U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

And what exactly do you think someone needs to be qualified for being the president of the united states? By law they were all qualified. Trump included.

Are you seriously saying that experience, track record, working in the respective field, and so on are equal for every candidate? It appears you are. We do we even go through the whole voting process when we could have just drawn lots.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

You keep complaining about individuals but what you need to be complaining about is the system. Oh, and not, y'know, perpetuating it with your constant hatred towards those filthy third party voters just because the candidate YOU liked didn't make it. Do you have any idea how many people in history didn't get the candidate they wanted and just quietly accepted it because they knew there was nothing that can be done?

No, they're complaining about 3rd party voters denying to be part of voting process. You'd think that several pages of repeated arguments would make it clear what they're talking about but seems not.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I don't give a rat's ass about whaat Trump is doing now. He's been elected. It's too late. Furthermore, there were better options than him and Clinton.

You should care considering he's the president of your country. As for better options, let's not talk about Stein or Johnson who have proven that they weren't qualified for the post of president themselves.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

You're the lazy one. You refuse to take a stand to change things. All you want to do is sit at your computer and groan about your mistaken belief that third party voters actually secretly voted for Trump! Clinton lost and it had nothing to do with third party voters. Get. Over. It.

What came out of voting 3rd party in the presidential election? Let's get this straight: Nothing. Sure you voted for whoever you support most but that doesn't change that the winner was going to come from the DNC or GOP. Keep clinging to your fantasy of >0% for all you want.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I'm not even going to read this anymore. Just shut your mouth, because only bile and nonsense has ever come from it.

You say that to everyone who disagrees with your standpoint but other than insulting them what have you brought to the argument? Right

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Demi.

A more recent example is Milo at Berkely, where a large mass of liberal crybabies were able to thwart his event to a halt and led to its cancellation.

You mean the guy who constantly posts hateful articles on Breitbart? Don't try to paint him as some angel who merely has an alternate viewpoint.

One of the reasons Trump won without commensurate money, organization, ground game, big-name endorsements, establishment unity, conservative media encouragement, and despite a campaign of gaffes and ad-hom attacks is because half the country felt it would not have survived four more years of the cynicism of left-wing politics. The voters got tired of being accused of thought crimes from a party led by wealthy people who made them poorer while adding insult to injury.

You realize he didn't have THAT many more people vote for him than Romney and McCain got, right? If I recall, it was around 3% more voters. The difference was the fewer number of voters for Clinton compared to Obama and WHERE those voters were.

Let's not try to make this something it's not.

And instead of focusing on how bad of a candidate Hillary Clinton was, Democrats are trying to blame everything else under the sun, particularly 3rd party voters. This might be a new low, as you're essentially attacking many of your own voter-base who simply could not bring themselves to vote for someone nearly as rotten as her opponent.

Not all democrats are doing it, and it's not like republicans never blamed third parties for their loss. Perot, anyone?

I never claimed superiority over anyone

I don't believe I've seen anyone technically claim it in this thread. But acting like everyone who isn't <insert affiliation here> is less than you is the same as thinking you're superior. So if you want to pretend others are doing it, then the same applies to you.

Originally Posted by Demi.

but the amount of condescension and self-righteousness in this thread is unbearably obnoxious.

I'll agree with this though.

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Are you seriously saying that experience, track record, working in the respective field, and so on are equal for every candidate? It appears you are. We do we even go through the whole voting process when we could have just drawn lots.

No, I'm saying that given the law, they are all qualified. That's all, and you need to accept that.

No, they're complaining about 3rd party voters denying to be part of voting process. You'd think that several pages of repeated arguments would make it clear what they're talking about but seems not.

Wow. Maybe I AM mentally delayed, because there is no way I can look at what's been said here and understand it the way you are.

You should care considering he's the president of your country. As for better options, let's not talk about Stein or Johnson who have proven that they weren't qualified for the post of president themselves.

No, I shouldn't care. It's done and decided. The whopping single reason for Stein and Johnson not being qualified to be president (and please, please don't just bring up ANTI-VAXXERS OMG or EEEEE JOHNSON DIDN'T KNOW THE NAME OF THAT PLACE) are shoddy at best. One is a complete misunderstanding by alarmists and the other is called "nobody can know everything, and the guy wasn't even the president at the time!" International affairs are extremely complicated. I don't know if you realize that. You probably don't know this either, but both of them were politicians before this election, though Johnson was more of one than Stein.

What came out of voting 3rd party in the presidential election? Let's get this straight: Nothing. Sure you voted for whoever you support most but that doesn't change that the winner was going to come from the DNC or GOP. Keep clinging to your fantasy of >0% for all you want.

Nothing came out of it, yes. But it could have if you weren't all sniffing glue so far up your brain that you can't even consider that they COULD have changed the results (they DIDN'T in this case, just to remind you; this means a vote for Stein/Johnson was NOT a vote for Trump). I am not interested in voting for horrible people and I am not interested in continuing this only-two-parties-will-ever-win deal. Keep sniffing that glue if you want to, though. I don't care anymore because you have little to do with either of my countries.

You say that to everyone who disagrees with your standpoint but other than insulting them what have you brought to the argument? Right

No, I act this way to Reckoner since he's a bloody tool who should never be defended as long as he acts the way he does. US Americans are going to ruin their country as long as they go along with his "plan" and his constant bullying, insulting, and whining towards people he should actually be trying to get on his side. What's amusing about his behavior is that it's exactly what Clinton did to alienate Sanders voters to the point where they wouldn't even vote for her after he begged them to.

I've brought up plenty of arguments if you cared to read them, but clearly you didn't. I'm not interested in typing my arguments twenty more times just for you to come back and say "you never had an argument though..." I'm not fond of talking to brick walls that have bullshit writing on them that will never change or hear what I'm telling them.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I've brought up plenty of arguments if you cared to read them, but clearly you didn't.

I've read them. Your "arguments" fall into three categories:
- "because I said so";
- some kind of grievance which may or may not be related, but doesn't in itself imply voting 3rd parties was a good idea unless (and yes, your reading comprehension's weak if you didn't catch that) you genuinely don't care about the difference between Trump and Clinton;
- insults, ranging from less to more explicit.

[Dauerlutscher]

Canadian woman denied entry to U.S. after Muslim prayers found on her phone

Fadwa Alaoui is a Moroccan-born Canadian citizen living in Brossard, Quebec. Like a lot of Quebecers, she sometimes drives down to Vermont to take advantage of the deals. But on Saturday, when her family pulled up at the border, Alaoui encountered something new. After the usual set of questions, Alaoui says she was asked about her religion and her thoughts on U.S. President Donald Trump. She says border agents took her phone and fingerprints. Four hours later she was told that her family wasn't welcome and she was forced to turn back.

I don't want [my son] to feel like we were discriminated because I raise my kids that we are all the same. We are Canadians. Yes, we have different names, but we are all the same.

He asked me about the mosque: Do you know the last name of the imam? If he is always present? If someone replace him? The name of the person who replaced him? He told me: What do you think about the shooting in Quebec? Do you have relatives in Quebec that was one of the victims?

They took our fingerprints, our pictures. The lady came to the front desk and she told me: "Okay, we're not let you in."

What do you think about the Quebec mosque shooting?

I think it was a young white male who read so much hate from your boss online that he self radicalized and slaughtered innocent Canadian citizens because they were praying, and their blood is on his hands for as long as he won't acknowledge and apologize. That's what I think.

Entry denied. Next.

Wtf

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

No, I'm saying that given the law, they are all qualified. That's all, and you need to accept that.

Yes, they've all met the minimum qualifications, but you can't seriously mean that you think they're equally qualified.

No, I shouldn't care. It's done and decided.

If you only care about the presidency during election time, that really doesn't seem like you're interested at all.

You probably don't know this either, but both of them were politicians before this election, though Johnson was more of one than Stein.

The highest elected office that Stein ever held is a in town of just over 30,000. That's just barely in the range of being considered a politician, and it's nowhere near enough experience to be a good president.

I'll give you Johnson, though.

But it could have if you weren't all sniffing glue so far up your brain that you can't even consider that they COULD have changed the results

No they couldn't have.

None of the third parties had the framework in place to even make that viable to begin with. You seem to think that just getting on the ballot means they have an equal opportunity to win with the bigger parties, and people who don't think that way are forcing themselves into a binary situation, because they don't vote for parties who haven't demonstrated the ability to govern the country.

No, I act this way to Reckoner since he's a bloody tool who should never be defended as long as he acts the way he does.

You keep complaining about the thread, and yet you're the only one I see resorting to personal attacks.

I've brought up plenty of arguments if you cared to read them, but clearly you didn't.

I've read all your arguments, and they mostly boil down to wishful thinking.

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

What do you think about the Quebec mosque shooting?

I think it was a young white male who read so much hate from your boss online that he self radicalized and slaughtered innocent Canadian citizens because they were praying, and their blood is on his hands for as long as he won't acknowledge and apologize. That's what I think.

Entry denied. Next.

Wtf

What I think about that shooting is that it IS terrorism perpetrated by a white boy who read a shedload of crap against immigrants and minorities; he was already a dick towards girls at school according to what I read. If anything, I'm calling out white supremacists as much as I call out some radical factions of Muslims who encourage that kind of violent behavior. BTW, I'm also calling out the likes of Drumpf and Le Pen for encouraging bigotry. I couldn't care less what race or what religion one belongs to, but you lose all respect from the moment you want to single out or even eliminate a group of people because they don't share your color skin or your religious views.

About all those people who are denied entry to the US... I will only say that many customs agents deserve to get sacked and treated like crap just for being bigots.

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I've read them. Your "arguments" fall into three categories:
- "because I said so";
- some kind of grievance which may or may not be related, but doesn't in itself imply voting 3rd parties was a good idea unless (and yes, your reading comprehension's weak if you didn't catch that) you genuinely don't care about the difference between Trump and Clinton;
- insults, ranging from less to more explicit.

I never said anything along the lines of "because I said so." That's YOUR argument.
I really don't care about the difference between Clinton and Trump. They're cut from the same cloth, ultimately, and I want a little something called options.
If my insults are bothering you, then get the mods on it so I can let them know that Reckoner needs to back off on his behaviour. Did you notice in my posts here that they've been getting more and more hostile? Because they have been, and there's a reason for that.
Thanks for insulting my reading comprehension, by the way. Kinda hypocritical but I'll forgive you.

Originally Posted by Endscape

Yes, they've all met the minimum qualifications, but you can't seriously mean that you think they're equally qualified.

Yes, so by the law they are qualified. Nobody is equally qualified but I can't understand how you could possibly believe that Trump and Clinton are better than the other options out there. That's just me, though. If you have a problem with it maybe you should put some time and effort into changing the system so people you consider unqualified don't get to run for president, hm?

If you only care about the presidency during election time, that really doesn't seem like you're interested at all.

What do you expect me to do about something that's been decided by law, fair and square? Maybe I would care if I felt there was anything that could be done, but there's not as far as I'm aware, so no, I don't care about the presidency outside of election time.

The highest elected office that Stein ever held is a in town of just over 30,000. That's just barely in the range of being considered a politician, and it's nowhere near enough experience to be a good president.

I'll give you Johnson, though.

I am aware of Stein's. That's why I said she was the lesser politician. I can't ignore how many good ideas she has, though, despite her lack of experience in politics.

No they couldn't have.

None of the third parties had the framework in place to even make that viable to begin with. You seem to think that just getting on the ballot means they have an equal opportunity to win with the bigger parties, and people who don't think that way are forcing themselves into a binary situation, because they don't vote for parties who haven't demonstrated the ability to govern the country.

What are they missing, then? What framework? Tell me. Because I'm an idiot and don't understand anything, let alone why parties like Libertarians and the Green Party would even exist, let alone run for president, if they literally have 0% chance of getting anything. And most people DO believe there are only two real parties... They ARE forcing themselves into a binary situation.

Not like Trump has demonstrated any ability to govern the country despite being a "Republican which means they have demonstrated the ability to govern the country." Your party argument is bogus.

You keep complaining about the thread, and yet you're the only one I see resorting to personal attacks.

k. Tell the mods then. While you're at it, tell them about all the other people in this thread who have resorted to insults, beacuse it seems to me half the people who post in this thread are doing just the same, consistently, and nothing is being done about it.

I've read all your arguments, and they mostly boil down to wishful thinking.

You will never change anything without wishful thinking, without hopes and aspirations and ambitions and attempts at change. So sorry if it seems like a waste to you, but it's really the only way. You'll just stagnate if you don't try.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by GDB

You mean the guy who constantly posts hateful articles on Breitbart? Don't try to paint him as some angel who merely has an alternate viewpoint.

Don't think anyone was portraying him as one.

But even as an unpleasant fellow, he has rights, and violent demonstrations and disruptive actions aren't justified.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Don't think anyone was portraying him as one.

But even as an unpleasant fellow, he has rights, and violent demonstrations and actions aren't justified.

Of course violence isn't justified for this kind of protest.

However, his entire paragraph was about how liberals hate free speech and try to ban anyone with a different opinion. And how they can't even give an example of hate speech or offensive speech. And then gave Milo as an example of someone who was "thwarted" by "liberal crybabies". So he definitely tried to portray Milo as someone who merely has an opposing view, rather than being a hateful person who deserves to be protested against.

[Reckoner]

There's nothing wrong with protest, Milo deserves to be protested, but those idiots in masks who showed up from elsewhere and damaged property don't make anyone look good. The problem is the media likes to portray these people as the main protesters when really the vast majority of them are peaceful. When emotions in communities arise, bad people like to take advantage of the situation. That's why you see all those incidents of looting and property damage in places like Ferguson despite the vast majority of the protesters having nothing to do with it (In fact many helped the community protect their stores). Ofc that wouldn't fit the narrative of places like Fox News.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

When did Stein cater to conspiracy theorists? Oh, that's right... she didn't. Don't recall hearing anything about Johnson doing that but I know less about him in general to be honest. And what exactly do you think someone needs to be qualified for being the president of the united states? By law they were all qualified. Trump included. You keep complaining about individuals but what you need to be complaining about is the system. Oh, and not, y'know, perpetuating it with your constant hatred towards those filthy third party voters just because the candidate YOU liked didn't make it. Do you have any idea how many people in history didn't get the candidate they wanted and just quietly accepted it because they knew there was nothing that can be done?

*blah blah blah*

I don't give a rat's ass about whaat Trump is doing now.
I'm not even going to read this anymore. Just shut your mouth, because only bile and nonsense has ever come from it.

You know, it's good to be educated about matters. Companies don't hire people with zero qualifications for really important positions unless they can somehow prove their abilities in some manner. Experience matters. Education matters. For the Presidency, it matters a great deal. And yes, if you paid attention this entire time all I and others wanted you guys to do is take responsibility for your role in government. Something that confusingly many don't feel they are a part of in a Democracy.

Anyhow, I think it's as plain as day that you have nothing of value to contribute to this conversation. I've provided substantive arguments on many points on which you basically have no response for other than lashing out with your feelings like a little child.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by GDB

Of course violence isn't justified for this kind of protest.

However, his entire paragraph was about how liberals hate free speech and try to ban anyone with a different opinion. And how they can't even give an example of hate speech or offensive speech. And then gave Milo as an example of someone who was "thwarted" by "liberal crybabies". So he definitely tried to portray Milo as someone who merely has an opposing view, rather than being a hateful person who deserves to be protested against.

I actually didn't gather that implication really. To do that, it'd be more like saying that poor Milo was being oppressed by liberal crazies, and yes, you'll find people that say that. But I think it's a good example of where left-leaning people were actually harming their cause by being more wrong than this alt-right dude. And that's really bad. Kinda throws a wrench in the mater.

I think you both were guilty of a bit of hyperbole.

In any case, why not bring up stuff from the other side as a proper counteragument? Like Trump's lawsuits?

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by GDB

You mean the guy who constantly posts hateful articles on Breitbart? Don't try to paint him as some angel who merely has an alternate viewpoint.

Never claimed he was, but he was authorized to speak at the venue and he has rights to free speech just as anyone else.

However, his entire paragraph was about how liberals hate free speech and try to ban anyone with a different opinion. And how they can't even give an example of hate speech or offensive speech. And then gave Milo as an example of someone who was "thwarted" by "liberal crybabies". So he definitely tried to portray Milo as someone who merely has an opposing view, rather than being a hateful person who deserves to be protested against.

Anyone who is overly offended by Milo's speeches are liberal crybabies and I stand firm by that. His view is an opposing view, it may not be one a lot of people like, but it's one nonetheless.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Demi.

Never claimed he was, but he was authorized to speak at the venue and he has rights to free speech just as anyone else.

And protesters have the right to protest, just as anyone else.

Anyone who is overly offended by Milo's speeches are liberal crybabies and I stand firm by that. His view is an opposing view, it may not be one a lot of people like, but it's one nonetheless.

Anyone who is overly offended by liberal protesters' protests are conservative crybabies and I stand firm by that. Their views are an opposing view; it may not be one some people like, but it's one nonetheless.

See how it works both ways? But I'm done with this as long as you intend to do nothing but sling insults at people who oppose your view.

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by GDB

And protesters have the right to protest, just as anyone else.

You don't get it. They're protesting against an opinion. The protesting wouldn't even be that bad if not for the fact they won. Their protesting in essence prevented Milo's free speech, and the opportunity for his supporters to listen to him at the venue. You can yammer all you want about how this isn't a suppression of free speech by the left, but you're going to strike out.

[James Rye]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

Canadian woman denied entry to U.S. after Muslim prayers found on her phone

What do you think about the Quebec mosque shooting?

I think it was a young white male who read so much hate from your boss online that he self radicalized and slaughtered innocent Canadian citizens because they were praying, and their blood is on his hands for as long as he won't acknowledge and apologize. That's what I think.

Entry denied. Next.

Wtf

That's sad.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by GDB

Anyone who is overly offended by liberal protesters' protests are conservative crybabies and I stand firm by that. Their views are an opposing view; it may not be one some people like, but it's one nonetheless.

Actually, I think there's a good deal of truth into that.

[Hiss13]

When it boils down to free speech, I think the ACLU said it best.

"It’s easy to protect speech we agree with, but more important to protect speech we abhor."

People have a right to say what they want to without having to worry about being attacked or silenced through force. People do not have a right to a platform. However, when they have access to a platform, they have the right to speak without being silenced or having that platform destroyed by force. Whether you dislike Milo or not, that right was infringed in exactly the way how Demi. put it.

Also, GDB. You are pushing that entire Us vs Them mentality that I kept pointing out a bit back. It's really quite abhorrent that you keep pushing the idea that anyone who disagrees with you on that is what you deem to be the Them.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Hiss13

People have a right to say what they want to without having to worry about being attacked or silenced through force.

Which is why I, and many others, denounced the violence. That does not take away from the protesting itself.

People do not have a right to a platform. However, when they have access to a platform, they have the right to speak without being silenced or having that platform destroyed by force.

And I'm sure you feel the same way about protesters who are silenced by force, right?

Also, GDB. You are pushing that entire Us vs Them mentality that I kept pointing out a bit back. It's really quite abhorrent that you keep pushing the idea that anyone who disagrees with you on that is what you deem to be the Them.

Lol? You're going to have to show support for this statement. Having a different opinion does not make one push an us vs them mentality.

[-Antares-]

You know what, Reckoner? As far as I'm concerned you're the reason we HAVE Trump now. Think about that for a second, if you're capable of self-reflection at all.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

You know, it's good to be educated about matters. Companies don't hire people with zero qualifications for really important positions unless they can somehow prove their abilities in some manner. Experience matters. Education matters. For the Presidency, it matters a great deal. And yes, if you paid attention this entire time all I and others wanted you guys to do is take responsibility for your role in government. Something that confusingly many don't feel they are a part of in a Democracy.

Right, which is why someone you consider as unacceptable as Trump has become president. I have no responsibility to take, as I've repeated time and time again. Because you're the ones that are holding us back from real progress (Clinton is not progress, by the way, unless you think a snail wiggling in a straight line that leads nowhere is capable of progress). I do not live in a state where Trump had any chance of winning. I won't take responsibility for the outcome, because I have absolutely none. I did everything right this election cycle. Who is really responsible? The system that apparently you're never going to criticize because third party voters are the real evil in your mind. You, too, are responsible, for bitching out anyone who voted third party because they wanted change or believed in other things. And it was in just about every one of your posts, good god. Give it a rest, already. I would have voted democrat in the past but people like you are really making me want to run far, far away. You do not believe in the policies that I believe if you are going to attack real progressives (which you claim you are) the way you have been 24/7.

Anyhow, I think it's as plain as day that you have nothing of value to contribute to this conversation. I've provided substantive arguments on many points on which you basically have no response for other than lashing out with your feelings like a little child.

Nothing to contribute? Others have disagreed with that statement in this very thread. They've agreed with me. But all you're saying is "third party voters fucked it up for everyone fuck you guys." That's not very constructive if you ask me, and I don't appreciate being called childish by you of all people. Let the others do it. But not you.

I'm going to go ahead and follow the advice of someone you upset in a completely different thread due your lack of self-awareness, now, and put you on ignore. I really, truly hope that the mods will realize how unacceptable the conversations in this thread are (from your mouth as well so don't act like your hands are clean) and actually DO something about it. I cannot believe how strict they are in the anime forums yet anything goes here.

P.S. Reckoner is the biggest asshole in this thread, and perhaps this entire forum. Delete your account, etc.