Poll

I have posted a possibility for the election outcome in 6 variations. Choose your preferred below.

A. https://i.imgur.com/F6TVPLY.png
8 (34.8%)
B. https://i.imgur.com/uuRmNcE.png
3 (13%)
C. https://i.imgur.com/JK2OSsA.png
1 (4.3%)
D. https://i.imgur.com/sl6MVas.png
2 (8.7%)
E. https://i.imgur.com/K1GHlD3.png
2 (8.7%)
F. https://i.imgur.com/br3Sp06.png
7 (30.4%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Author Topic: U.S.A. Politics Thread  (Read 264585 times)

"imagine having respect for those you disagree with, what an idiot"

itt: libtards and republitards are stuff-flinging apes, but i repeat myself
respect

"Respect"

Okay. If thats what you call it then.


if you'll allow me to ask: is it upsetting - or rather, disappointing for you that the democratic party has carried themselves this way?

in your mind, why do you reckon the democratic party would try to cater more towards Annoying Orange haters rather than the majority? was this also in the name of donors?
This turned out longer than expected.

Disappointing? Yes. Upsetting? Maybe, but I shouldn't have held out any hope after 2016. The reason they're geared towards moderate republicans is that, barring maybe gun rights and abortion, there is very little difference between what the establishment Democrats want and what moderate Republicans want. Pelosi and Schumer, for example, are center-right Democrats who've been able to rise to the top of the party because their positions are palatable to top Democratic donors.

Joe Biden is the same. Hell, he was the conservative balance to Obama's ticket in 2008 (before Obama proved he was also much less progressive than he let on.) Obama picked Joe Biden after a hard fought DNC (don't forget, before there were "bernie bros" there were "obama boys") to hint to the establishment that, don't worry, I won't get too out of hand. Joe Biden's position is essentially that everything should go back to the way things were when Obama left office--ignoring the fact that "the way things were" in 2016 was terrible for a lot of people and is directly and explicitly what led to Annoying Orange. If they wanted to market to progressives and independents and non-voters, they would endorse wildly popular legislation like Medicare for All or legalized marijuana--I mean, honestly, can you imagine how many people legalized marijuana would flip instantly? How much good freeing everyone who's in jail for non-violent drug offenses would do? They won't because they don't want to. The policy they're suggesting is the policy they want. Joe Biden's policy is the status quo and they're marketing to moderate Republicans because they don't want to change a single piece of their policy.

This isn't a new phenomenon. In 1968 they nominated Hubert Humphrey instead of Eugene McCarthy. They nominated Mondale then Dukakis instead of Jesse Jackson. Kerry instead of Dean. Clinton, and now Biden instead of Sanders. Carter, Clinton, and Obama are the only three Democrats we've had in office in the last fifty years. The Democratic Party's policy of "maybe if we were more conservative we'd get elected" worked for Bill Clinton--against a weak candidate--and never worked again. Obama and Carter won because they had progressive optics that appealed to young voters. (Obama's going to close Guantanamo, fight the banks, make America green, end the war on drugs, and give us healthcare, right?) Biden does not have progressive optics and he obviously does not appeal to young voters. He's not even trying to. He's not the candidate for Hispanic voters. He's not the candidate for women. That's why he will not win. Clearly since the Democratic Party is still chugging along, this is a winning position for them.

When they lose, they're going to blame progressives and third party voters for not wanting yet another status quo conservative Democrat. If they win, Annoying Orange or someone just like him is going to be running for the GOP in 2024. I'm not disappointed so much that the Democratic Party has carried themselves this way as I am disappointed that the party of FDR has been co-opted by very rich and powerful people and no longer even tries to help working-class people. Frankly, I hope reality proves me wrong. Maybe Joe Biden will get elected and do some good. But, as far as I can tell, this is the state of the party and the fate of the country.

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643
From the horse's mouth.
tweeting a bail fund for protestors against police brutality is not the same as their campaign financing rioters

[i mg width=400]https://i.redd.it/h7rrer17p7k51.jpg[/img]
Almost like context matters, and inherent actions are not always wrong.

Shooting someone isn't always wrong. 

It's justified when they throw molotovs at you, try to physically harm you as a group, and pull a handgun on you.

It's not justified when you exist with a different opinion.

we need to kill all the old people

we need to kill all the old people
Let me guess, you'll call it Year Zero?

genuinely i have to ask do we know if matthew is somewhere on the spectrum? like maybe its just a common known fact he has high functioning aspergers and im out of the loop. real curious

i need you to understand that i am making a value statement here. cops should not kill people. if there is someone dangerous enough that they need to be shot, send someone other than a cop. cops are here to apprehend people who are suspected of having committed a crime so they can be given due process. it is unethical and unjust for cops to have the power to appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner whensoever they please.

cops routinely take armed shooters that literally have killed dozens of people already alive. i see no reason this expectation would be unreasonable
How will this "send someone other than a cop" system work exactly? People can change on a limb, there have been plenty of cases where a seemingly not dangerous person suddenly becomes dangerous. They could pull a gun out of nowhere for example. I've seen videos of routine traffic stops and the cops suddenly get unloaded on by whom they pulled over.

And in cases where there is a clearly dangerous threat, more times than not someone other than a policeman shows up. Like swat team pulling up to an armed robbery.

In most cases when the police shoot someone it's cause they had no other choice (emphasis on most, this obviously is not always true). It's not unethical for a police force member to shoot someone who is threatening their life. Are they supposed to just surrender their lives and die if something goes arise? Their life is worth just as much as the person they're apprehending.


EDIT: I fail to realize someone else presented the same argument and you replied to it, feel free to disregard this otto-san
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 08:13:08 PM by Mr. Bones »

Almost like context matters, and inherent actions are not always wrong.

Shooting someone isn't always wrong. 

It's justified when they throw molotovs at you, try to physically harm you as a group, and pull a handgun on you.

It's not justified when you exist with a different opinion.
the videos of the second incident show literally nothing and its stupid to come to a conclusion that it was because of a difference of opinion, ill wait for more evidence to pass jugement, just like i'm waiting for more evidence to come out to see what happened in the initial provocation that lead to kyle shooting someone.

as far as i can tell, (assuming what i've heard is right) both of them seem like self defense scenarios but that could be invalidated in the future with more evidence
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 08:17:26 PM by Aide33 »

genuinely i have to ask do we know if matthew is somewhere on the spectrum? like maybe its just a common known fact he has high functioning aspergers and im out of the loop. real curious
of course, every blockland player has a mental disorder roostertail of handicapation

of course, every blockland player has a mental disorder roostertail of handicapation
/support

of course, every blockland player has a mental disorder roostertail of handicapation
its true tho look at you and me were living proof

its true tho look at you and me were living proof
Preach, Brother! Preach!

genuinely i have to ask do we know if matthew is somewhere on the spectrum? like maybe its just a common known fact he has high functioning aspergers and im out of the loop. real curious
that's debatable but he is a child enthusiast

that's debatable but he is a child enthusiast
Debatable? Me and *especially you are living proof its true, were all on the spectrum.
Embrace the truth brother. Embrace it.