Jump to content

The US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, soon said:

Moving the goal posts. You claimed the the US is the "most diverse (in every way)" The two party system is not diverse. So you are wrong with your "in every way" claim.

Like I just said 'the people they'd like to subjugate.'

What I didnt say was the term "white supremacist." But that said, it appears you dont understand that the white male structure of power has tiers. It has interlocking mechanisms. All the way into patriarchal values being imposed as a norm in nuclear family households. These types of reasons are why we call it a "structure."

 

Ok, I will say that the US doesn't have the most diverse political system with only the 2 major parties. But in demographics, it is very diverse.

But what can you prove is the real question. I'll happily engage in that dialectic. Interlocking mechanisms and tiers are interesting theories, but we have to go beyond the buzz words and get specific. I'm saying with 100% confidence that the mega-donors who literally run our political system are very pro diversity and by their actions can't import people fast enough. It appears to be they want a serf class and they are well on their way to getting it (and getting richer and more powerful year by year). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4913

  • Dazey

    1994

  • soon

    1761

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1595

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Ok, I will say that the US doesn't have the most diverse political system with only the 2 major parties. But in demographics, it is very diverse.

But what can you prove is the real question. I'll happily engage in that dialectic. Interlocking mechanisms and tiers are interesting theories, but we have to go beyond the buzz words and get specific. I'm saying with 100% confidence that the mega-donors who literally run our political system are very pro diversity and by their actions can't import people fast enough. It appears to be they want a serf class and they are well on their way to getting it (and getting richer and more powerful year by year). 

1- I did get specific, about patriarchal norms being imposed in households.

2- You are overly simplifying things, as you are want to do to pin all the problems on the err... "international financiers" shall we say. If you werent blinded by that you would see that you are largely just echoing what Im saying, albeit in a reductionist manner. I said there is the white male structure of power and those they want to subjugate. You are framing immigration as only existing as a means to control wages and workers writ large. By your own admission the polarity isnt due to the diversity, its because a white male structure of power is subjugating all others. In no way does that demonstrate how the polarity is due to diversity. It demonstrates my point to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

1- I did get specific, about patriarchal norms being imposed in households.

2- You are overly simplifying things, as you are want to do to pin all the problems on the err... "international financiers" shall we say. If you werent blinded by that you would see that you are largely just echoing what Im saying, albeit in a reductionist manner. I said there is the white male structure of power and those they want to subjugate. You are framing immigration as only existing as a means to control wages and workers writ large. By your own admission the polarity isnt due to the diversity, its because a white male structure of power is subjugating all others. In no way does that demonstrate how the polarity is due to diversity. It demonstrates my point to the contrary.

But the mega-donors work hand in hand with an increasing diversity among the populace, there are tiers to the system they are using to increase their power and subjugate the new serfs :P

I'm laying the blame where it belongs, with the people who literally run the society. I'm all about being specific. Let's call out these people name by name and corporation by corporation. Less buzzwords, more specifics is the way I frame it.

To be frank, I think we mostly agree on what's going on, but we are using a different frame. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Congress still hasn't decided on the Trump trial yet. OMG! This is just one big mess. No wonder why it takes the government so long to decide on anything.

In a world that makes sense, it should have taken a lot less time since the evidence is damning and unquestionable.  But it also should have taken a long time.  Trials take time.  And a real trial would have included submission of documents and questioning of witnesses.  The path the current Republican-controlled Senate has taken is the worst of the three options: a show-trial that takes a week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, downzy said:

Sorry, but what?

Trump is loathed by a vast majority of Canadians.  Most polls show Trump with a net favourability in Canada between 20-30 percent. There is little to no basis to suggest Trump is in any way popular in Canada. 

Also, there is little basis to assume Trump’s re-election this year is a safe bet. Trump currently has the lowest approval rating in modern American politics at this point in his Presidency. It is far lower that George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter who lost their bids for re-election.  The current polling shows that the impeachment proceedings haven’t had any real effect on Trump’s favourability or state polling.  He is still competitive in most battleground states, but it’s looking like he’s still going to have to draw to an inside straight to win re-election. He did it in 2016 so it would be foolish to write him off, but it is wrong to suggest that because of the impeachment proceedings he’s set for re-election in November. 

He’s the most popular President I can recall in Canada. Those that claim to hate him are obsessed over every little thing he does, people that I’ve never heard discuss politics can’t stop talking Trump, literally everyone in Canada can’t stop talking about him.  

the reason why he’s popular doesn’t matter.  We can’t claim to hate something and at the same time obsess over every detail.  It makes people a fan.  I know that sounds strange and that people claim a deep rooted hate for the guy but from where I sit... it makes them a fan.

this very thread became really popular once he won.  How many Canadians are here?

Fuck and here I am talking about him now too.  
 

it doesn’t matter I guess as most Canadians can’t vote in the Nov election anyway, I just find it very odd How popular he became.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some may say this is stupid but i think Trump fatigue will play a part in 2020. I mean can people really take another 4 years of madness? :lol: 

I see people who never voted or cared about politics voting just to end this circus.

Edited by -W.A.R-
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Some may say this is stupid but i think Trump fatigue will play a part in 2020. I mean can people really take another "4 years of madness"? :lol: 

I see people who never voted or cared about politics voting just to end this circus.

Hopefully but also hope they in a state that matters and not Cali.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Republicans had  a little more to gain from allowing witnesses than refusing them. Support for allowing witnesses was much higher than support for impeachment. John Bolton would not have had any new bombshell information that would change anyone's minds. Also, if they did a "witness for witness" deal and got Joe or Hunter Biden up there, I am certain they would've said some stupid shit and harmed themselves. The narrative of "Republicans didn't allow witnesses" might leave a sour taste in some voters mouths. However, this will all be completely forgotten in the average voters mind by November, so I guess it doesn't matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gunsguy said:

In short form:

The latest is as predicted, Trump will be acquitted. This means he stays in power and is set for a Nov election.  The people will decide if he gets another 4 years, which by the looks of things is a sure bet.

So nothing changes, Trump wins again and we have 4 more years of people that love him and people that spend way too much time hating him.  Looking from Canada, love him or hate him he is very popular on both sides which only boosts him up.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gunsguy said:

He’s the most popular President I can recall in Canada.

When you say popular, do you mean he gets more Canadians talking about him?  I don't agree with your choice of words, since having people talk about you doesn't make you popular. Lots of people talked about Paul Bernardo, but no one would consider him "popular."  If you meant attention seeking, then yes, Trump is the most attention seeking President in modern American politics, to Americans and non-Americans alike.  

If you're referring to popularity in terms of being viewed favourably, then I would direct your attention to this:

 

2 hours ago, gunsguy said:

We can’t claim to hate something and at the same time obsess over every detail.

Sure we can.  Parents of murdered children obsess with seeing vengeance and justice for the murderer.  

2 hours ago, gunsguy said:

It makes people a fan

No it does not.  I would bet everything I have that those who loath and find Trump despicable would gladly shut up about him and discuss other things if he went away immediate.

2 hours ago, gunsguy said:

this very thread became really popular once he won.  How many Canadians are here?

Actually, I've seen a real drop off in participation in this thread in the last few years.  Many regulars stop posting in this thread because there's little point.  To defend Trump requires either great hypocrisy, ignorance, or bad faith.  There are very few matters relating to Trump's policies, behaviour, or politics that can be objectively defended with any sanity or seriousness.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

I think the Republicans had  a little more to gain from allowing witnesses than refusing them. Support for allowing witnesses was much higher than support for impeachment. John Bolton would not have had any new bombshell information that would change anyone's minds. Also, if they did a "witness for witness" deal and got Joe or Hunter Biden up there, I am certain they would've said some stupid shit and harmed themselves. The narrative of "Republicans didn't allow witnesses" might leave a sour taste in some voters mouths. However, this will all be completely forgotten in the average voters mind by November, so I guess it doesn't matter. 

Maybe to your last point.  It all depends on how much evidence can be had.  If this situation, or another situation like it, were to be exposed in a drip, drip, drip fashion then it only hurts Republicans who chose to close their eyes and plug their ears when they had a chance.

According to Bolton's manuscript, Trump had similar conversations with other autocratic leaders, particularly President Erdogan.  If more revelations come to light in the next six to ten months regarding other corrupt dealings between Trump and other world leaders, Democrats are going to have a field day with sitting Republican Senators who are up for re-election in 2020. 

The lamest excuse for not calling witnesses is probably from the most consequential Senator, Lisa Murkowski.  She claimed that the trial had not and would not be fair so no point in continuing it.  Essentially, why try to make it a real trial by voting to have witnesses since it's already unfair.  Talk about some fucked up logic there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame on the DNC for letting Bloomberg literally buy his way in. Whats funny is that Bloomberg actually benefited from being able to run his ads unchallenged. He'll be ripped to shreds on a debate stage.

The democratic base wont look too fondly towards his heil-and-frisk or his Jeff Sessions-equse hatred for marijuana.

Edited by -W.A.R-
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Kansas City Chiefs win last night in the Superbowl, Trump on twitter congratulated the “great state of Kansas.”

Kansas City is in the state of Missouri, not Kansas. 

The tweet has since been deleted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

After the Kansas City Chiefs win last night in the Superbowl, Trump on twitter congratulated the “great state of Kansas.”

Kansas City is in the state of Missouri, not Kansas. 

The tweet has since been deleted. 

As a new "Kansan" I feel the need to interject here :P

There is also a Kansas City, Kansas. The two are separately incorporated cities, but share one big sprawling area that crosses the state divide.  It's very confusing. 

The Missouri side is home of the Chiefs, but the Kansas side claims them as their own as well. 

Maybe the President of the United States should be aware of this, or double check, but again, if not from the midwest, it's very confusing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downzy said:

After the Kansas City Chiefs win last night in the Superbowl, Trump on twitter congratulated the “great state of Kansas.”

Kansas City is in the state of Missouri, not Kansas. 

The tweet has since been deleted. 

1188.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=forma

:lol: What a fucking moron! :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 4:45 PM, soon said:

There are social media reports stating that Israel is currently striking targets in Gaza. This just days after Trump directed Palestine to surrender and called it a "peace" deal.

csbaSvYh.jpg

Wow, I'll bet Washington will impose sanctions on them any day now...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Whiskey Rose said:

As a new "Kansan" I feel the need to interject here :P

There is also a Kansas City, Kansas. The two are separately incorporated cities, but share one big sprawling area that crosses the state divide.  It's very confusing. 

The Missouri side is home of the Chiefs, but the Kansas side claims them as their own as well. 

Maybe the President of the United States should be aware of this, or double check, but again, if not from the midwest, it's very confusing. 

Except we know Trump wasn't talking about Kansas City, Kansas.  If that's what he truly meant, he wouldn't have deleted the first tweet and replaced it with one that mentions Missouri.

And yes, the President of the United States should be aware of this.  I get that most people would be confused by this (hell, I thought Kansas City was in Kansas into my early 20s).  But just further proof the man sitting in the Oval Office may know how to dupe the desperate and ignorant into supporting him, but he knows little about anything else.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • downzy changed the title to The US Politics/Elections Thread
  • downzy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...