The New American Politics thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Good Lord. And here I thought only the Republicans were declaring armageddon.

Nothing of the sort will happen. Like what the #### do you think will happen? China will place massive tariffs because Trump is an #######? LOL. Yeah way to shoot yourself in the head.

your right, China won't place massive tarrifs against the States, because there aren't many more that they can do. Trade with China is almost decidedly one sided and America has the big hammer in that the Chinese economy would crumble if countries like the States suddenly said, if you want trade lets trade, open your markets to American products fully and fairly or we'll work to reduce the deficit and protect American goods from Chinese goods.

As far as the whole Trump has nukes, people forget that while the President has firing authority, its a vote system in that his launch orders have to be confirmed by a person appointed through senate hearings, and the orders to launch has to be considered lawful and rational. The president can't just push a button and enter a code into a briefcase with a lap top in it.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You and I are both quite partisan, but I've always been honest about it.

As usual though, you miss the point. You're so upset that your horse got beat in the Democratic primaries that you are choosing to support someone who stands against virtually every belief you have expressed in political threads here.

Sanders would have been my preferred candidate as well. But much like the Alberta election was, the American is shaping up as a battle between awful choices. But I find it rather hilarious that you are so bitter Sanders lost that you're willing to sacrifice the principles you claim to hold out of spite.

You really should have promoted supporting a third party candidate. It would have looked better.

I think you're the one who missed the point. It's not about my horse getting beat, it's a crooked insider who played dirty politics to win. I find Hillary to be as rotten a politician as they come, and I should support her because she's on 'my team'? Isn't that the height of hypocrisy, and why politics is so broken? Supporting people you find to be terrible people and politicians because they have the right colour party badge?

My principles and morale stance on issues pale compared to the basic corrupting of politics. Holding your nose and voting for a corrupt soulless politician on the hope they may represent some of your views is something I'm not interested in doing. Nor do I care how the optics appear to be in your eyes.

On a side note, I don't think I've agreed with the captain before politically. This feels strange.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

That's not what he's saying at all. He's on the record that he supports a woman's choice. He is able to separate that from his personal beliefs.

I like that personally.

I'm saying those things about Mike Pence, explaining my claim that he's misogynistic. I'm not claiming that CHL is--but I cannot take attacks on reproductive rights to that magnitude as anything but misogyny. A politician who has gone that far to infringe on the rights of women to make their own choices about their own reproductive rights is clearly convinced that women are incapable of those decisions.

Edit: OH, forgive me for misunderstanding. You meant that Pence has said he supports women's right to choose.

Oh, okay. Sure he does. Literally every single thing he's actually done in office flies completely in the face of that stance he supposedly has, but that would mean a politician lied and we know only Hillary does that.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think you're the one who missed the point. It's not about my horse getting beat, it's a crooked insider who played dirty politics to win. I find Hillary to be as rotten a politician as they come, and I should support her because she's on 'my team'? Isn't that the height of hypocrisy, and why politics is so broken? Supporting people you find to be terrible people and politicians because they have the right colour party badge?

My principles and morale stance on issues pale compared to the basic corrupting of politics. Holding your nose and voting for a corrupt soulless politician on the hope they may represent some of your views is something I'm not interested in doing. Nor do I care how the optics appear to be in your eyes.

On a side note, I don't think I've agreed with the captain before politically. This feels strange.

So instead you'll hold your nose and vote for a soulless corporate manchild who will clearly not represent your views?

Trump isn't run by corporations, Trump just takes out the middleman. He is the corporation. Do you really think he's going to battle for workers' rights, for increased wages? It'll affect his bottom line. Do you think he'll push for the wealthy to pay their fair share? That would cut into his fortune.

And on social issues, he'll likely back down and let his GOP buddies--all establishment types--take us back a few decades. He'll likely make poor SCOTUS choices which will affect the citizens of the US for the next 20-40+ years.

Sanders' campaign was a search for change with a distinct, progressive trajectory in mind. Change with a plan is a good idea. Change solely for the sake of change is not a good idea.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

your right, China won't place massive tarrifs against the States, because there aren't many more that they can do. Trade with China is almost decidedly one sided and America has the big hammer in that the Chinese economy would crumble if countries like the States suddenly said, if you want trade lets trade, open your markets to American products fully and fairly or we'll work to reduce the deficit and protect American goods from Chinese goods.

As far as the whole Trump has nukes, people forget that while the President has firing authority, its a vote system in that his launch orders have to be confirmed by a person appointed through senate hearings, and the orders to launch has to be considered lawful and rational. The president can't just push a button and enter a code into a briefcase with a lap top in it.

I like how in the second part of your response you point out the reason the first part of your response can't happen. Since, as you rightly point out with nukes, that any changes to any trade deals have to be ratified by Congress, do you really think the GOP will do something that will harm American businesses? We all know that's a big never happening, so believing Trump will change trade deals is utterly laughable. Especially with China, the #1 source of Trump's (Ivanka and Donald both) clothing lines. He's not undercutting his own company's profits.

[Izzle]

I've heard of the term "mansplaining".

I have now seen it in action. Mike Pence is deplorable and misogynistic is an apt adjective for him. He may not straight up 'hate' women, but clearly doesnt trust women to make choices for their own well being.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

On a side note, I don't think I've agreed with the captain before politically. This feels strange.

Come over to the Darkside, a free toaster oven with every signup.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think you're the one who missed the point. It's not about my horse getting beat, it's a crooked insider who played dirty politics to win. I find Hillary to be as rotten a politician as they come, and I should support her because she's on 'my team'? Isn't that the height of hypocrisy, and why politics is so broken? Supporting people you find to be terrible people and politicians because they have the right colour party badge?

My principles and morale stance on issues pale compared to the basic corrupting of politics. Holding your nose and voting for a corrupt soulless politician on the hope they may represent some of your views is something I'm not interested in doing. Nor do I care how the optics appear to be in your eyes.

On a side note, I don't think I've agreed with the captain before politically. This feels strange.

It's already been said. I'll say it again. Supreme Court. Universal Health Care. Or not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I'm saying those things about Mike Pence, explaining my claim that he's misogynistic. I'm not claiming that CHL is--but I cannot take attacks on reproductive rights to that magnitude as anything but misogyny. A politician who has gone that far to infringe on the rights of women to make their own choices about their own reproductive rights is clearly convinced that women are incapable of those decisions.

This is really unfortunate. Do you really not get that the majority of pro-life people think that abortion is tantamount to murdering a baby? That is, they make no moral distinction between a fetus before it has left the mother's womb and afterwards. They therefore view your right to control your body as the same as the right to kill a child after it's been born.

That's not an easy moral question to answer; that is, why we care about the rights of a baby the moment it has left the womb, but not before, or not before the third trimester. The question of where to draw the line as to when it's no longer acceptable to terminate, and why the line goes there, and not a day earlier, is a very tricky topic for anyone. Including people with doctorates in bioethics.

That certainly has implications as to your liberty, your reproductive rights, as you've explained well. Because I'm persuaded by that argument (and other arguments having to do with the ethical value of human suffering) I'm also pro-choice. But surely you can at least understand the opposing viewpoint, and see how, without hating women, someone would think that your liberty and your reproductive rights need to take a backseat to what they honestly believe is a living creature with rights of its own and no way to defend itself?

Everyone desperately needs to stop being so manichean in their approach to their opponents on political issues. In my view, pro-life people who want to restrict abortion are wrong, sometimes for better or worse reasons. But by and large they are not monsters, they are not evil, and they are not misogynists because they don't agree with your moral stance. This kind of crap is how Trump gets anyone with half a brain to vote for him, and surprisingly, there actually are a handful of such people.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is really unfortunate. Do you really not get that the majority of pro-life people think that abortion is tantamount to murdering a baby? That is, they make no moral distinction between a fetus before it has left the mother's womb and afterwards. They therefore view your right to control your body as the same as the right to kill a child after it's been born.

That's not an easy moral question to answer; that is, why we care about the rights of a baby the moment it has left the womb, but not before, or not before the third trimester. The question of where to draw the line as to when it's no longer acceptable to terminate, and why the line goes there, and not a day earlier, is a very tricky topic for anyone. Including people with doctorates in bioethics.

That certainly has implications as to your liberty, your reproductive rights, as you've explained well. Because I'm persuaded by that argument (and other arguments having to do with the ethical value of human suffering) I'm also pro-choice. But surely you can at least understand the opposing viewpoint, and see how, without hating women, someone would think that your liberty and your reproductive rights need to take a backseat to what they honestly believe is a living creature with rights of its own and no way to defend itself?

Everyone desperately needs to stop being so manichean in their approach to their opponents on political issues. In my view, pro-life people who want to restrict abortion are wrong, sometimes for better or worse reasons. But by and large they are not monsters, they are not evil, and they are not misogynists because they don't agree with your moral stance. This kind of crap is how Trump gets anyone with half a brain to vote for him, and surprisingly, there actually are a handful of such people.

When pro-life types like Mike Pence start worrying about gun control, I'll believe they're worried about moral implications. When pro-life types start supporting affordable/free pre-/post-natal care for women, I'll believe they really care about babies and their wellbeing. When pro-life types start rallying behind the cause of giving men and women maternity/paternity leave I'll believe they're really worried about life and the health of children in this country.

People can pro-life to me all they want, but until they start worrying about the fetus after it's actually born and is actually a living human being, I'll believe it's a moral thing.

These groups trying to stop access to safe, healthy abortions aren't worried about the babies after they're born. They aren't concerned with making sure women make enough money to feed those children, they aren't concerned with those children having a quality education or a chance at a better life.

Mike Pence and his ilk are pro-birth. If they were actually pro-life they would be in favor of actually helping babies and toddlers and children, not just fetuses.

This is all semantics, because Pence has proven repeatedly that while he may not hate women, he sure doesn't want them having bodily autonomy. As I've said before--you cannot take organs from a corpse to save someone's life. But politicians can make choices about my future based on their religious beliefs?

We're never, ever going to see eye-to-eye on this, and this is a topic entirely too close to home for me, because unlike Mike Pence, I'm actually capable of becoming pregnant, so this actually has implications for my life. I'm not arguing semantics over it any longer, because Pence has a proven anti-choice, anti-women, anti-LGBTQ record, and clearly he needs to be nowhere near the VP office, and anything else is just splitting hairs.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think you're the one who missed the point. It's not about my horse getting beat, it's a crooked insider who played dirty politics to win. I find Hillary to be as rotten a politician as they come, and I should support her because she's on 'my team'? Isn't that the height of hypocrisy, and why politics is so broken? Supporting people you find to be terrible people and politicians because they have the right colour party badge?

My principles and morale stance on issues pale compared to the basic corrupting of politics. Holding your nose and voting for a corrupt soulless politician on the hope they may represent some of your views is something I'm not interested in doing. Nor do I care how the optics appear to be in your eyes.

On a side note, I don't think I've agreed with the captain before politically. This feels strange.

You said if you were American, you would vote for Trump. Everyone has pointed out that despite you being a pretty hard line progressive left winger, you would seemingly prefer the individual most likely to destroy progressive values because you find the other choice to be more corrupt (somehow ignoring Trump's straight up admission of buying politicians). You believe Trump is somehow the bastion of integrity and an enemy of corruption. Lol, child please. At least say you'd rather vote Jill Stein, at least you'd be pretty safe from the onslaught your getting.

You are entitled to believe Hillary would be way worse for your beliefs and cause than Trump would be. But just don't ever say #### about what Trump does if he wins, because you said you would vote for him. Willingly and gladly accept what comes if he wins. If he crushes progressive values, openly cheer it on. It's what your asking for.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You said if you were American, you would vote for Trump. Everyone has pointed out that despite you being a pretty hard line progressive left winger, you would seemingly prefer the individual most likely to destroy progressive values because you find the other choice to be more corrupt (somehow ignoring Trump's straight up admission of buying politicians). You believe Trump is somehow the bastion of integrity and an enemy of corruption. Lol, child please. At least say you'd rather vote Jill Stein, at least you'd be pretty safe from the onslaught your getting.

You are entitled to believe Hillary would be way worse than your beliefs and cause than Trump would be. But just don't ever say #### about what Trump does if he wins, because you said you would vote for him. Willingly and gladly accept what comes if he wins. If he crushes progressive values, openly cheer it on. It's what your asking for.

I was just logging in to say what you said.

I don't get is why Bernie supporters or left leaning folks claim they'd rather hold their nose and vote Trump to make a statement. Why bother voting at all then? You're certainly not standing by your convictions by voting for Trump. That's just weird. Or, as you say, why not vote for Jill Stein instead?

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Edit: OH, forgive me for misunderstanding. You meant that Pence has said he supports women's right to choose.

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were talking about Tim Kaine, not Pence. I knew it didn't make sense. My bad. Carry on.

[killer_carlson]

Because Clinton supporters have to accept that for some Bernie supporters the #1 issue is ending the status quo/breaking the establishment.

For those people, Trump is the only option of seeing that through if Sanders is not on the ballot.

Clinton people struggle accepting that voters will vote on issues that matter most to them. Whether that position is sensible is another discussion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

When pro-life types like Mike Pence start worrying about gun control, I'll believe they're worried about moral implications. When pro-life types start supporting affordable/free pre-/post-natal care for women, I'll believe they really care about babies and their wellbeing. When pro-life types start rallying behind the cause of giving men and women maternity/paternity leave I'll believe they're really worried about life and the health of children in this country.
People can pro-life to me all they want, but until they start worrying about the fetus after it's actually born and is actually a living human being, I'll believe it's a moral thing.

That's all well and good, but it's a non-sequitur. The hypocrisy of many pro-life people when it comes to other topics has nothing to do with the topic in question.

Do you just not believe that they believe what they say they do? That they may say they think that it's tantamount to baby killing, but are in fact lying to conceal a secret agenda of oppressing women?

This is all semantics, because Pence has proven repeatedly that while he may not hate women, he sure doesn't want them having bodily autonomy.

But as I've said before, if this is "just semantics", it's really important semantics. You called him a misogynist. If you're a misogynist, it means you hate women. Now you're saying maybe he doesn't truly hate women, but it doesn't matter.

Either it matters if people are really misogynists, or it doesn't. If it does, then it matters that you use the word properly to apply to people who really do hate women.

I think it matters, and that this sort of thing really desperately needs to stop. The reasons Mike Pence shouldn't be making policy in the USA are real, significant reasons we have to talk about honestly and accurately, not hysterical ones where he's some sort of cartoon villain.

We're never, ever going to see eye-to-eye on this, and this is a topic entirely too close to home for me, because unlike Mike Pence, I'm actually capable of becoming pregnant

Your uterus has nothing whatsoever to do with your ability to talk about ethical topics that might affect you rationally. Hell, if anything would be misogynist, it would be to suggest that biological differences between men and women lead women to be unable to objectively and dispassionately consider the issue because they're too blinded by how it might affect them personally.

... Ugh. I hate this stuff. The other side might be wrong, but they're not the SS. I think it's hugely important, but I just hate that it seems to need to be pointed out. Thank God for Jonathan Haidt. I'm fine if you're done.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Drak

I was just logging in to say what you said.

I don't get is why Bernie supporters or left leaning folks claim they'd rather hold their nose and vote Trump to make a statement. Why bother voting at all then? You're certainly not standing by your convictions by voting for Trump. That's just weird. Or, as you say, why not vote for Jill Stein instead?

It's because they've adopted Hillary as their enemy through the primary process. Since they believe she only won because of mass voter fraud, conspiracies by the DNC, non-open primaries, or whatever other melange of excuses they wanna believe, they think she personally stole the election from Bernie. And that without her cheating ways Bernie would have won the primary, dominated Trump in the general, and then implemented his ideas with no issue, they'd all be stunningly successful, and America would only elect progressives until the end of time.

Wittynickname is the best poster in this thread because she understands it all starts at the bottom, go after the local races and get progressives everywhere. The hardcore Bernie or Busters believed Bernie as President means everything is instantly solved. Nevermind that he'd be obstructed way more than Obama, and as a 74-year old they can make him a lame duck on day 1 just by obstructing. He's not a dictator, he has to work with Congress and the Senate. And there will never, ever, be 218 progressive Congresspeople and 60 progressive Senators. And that's what you need to pass anything.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's this kind of hysteria that makes me despise my own side of the political spectrum.

drink!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

your right, China won't place massive tarrifs against the States, because there aren't many more that they can do. Trade with China is almost decidedly one sided and America has the big hammer in that the Chinese economy would crumble if countries like the States suddenly said, if you want trade lets trade, open your markets to American products fully and fairly or we'll work to reduce the deficit and protect American goods from Chinese goods.

You have that backward. Trump would be spitting on trade deals and putting tariffs on goods from other countries.

As far as the whole Trump has nukes, people forget that while the President has firing authority, its a vote system in that his launch orders have to be confirmed by a person appointed through senate hearings, and the orders to launch has to be considered lawful and rational. The president can't just push a button and enter a code into a briefcase with a lap top in it.

You think that a wingnut hawk would never be confirmed? All it takes is someone that is even slightly hawkish, and there are plenty of them around Washington, that would love to dust off some of those ballistic assets and take them out for a test drive. If it were up to past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff we would have had multiple releases prior to today. Fortunately there have been same people in the President's office and those opportunities never materialized. I can't believe anyone believes that Trump would not have a hawkish Secretary of Defense and an equally compliant CoJCoS. Giving a sociopath like Trump access to shiny toys like this is like allowing a pedophile to babysit the Duggars. Nothing good can come it.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's all well and good, but it's a non-sequitur. The hypocrisy of many pro-life people when it comes to other topics has nothing to do with the topic in question.

Do you just not believe that they believe what they say they do? That they may say they think that it's tantamount to baby killing, but are in fact lying to conceal a secret agenda of oppressing women?


But as I've said before, if this is "just semantics", it's really important semantics. You called him a misogynist. If you're a misogynist, it means you hate women. Now you're saying maybe he doesn't truly hate women, but it doesn't matter.

Either it matters if people are really misogynists, or it doesn't. If it does, then it matters that you use the word properly to apply to people who really do hate women.

I think it matters, and that this sort of thing really desperately needs to stop. The reasons Mike Pence shouldn't be making policy in the USA are real, significant reasons we have to talk about honestly and accurately, not hysterical ones where he's some sort of cartoon villain.

Your uterus has nothing whatsoever to do with your ability to talk about ethical topics that might affect you rationally. Hell, if anything would be misogynist, it would be to suggest that biological differences between men and women lead women to be unable to objectively and dispassionately consider the issue because they're too blinded by how it might affect them personally.

... Ugh. I hate this stuff. The other side might be wrong, but they're not the SS. I think it's hugely important, but I just hate that it seems to need to be pointed out. Thank God for Jonathan Haidt. I'm fine if you're done.

Wow! A Mansplainin' double down on the second bold!!!

A misogynist isnt someone that only 'hates' women. According to wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny it includes "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women".
So while Mike Pence doesnt 'hate' women... he absolutely has "contempt for and prejudice against women". How do we know this as fact? Look at his policies he's tried to push in Indiana.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Pro-life policies are not evidence of "contempt for or prejudice against" women, either. The negative effects on women's reproductive rights are ancillary to the main purpose of that legislation, which is to protect the rights of a fetus that pro life people think are important. I explained that.

"Mansplaining" is an insanely stupid term. My genitals have no more impact on my ability to talk about any topic than any woman's do.

####... I'm done. I do care about these issues, but this #### just makes me want to check out entirely. So damned depressing.

[GGG]

Mansplaining is a terrible way to dismiss an argument you don't like. Essentially you are discounting his argument because it comes from a male perspective. It certainly doesn't raise the level of discourse