US Politics Thread

[brokenshoelace]

Broken, do you think that concerns about Islamic terrorism in America and Europe may have been provoked in recent decades by the actions of Muslims themselves? Notice that the United States has many Hindus living in its states but no one talks about "Hinduphobia." That is because Hindus have not knocked down a skyscraper, bombed a marathon in Boston, killed over ten soldiers at a military base in Texas, killed fifteen co-workers at a holiday party in San Bernardino, or killed fifty-five people in an Orlando nightclub (not to mention what Muslims have done in Europe and other parts of the world).

Fearing Islamic terrorism is not a phobia borne out of psychological disarray; it is entirely rational based on recent world history. If after walking through a certain neighborhood you have been robbed in multiple times you have "fear" of going there again, that is not a psychological disorder at work but a rationally based instinct to protect yourself.

I have more reason to fear Islamic terrorism than any American, considering where I live. And yes, I'm terrified by it. I don't think that's the same as prejudice against Muslims. That's my point.

 

[Ricardo]

Cali, you are beyond too hysterical to respond to. In general, I will say to you and Ricardo that you miss completely the point of liberalism and progressivism. You both shout to angry, exclusionary points. And you try to make us the antithesis of your rancorous, small-minded, 1950s view of America, or 1930s view from Germany. You're trying to make an argument for white America. Liberals are not anti-white. FFS. You're trying to close down immigration. We're not about immigrants stampeding the borders. We are not the antithesis of your argument. We're very different from it. You should try to see that. Liberals and progressives believe in inclusion. We believe in the Great American Experiment. And we do believe that hate-speech and hate-thought is against all of our principals, as a nation. Straight, white men need to get over their feelings of entitlement. The United States wasn't made just for them (or you,) however flawed the status quo was structured. There is a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and essential philosophy to freedom of religion, including no religion. As I said before, marriage is a civil contract. No one is forced to get gay-married, and no one's church/temple/mosque is required to perform same-sex marriages. No one is forced to have an abortion. However, we still, tenuously, uphold a woman's right to make her own choices about her own body and family. We champion the rights of all Americans. I'm not completely sure what you lot stand for, but it's fairly clear that it's not the rights of black, brown, Muslim, gay, Jewish Americans or women. So what does that leave? Oh, and your leader hasn't disavowed the KKK, who supports him. Are you comfortable with that?

clueless as usual. I am not into discussing liberalism/progressivism, i have no interest or time. Just look at how your democrats have acted after the election, and you will see who are the hypocrites who talk loudly of anti-voilence and bs. The election is over, and clearly Clinton supporters have no respect for democracy ,their bitterness is cheap and their action is shameless..... oh i am sure you have nice things to say about it too, since you are always biased and agenda driven. If someday these protesters get smashed in any way, i know full well that they asked for it.

"However, we still, tenuously, uphold a woman's right to make her own choices about her own body and family." what the fk does this even mean? then why impose number of weeks into pregnancy when you can still have abortion? it's her own risk and her own body, enough bs. how about if a woman wants to use cocaine? not allowed? it's her own body too? There is such as thing called social responsibility and morality, you may like to see stupid promiscuous women go around getting laid with no consideration of birth control, but where i am (Australia) we tax payers shouldn't cover them for their thoughtless and cheap behaviours.

And gay rights? since when was it so important that it made a better world? you democrats just don't learn, all these political banters are bs reserved for clueless young self-entitled idiots who have nothing better to do. You lots keep shouting the same old shit, gay rights, gender equality, anti-racism, look at where that got you? enough people see through the crap you've been pulling, the kind of crap that makes you feel self-important.

 

[calitennis127]

I have more reason to fear Islamic terrorism than any American, considering where I live. And yes, I'm terrified by it. I don't think that's the same as prejudice against Muslims. That's my point.

Understood. But how then do you think Americans should protect themselves from Islamic terrorism (besides not eff-ing up the Middle East, which you and I agree on)?

 

[Federberg]

So Trump announced his agenda for his first hundred days. TPP is dead in the water, he's going to look for bilateral trade deals. He's also promised that for every new regulation two old ones will go. I love the regulation thing! For my business it would cost me $1m to get the authorisations I need to establish a presence in the US. Utterly ridiculous! Cost me only a few thousand pounds in Europe. I'm not sure he's going to do anything about that as I'm in finance (and you have to go state by state in America), but I do like the direction...

What's interesting is that he didn't mention immigration, or muslims etc. But I guess he's focussing on the things he can get through with executive actions

 

[Ricardo]

I don't believe it. I remember Trump offering to pay for the birth certificate and saying he was from Kenya. I'm not going to go back and forth though. Everyone knows where that originated from. And yes, I did hear the lie from Trump several months ago shifting the blame. They did many articles citing when and where he started that BS. The difference between us is that I don't believe one word that Trump says. I've known of him for many years and I know how he acts and talks, well before he ran for president. I didn't give him a thought then, or now. I find him to be a disgusting excuse for a human being; misogynistic, racist, hateful, childish, tax evader, foundation cheater and p***** grabber. No, there's nothing anyone to say to me about this cretin.

stop barking your lies, you don't really know him. You think seeing him talk on TV a few times qualifies you to say that? and disgusting excuse for a human being? he is president of US and you are? enough said.

 

[britbox]

Britbox - if you wonder why I call people on this board names, just read this line. I am arguing with a complete ignoramus whose understanding of history and the world is irrational and not rooted in any epistemological truth whatsoever.

Bottom line on name calling: Because it hurts your argument. Nobody changes a view when they are abused or ridiculed, they circle the wagons. It's counter-productive. In fact, there was a video from an actor playing a progressive which is well worth a watch that nails it.. and he was talking about the abuse directed toward Trump voters and how it was counter-productive. Check it out:

You made some interesting observations on your post though. Interested if anyone challenges them with an alternative perspective.

 

[calitennis127]

So Trump announced his agenda for his first hundred days. TPP is dead in the water, he's going to look for bilateral trade deals. He's also promised that for every new regulation two old ones will go. I love the regulation thing! For my business it would cost me $1m to get the authorisations I need to establish a presence in the US. Utterly ridiculous! Cost me only a few thousand pounds in Europe. I'm not sure he's going to do anything about that as I'm in finance (and you have to go state by state in America), but I do like the direction...

What's interesting is that he didn't mention immigration, or muslims etc. But I guess he's focussing on the things he can get through with executive actions

Trump is going to have a huge, probably impossible fight with sanctuary cities. But I don't care if he gives amnesty as long as he controls the border, makes sure immigration law is enforced, and then cracks down on and/or deports illegal alien criminals. That would be an excellent deal from the deal-maker if he can pull it off. Most of the illegal immigrants are harmless people, and whatever their shortcomings are, they are not fatal to the country as a whole. They broke legitimate law but I personally do not have a problem with them becoming citizens as long as the border is finally controlled.

He will be a great president for business.....I expect the American economy to soar with him in charge.

 

[calitennis127]

Bottom line on name calling: Because it hurts your argument. Nobody changes a view when they are abused or ridiculed, they circle the wagons. It's counter-productive. In fact, there was a video from an actor playing a progressive which is well worth a watch that nails it.. and he was talking about the abuse directed toward Trump voters and how it was counter-productive. Check it out:

You made some interesting observations on your post though. Interested if anyone challenges them with an alternative perspective.

Point well-taken Britbox, but all the left ever does is name-call. You cannot have a political conversation with a leftist without hearing the words racism, xenophobia, etc anymore than three minutes into the conversation. These words are meant to impugn the moral character of political opponents by immediately associating them with a mass murder and therefore accusing them of thinking like a vile criminal. The irony about the modern left is that it has become a mirror image of the Nazi regime in terms of hysteria, vituperation, and one-dimensional thinking.

"You disagree with me or do not share my feelings, then you're an insane and criminal cockroach." That is the message from every modern leftist in any political conversation. They are as irrational and insane as the Nazi crew they obsess over. This is why Moxie equated the 1950s white Christian America that DEFEATED the Nazis with the Nazis themselves. There is no rationality, there is no balance. Everything is about smearing and dehumanizing whoever dissents. That is why the modern left is much more similar to the Nazis than they care to admit.

 

[Billie]

Not only that it is difficult sometimes to have discussions, but they won't accept any other source of information as it is all unreliable for them. Still I would discourage everybody to call others names. Not that I have any say in it, just putting it out there. And I agree with BB, you catch more flies with honey!

 

[Federberg]

This is very interesting...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...down-gop-drawn-legislative-maps-wis/94313318/

 

[britbox]

This is very interesting...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...down-gop-drawn-legislative-maps-wis/94313318/

It's not because it provides zero data on the population shifts.

 

[Federberg]

It's not because it provides zero data on the population shifts.

The fact that the Supreme Court is now looking at gerrymandering is interesting mate, by any stretch of the imagination..

 

[britbox]

The fact that the Supreme Court is now looking at gerrymandering is interesting mate, by any stretch of the imagination..

The issue is interesting but the article isn't, because it's just an opinion piece without referencing any sort of data.

 

[Federberg]

The issue is interesting but the article isn't, because it's just an opinion piece without referencing any sort of data.

This is not an opinion piece mate. They are reporting on a decision. Now if you disagree with the facts that's fine. But I don' see how you can call it an opinion piece

 

[Moxie]

This is not an opinion piece mate. They are reporting on a decision. Now if you disagree with the facts that's fine. But I don' see how you can call it an opinion piece

I agree...it's a piece of reportage, not opinion. It may not be in-depth, but that's how you get if off the presses faster. Plus it's USAToday. They don't usually do in-depth.

 

[britbox]

This is not an opinion piece mate. They are reporting on a decision. Now if you disagree with the facts that's fine. But I don' see how you can call it an opinion piece

OK fair enough... but they aren't drilling down to any data. It's a weak piece. Now, they might be supported by the data... but there is no reference to any detail, that's why I didn't find it a good article. Does the data indicate gerrymandering? We don't know because the data isn't referenced. The article could be correct for all I know but it doesn't provide any tangible hard detail to assist anybody reaching a view on it.

 

[Federberg]

OK fair enough... but they aren't drilling down to any data. It's a weak piece. Now, they might be supported by the data... but there is no reference to any detail, that's why I didn't find it a good article. Does the data indicate gerrymandering? We don't know because the data isn't referenced. The article could be correct for all I know but it doesn't provide any tangible hard detail to assist anybody reaching a view on it.

Maybe it's not giving you what you want. But they are objectively reporting facts mate. You might want additional detail. But this is reportage. The key news item is a Supreme Court decision. Now whether you agree with the courts decision is a different matter. I never knew you had such legal expertise!

 

[britbox]

When I say facts... I mean tell me the population counts of the districts... if they are relatively even then that is a huge difference to a scenario where districts with significantly smaller populations get equivalent votes. I don't like taking mainstream media's word for things without knowing the detail... So what is the detail on district populations?

 

[britbox]

Anyway, I looked it up... from the presidential vote view, Wisconsin return all of their electoral college votes (10) to the winner of the popular vote in the state (I think 48 of 50 US States work on the same principle). Trump won the popular vote state-wide in Wisconsin... and got the 10 electoral college votes.

 

[Federberg]

interesting...