and really think about what they're saying. WITHOUT your bias.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

All I ever said from the beginning here is that if you did not vote or voted for a third party candidate instead of Hillary Clinton while believing in the vast majority of progressive causes that she supported, then you are simply an ignorant fool. Additionally, if our progressive causes all get walked back, damning an entire generation of people to shitty outcomes then you indeed OWN this as a third party voter. It was simple common sense in this election.

Please tell me what is so progressive of bombing the crap out of other countries and selling weapons to people we're at war with? Please tell me what's so progressive of taking the pace of a half-asleep elderly person walking to a grocery store only to find out that they left their money at home? And what about the people who are getting screwed over IN THE US over her policies (friendly reminder that her policies were going to be very similar to Obama's)? She's no progressive in my eyes. and thre's absolutely nothing "progressive" about being forced to chose between just two people... Only one of whom we have never seen anything like before. Actually, maybe you're right. Maybe I should have voted for Trump after all...

Furthermore, I'll remind you, though it's irrelevant to my real point, that my vote literally didn't matter when it came to Trump. There was no way Minnesota was going to vote for Trump. Absolutely no way. Because the people who matter on a state basis are the most populous areas and Minnesota has a big old hole where most of its population exists. Naturally, they hate Trump as much as you do. Everything outside that hole is poor rural farmers or people in retirement communities.

Personally it is not even a matter of lesser of two evils. I actually do not think Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. She is ultra qualified to hold that position, and probably would have done a pretty decent job in my opinion. I definitely hold some strong disagreements with her, but that doesn't make her "evil" in my eyes. If you are a Republican and believed she is bad because of her policies then that's different than the dumb "progressive" who did not realize what was at stake this election.

That's wonderful that you believe that. But others do not, and they would appreciate you not demonizing them for that fact. And you need to recognize that EVERYTHING is at stake in EVERY election, hence why we should stop bending over for assholes like Clinton and Trump (oh no, I am being a hypocrite again because I insulted them).

I don't know man. This is like saying last century white southern voters aren't responsible for holding back civil rights for African Americans because they liked their candidate. Your vote carries responsibility no matter how you slice it. Voters are what make Democratic societies function and they live or die on the choices of the people. How can you not harp on people for making irresponsible choices?

No, actually a better analogy would be that you're the guy fighting to keep slaves and prevent blacks from voting, beacuse all you're doing is screaming at people who didn't vote for Clinton and talking about how because they didn't we have to deal with some kind of Satan. Entitled, religious fanatic is what that sounds like to me. If you want to actually consider my arguments then maybe I'll continue this. But I don't think that's likely since you're clearly not ready to stop being a bully (hmm, I know someone else who's a bully... he happens to like tea and rump).

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

What potential exactly? 0% means impossible because it is. If you believed that someone not named Hillary/Trump was going to win then you're simply delusional.

I didn't think they would win, but I believed we could make progress towards people actually having a clue who the third parties even are, and that they could vote for them. Numbers means possibility can happen. Screaming in people's ear that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils means possiblity can never happen. Don't you remember how everyone was/is pissed off at both Democrats and Republicans for their nominees? I also never said 0% wasn't impossible. I said the chance was not 0%. That the chance now was higher than ever because few people are satisfied by these nominees and third parties were starting to come into prominence for the first time in a long, long time. Don't twist my words, and don't be daft.

You can be against the status quo and vote for Hillary. If you weren't so busy stomping your foot and insisting on voting 3rd party you'd see that too.

No, you really can't. You're enforcing it to continue if you vote for her. She's the most status quo person there is. Trump would be a far better choice for ending the status quo and I say that despite disliking him far more than Clinton. That doesn't mean I like Clinton, either, though. Nor does it mean I have to choose between one of the two. Christ, I could have voted for the Marijuana Now! party but that seemed like it was just a big fat joke so I stuck to paying attention to Libertarian and Green parties, who are both better known and probably actually have their heads screwed on properly.

[Ithekro]

I did some searching (not fully extensive, but some) to 2008. While I didn't find my posts about voting 3rd party, I did find my position on close elections remains the same, only this time it was worse than in 2008, and it shows not only in the number of people voting for third parties, but also in the reactions of the people. Protests and near riots within days of being elected President. Protests continuing onwards, and demonization of other voters. These are things that did not happen in 2008. Didn't even happen in 2000 from what I remember.

My stance was that I was tired of these 50-50 elections and the damage it was causing to the country. This election made it worse than before. Both parties are to blame for having terrible candidates and treating which ever is the opposite side like the enemy of all mankind.

In the end, unless the President breaks with the Constitution, the country will be fine in the long run. Laws are made by Congress, not the President. Can the President influence the process? yes. They can also set international policies, but the results depend greatly on what other counties are doing. Short of them ordering the military to act against a nation or pressing the nuclear button, the President can only do so much within their powers granted by the Constitution. There are checks and balances for a reason after all.

Now, Trump is using Executive Orders like a hammer to fulfill his campaign promises. And the checks and balances are coming into place from the Judicial Branch of the Government. The Legislative Branch hasn't done too much yet aside from approve cabinet members and the like. It is what they do when the President tries to push for things that they also don't want. They will push back, even with a Republican Congress, because they don't want their power overruled by any President, as it sets a precedent another President can use later. If the President overreaches his authority, first Congress or the Supreme Court will slap his hand. If he fights back, they will attempt to impeach him.

In those terms, the President isn't all that important, just the head of one third of the government, with the other two thirds watching him to some extent in order to maintain their own powers. Barring any truly stupid or crazed moves, the country will survive like it has every President. One problem or another usually gets solved over the course of a few administrations.

The thing doing the harm? The 50-50 venomous split of the people. That is what is hurting the nation the most. Not the President himself, but those nearly fanatically supporting or fanatically opposing him. At this particular point in time, more so these opposing him, as they are causing social problems. Not with the government, but with their neighbors. The people they live with. The people who's lives they move into to protest against the President. It is wrong to protest? No. Is it wrong to disagree with the President? No. Is the divide growing wider between those that support the two major parties? Probably. I still think of it as the sports team mentality going overboard because one side won or lost. Go blue! Go Red! Why?

While this is an international board, so I can't actually use the phrase "We are all Americans" and have it be true, because there are French, Australians, Singaporeans, Brits, Canadians, Mexicans, Filipinos, Germans, and who knows how many others that are paying attention in this thread. The idea for the Americans present is the same. We all live in one country made up of 50 states and several territories. We can't keep up this divide election after election, as it is getting worse. While it hopefully won't land us in another Civil War, it is doing damage to our people and our culture. It could take generations to fix this, even going back to 2000. I was hoping it would take two presidents to fix the mess that was 9/11 after Bush was in office. Since that was usually how long it took historically to recover from any particular political problem. But we got an election cycle with rubbish instead. Clinton would have continued or even perpetuated the problems incurred during the Bush administration, and Trump is on his way to cause different problems, while perhaps getting the country out of the Bush caused problems, only to make different problems that could be as bad or worse, depending on who we upset this time around. We need something else. Someone else. This election, the solution would have been third party by November. Next election? Depends who runs. If the Democrats run crap again, than Trump will win again should he not have pissed off even the conservative and religious voters in the next three or so years before the election cycle starts again. Perhaps the Republicans will decide to run someone better against the incumbent President. It happens when the party doesn't agree with the incumbent.

If the people are as against Trump as those protesting now, than Trump will be a one term President. But if no one good runs against him, he will win. Third Party voters or no third party voters (note that third party votes this last election were mostly for the Libertarian candidate, which is more conservative, thus took votes away from Trump that another Republican might have gotten instead, though most of those voters would never vote for Clinton). Should another Reform Party-like substance appear, it will depend on its positions verses Trump and whomever the Democrats run (please stop running Clinton, she had too much baggage going into 2008, and gathered more before 2016, just stop already).

With the country divided like it is and voters not voting because they aren't being given any good choices, a popular third party candidate might do the trick if the Democrats can't find someone reasonable, or the country decides it has had enough of Trump like they were done with Carter. The country needs a more landside-like President. I means someone that takes the popular vote, the electoral college, and an overwhelming number of states. Someone who the country is more obviously behind. Some might say Obama had that, but he really didn't. The states remained divided on him so you had the mass of red and blue states were a swing here or there made a difference, rather than the swing states not mattering at all because the steamroller was going through with more support than needed to become President. We are talking like Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan levels of popularity, where there is no doubt they won. Then the nation can attempt to heal after this seemingly bitter divide, since the end of the Cold War, between the Democrats and Republicans that only got worse after 9/11.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Then fix it. Don't go directly against it as everyone keeps saying we should.

Most of what I'm hearing in terms of arguments here is "la la la, I don't hear you because this is this way! Sometimes I am so clever I don't even know what I'm talking about!!" Too bad most of the people I'm arguing with are either so far left they have no self awareness and the rest are Australians who don't have to actually deal with this crap. Just go away.

I was going to leave this alone, but cherry picking a part of the message is no better than the establishment shills that maligned Bernie Sanders. Vote for who you want to vote for is not mutually exclusive from me telling others how to win

To the other point, some of you misunderstand something: your mandatory voting is a responsibility, our elective voting is a right

Originally Posted by George Carlin

I believe if you vote you have no right to complain, people like to twist that around, I know. They say if you don't vote you have no right to complain but where is the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest and incompetent people and they get into office and they screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, you caused the problem, you voted them in, You have no right to complain, I on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, is no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I wanted at the mess you created that I had nothing to do with

[monster]

George Carlin is only partially correct in this one issue. Both people who voted and people who could've voted but didn't are equally responsible because the choice they made collectively, even a choice to abstain from voting, helps to shape the result of the vote.

The only people who are not responsible are people who are not able to take part in the voting. And if these people are affected by the result regardless, then they are also the ones with the most right to complain.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by OH&S

I'm glad that someone's finally talking sense. That said, it would require people getting off their high horses, stop blaming people who voted 3rd-party (whose vote had no influence on Hillary losing), stop bashing people who didn't vote at all (the people that really cost Hillary the election) and start recognising that the problem lies with Democratic Party and the nominee that they elected (through unscrupulous and rather unneccessary means).

The democratic party already presented themselves as the superior option of the two. If that isn't enough for them to be voted in, then it is the voter's problem.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

That constitutional interpretation only proves how some folks have pushed and bought into that framing, and the dissonance between them and the story behind this. Nor does one man's reading rewrite the correspondence between James Madison and Patrick Henry and dictate what the word regulated means (why not both). Concede an F-16 to a civilian for defense against tyranny, or stop sidestepping point

The interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the people against government tyranny was was not written by one man alone. It was the joint judgment of five people acting in their capacities as justices of the USSC, and is thus the legal position held by the Court at this point. This is not to say that the Supreme Court cannot be wrong - notwithstanding its merits, I for one consider that Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided from a legal point of view - but it does mean that the Court's position should be taken to be the default, and opposing views will have to engage with the Court's reasoning first. Simply brushing off the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia v Heller and asserting your own interpretation without addressing the Court's reasoning is not going to convince anyone.

In any case, your own source does not state what you claim it says. All it demonstrates is that Jefferson was against the idea of standing armies, i.e: professional armies consisting of regulars. Your source shows that Jefferson was of the view that standing armies were too dangerous to be left to government [emphasis added]:

“There are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing; the right of free commerce; the right of personal freedom. There are instruments for administering the government so peculiarly trustworthy that we should never leave the legislature at liberty to change them. The new Constitution has secured these in the executive and legislative department, but not in the judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury. There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”

~Letter to David Humphreys (1789)

Your link also shows that Jefferson considered that allowing the people to arm themselves would enable the country to survive without requiring a standing army:

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” ~Written comment (1803)

“The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

~Letter to Thomas Cooper (1814).

None of this supports your argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended "to prevent standing armies from overthrowing the government by breaking them up into militias". It actually shows the opposite: the 2nd Amendment was designed to remove the need for standing armies so that the government cannot use them as a tool to oppress the people.

So once again, what I said was correct. The 2nd Amendment was designed to allow the people to defend themselves should a tyrannical government ever come into power.

[mangamuscle]

Can't we a least agree about the need to abolish the electoral college, go metric, legalize (and regulate) illegal drugs and create a state run health service like the rest of the world?

... at least we agree about strong female leads in anime

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by OH&S

I'm glad that someone's finally talking sense. That said, it would require people getting off their high horses, stop blaming people who voted 3rd-party (whose vote had no influence on Hillary losing), stop bashing people who didn't vote at all (the people that really cost Hillary the election) and start recognising that the problem lies with Democratic Party and the nominee that they elected (through unscrupulous and rather unneccessary means).

What about this?
65,853,625:62,985,106

Maybe the US of A should drop this absurd EC thing. How can a country call itself democratic when the votes from people in a couple of states have far more weight than then the vote from people in other states? 70k people are "superior" or far more important than 3 million people? Sounds ridiculous to me. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Draco Spirit]

1) Abolishing the Electoral Collage system could open up a whole different can of issues... also good luck changing it without majority support from both major parties.

2) Why???

3) Gods no. There's good reason why many of them are illegal, through there argument for medical marijuana imho. Long term depression is a nasty side effect, but if someone is in serous and long term pain, I think that's the least of there concerns. Just make it a doctors call.

4) Very much yes. If you've just been run over by a car or had a heart attack, you don't need the stress of medical bills on your mind too.

[Dauerlutscher]

Trump vexed by challenges, scale of government

The new president’s allies say he has been surprised that government can’t be run like his business.

Vote for a businessman, they said.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The democratic party already presented themselves as the superior option of the two. If that isn't enough for them to be voted in, then it is the voter's problem.

This sort of thinking leads to stagnation. If the Left is truly serious about self-reflecting, then the thought process should be:

"If that isn't enough for them to be voted in, what more did they need to do in order to be voted in by the landslide victory that it should have been?"

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

What about this?
65,853,625:62,985,106

Maybe the US of A should drop this absurd EC thing. How can a country call itself democratic when the votes from people in a couple of states have far more weight than then the vote from people in other states? 70k people are "superior" or far more important than 3 million people? Sounds ridiculous to me. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Mentioned multiple times throughout this thread. In a fair election system it would have been Hillary's win.

But I'd like to show you something else:

1.04554:1

The ratio of Hillary voters to Trump voters. Something's wrong there right? That's annoyingly close to 1:1. Against Trump of all people. In a country that supposedly has more people on the left than the right. It should have been much more clear cut.

And as annoying as Draco Spirit can be regarding it, everyone knew what they were getting into in this election. Everyone knew how the Electoral College worked. They knew the rules and the Democrats lost.

Only a Party that actually stands for the people and wins in the EC by landslide can change the EC.

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The democratic party already presented themselves as the superior option of the two. If that isn't enough for them to be voted in, then it is the voter's problem.

No. No, they are not the superior option. Of the two, maybe. Depends on what you believe in. But why vote for someone who is just "superior" when maybe there are people who are godlike in comparison?

Also, fuck this thread. You people are the absolute worst at communicating with each other, and certainly not as equals. Even I'm starting to be convinced that the Democrats deserved Trump with the crap you people are spouting.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

1) Abolishing the Electoral Collage system could open up a whole different can of issues... also good luck changing it without majority support from both major parties.

Those issues are no different from the issues of upgrading the software and/or hardware at any company, it is a pain in the a* but necessary none the less. Don't mean to say direct democracy is perfect, but Winston Churchill said "... is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…".

2) Why???

For the same reasons as #1, imperial units are a relic of the past, you can argue they still work, yeah, you can say the same for old circular disc telephones, but good luck finding one nowadays (or a reason to defend those that say "you will have to pry it from my dead cold fingers".

3) Gods no. There's good reason why many of them are illegal, through there argument for medical marijuana imho. Long term depression is a nasty side effect, but if someone is in serous and long term pain, I think that's the least of there concerns. Just make it a doctors call.

I never meant to say drugs have no (nasty) side effects, of course they do, just like medicine and legal drugs. Legalization would mean said drugs would be made in sanitary conditions with verifiable portions (many deaths due to overdose or diseases transmuted by unsanitary conditions). Besides, if there is a lesson to learn from the days of alcohol prohibition is that when a drug is made illegal, people tend to higher dosage (to get the biggest "fix" now!) but when it is made legal, dosage tends to go lower (to prolong the pleasure of consumption).

4) Very much yes. If you've just been run over by a car or had a heart attack, you don't need the stress of medical bills on your mind too.

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by OH&S

This sort of thinking leads to stagnation. If the Left is truly serious about self-reflecting, then the thought process should be:

"If that isn't enough for them to be voted in, what more did they need to do in order to be voted in by the landslide victory that it should have been?"



Mentioned multiple times throughout this thread. In a fair election system it would have been Hillary's win.

But I'd like to show you something else:

1.04554:1

The ratio of Hillary voters to Trump voters. Something's wrong there right? That's annoyingly close to 1:1. Against Trump of all people. In a country that supposedly has more people on the left than the right. It should have been much more clear cut.

And as annoying as Draco Spirit can be regarding it, everyone knew what they were getting into in this election. Everyone knew how the Electoral College worked. They knew the rules and the Democrats lost.

Only a Party that actually stands for the people and wins in the EC by landslide can change the EC.

And? How mutch was the split between Obama and Romnay or Bush and and Gore?
The point is theat it was alwas realively close ad that the absolute majority of the people in the US don't vote. The voter participation was not bigger 24 years ago, it was not bigger 16 years ago and it was not bigger and it was not 2016. It's always in the same range.

No. The problem lies on the people. Most people are pretty indifferent to politics. Most people don't care at all about it.
You said it yourself. "It should have been much more clear cut". But it was not. Not this election and not all the other elections before.
If a dangerous peace of shit can't bring the people to vote, than there is something wrong with the people.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Also, fuck this thread. You people are the absolute worst at communicating with each other, and certainly not as equals. Even I'm starting to be convinced that the Democrats deserved Trump with the crap you people are spouting.

If you are not rich and white, hundrets of millions in your country will suffer because of him...and...you too. But I guess you are ok with it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by OH&S

And as annoying as Draco Spirit can be regarding it, everyone knew what they were getting into in this election. Everyone knew how the Electoral College worked. They knew the rules and the Democrats lost.

Only a Party that actually stands for the people and wins in the EC by landslide can change the EC.

I'm pretty sure changing the EC actually has nothing to do with the winning the EC. It's a legislature thing, both state and federal. The EC only chooses the president and technically the VP, and if the president could change it, a Democrat would have done away with the EC long ago. (I'm not calling Democrats more virtuous, at least on this. I'm just saying it's pretty clear who the EC's advantageous to.)

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

No. The problem lies on the people. Most people are pretty indifferent to politics. Most people don't care at all about it.
You said it yourself. "It should have been much more clear cut". But it was not. Not this election and not all the other elections before.
If a dangerous peace of shit can't bring the people to vote, than there is something wrong with the people.

Exactly. A lot of the "It's the Democrat Party's fault" arguments boil down to "they don't flatter me enough" or, at best, "they aren't ideal enough".

[-Antares-]

I never meant to say drugs have no (nasty) side effects, of course they do, just like medicine and legal drugs. Legalization would mean said drugs would be made in sanitary conditions with verifiable portions (many deaths due to overdose or diseases transmuted by unsanitary conditions). Besides, if there is a lesson to learn from the days of alcohol prohibition is that when a drug is made illegal, people tend to higher dosage (to get the biggest "fix" now!) but when it is made legal, dosage tends to go lower (to prolong the pleasure of consumption).

If you want to talk about drugs it'd be best to make a separate thread. There is so much to talk about on that subject and I think it would be a very good thread.

If you are not rich and white, hundrets of millions in your country will suffer because of him...and...you too. But I guess you are ok with it.

I'm white enough, and guess what? Just today I narrowly avoided an involuntarily hospitalization. I'm beyond caring about what happens to me. My life is probably worse than that of anyone in this thread. I'd like to see Trump try to make it worse. I doubt he'll succeed. If we here to somehow, though, there's nothing stopping me from going to Canada.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

4) Very much yes. If you've just been run over by a car or had a heart attack, you don't need the stress of medical bills on your mind too.

It helps with other things too, you know. Preventative medicine. Go in when you aren't feeling well, get checked out, get minor medication, fix it. As is now, people don't want to deal with the expense of going to the doctor, so they just let it slide. Sometimes that's fine and it goes away, other times you end up needing major surgery that could've been prevented if you caught it early.

Originally Posted by OH&S

Only a Party that actually stands for the people and wins in the EC by landslide can change the EC.

Pretty sure the President has the least amount of power when it comes to changing/removing the Electoral College. And guess which party happens to have gerrymandered the hell out of the country?

Originally Posted by -Antares-

No. No, they are not the superior option. Of the two, maybe.

He literally said "of the two."

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Also, fuck this thread. You people are the absolute worst at communicating with each other, and certainly not as equals. Even I'm starting to be convinced that the Democrats deserved Trump with the crap you people are spouting.

Way to denounce half of the entire country because of half a dozen anonymous people on the internet.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I'd like to see Trump try to make it worse. I doubt he'll succeed. If we here to somehow, though, there's nothing stopping me from going to Canada.

Money? A source of cash flow once there? A place to live?

[Jaden]

So much for Trump being "tough on China", I guess

Though he still likes Japan more

[-Antares-]

He literally said "of the two."

And why did he say that? The last time I checked there were about five.

Way to denounce half of the entire country because of half a dozen anonymous people on the internet.

They deserve it if they're going to continue to demonize people who vote for third parties. And you're definitely living in a fantasy world if you think it's only a handful of people on the internet that are doing it.

Money? A source of cash flow once there? A place to live?

I have relatives in Canada. In fact, I practically grew up in Canada. I have Canadian money at this very moment. More than I have US money, actually. And have you ever considered the shocking, horrible, terrible thought of living off the land? Or, perhaps, not living at all?

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

They deserve it if they're going to continue to demonize people who vote for third parties. And you're definitely living in a fantasy world if you think it's only a handful of people on the internet that are doing it.

Democrats tend to believe they're brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything they've actually done, but just because of their political backing. That's not to say conservatives can't be the same, but at least hypocrisy isn't a common trait of theirs. When you completely divorce a person's self image from his behavior, it produces terrible results.