Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, she won those primaries fair and square. In fact, let's do a quick search just to make sure.

Oh, shit.

And you're telling me that you think Hillary fucking Clinton, who was against gay rights and supported the destabilization of the Middle East (while Sanders did not), is somehow more liberal than Sanders? No, you're demonstrably wrong. I don't care that he used to run as an independent. Looking at the current state of the DNC, I can't blame him.
Hillary wasn't left of bernie, but she also is still left in general, just not as liberal as he is. The evidence for "rigging" the election is very dubious, the most that happened is some dnc helping her campaign slightly, but that didnt suddenly create a huge vote difference, and overall its not far off standard procedure. The dnc's job is to get a candidate who is most likely to win in the general election. Whether that was hillary or bernie is tough to say, but I can see why they would prefer a candidate who is actually like, a member of their party.

Bernie probably should have realized he had lost a bit earlier and conceded then, but people also need to realize he lost and move on, instead of jumping on conspiracy theories about hillary
 
Hillary wasn't left of bernie, but she also is still left in general, just not as liberal as he is. The evidence for "rigging" the election is very dubious, the most that happened is some dnc helping her campaign slightly, but that didnt suddenly create a huge vote difference, and overall its not far off standard procedure. The dnc's job is to get a candidate who is most likely to win in the general election. Whether that was hillary or bernie is tough to say, but I can see why they would prefer a candidate who is actually like, a member of their party.

Bernie probably should have realized he had lost a bit earlier and conceded then, but people also need to realize he lost and move on, instead of jumping on conspiracy theories about hillary
Something I think is important to note on this "DNC rigged the primaries" issue is that the DNC clearly had a candidate that they wanted to be President and it was Hillary Clinton. You can see it in Wasserman Schultz's emails that got leaked and I felt just watching the process unfold this year that the DNC didn't think Bernie was a viable candidate. Obviously there was a problem somewhere along the way and if the field was as open as the GOP primary's, (I imagine there's a lot of political pressure to stay out of Hillary's way as the only people who ran against her were Bernie who runs as an Independent for the Senate making him far less reliant on DNC funds and Martin O'Malley who campaigned as hard as I did) maybe we see a different result.
 
I'd reply, but miltankmilk just said pretty much what I would have said anyways. There's clear bias on the DNC's part and that very clearly made an impact on the election. It's just difficult to say the exact scale of that impact.
 
  • a black person i know was accused of stealing wine from a store. the manager tackled him to the ground, called the police, and got him arrested. there's no video evidence thus far to support the accusation that this kid stole wine. the owner of the store has a history of racially profiling people, usually people of color, myself included. two of my friends went to help this kid as he was being tackled by this store manager. they were trying to get the manager off him. they were arrested when the police without being read their rights. the officers only asked for the side of the story of the manager.

Would just like to point out that any semi competent lawyer/public defender should be able to get this case thrown out solely based on this fact. Not reading someone their rights upon arrest is a violation of the constitution. Ever heard of Miranda v. Arizona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
 
Would just like to point out that any semi competent lawyer/public defender should be able to get this case thrown out solely based on this fact. Not reading someone their rights upon arrest is a violation of the constitution. Ever heard of Miranda v. Arizona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
This is obvious to anyone who read the post and completely irrelevant in the face of the fact that minorities were arrested without due process solely due to their race.
 
There's a reason why black people (such as me) dislike Trump.

He fails to understand that . . .

1.)Not all black people live in the inner cities
2.)Not all people in inner city communities
3.)Not all inner city communites are trash

This just seems like an act of desperation on part of the Trump campaign. These appeals where simply nonexistent during his actual campaign. I just cannot take him seriously at all.
 
I edit the opinion section of my college paper (and pretty much read political news as my hobby/life), so the resources I typically direct columnists to are as follows. Please note that I am NOT saying to follow all of them. I don't. But if you want to get into political reading/awareness, maybe give them each a glance and see which ones you like and then pick one or two to check in the mornings or something.

  • ProPublica for old school, investigative journalism
  • FiveThirtyEight for data analysis. The numbers behind things, if not the reasoning or classical reporting.
  • Los Angeles Times is my preferred newspaper that isn't behind a paywall
  • BBC News - US and Canada usually has insights that are different than the rest of the media
  • Politifact.com is a good fact checker
  • The Associated Press' app and twitter feed
  • Buzzfeed News is surprisingly good. Didn't see that one coming, but yeah.
  • LastWeekTonight puts its main segments on YouTube. It is a comedy series and liberal leaning, but it delves into some issues in depth that tend not to get covered much otherwise (prison reform, local/state level concerns, etc.)
  • NPR is... eh. I've never liked their political stuff that much, but it's probably just not my cup of tea. They have a lot of interesting science/human interest stuff, though.
  • If you're fine with things being longer form and, well, liberal-leaning, then The Atlantic and the New Yorker have good opinion stuff
  • I round that out by following a handful of major LGBT activists, BLM leaders, feminists, etc. on Twitter, along with a handful of Center-Right pundits who don't make me want to cry or punch things on a regular basis. David Frum and Conor Friedersdorf are good for that. Deray Mckesson is a good place to start for activist twitter.
  • CNN, NBC, FOX, etc. are all essentially garbage imho. The rare good stuff will end up elsewhere anyway. NYT, WashPo and WSJ are good but have paywalls. HuffPo leans too far left for me and/or wears their bias too plainly, the alt right websites are terrifying as an empathetic human, and a lot of the new media is very opinionated.
  • Some people like The Daily Beast because it provides a rundown of ~10 important news stories. But tbh the site is very liberal, its standards of journalism can be questionable and they tend not to demarcate what is meant as opinion and what is news.
If anyone else wants to add good sources, feel free. I'm not going to pretend this is a comprehensive list.

I disagree with a lot of these. Here's what I would recommend for you, RODAN!!!.

BBC - I had this as my main source with CNN on TV as my second during the election. I think the fact that they are based outside the US helps eliminate bias.
Reuters - Also based outside of the US, but covers US and international news quite extensively.
The Independent - Similar to the above.
PBS - As far as I know they have no party affiliation, and they do a great job of focusing on facts.
NPR - Just a solid all around outlet. Allows you to read / listen to good pieces from both sides. Decent op-eds.

What I also use but are without a doubt left-leaning:

WaPo, NYT, and The Atlantic.
 
I never said she lost because she was running too far to the left, what I mean is that the American electorate is a lot less "liberal" then people seem to think it is. I just think Democrats should run a "strong" liberal in 2020 but nothing too extreme is all. Also, they'll need to make sure to campaign in the rust belt :^)

What they need to do is focus on the issues that will get progressives excited (fighting climate change and protecting the environment, wealth inequality/wealth inequality, education (they're like fruits and veggies for a healthy democracy), jobs, getting money out of politics, regulations so that corporations can't make bigger profits at the expense of Americans and the planet, and health care in the scenario that the Trump Administration fucks that up.

Conservatives, please feel free to add issues you'd like to see addressed as well that the Clinton Campaign failed to address (other than Hillary being corrupt and untrustworthy. Candidates like that should just not bother running anymore). This country belongs to you as well after all, and you have a right to be represented regardless of who wins.
 
What they need to do is focus on the issues that will get progressives excited (fighting climate change and protecting the environment, wealth inequality/wealth inequality, education (they're like fruits and veggies for a healthy democracy), jobs, getting money out of politics, regulations so that corporations can't make bigger profits at the expense of Americans and the planet, and health care in the scenario that the Trump Administration fucks that up.

Conservatives, please feel free to add issues you'd like to see addressed as well that the Clinton Campaign failed to address (other than Hillary being corrupt and untrustworthy. Candidates like that should just not bother running anymore). This country belongs to you as well after all, and you have a right to be represented regardless of who wins.

Not a conservative, but I want to see Manning and Snowden given an immediate, full, and unconditional pardon, and the same courtesy extended to future whistleblowers. I thought maybe there was a chance Trump might be persuaded to do this at first, but now with all the backpedaling he's doing I'm pretty sure he won't.

It might seem like a small issue, but it really isn't. Whistleblowers are key to the health of a democracy, and we must protect them wherever we can. The issue lies in determining what is whistleblowing and what is just plain treason, but I think in the above two cases it's pretty clear cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
Not a conservative, but I want to see Manning and Snowden given an immediate, full, and unconditional pardon, and the same courtesy extended to future whistleblowers. I thought maybe there was a chance Trump might be persuaded to do this at first, but now with all the backpedaling he's doing I'm pretty sure he won't.

It might seem like a small issue, but it really isn't. Whistleblowers are key to the health of a democracy, and we must protect them wherever we can. The issue lies in determining what is whistleblowing and what is just plain treason, but I think in the above two cases it's pretty clear cut.

I also agree wholeheartedly with this. I heard that Snowden also gave intelligence to Russia in exchange for amnesty, but I haven't done any research to confirm whether this is true, or propaganda to falsely incriminate him. What has been done to Manning however is, if I dare say, un-Amercian.

I don't need to say more on the issue, since you explained the reasoning pretty well without going into too much detail like I would.

I would like to take everyone back to the early 20th century, where Europe was divided between the far-left and far-right. Do you know what happened because of this intense fear of the other ideology? War. Thousands of people died because of these radical ideas, which is why the world was so anti-fascism and anti-socialism for the latter half of the 20th century (except for the countries that were socialist, but you get the point).

This is why the Democratic party should be hesitant to embrace Bernie Sanders and his ideology. Fighting the radical right with radical left ideas is just going to make things worse. The world has shown that it functions under centrist governments the best, and all ignore this at their own peril. For all of those college students that are die-hard Sanders supporters: this isn't new. If you maybe learned from history, you would realize that people like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern have run before, and they were crushed. The way to beat Trump is by staying centrist and not trying to fight fire with fire.

So if you don't want America to end up like 1920s-1930s Europe, find common ground, stop complaining about the electoral college, or how you think all Trump supporters are racists, or how Clinton supporters should get a grip.

And if you like 3rd parties so much, you can either advocate for a ranked voting system to be adopted in all 50 states, or you can move to Maine.

Or maybe the problem is that both the right and left need to take the time to convince the other that their ideas are better, rather than shoving them down each other's throats, until they can't take it anymore, and it leads to social unrest. There is fear that comments such as these indicate progressives might be ignored, or even worse might be persecuted as a matter of policy under the Trump Administration, as in force those with ideologies not supported by the Trump Administration to shut up, by any means necessary, including with extreme prejudice. I don't think I need to say what the consequences of what that would be, considering how stubborn we Americans can be. If getting money of out politics for example is considered extreme left, doesn't change the fact it needs to be done, and it needs to be done ASAFP.

At the very least, focus needs to be made on making sure everyone's concerns are addressed, so everyone is at least satisfied.

The rewards would be great and plenty but first we must get over that huge horizon. Which is, honestly, more than I expect from the human race rn. My expectations atm are nothing less than grim and hopeless. If we can get it together, take matters into our own hands, and make amends; then hell yeah. In case we don't, it was nice(knowing you folks)Cya next lifetime!

Well, progress needs to be made in some way. Though it will obviously take time. mean, you are hinting at what we all know what the consequences will be if we can't get along, and unfortunately, you're probably right. And as much as I might not want to, I'm likely to live long enough to see those consequences.
 
Last edited:
ape_heels-x9504fi4qrdc1g0g8n2_t460.JPG


so im just a simple boy paging through the old internet when i encounter this comment causing some controversy. immediately in my gut, i feel the twinge - that's a racist comment against my future mother-in-law. but then i reconsidered. Deck Knight Ary Old_Gregg Kl4ng UncleSam Josh manodelrey sunny004, you guys seem like some dudes who have been awakened to what fake left "racism" is and isnt. can you tell me if this is racist? perhaps my racism sensor had been knocked out of place by the massive amounts of Gay Shit ive had penetrate me while reading lena dunham's yelp reviews of brooklyn abortion clinics as john oliver shills in the background. perhaps my reading of racism is a result of my liberal liberal arts education. maybe this is just the economic anxiety of Pamela Ramsey Taylor being expressed in a way i, a weak liberal, cannot understand. perhaps i am this brainwashed in the words of lord Deck. i cant even tell if the gas lamps in this room are on or off, much less what political correctness looks like. im pleading with you guys sincerely, please help. Is this racist?
 
Yo I'm not sure "ape in heels" is a racist thing as much as it's a not very nice thing to say about someone's appearance but I'm not the racism police.
 
ape_heels-x9504fi4qrdc1g0g8n2_t460.JPG


so im just a simple boy paging through the old internet when i encounter this comment causing some controversy. immediately in my gut, i feel the twinge - that's a racist comment against my future mother-in-law. but then i reconsidered. Deck Knight Ary Old_Gregg Kl4ng UncleSam Josh manodelrey sunny004, you guys seem like some dudes who have been awakened to what fake left "racism" is and isnt. can you tell me if this is racist? perhaps my racism sensor had been knocked out of place by the massive amounts of Gay Shit ive had penetrate me while reading lena dunham's yelp reviews of brooklyn abortion clinics as john oliver shills in the background. perhaps my reading of racism is a result of my liberal liberal arts education. maybe this is just the economic anxiety of Pamela Ramsey Taylor being expressed in a way i, a weak liberal, cannot understand. perhaps i am this brainwashed in the words of lord Deck. i cant even tell if the gas lamps in this room are on or off, much less what political correctness looks like. im pleading with you guys sincerely, please help. Is this racist?

I'm not sure why you highlighted me or exactly what it is you are trying to say, mainly because it's all under some poorly crafted layer of self-righteous irony, but don't do it again.
 
Yo I'm not sure "ape in heels" is a racist thing as much as it's a not very nice thing to say about someone's appearance but I'm not the racism police.

I guess your vast internet experience doesn't extend to youtube comments or any forum other than smogon ever. I feel as if you don't really need me to explain why it's racist, but if you really haven't been able to detect the comparison of black people to apes irl and on the internet, look up: Social Darwinism. Hope I helped!

-The Racism Police
 
The hell? Michelle Obama graduate magnum cum laude from Princeton, and has a JD from Harvard Law School. Melainia Trump is a college drop out who posed nude for photos. To think that Melania trump is some how more "classy [and] dignified" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

Melania isn't even remotely on her level.

Yo I'm not sure "ape in heels" is a racist thing as much as it's a not very nice thing to say about someone's appearance but I'm not the racism police.
No offense but this clearly racist, and I have no idea how you can't tell. Black people have been compared to apes and monkeys for ages.
 
ape_heels-x9504fi4qrdc1g0g8n2_t460.JPG


so im just a simple boy paging through the old internet when i encounter this comment causing some controversy. immediately in my gut, i feel the twinge - that's a racist comment against my future mother-in-law. but then i reconsidered. Deck Knight Ary Old_Gregg Kl4ng UncleSam Josh manodelrey sunny004, you guys seem like some dudes who have been awakened to what fake left "racism" is and isnt. can you tell me if this is racist? perhaps my racism sensor had been knocked out of place by the massive amounts of Gay Shit ive had penetrate me while reading lena dunham's yelp reviews of brooklyn abortion clinics as john oliver shills in the background. perhaps my reading of racism is a result of my liberal liberal arts education. maybe this is just the economic anxiety of Pamela Ramsey Taylor being expressed in a way i, a weak liberal, cannot understand. perhaps i am this brainwashed in the words of lord Deck. i cant even tell if the gas lamps in this room are on or off, much less what political correctness looks like. im pleading with you guys sincerely, please help. Is this racist?

I'm just going to leave this here and will elaborate sometime later if anyone has ?s

1) Noooo, totally NOT racist. I mean, was it the "dignified" part of plagiarizer Melania Trump, or the goddamn "Ape in heels"? Seriously. What I'm merely trying to do is sift bullshit from actual, credible arguments. Sorry if that comes off as racist to you, but I, personally, am tired of seeing baseless arguments being thrown around this debate. It just so happens that most of my stuff comes against the left, because you guys seem to have the anti-bullshit (and there's a lot of bullshit) coming from the Right handled, and I want to keep a somewhat fair argument, and provide a constructive debate by arguing from the other side of the spectrum (even if I don't agree with some of their views).

2) I'm not a really big facebook user, but that blue circle on the bottom left makes it look like you liked her post. Exposed! (Not really :o)

3) What this seems to be to me, however off topic it may seem from the election or its results, is an attempt to bash the right for being racist and supporting a supposedly "racist" candidate. While Trump certainly has those undertones, I have yet to see any speech that directly assaults Black, Latino, or ethnic minorities.

(Bear in mind that a: I haven't SEEN any evidence, so I may be wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong with legitimate facts. and b: This means legitimate speech against them, not something like the language towards Illegal immigrants (which, however abhorrent, is not a racial group). I'm talking something along the lines of "black ppl are inferior beings b/c they make less money".)

Trump's suggestive language served to embolden a previously silent and hidden group of white nationalists, and separately, but not coincidentally, the rise of the alt-right. The fact remains that the racial divide between the majority white population and racial minorities is still very open and real. (I'm a cis-gender white male in the upper 5% of household incomes; I'm qualified on stuck-up, privileged white people lol). Today, many whites (not me) feel that they are being left out, and forgotten, by society. They feel like diversity, over the well-being of all Americans, has become the chief goal of the government. Trump's successful exploitation of those fears, which helped boost rural white turnout, along with HRC's perceived corruption, which depressed turnout among democrats, is what helped to elect him.


^^
I'm not saying that I agree with these viewpoints, just saying that's what I feel caused the result of this election.
I probably made some clerical errors as well as some gaps in that wall of text, so feel free to call me out or something and I will explain.
 
Also sorry for double post but in most of my points I've been anti-Trump anyway, I don't exactly know why you tagged me Shrug ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If anyone wants to have a legitimate discussion and not fling insults then please feel free to do so with me, but I won't take kindly to bullshit and insults.


EDIT: This thread is almost to 100 pages! (At least on my computer). Huh.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that a: I haven't SEEN any evidence, so I may be wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong with legitimate facts. and b: This means legitimate speech against them, not something like the language towards Illegal immigrants (which, however abhorrent, is not a racial group). I'm talking something along the lines of "black ppl are inferior beings b/c they make less money".)

Trump's suggestive language served to embolden a previously silent and hidden group of white nationalists, and separately, but not coincidentally, the rise of the alt-right.

I feel as though you're refuting your own point? Either way, people can act in a "discriminating" (more multifaceted than "racist) context without going out of their way to say "I hate black people".

Food for thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
 
The hell? Michelle Obama graduate magnum cum laude from Princeton, and has a JD from Harvard Law School. Melainia Trump is a college drop out who posed nude for photos. To think that Melania trump is some how more "classy [and] dignified" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

Melania isn't even remotely on her level.


No offense but this clearly racist, and I have no idea how you can't tell. Black people have been compared to apes and monkeys for ages.

I hate Trump and everything he stands for. His supporters are either racist or okay with racism.

But can we not slut shame his wife?
 
I feel as though you're refuting your own point? Either way, people can act in a "discriminating" (more multifaceted than "racist) context without going out of their way to say "I hate black people".

Food for thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

The point I was trying to make is that Trump himself is not overtly racist, as some seem to suggest. His political rhetoric and speech is what emboldened the above groups. And, of course, you're right: Trump, most likely, is discriminatory. Just not racist or extremely hateful towards ethnic minorities.

EDIT: If you're still confused, think of it this way: I don't think Trump would pass anything that would specifically target Black people to reduce their well-being or social status (if anything, he may accidentally do this indirectly by reducing police restrictions, but not something like "black people are not allowed to move into suburbs" or something similar. Probably not as extreme tho.). What he may do however, would disproportionately benefit white Americans over minorities. Not because he's against minorities, but most likely because he subconsciously wants to benefit white people more.
 
That specific example would still fall under racism. Many white supremacists frame their argument in terms of the white man's plight instead of the evils of the other.

IMO, if he (or any politician) cut the shit and went right to "jobs are going away we need to do something" it would have been a clear appeal to the real issue people of the working class are dealing with, as opposed to scapegoating others. While they're both factors, I'm very confident that technology is going to take away a lot more jobs than globalism will in our lifetime. Manufacturing has been on the way out for a long time, truck driving is going next.


Also, his comments regarding country-wide surveillance of Muslim's are definitive examples of xenophobia.
 
That specific example would still fall under racism. Many white supremacists frame their argument in terms of the white man's plight instead of the evils of the other.

IMO, if he (or any politician) cut the shit and went right to "jobs are going away we need to do something" it would have been a clear appeal to the real issue people of the working class are dealing with, as opposed to scapegoating others. While they're both factors, I'm very confident that technology is going to take away a lot more jobs than globalism will in our lifetime. Manufacturing has been on the way out for a long time, truck driving is going next.


Also, his comments regarding country-wide surveillance of Muslim's are definitive examples of xenophobia.
You're probably right. I'm just a little too tired to try and defend my point atm, maybe tomorrow lol.

Also I'd like to mention that I find it funny that both candidates were talking about "bringing jobs back", when they'd (especially manufacturing) only be back for about 30-40 years, give or take. Advances in robotic manufacturing and adaptable human interaction will render humans obsolete in many job positions at that point. Maybe candidates should be more focused on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top