Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • downzy

      MYGNRFORUM Theme Template Update - Additional Features   09/09/2017

      Happy to announce that the upgrades have almost been completed and the new custom theme is available for all users. There are still a few bugs to work out which we hope to have solved over the next day or two.   To use the new template, click on Themes at the bottom left side of the page and click on MYGNRFORUM (New): It is now set to default in case you did not previously changed themes. A new feature of this update are the new reactions to posts.  By click on the like button, users have a choice of five different reactions (two of our own design): Remember, if you GNR like something, make it a dolphin like! Please use the Ask Staff Anything thread with any questions or concerns. Thanks to everyone for your patience and cooperation over the last couple of weeks while we got this done.  

downzy

Admins
  • Content count

    10,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by downzy

  1. Ask Staff Anything!

    Post any and all of your questions relating to the forum here. For matters relating to the forum's moderating and administration, please use this thread: http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/212083-moderation-discussion/
  2. All clips/recordings of Double Talkin' Jive from the 2016 'Not in This Lifetime' Tour can be posted here.
  3. Figured with the U.S. mid-term elections commencing tomorrow, figured I'd start a thread on all things U.S. elections (if you're interested in Presidential elections, we'll see you in two years). Looks like the Senate is going to be handed back to the Republicans after 8 years of Democrat control. I suppose Obama's use of the veto will skyrocket over the next couple of years. If you've been impressed with how unproductive Congress has been since 2010, just wait until you see how little gets done and passed over the next two! And then there's also the state elections. John Oliver covers this pretty well here:
  4. All clips/recordings of Paradise City from the 2016 'Not in This Lifetime' Tour can be posted here.
  5. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I think anyone who assumes sexual harassment is a partisan issue should check themselves. Unfortunately it would seem that there's a loose relationship between men who seek and have power and their inability to discern boundaries and act accordingly. One thing, though, that should be considered is to not lump all of these men into the same category. While there's no excusing someone who gropes or makes a woman to feel unsafe or verbally harassed, it certainly isn't on the same level as those who prey on children or use physical violence and intimidation for the purposes of sexual gratification.
  6. Shootings in California

    You keep repeating this as if it were a fact, when it's not: "The US and other countries are more similar when it comes to violence than you might think. Most crimes, even most violent crimes, aren’t any more common here than in other countries. You see that in crime victim surveys (like the one highlighted in the above chart, which Swanson created), as well as in official government crime statistics. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's collated government data, the crime of assault was rarer in the US in 2014 than it was in Australia, France, Ireland, or the Netherlands. The assault rates in Belgium and England/Wales were more than double the US rate. Some of that is due to differing assault definitions, but scholars generally agree that for most offenses, US crime rates are pretty normal." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings Violence in America isn't an aberration with the rest of the developed world. It's no less violent than developed European nations. The difference, as the article correctly points out, is the ease by which hot-headed individuals in America can obtain and use guns.
  7. New single: Pretty good having listened to only the first half. His voice here, while not an exact copy, sounds a lot like Weiland. At least it sounds like he'll do justice to STP's back catalogue.
  8. Not sure if being on a reality show does much for his credibility but it's undeniable that the guy can sing. Great opportunity for the guy. Hopefully for him the DeLeo brothers can still write a decent tune for the guy to sing.
  9. US Politics/Elections Thread

    To be honest, since it hasn't happened in over 150 years (relating to Senators who supported the Confederacy), it's hard to tell. The best I can guess is the Alabama Governor would appoint someone to fill the vacant seat. That, or the seat remain empty until the 2018 election. The problem Republicans have with blocking a potential Senator Moore from taking his seat is that the expell power was really only for times when the person didn't meet basic qualifications (i.e. age requirements) or was convicted by the Senate for breaking a law. Moore would meet the legal standards and any crimes he committed would have happened after the vote, meaning the people were privy to his crimes and supported him anyway. And even if they do vote to expell him, Moore would more than likely launch a legal challenge that very well would end up in the Supreme Court (which has its own sense of irony being that he's a former judge that ignored Supreme Court rulings). I think in this case Republicans would be far better served if the Democrat wins the election.
  10. US Politics/Elections Thread

    At least Senate Republicans are showing some sense and decency: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/13/mcconnell-i-believe-the-women-accusing-roy-moore-244840 If Moore wins (and why wouldn't he, considering who sits in the White House), Democrats are going to force a roll call vote on whether to seat Moore. That will put each and every sitting Republican Senator on record as to whether they support Moore as their peer or not. At least it's nice to see some Republicans already publicly stating which why they will vote.
  11. US Politics/Elections Thread

    This is what I was talking about earlier when a third of America's population is fucked in the head: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/13/16642458/roy-moore-doug-jones-poll-alabama-senate 29 percent of Alabamans say they'r more likely to vote for Moore because of the pedo and sexual harassment allegations. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the water in Alabama?
  12. AWOLNATION

    New song from AWOLNATION: Not bad. Not as good as Sail, but not terrible. Really like this band, shame they don't get more attention than they do. I always thought the Aaron Brune (lead singer) had the vocals to do a GNR cover justice. Love his upper register vocals.
  13. Happy Veterans Day To All Who Have Served!

    This thread is meant to honour those who served and those who died (whether civilian or military). Please post with this context in mind. All posts that are meant to be critical or argumentative (and those that have responded to them) have been removed. Feel free to start another thread if you wish to discuss the morality of war and military service.
  14. All clips/recordings of Estranged from the 2016 'Not in This Lifetime' Tour can be posted here.
  15. US Politics/Elections Thread

    But that's who the article profiles - largely small town and rural Republicans whose support for Trump is stronger than kryptonite. I'm not talking about those who voted Trump and now regret their choices or think Trump has done a shit job. That's not who the article is about. All individuals interviewed are on the record as saying they're voting for 2020. Criticizing their choice or Trump isn't going to matter - they're minds are already made up. You're the one who started this conversation that the article and myself are missing the point, that these people hold these viewpoints because liberals and the media belittle their candidate and their support. But the people highlighted in the article are part of the 30 percent who are unreachable no matter what liberals or the media have to say. As for the four percent only proved determinative in that Clinton did not mobilize Democrats and left-leaning independents. Sure, it mattered in the context that a lot of people who would have voted Clinton stayed at home, but Clinton's problem wasn't Trump gaining 4 percent of union members and not being able to turn out the 100k voters in Wade county Michigan that showed up in 2012 for Obama. To give you another example, Ed Gillespie received more votes two days ago than the current outgoing Virginia governor four years ago who won. But he got slaughtered because Nordham and the DNC were able to mobilize their voters. That was the dynamic at play in 2016; Clinton could afford giving Trump 4 percent more union workers had she been able to turn out her voters. She didn't. I don't expect the next Democratic candidate to have the same problem. Currently Trump loses by almost double digits to a generic Democratic candidate. Lots of time left, but worrying about winning back Trump supporters in Jonestown Pennsylvania is a waste of time for the DNC. Those who still support Trump are not moderates. They're populists who follow a cult of personality. The reality is that it appears that one-third of America is beyond reach; nearly one-third of Americans in 2007 still though George W. Bush was doing a good job as President. Again, there are no "moderates" in that group. With respect to your issues with the media, you're going to have to provide examples of the "media" putting their own spin on stories. Sure, news has become more opinion-driven, something that Fox News gets credit for in terms of blazing a trail. Speaking of which... Shep Smith is on for one hour a day at the hot hour of 3:00pm. I agree, he's a moderate voice in a sea of Trump lap dogs. You really want to suggest that one hour a day of Shep Smith makes Fox news a reliable source for factually correct or unbiased information? One hour of Shep Smith is Fox news breaking role? And yes, Hannity takes issue with the GOP, but only because they're not acting as Trump's lap dogs. Call me when Hannity takes issue with something Trump does or says... I'll be here all week. Btw, i don't have any problem with biased reporting; what I take issue with is hypocritical, dishonest, or factually incorrect reporting. I don't love CNN and don't subscribe to the channel, but last time I checked they repeatedly have pro-Trump talking heads to counter Trump critics. I could be wrong but I don't believe they're committing the sin of reporting factually incorrect information, save for a rare mistake here and there, in which they will acknowledge and retract. In terms of bias, are you really going to argue that Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper, and Don Lemon are as or more biased, less honest, and more likely to curry favour with partisans in their coverage and programming as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham? Come on... Again, be less concerned about biased and focus more on who reports fabrications or fails to hold politicians from both parties accountable? It's been awhile since I watched Fox but from what I read about the news channel things haven't improved (save for that most watched 3pm hour of Shepard Smith).
  16. Wolfenstein II

    Any had a chance to play this yet? Seems to be getting decent reviews and a far amount of hate from the alt-right. Seems like my kind of game. Interesting article/review on Vice magazine. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vb3dnm/wolfenstein-ii-review-nazis This is definitely one I'll add whenever I get around to buying a current gen system. Likely won't be upgrading until next spring. Still have a handful of Xbox 360 games and SNES to keep me busy.
  17. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Trump did 4 points better with union members than Romney did. We're not talking about a lot of blue collar democrats that voted for Obama but voted for Trump. True, it's statistically significantly when we're talking about an election where battleground states were won by a fraction of a percentage point, but it's not as though Trump was some great divergence from his Republican predecessors. What I'm arguing about and what the article supports is the fact that most Trump supporters never really cared about what Trump promised them. As the article makes clear, most of these people haven't just moved the goalposts by which they evaluate Trump's performance as President, they have removed them altogether. It's these people that I could give a rats ass about offending their sensibilities. Sure, some of them might have voted for Obama, but who gives a shit if they're now so blind to see who they're supporting? Again, what views of the media or the Democratic party as so anathema to these people that they could be won over? Should the media just ignore the daily lies by Trump? Should Democratic politicians not point out the double standards and wrongfulness of Trump's style of leadership? I don't get your point here. Are valid criticisms no longer allowed because heavens forbid they offend the people who remain willfully ignorant and just want to be placated? Utter nonsense. It's not a school-yard tactic to point out that when the crack-cocaine epidemic was destroying inner cities in the 1980s that the response by white America was indifference or disdain, to be met with a law-and-order approach; now that the opioid crisis is hitting rural and small town America these seem constituents ask for support and compassion. I'm not here to mock Trump supporters simply because they support Trump, but simply to point out the obvious contradictions they exhibit whenever they speak their minds on politics. They clamour for a greater response regarding the opioid epidemic that ravages their small towns despite the fact that Trump has proposed gutting resources to help fight the problem (as part of his promise to end Obamacare). Moreover, there's a distinct difference between the criticisms levelled at Democrats and its supporters and those supporting Trump - from my perspective many of the criticisms against current Trump supporters are true. Clinton was dumb to use the word deplorables but she wasn't exactly wrong. A lot of Trump supporters aren't the most objective or knowledgeable on politics, and by every statistic they hold retrograde opinions on race, equality, science, and the environment. Sure, there are exceptions, but by and large Trump supporters are behind the eight ball when it comes to issues that actually matter to their physical well-being. This manifests itself when they repeatedly vote against their own economic interests because their priorities are fucked. They side with a party that has undermined their economic security because they promise to protect their guns and their religion. Say what you want about most Democratic voters, but at least for most of them (save for the rich Democrats who would see tax hikes) are voting for their own economic interests. A poor or blue collar worker who votes Republican can't say the same.
  18. A good explanation why arguments that mental health is the problem (versus gun control) misses the point. Stop blaming mental illness for mass shootings https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings A familiar pattern plays out after every mass shooting in the US. First, advocates of gun control point out, accurately, that taking guns off the streets and limiting who can buy them will save lives. Then opponents of gun control argue that there are no regulations that can stop a determined shooter, and that what we really need is to address mental health. Then liberal gun control advocates insist they too want better mental health care, and that Republican gun control opponents are hypocrites because they oppose expanding access to health insurance that would help people get it. It’s an understandable pattern. Trying to slash Medicaid funding nearly in half, as President Trump proposed in his budget, and then explaining the Texas church shooting by saying “mental health is your problem here,” as Trump did during a press briefing, really is hypocritical. It’s not something a person who genuinely cares about mental health access would do. And it remains the case that too few Americans have access to good-quality mental health care. But the convenient cries of “mental health” after mass shootings are worse than hypocritical. They’re factually wrong and stigmatizing to millions of completely nonviolent Americans living with severe mental illness. The share of America’s violence problem (excluding suicide) that is explainable by diseases like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is tiny. If you were to suddenly cure schizophrenia, bipolar, and depression overnight, violent crime in the US would fall by only 4 percent, according to an estimate from Duke University professor Jeffrey Swanson, a sociologist and psychiatric epidemiologist who studies the relationship between violence and mental illness. “People with mental illness are people, and the vast majority aren’t any more of a risk than anyone else,” Swanson says. That doesn’t mean, he says, that we can’t do more to identify people at risk of committing gun violence and prevent them from getting guns — particularly if they are a danger to themselves or others. But portraying mass shootings as a mental health problem misrepresents the evidence. Mental illness isn’t a major cause of gun murder, or mass shootings The data on mental illness and violence is somewhat tricky to wrap your head around at first. People with severe mental illnesses — particularly schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — do have an increased risk of violence compared to the general population. But the absolute risk they pose is not high (being male or having a substance abuse issue are both bigger risk factors), and the vast majority of people with severe mental illness aren’t violent. Mentally ill people are far, far likelier to be the victims of violence (including violence committed by police) than the perpetrators. And because a distinct minority of the population has schizophrenia or bipolar, mental illness doesn’t contribute much at all to the overall violent crime problem. A study conducted from 1980 to 1985 illustrates these complicated dynamics well. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, conducted an ongoing survey of about 10,000 people in five different urban areas (Baltimore, St. Louis, Raleigh-Durham, New Haven, and Los Angeles), asking, among other things, diagnostic questions to see if respondents met criteria for mental illnesses, and if respondents had hit, punched, pushed, shoved, or otherwise violently attacked someone. Before the ECA study, attempts to study mental health and violence typically started either in psychiatric hospitals or in the criminal justice system. Those methods have obvious problems: Scouring hospital wards only catches people who’ve been diagnosed and chosen or forced to get help, and scouring prisons doesn’t give you a representative sample of the mentally ill either. By using a general household survey, the ECA study avoided those biases. The study did find that people meeting diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar were more likely to report violent behavior. But, as Swanson found analyzing the study data, the attributable risk rate — that is, the share of overall violence explained by serious mental illness — was between 3 percent and 5.3 percent, for a midpoint estimate of about 4 percent. That’s where the idea that if you wiped out serious mental illness overnight, violence would fall 4 percent, comes from. The contribution isn’t just small, however; a large part of it is due to factors that often come with mental illness, rather than mental illness itself. A 2002 paper by Swanson and seven co-authors, looking at 802 people in treatment for severe mental illness (which, as discussed earlier, biases the sample a bit), examined how the relationship between mental health and violence varies by social factors like substance abuse, childhood maltreatment, and living in an adverse or violent social environment (like being homeless, or living in a very high-crime area of an inner city). What they found was that mentally ill people who didn’t have substance abuse issues, who weren’t maltreated as children, and who didn’t live in adverse environments have a lowerrisk of violence than the general population. “If you add any one of those three, it doubles,” Swanson says. “If you add any two, it doubles again. If you have all three, your risk triples.” Subsequent research using Swedish datafinds that while non-substance-abusing mentally ill people have only a slightly higher risk of violence, substance abuse hugely increases that. Given that mentally ill people are substantially more likely to have substance use issues, to live in adverse environments like homelessness, and to have been maltreated as children, it stands to reason that their rates of violence should be higher. That exaggerates the effect that mental illness itself has on violence. Nor does this picture change when you look at just mass shootings and mass murders, not all violence or all homicides. Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia who maintains a database of mass shooters, wrote in a 2015 article that only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, were mentally ill. “The mentally ill should not bear the burden of being regarded as the ‘chief’ perpetrators of mass murder,” Stone concludes. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, a frequent writer on mass murder and mass shootings, and fellow researcher Emma Fridel analyzed a Stanford Geospatial Center database compiling shooters who killed four or more people since 1966. Of the 88 shooters who met that criteria, only 14.8 percent had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. And even for them, it’s hard to say with any certainty that mental illness caused or contributed to their shooting. The difference in the US is guns, not mental illness Subsequent studies, both in the US and abroad, arrived at broadly similar conclusions to the 1980s ECA study that concluded only 4 percent of US violence is attributable to mental illness, even if the precise numbers were slightly different. “When we reviewed the literature, it varied between 3 and 10 percent in six studies,” Seena Fazel, a professor of forensic psychiatry at Oxford who has studied mental health and violent crime extensively, says, referring to a recent meta-analysis he and colleagues conducted. “But none of these was in the US.” The US and other countries are more similar when it comes to violence than you might think. Most crimes, even most violent crimes, aren’t any more common here than in other countries. You see that in crime victim surveys (like the one highlighted in the above chart, which Swanson created), as well as in official government crime statistics. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's collated government data, the crime of assault was rarer in the US in 2014 than it was in Australia, France, Ireland, or the Netherlands. The assault rates in Belgium and England/Wales were more than double the US rate. Some of that is due to differing assault definitions, but scholars generally agree that for most offenses, US crime rates are pretty normal. The one huge, glaring exception is homicide: The difference isn’t that mental illness is more prevalent in the US than in other countries. It’s not even that the US has worse access to mental health care — that’s true, but it’s hard to see why it would lead to more homicide, but not more of any other violent crime, in the US. Instead, a major factor is that the US has a lot more guns floating around. Swanson offers an example: “Imagine three immature, impulsive, intoxicated young men who come out of a pub in the UK in the middle of the night and get into an argument. There, somebody gets a black eye and a bloody nose. In one of our big cities, it’s statistically more likely someone has a firearm, so you’re likelier to get a dead body.” Sure enough, international data shows that countries with higher gun ownership rates have more gun deaths: And similarly, US states with higher gun ownership levels see more gun deaths, including gun homicides. America has a critical mass of angry people with guns Swanson, the Duke University researcher, is not a fan of broadly forbidding all mentally ill people from owning guns. But he still thinks there’s a high-risk segment of the population it would be useful to target. In a 2015 paper, Swanson, Harvard's Ronald Kessler, and five co-authors sought to identify how many Americans show a pattern of impulsive angry behavior. So they looked at data from a survey that just asked people. Specifically, it asked if they agreed with one of three statements: “I have tantrums or angry outbursts.” “Sometimes I get so angry I break or smash things.” “I lose my temper and get into physical fights.” We don’t know with certainty that this group is likelier to impulsively use firearms. But it stands to reason they would be. About 8.9 percent of Americans, the study found, report one of these behaviors and have a gun at home; that’s roughly 22 million adults. And 1.5 percent (3.6 million) report one of the behaviors and carry guns with them outside the house. “Fewer than 10 percent have ever been in a hospital for mental health or substance abuse,” Swanson says. Barring people with severe mental illness from getting guns isn’t going to reach this population. What could, Swanson argues, are extreme risk protection order laws. Those laws, passed in Connecticut in 1999, Indiana in 2005, Washington and California in 2016, and Oregon this year, offer legal avenues for police to seize guns temporarily from people determined to be a danger to themselves or others. The laws typically require a judge to approve the order on the basis of evidence offered by police or a concerned family member; it can last up to a year. That could, in theory, let concerned friends and family flag impulsive and angry people of the kind Swanson’s research identified and keep them away from guns. Unlike restrictions on gun sales, it would apply to people already in possession of guns. And the people affected tend to have a lot of guns — seven each on average, according to a study by (yes) Swanson and nine co-authors focusing on Connecticut’s experience. The study found that the law was most often used to take guns away from people at risk of suicide, not homicide. Since most gun deaths are suicides, and guns are a much more lethal tool of suicide than just about anything else, that saved a significant number of lives. About 44 percent of people who had their guns taken away received psychiatric treatment they weren’t getting before. The study estimates that the law prevented one suicide for every 10 to 20 removals carried out. Whether or not that’s a good deal depends, naturally, on how you weigh gun rights against the cost to human lives. But it’s indicative of effectiveness on suicides. As for homicide or mass shootings, the law’s effect is less clear and evident. It didn’t, and likely couldn’t have, stopped Adam Lanza from killing 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut, because Lanza used his mother’s guns rather than ones he bought himself. And while it stands to reason that taking guns away from angry people would reduce homicides or mass shootings, we have little concrete evidence that the angry people Swanson’s research has identified are likelier to commit violent crimes, or how much likelier if so. It’s an area begging for more research. But Swanson thinks it’s a better place to be looking than the mentally ill as a whole. “What if the president had said, instead of, ‘This is a mental illness thing,’ that [the Texas church shooter] was a veteran, this is a veterans’ problem, ban guns for all the veterans”? he asks. “That would be outrageous. … We need to understand risk for what it is and not just assume punitively that this whole huge category of people is risky.”
  19. US Politics/Elections Thread

    It's a false equivalency made by the right to make the left as bad as their lunatic fringe. Anyone with a solid education in modern American politics knows that the drift in parties is particular with the Republican party. Much of the Republican platform is now essentially a mixture of Buckley's conservativism and the John Birch society, both from the 1960s. William F. Buckley was the inspiration for people like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush - a gentle roll back in government but still a belief that government can be a positive force. The John Birch society is the lunatic fringe that now finds a home in a Trump White House. By contrast, the Democratic party has, up until very recently, drifted slightly right in the past 30 years, largely as a product of Clinton's triangulation of conservative policies. Anyone familiar with the Democratic party from the early 1900s to the 1980s would find it a far more moderate political party today than what it use to be. Unfortunately few know or understand the history so they accept the nonsense that somehow the Democratic party is now the party of Stalin or Castro. The distance between where the Republican party use to be in the 1950s to 1970s is dramatic. The same can't be said of the Democratic party. If anything, the dramatic push to the right by the Republicans has forced many Democrats to move further right as well. A fine example of this is on the issue of healthcare. Bernie Sanders argument of medicare for all use to be considered normal fair of the Democratic platform in the 1960s through the early 1990s. Now it's considered some lefty-pipe dream promoted by socialist nut jobs. Obamacare is essentially the Republican response to Hillarycare from the 1990s. But now it's considered another massive expansion of the state by uninformed conservatives or people who will oppose anything associated with Obama or a Democrat.
  20. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Save for one or two statues that were toppled after the Charlottesville riots, almost all statutes have been removed by city ordinances.
  21. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Actually, many of Trump's supporters are fairly deplorable people (born out by their views on race, equality, and attitudes towards science and climate change). Some voted out of anger or accepted wholesale the ridiculous promises that Trump was spewing. I get that. What I don't get are the 30 percent those who continue to support him despite the fact that he's done and will do nothing for them. It's as clear as day that the emperor has no clothes and yet some Americans still want to see what isn't there out of either pride or a fuck you to the other half of the country. And yet the left and the media are to blame. Oh poor fragile white people who can't get their heads out of their asses to see what's actually going on; to accept that they were lied to by a man who sits on a golden toilet. Instead they make excuses and gin up anger on matters that won't make a lick of difference to their lives (black athletes peacefully protesting police harassment). Republicans and hard-working democrats use to champion the principle of personal responsibility. But we see in the article that despite a need for welders and other forms of skilled labour, few in the coal mines are interested in doing the heavy lifting and retraining for a significantly better job. Instead they want Trump to keep coal alive, when market forces and emerging technologies has all but ensured the death knell of the coal industry. And you speak as though the right doesn't do the same thing. When Obama won in 2008 and 2012, moreso in 2012, conservatives and Republican supporters took to the web and criticized Obama voters as elitist educated snobs, moochers, illegal aliens, and minorities living off the dole. Most Democratic supporters are maligned as wanting socialism or a communist takeover; Obama was perceived to be the worst kind of evil (recall in the article that church goers held to the belief that he's the anti-Christ). So apologies if I have little sympathies for these same people who now demand to be treated with respect. They could have voted for a candidate who wouldn't roll back the welfare state that most of them now depend on. They cling to this belief that repealing a healthcare law with Obama's name associated will make their lives better when by every measure such an action would make their lives worse. And yet they demanded to be respected and be treated seriously. Sorry, fuck that. Blue-collar workers along the rust belt had largely shifted to the Republican ranks decades ago. Trump isn't anything new or didn't change this dynamic. Democrats have largely lost this cohort back in the 1980s with Reagan. They abandoned voting on the basis of economic interest and instead got caught up in artificial culture wars (welfare queens, illegal aliens taking jobs, the wall, gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, war on religion, a wall, etc.). They sold their economic well-being for the benefit of hedge fund managers and conglomerates who received real tangible results - deregulation, attack on unions, free trade devoid of offsets to those hurt by it, lower tax brackets for the rich, mergers and acquisitions. Anyone familiar with what happened in the 80s and 90s with respect to the outright hostile attack on the small town industrial base by the likes of Carl Icahn would be aghast at Trump bragging about his association with the schmuck. These people are not moderate democrats; they're populists who will trade their principles and standards they once supposedly lived by to support an absolute shame of a person now occupying the White House. They're people who demand government get out of the way when times are good but for government help when times are bad (applicable to only people who look and sound like them; black people living in ghettos - fuck them). I get your point, that attacking Trump and/or them doesn't help. But I'm in no mood of catering to their delicacies after watching for decades these same people vilify others who were previously (or still are) in the position they know find themselves. They now find themselves in a hole and supporting a guy like Trump is the equivalent of them keep digging.
  22. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I'm going to heavily disagree with both your assessment of the "left," its reaction to Trump, and how that reaction has been received by Trump's supporters. The article makes it pretty clear that they really like Trump regardless of his policies or what he actually does, or doesn't do, as President. They make excuses for him regardless of his transgressions or failures; a perception reinforced with unabashed and rigorous ignorance. If that isn't love in the political sense I don't know what is. There is absolutely presence of objectivity when it comes to evaluating him as a man or as a President. It's cognitive dissonance of the highest order. The issue I take isn't the fertile grounds by which they come to this perception, but their wholesale resolve and adoption to a man who will fail to live up to a single promise because of the simple fact that he could care less about them or any promise he made to them. I understand the opposition to Trump reinforces the channels by which current identity politics operate upon. But to suggest that the media, Democrats, or Trump opposition is responsible for what i see is reprehensible perceptions by Trump's supporters is utter nonsense. Let's call a spade a spade here. It's not the media that fact checks a man with no tether to the truth that perpetuates such ignorance on the behalf of his supporters. Examine the one man who champions Trump for working hard and not golfing as much as his predecessor. When he's informed of the truth, he brushes it aside. When another man extolls Trump's accomplishments only to be reminded that none of those have actually happened (Obamacare repeal, the wall, etc.), he shifts blame to everyone else. This moral hazard practiced by Trump supporters is their doing, not Trump's opposition. Also explain how the Democrats have aligned themselves with the "far left?" Moreover, please explain how the party most at fault for embracing its extremist cohort is the Democrats when the Republicans nominated a dingbat like Trump? Like her or not, Clinton was far more a centrist than Trump could ever be on almost every issue. You maybe right that bashing Trump isn't going to win over these people, but that's the point - there's reason to try to win them over. They represent 30 - 35 percent of the country. The rest of the country either sat at home a year ago today or decided throw a wrench into the machine by voting for Trump. This article isn't about the people who are capable of deliberate and objective evaluation. I find it both understandably sad that truly hurt people turned to a man like Trump for relief but find it also incredibly sad and frustrating that they refuse to acknowledge reality. Moreover, your proposed path forward for Democrats to regain power in Washington is blind to what happened in Virginia yesterday. Gillespie lost by 20+ points to Northam in counties Gillespie won in his 2014 Senate campaign. Despite running an unabashed Trumpism style campaign that invoked white rage, racial insecurities, and arguments for law-and-order, Gillespie lost far worse than what pundits expected. Northam was the anti-Trump candidate and he won big. Trump is such a disaster that I don't really see why Democrats need an actual message of their in 2018 other than ride the anti-Trump momentum. 41 percent of those voting yesterday in Virginia were registered Democrats compared to 31 percent for registered Republicans. Northam did 4 points better with independents than Clinton did against Trump last year. Enthusiasm, largely based on anti-Trump sentiment, was the driving force for not just Nordham's win, but the margin of his win. Granted, Virginia is a purple state (shading more blue than red of late), and it's unlikely anti-Trump forces will be sufficient in states like Alabama or Missouri, but recall Trump won three states by a combined margin of 78k votes in 2016. He essentially pulled of an inside-straight. Sure, he'll get 30-35 percent from the truly deluded, but that won't be enough this time around when he's got an actual record to defend.
  23. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Interesting results from yesterday. If you're a Democrat or someone who loathes Trump, it's an encouraging sign and perhaps a sign of things to come in 2018. Shockingly the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam did five points better with women voters than Clinton did against Trump in 2016. On the other hand, to poor a little cold water on last night, here's an interesting article on Trump supporters and why they're not giving up on their golden boy: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/08/donald-trump-johnstown-pennsylvania-supporters-215800 It appears to me that many Trump supporters really don't care about much because they're beyond cynicism, in the real of despair. They don't see their fortunes getting any better and regardless of whether Trump actually comes through on his promises, at least he manifests their anger in a way that's tangible. If they're lot isn't going to get better, then they're ready to essentially fuck over everyone else by supporting what is essentially this troll in chief.
  24. Wolfenstein II

    I'm holding out for the Xbox One X. Will only be buying one system to play RDR2 and a few other games. Other than the new Spider-Man game, Sony's exclusives don't really do much for me. So I don't mind holding off until RDR 2 comes out and then hoping a lot of the games that are being released now can be had second hand or significantly cheaper. I am excited for this one though. Appreciate the offer but I'm lazy when it comes to gaming; I just want something I can turn on and be playing a game a few seconds later. From the late 80s to early 90s I mostly played PC games but now I'm an old man and will likely only play the odd game here and there. Plus, from the reviews I've been reading the Xbox One X offers a lot of value when you factor in specs and the fact that it has a UHD Blu-Ray player.
  25. Sad loss announced today of Roy Halladay. Easily the Jays best pitcher and arguably one of the greatest of his generation. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/roy-halladay-killed-plane-crash-1.4391632
×