U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

A vote for Trump or Clinton, at least, would have been pointless in my state. Hence, I wouldn't have gone through the effort if there weren't so many third parties available to vote for in my state. I didn't just silently vote on my own and hope everyone else could read my mind. I told others about their other options. I told them about what Johnson and Stein believed in, and yes, I did succeed in convincing quite a few people. A tiny amount in the large scale of things, but it's not like I just fantasized about this. I made an effort. For the record, I also informed people on the internet (not my state) that they should consider the third parties.

That was well done of you. It's always good for people to be more informed.

That voting strategy IS a weapon. They just want to give Clinton all the power in the world because you cannot stomach Trump being president.

It's funny that you say Clinton winning would get her all the power in the world when she would have to deal with the Republicans controlling the House and Senate, so she'd have significantly less power than Trump has.

That is not how it should be, and I highly doubt the founding fathers would have ever wanted things to end up this way. It's a rational way of voting only from someone who has no desire for change.

It's all well and good to talk about how the world should be, but it won't become like that magically, you know. You have to work for change.

I recently participated in a conversation with a gentleman on another site, who professed to be a longtime Green Party supporter who voted for Clinton this time around.

When asked why, he responded that he did not see the point of voting Green, not just because of the imminent danger posed by Trump, but because of the fact that in his estimation, the Green Party had not accomplished much of anything throughout the time he had been affiliated with them, so he believed the party as a whole was simply unready for power.

While I am not an American, I live in a country where there are only two viable political parties. There are third parties, but frankly, I would say the same of them.

While I acknowledge the difficulties present in the political system for third parties, I can't really in good conscience vote for a party that doesn't seem to have prepared themselves for actually taking power.

Why do you think that? It seems to me that third parties had the best chance of getting more votes than they ever had in my lifetime thanks to the nominees the Republicans and Democrats ended up going with.

And how exactly did that end up again? In an election where people would rather the Earth be destroyed by giant meteor than vote Trump or Clinton, no third party broke through to the mythical 5%.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Thank you. We clearly have different ideas of who would make a good president and who would not, but seriously, thank you. I absolutely cannot believe the vitriol democrats are getting from their own people just because they chose not to vote for someone like Clinton. They are so short-sighted that it's just unbelievable. Count me out of that party henceforth.

Having vision is fine, but staring off into the distance when a boulder comes along and crushes you today isn't really productive.

I must say, you seem to have this idea that the Republican and Democratic Parties are immutable objects, when history and current events show that simply isn't true. Personally, I think working to change the two main parties is more efficient than hoping that a third party will someday buck the system.

[monster]

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 freedom of religion does not mean every religious practice is tolerated, such as polygamy (for now) and human sacrifice. In the same way, the right to bear arms doesn't mean every type of arms is/should be tolerated. The potential for abuse is not worth it.

That doesn't negate the intention of the framing of that amendment. Even the issue of slavery is still within the context of protecting the people (that mattered at that time anyway) against potential "abuse" from the government.

Likewise, the issue of a standing army is in the context of a republican government, thus it's about protecting the people from a corrupt military leader who might try to overtake the government of the people through force. That's probably also why the commander-in-chief and the Secretary of Defense are both a civilian office.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Endscape

It's all well and good to talk about how to world should be, but it won't become like that magically, you know. You have to work for change.

I recently participated in a conversation with a gentleman on another site, who professed to be a longtime Green Party supporter who voted for Clinton this time around.

When asked why, he responded that he did not see the point of voting Green, not just because of the imminent danger posed by Trump, but because of the fact that in his estimation, the Green Party had not accomplished much of anything throughout the time he had been affiliated with them, so he believed the party as a whole was simply unready for power

As you pointed out though, there's extreme institutional biases against 3rd Parties. I've got nothing but love for the Green Party, but I know for many progressives living in deep blue states, they cast their vote for Jill Stein eyes wide open. Perhaps this is a moral failure on my part, but living in a battleground state, I voted for Hillary at the last minute because either her or Trump was the reality we were facing at that time, not her, Trump, Stein, or Johnson. Hillary ran a campaign most people didn't want to hear, and the progressives weren't going to change that. What's concerning is how most of her supporters had no interest in trying to apply the lesser of two evils argument to skeptics (status quo vs regression); if we just accept the proviso that more folks are willing to overlook bigotry and maliciousness than we thought, than what's corruption and scandals by comparison? And, we should remind that folks that Gary Johnson was much more of a spoiler for Trump than Jill Stein was for Hillary

@ monster
Ummm, yes. Check my post that frivolity responded to

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

@ monster
Ummm, yes. Check my post that frivolity responded to

I did. My response took that post into account. Or at least, this part of it:

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

The framing that a lot of folks have bought into, is that it was created so citizens could overthrow the government in case they ever became too tyrannical. First of all, even accepting that proviso, your AR-15 ain't protecting jack when the government comes in with a Predator drone. You're outgunned, Rambo. And if that was the intent, everyone would have a right to a Predator or F-16. Second, it was designed for the opposite reason; to prevent standing armies from overthrowing the government by breaking them up into militias. Third, you wanna talk about fighting tyranny? Let's talk about how the 2nd Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

Notice the full text:

They specifically used the word state, not country. Pretty sure the Founding Fathers knew the difference (see also: the 10th Amendment). To the point though, they needed to find a way for Virginia to join the union so they slip this in here so they could mobilize to keep the slaves in check

Let's also look at the word regulated for a minute. Back then, they had muskets, and those things took 20 seconds on average to reload. The word regulated is still in there even as our firearms evolved beyond what the Founding Fathers had

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monster

The freedom of religion does not mean every religious practice is tolerated, such as polygamy (for now) and human sacrifice. In the same way, the right to bear arms doesn't mean every type of arms is/should be tolerated. The potential for abuse is not worth it.

And therein lies the problem.

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

They specifically used the word state, not country. Pretty sure the Founding Fathers knew the difference (see also: the 10th Amendment). To the point though, they needed to find a way for Virginia to join the union so they slip this in here so they could mobilize to keep the slaves in check

Let's also look at the word regulated for a minute. Back then, they had muskets, and those things took 20 seconds on average to reload. The word regulated is still in there even as our firearms evolved beyond what the Founding Fathers had

The words "regulated militia" were the ones that struck me. They sound to me that you need to be part of what is now called the National Guard if one wants to have the right to bear arms. And we also know that the National Guard, which is made of volunteering folks like in any militia, only answer to the call of the home state. I seriously believe that's what the Founding Fathers meant back then.

That said, I'm actually a moderate on the issue. A universal background check is supported by most Democrats, most Republicans, and even most NRA members; what, you're gonna tell me NRA members dunno what they're talking about?

If the support for such measure is that huge, I do wonder how no one has pushed forward the idea of the universal background check. I really expected that to be in place by now, unless the leaders of the NRA are in the other 10%.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

At the very least we need a universal background check. I'm also in favor of a high capacity magazine ban, because even in the argument of self-defense, you literally have no reason for that amount of rounds; if you were in a situation where you needed to fire that much, you're in a shootout as part of the military or police, killing people in a theater, or part of a gang having a dispute over drug territory (and this is why you also legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, and at the very least decriminalize the other drugs. See also: the mafia and prohibition)

Final point before anyone cites Chicago, IL having the most gun violence despite having the strictest gun laws: it's the areas arooouuund the city with the lax gun laws dude. An airtight container's gonna give when it's at the bottom of the sea

I don't think banning high-capacity magazines would be enough; it's because there's so much disparity in the number of cartridges between firearms that even a pistol with 15 bullets would be considered as overkill to some. If some firearms are to be allowed in on the market for civilians to buy, I think there has to be also a limit in how many rounds a weapon can hold in full capacity. In my opinion, 8 to 10 rounds in a weapon should be enough.

The Chicago case shows the wide disparity in views between city folks and countryside boys. And that's not even saying that the neighboring states, which are very rural, also has very lax gun laws. It's a real shame that people can't get on the same page to fight the problem at the roots.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

The words "regulated militia" were the ones that struck me. They sound to me that you need to be part of what is now called the National Guard if one wants to have the right to bear arms. And we also know that the National Guard, which is made of volunteering folks like in any militia, only answer to the call of the home state. I seriously believe that's what the Founding Fathers meant back then.

If the support for such measure is that huge, I do wonder how no one has pushed forward the idea of the universal background check. I really expected that to be in place by now, unless the leaders of the NRA are in the other 10%.

I don't think banning high-capacity magazines would be enough; it's because there's so much disparity in the number of cartridges between firearms that even a pistol with 15 bullets would be considered as overkill to some. If some firearms are to be allowed in on the market for civilians to buy, I think there has to be also a limit in how many rounds a weapon can hold in full capacity. In my opinion, 8 to 10 rounds in a weapon should be enough.

The Chicago case shows the wide disparity in views between city folks and countryside boys. And that's not even saying that the neighboring states, which are very rural, also has very lax gun laws. It's a real shame that people can't get on the same page to fight the problem at the roots.

Well, the other part of the 2nd Amendment is also for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." What I was addressing in my original post were the misconceptions a lot of people have regarding the 2nd Amendment and the paradox presented by some provisos. With that said, the question of how many rounds a fully loaded firearm can hold is something I'm agnostic on because, in the first place, most of the mass shootings in America (we define it as 4 or more people killed at the same time in the same immediate location) have the perps using an average of 4 firearms. But I'm not in favor of a gun buyback since I wouldn't want to infringe on peaceful collectors and what not

As for why a universal background check hasn't been passed yet, that's on congressional Republicans. Taking money from NRA leaders tends to make lawmakers not do anything the NRA doesn't want them to do

(though I should stress I'm moderate on the issue because I know firearms are part of a lot of life styles: hunting, firing ranges, protecting yourselves from bears when you're hiking in the woods, hunting the lochness monster...)

One more thing to note: it's not a matter of our lawmakers not being able to get on the same page so much as it is competing special interests conflicting with each other. There are going to be philosophical differences, of course, but adding one corporation that pulls Republicans in one direction and adding another business that pulls Democrats in another direction creates more gridlock than is healthy. When they do agree with each other, it's to screw over the American people outright or push them 10% in the right direction. Gun laws are just one side effect of the greater disease of legalizing corporate money into the political system

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Why do you think that? It seems to me that third parties had the best chance of getting more votes than they ever had in my lifetime thanks to the nominees the Republicans and Democrats ended up going with.

Yes, and what did it get them?

If you really want to dethrone one of the big two parties, you need to start small and work your way up. You can't change the mind of a nation in one go, and you can't convince them to put their fate into the hands of a party that's never proven itself. But on a small scale, a town or something, you can. Once you've succeeded at that, try to:
1. hope your newly elected officials do a good job, to showcase not only your ideology but your people.
2. build a virtuous (this being politics, I use the term reluctantly) circle of notoriety and money. Make more and more people think that it's ok to vote for your guys, and like I said, work your way up. Attract some professional talent. Surprisingly, politics isn't some unskilled job anyone can do.

It's not fun, I know. Not as fun as dreaming of winning it all in one go, with little effort. You'd better dream of winning the lottery. No matter who the President is, as a millionaire I think you'll do all right (as long as you don't let it go to your head and lose everything).

(Or, you know, you could try to influence one of the big parties to change, but it isn't all that easier.)

I don't want to decide the election alone. I want as many people in this country to be pleased with their leader, even if that doesn't incude me. But what more do you expect me to do? I already told you that I got people to vote for third paries to avoid the worst case scenarios.

Vote for the least terrible candidate that has a chance of winning. And before that... primaries, I guess, to try and get a non terrible candidate out there?

Trump is too incompetent to be any different from Clinton, and Clinton is a snake in the grass. There are realistic alternatives to incompetents and snakes that will bite you. That's the third parties, if you would only allow them a chance by not bitching people out every time someone admits to voting for one.

Hilary will only be the realistic alternative to Trump as long as you live in a fantasy world where there truly are only two people to vote for. Get out of that mindset and the US is going to change a good deal. If we don't, the US is screwed and it deserves its collapse. I say that as an American, by the way. If this country can't get its shit together, then screw it. Personally, I can always go to Canada when the shit hits the fan because the vast majority of Americans (thanks, Democrats, for being just as worse as Republicans!) can't get out of this idiotic mindset.

The fantasy is that, by the time the actual presidential elections come around, it isn't already way too late for anybody that's not of the two big parties. It's years, decades too late.

[Magin]

You know, for all the debate we go on in this thread about the billion little nuances of politics... it's taken far too long for me to realize a simple truth of humanity that's been true since the end of the barter system, and this era is proving it the best: Money is Power. We all talk about a President who we can relate to should be in office, but in addition to what's in the Constitution, there's another one (especially since apparently Mark Zuckerburg is thinking about it): You have to be a billionaire.

And for all those grassroots campaigns? the only way they work is if they have millions or billions in funding. It seems that now, the only way you can even begin to change the country is by havong millions or billions... and what percentage of the population has that kind of money?

[-Antares-]

I don't have the time or proper mindset right now (remember, I'm mentally unhealthy thanks to America's awful society and culture :^)) to post a response to every single one of you arguing with me. You don't understand the meaning of chance. You don't understand what it takes to change. You don't understand anything at all but status quo and 👻scary monsters👻. If Trump is really a devil then let him ruin the US. It deserves it for what it's done, and for its political weakness.

Nobody who voted for a third party candidate, in ANY state, did anything wrong. You're the ones in the wrong for perpetuating the "lesser of two evils" mindset. Those are the facts. That's the truth.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I don't have the time or proper mindset right now (remember, I'm mentally unhealthy thanks to America's awful society and culture :^)) to post a response to every single one of you arguing with me. You don't understand the meaning of chance. You don't understand what it takes to change. You don't understand anything at all but status quo and 👻scary monsters👻. If Trump is really a devil then let him ruin the US. It deserves it for what it's done, and for its political weakness.

Oh, it absolutely does. He was, after all, legitimately elected.

Nobody who voted for a third party candidate, in ANY state, did anything wrong. You're the ones in the wrong for perpetuating the "lesser of two evils" mindset. Those are the facts. That's the truth.

Why, because you say so with a big font?

[Eisdrache]

Wrong?

Chance: 3rd parties had 0% chance of winning the presidential election. Yes, zero.
Change: Did voting for 3rd party in the presidential election change something? Anything? No.

The point isn't that people support the status quo. Nor that they necessarily dislike 3rd parties. It's not even that 3rd party voters are wrong in what they support. It's that these voters wanted to achieve something but effectively took themselves out of the decision process when they had the choice of participating in it and then absolve themselves of being accountable for getting Trump who irrefutably is the worse choice between the two of them.

I argued myself with many of those who think along these lines whether or not it was irresponsible to vote 3rd party and in the end we settled to disagree over that point and let it rest but that doesn't change that those voters share a responsibility for the result.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I don't have the time or proper mindset right now (remember, I'm mentally unhealthy thanks to America's awful society and culture :^)) to post a response to every single one of you arguing with me. You don't understand the meaning of chance. You don't understand what it takes to change. You don't understand anything at all but status quo and 👻scary monsters👻. If Trump is really a devil then let him ruin the US. It deserves it for what it's done, and for its political weakness.

Nobody who voted for a third party candidate, in ANY state, did anything wrong. You're the ones in the wrong for perpetuating the "lesser of two evils" mindset. Those are the facts. That's the truth.

Most people wanting a 3rd party won't mean a thing so long as the institutional biases are in place and they're kept ignorant to what their options are. But you know what Justice Democrats want to do? They want to take over the Democratic party. To make it liberal again. To make it what it was supposed to be. They want election reform so that 3rd parties can be thrust into the Marketplace of Ideas en masse. They want 100, 200, 300 Bernie Sanders-like characters running around congress because they do know what it takes for change: put everything you have into a given issue, and most of the time you still only get incremental change because one way or another you're forced to compromise

That's right. We know compromise is a thing. You can stop accusing us of going "well if we put the pixie dust on this everything will be aaall better!" But what are you going to accomplish if you're compromising up-front (like Hillary or Obama)? The compromise of the compromise. Dafuq?

Hillary and her supporters screwed this up for everybody when we kept telling them how not to, every step of the way. And now more than ever, we need to save ourselves. We need Justice Democrats

You can be an ally within (JD) or outside (3rd Party), but don't actively get in the way

#JusticeDemocrats

[Key Board]

Republicans voters who still have a conscience should just flip and vote Democrat
because Democrats nowaday are what Republicans used to be anyway
before Republicans doubled down on bigotry

[Galaxian]

The court decided not to lift the suspension to Trump's travel ban.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38927175

[Dauerlutscher]

Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

A federal appeals court has maintained the freeze on President Trump’s controversial immigration order, meaning previously barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries can continue entering the U.S.

A panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge James Robart, who had decided Friday that Trump’s temporary travel ban should be put on hold. The Department of Homeland Security soon suspended all enforcement of Trump’s controversial directive.

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Why, because you say so with a big font?

No, because it's the truth. I wanted to emphasize it.

Chance: 3rd parties had 0% chance of winning the presidential election. Yes, zero.
Change: Did voting for 3rd party in the presidential election change something? Anything? No.

The potential was there. That's what was important, and that's what you don't seem to comprehend. 0% isn't possible, by the way.

The point isn't that people support the status quo. Nor that they necessarily dislike 3rd parties. It's not even that 3rd party voters are wrong in what they support. It's that these voters wanted to achieve something but effectively took themselves out of the decision process when they had the choice of participating in it and then absolve themselves of being accountable for getting Trump who irrefutably is the worse choice between the two of them.

I argued myself with many of those who think along these lines whether or not it was irresponsible to vote 3rd party and in the end we settled to disagree over that point and let it rest but that doesn't change that those voters share a responsibility for the result.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Your bias is showing like mad.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Most people wanting a 3rd party won't mean a thing so long as the institutional biases are in place and they're kept ignorant to what their options are.

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.

[Dauerlutscher]

@-Antares-
Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here. Are you saing that you vote but don't want to hold any responsibility that comes with your vote?

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

@-Antares-
Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here. Are you saing that you vote but don't want to hold any responsibility that comes with your vote?

Nah, he's telling you guys to stop getting off to your pretentious hoity-toity comments and reflect upon what you're saying. He's voting for who best represents his own views, this is how the election process is supposed to work. His responsibility is to vote, it's not to pander to the ideologies of others.

[GDB]

It's one thing to harp on someone who voted third party and complains about Trump, but Antares clearly isn't doing that. People need to stop moving the goalposts for assigning/shifting responsibility.