Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

[RaikouLover]

Another thing to regarding American politics how wide the disconnect is between what an administration actually does vs. voter perceptions in the real world.

Example: The current inflation spike is a direct result of Trump’s trade war with China and his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the effects are happening under Biden, the public will blame Biden for it.

This infrastructure bill that just passed won’t materialize in people’s lives until 2023 and beyond.. far too late to benefit the Democrats electorally.

 

[boo836]

as someone who hunts neo-Nazis and has done so for several years, watching them join and influence the Republican Party, i die a little more inside every time someone says both parties are "just the same."

Conveniently, I'd like to think that I can provide an answer to both of these in one fell swoop. Sure, I'm just some uneducated college kid or whatever, but the point of my original post was not to criticize one party or the other, but just explain how Republicans and Democrats alike have. their stinkers on both sides. The American people are more in common than the mainstream media lets on, it's just that since the media has so much power in the lives of everyday citizens the people appear much further apart. It's really only the extremists on either side who are divided. Based on each of your responses to me, I'd be willing to bet that you tend to lean more towards the Democratic side. Personally, most of if not everyone I grew up around was predominantly conservative, and many of those lessons were shoved down my throat as a result. At this point in my life, I'm trying as hard as I can to look at things from both angles, and it's completely fine if any of you disagree with my ideology. That being said, all I've ever wanted is to know what it would be like to live in an America where the silent majority of us get the spotlight, specifically the ones who can make compromises with the other side.

As for how one party is equal to extremism to another, you've got to be careful not to fall into the mainstream media's trap of thinking one party has been so desperate for so long. I believe the words you used were "neoliberal" and "fascist". There are two issues with this argument in my eyes. The first is that I've heard both parties refer to their opposite as the fascist one of the two. The second and more relevant is that different parties' ideologies line up better with what our country needs at that moment in time. At one point in American history, the Republicans were more extreme, but at an other point the Democrats might have been. See what I'm trying to get at here?

Again, the poverty of your explanation is precisely based on this notion that there are "stinkers on both sides." The Democrats didn't try to overthrow the Constitution through mob violence that saw multiple people killed as a result. When a Democratic senator started engaging in the same abandonment of democratic norms as the GOP has undertaken, she was frozen out of the party and is now a semi-regular Fox feature in propaganda segments for the Republican Party. There is absolutely no equivalence between the two.

As for your and Raikoulover's historical arguments, what you are both missing is that the anti-democratic faction (Dixiecrats) of the Democratic Party was what dominated the Confederacy and a lot of pre-WWI Democratic politics at the time. A lot of those Dixiecrats switched parties in support of Richard Nixon following his campaign's use of the Southern Strategy, and the marginalisation of Dixiecrats in favour of New Deal and Great Society Democrats. Those same elements have been in the GOP since and have been represented by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump long before 2016. Obama's election was simply a flashpoint that the faction exploited to organise dedicated racists.

The other thing Raikoulover is misunderstanding is that the "Cold War" talked about isn't a domestic conflict, it's international. The antidemocratic push within the GOP has been backed by the Russian government for several years now, and other autocratic governments have joined in supporting it, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and the UAE. It is in large part resurgent because of the international support it enjoys from other authoritarian factions around the world, including those outside of power.

Also I'm going to point out that current inflation is actually being spurred by intentional petrol production slowdowns in Saudi Arabia. Biden was ahead of inflation relating to Trump and others' mismanagement of the pandemic. I genuinely don't know why the US doesn't just drone MBS at this point lol, he's jeopardising his own country's security relationships out of personal beefs.

 

[RaikouLover]

Thanks for the additional context and I agree.

On the subject of both sides-ism the US political discourse is now completely asymmetrical. Even the more reasonable conservative leaning folks that can admit the wrongs committed by the Republican Party never seem to do so without mentioning “both sides.” The media in its quest for profit plays into this by trying to appear balanced by any means possible. That’s how we got blasted by a year of Clinton emails instead of Trump’s emoluments violations.

bdt2002 Democrats were quick to run Al Franken and Andrew Cuomo out of town for groping and sexual harassment. Can you denounce Trump for his sexual transgressions?

 

[bdt2002]

bdt2002 Democrats were quick to run Al Franken and Andrew Cuomo out of town for groping and sexual harassment. Can you denounce Trump for his sexual transgressions?

To be fair, I really can't, buuuuut that's likely because any cases where this did happen were very cleverly hidden from me by my overly conservative family. They're the ones to blame here, I'm just some 19 year old who does what he's told to.

 

[RaikouLover]

To be fair, I really can't, buuuuut that's likely because any cases where this did happen were very cleverly hidden from me by my overly conservative family. They're the ones to blame here, I'm just some 19 year old who does what he's told to.

So to be clear- you cannot admit right here and now that the sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump from 26 women made him unfit for office? You cannot say that sexual assault is unacceptable?

 

[bdt2002]

So to be clear- you cannot admit right here and now that the sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump from 26 women made him unfit for office? You cannot say that sexual assault is unacceptable?

I don't really think that's what I was trying to get at... Is sexual assault unacceptable? Yes. Was I saying that this man was fit for office? No.

See, the tricky thing about these allegations is that false accusations do exist, and they happen all the time. This is a very big problem, because it makes it harder for people who actually did experience misconduct to be believed. How is the public supposed to know if these cases are legit if the perpetrator isn't exactly going to come out and say anything?

as someone who hunts neo-Nazis and has done so for several years, watching them join and influence the Republican Party, i die a little more inside every time someone says both parties are "just the same."



Again, the poverty of your explanation is precisely based on this notion that there are "stinkers on both sides." The Democrats didn't try to overthrow the Constitution through mob violence that saw multiple people killed as a result. When a Democratic senator started engaging in the same abandonment of democratic norms as the GOP has undertaken, she was frozen out of the party and is now a semi-regular Fox feature in propaganda segments for the Republican Party. There is absolutely no equivalence between the two.

As for your and Raikoulover's historical arguments, what you are both missing is that the anti-democratic faction (Dixiecrats) of the Democratic Party was what dominated the Confederacy and a lot of pre-WWI Democratic politics at the time. A lot of those Dixiecrats switched parties in support of Richard Nixon following his campaign's use of the Southern Strategy, and the marginalisation of Dixiecrats in favour of New Deal and Great Society Democrats. Those same elements have been in the GOP since and have been represented by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump long before 2016. Obama's election was simply a flashpoint that the faction exploited to organise dedicated racists.

The other thing Raikoulover is misunderstanding is that the "Cold War" talked about isn't a domestic conflict, it's international. The antidemocratic push within the GOP has been backed by the Russian government for several years now, and other autocratic governments have joined in supporting it, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and the UAE. It is in large part resurgent because of the international support it enjoys from other authoritarian factions around the world, including those outside of power.

Also I'm going to point out that current inflation is actually being spurred by intentional petrol production slowdowns in Saudi Arabia. Biden was ahead of inflation relating to Trump and others' mismanagement of the pandemic. I genuinely don't know why the US doesn't just drone MBS at this point lol, he's jeopardising his own country's security relationships out of personal beefs.

I figured I should address this too. If the thing you guys disagree with me on is that I said the parties were the same, I apologize for offending you. that being said, I'm trying to look at this from as nonbiased of a point of view as possible, and if that won't work out, i may as well dismiss myself from the conversation. The "similarity factor" here isn't between the parties, but rather that they were being and continue to be equally toxic towards one another. At the end of the day we are all entitled to our own opinions and values, and the party that is in power at any given moment will stop at nothing to try and silence the opposition.

Now if the two of you will excuse me, I must be going. I wish to respect you both, and the best way for me to do that is to let others be right for the sake of peace. Take care.

 

[RaikouLover]

See, the tricky thing about these allegations is that false accusations do exist, and they happen all the time. This is a very big problem, because it makes it harder for people who actually did experience misconduct to be believed. How is the public supposed to know if these cases are legit if the perpetrator isn't exactly going to come out and say anything?

I don't really think that's what I was trying to get at... Is sexual assault unacceptable? Yes. Was I saying that this man was fit for office? No.

This is the point though with asymmetry.

For Democrats and Independents that lean Democratic- sexual misconduct allegations are a clear red line. 100% unacceptable.

For Republicans and Independents that lean Republican - sexual misconduct allegations are nuanced and often overlooked completely.

Hence- the media trying to be “fair” spent weeks covering Andrew Cuomo’s sexual harassment allegations. Trump’s verbal admission of sexual assault was a mere footnote, along with his alleged assault on E. Jean Carol and the other 25 women that came forward.

Keep in mind that sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are all varying degrees of severity (assault is the most serious criminal offense).

 

[ASMRxism]

Not gonna dive too far into the whole centrism, both sides shit but I did want to address one claim that was demonstrably wrong: the claim that "false accusations occur all the time" is unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. False accusations are very rare; experts disagree but estimate anywhere from 2 to 10 percent. One specific study found 8 of 136 reported cases over a 10 year period were false. Any claims that false accusations are common are misleading at best and malicious at worst.

 

[Luck O' the Irish]

Not much to add, that also doesn’t account for how underreported it is!

Anyone claiming false reports of sexual harassment/etc are common are misguided at best and actively malicious at worst

 

[RaikouLover]

The "similarity factor" here isn't between the parties, but rather that they were being and continue to be equally toxic towards one another. At the end of the day we are all entitled to our own opinions and values, and the party that is in power at any given moment will stop at nothing to try and silence the opposition.

Sorry, this is just objectively wrong. I know you mean no ill intent but the reflexive both sides-ism just isn’t there. No matter how many ways to slice it.

No one in the Democratic Congress makes jokes about murdering Republicans.
No one in the Democratic caucus called for overthrowing the US government in January of 2017.

The both sides equivalency is 100% utterly wrong.

 

[Charmflash]

shooting people who throw plastic bags at you

Would you agree that this is a factually incorrect recalling of events

 

[Charmflash]

after watching a lot of the trial process, I believe this:

- kenosha wasn't a random city he went to to counter-protest. he lived 20 minutes away, worked there, and had family like his dad living there.
- he was legally allowed to have his weapon due to a very vaguely written and honestly stupid hunting law. this charge has been dropped by the prosecution.
- he doesn't seem to have went in looking for any 'legal kills'. he went to great lengths to flee from his pursuers and deescalate the situation until left with no other choice

edit: verdict just in - hes been declared not guilty on all charges

 

[MZ]

lol

 

[MZ]

Ok so there’s a lot there to deconstruct and I’m not gonna go back and forth, if you’re still this wrong about everything I have no faith in the ability of me or anyone else to convince you. I do just think you could start by examining why you think he had “no choice” but to shoot people since that seems to be the most egregiously rotten part of that statement that doesn’t hold up to even the mildest scrutiny.

 

[Charmflash]

it is sadly the case if u try to evaluate what happened objectively rather than picking a team and cheering for it

 

[RaikouLover]

it is sadly the case if u try to evaluate what happened objectively rather than picking a team and cheering for it

I’m glad I live in a duty to retreat state.

Legally, Rittenhouse may be clear. However, he’s guilty of being an idiot and a bitch. Bet he wont bring is AR-15 to the hood…

 

[Charmflash]

I’m glad I live in a duty to retreat state.

I dont know why you would think that saying this is relevant at all. The law you mention goes as follows:
In states that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

This was not the case in the Rittenhouse incident. He fell to the ground when being chased by the mob/had rosenbaum reach for his gun & touch it, and was unable to 'retreat with complete safety' in either instance.

 

[boo836]

I think what's really wild about any discussion of false sexual assault allegations is that all of the ones made against politicians in the past several years have all been sourced to Republican campaigns. Jacob Wohl, Tara Reade, Eva Murray, Benjamin Rajadurai... there's just so many fucking examples of this. American conservatives lie as easily as they breathe.

Which brings me to:

after watching a lot of the trial process, I believe this:

- kenosha wasn't a random city he went to to counter-protest. he lived 20 minutes away, worked there, and had family like his dad living there.
- he was legally allowed to have his weapon due to a very vaguely written and honestly stupid hunting law. this charge has been dropped by the prosecution.
- he doesn't seem to have went in looking for any 'legal kills'. he went to great lengths to flee from his pursuers and deescalate the situation until left with no other choice

edit: verdict just in - hes been declared not guilty on all charges

-Kenosha wasn't a random city, it was a city that saw civil rights protests, which was the sole basis for RIttenhouse being there
-He was not legally allowed to have his weapon there, he transported an illegally obtained weapon over state lines with the intent of using it. The judge based his decision to drop the charges based on a bad-faith reading of the law formulated solely to exempt Rittenhouse. It's a nonsense interpretation from a judge that was notorious for making up bullshit to suit his agenda long before this case was in the docket. There were multiple cases that have had rulings overturned specifically because the rulings were wildly illegal. The man is not a jurist, he is an activist on the bench that decided to play judge, jury, and attorney for the defence.
- Saying Rittenhouse didn't explicitly look for kills completely ignores the vast piles of evidence showing him: threatening to murder people with his "AR" two weeks earlier; meeting with a terrorist entity designated by my government multiple times after the shooting; attacking a girl half his size. Of course, none of that evidence was allowed to make it in front of the jury. In fact, the judge demanded the jury applaud a defence witness, allowed references to victims as "rioters, looters, and arsonists" despite none of the victims being involved in any such crimes, and banned coverage of proceedings by MSNBC in blatant retaliation for critical coverage of his actions (curious that there's no pictures of the jury busses, despite photographs being the basis of the ban). None of that behaviour is either normal nor appropriate in a court of law, and is very strong evidence that the judge was attempting to reach a predetermined outcome.

Judging by your comments I am extremely skeptical that you've watched most of the trial, and it's sure as shit that you aren't an unbiased observer.

 

[boo836]

Also going to add separately that Kyle Rittenhouse could have surrendered himself. He made no serious effort to do so, instead running away from the scene. At no point did Rittenhouse attempt to administer emergency medical aid to the man he shot, which is a dereliction of duty as a supposed "medic." Rittenhouse had multiple opportunities to prove he wasn't a threat, and instead he decided to shoot two men who heroically tried to subdue an active shooter.

 

[DTC]

-Kenosha wasn't a random city, it was a city that saw civil rights protests, which was the sole basis for RIttenhouse being there
-He was not legally allowed to have his weapon there, he transported an illegally obtained weapon over state lines with the intent of using it. The judge based his decision to drop the charges based on a bad-faith reading of the law formulated solely to exempt Rittenhouse. It's a nonsense interpretation from a judge that was notorious for making up bullshit to suit his agenda long before this case was in the docket. There were multiple cases that have had rulings overturned specifically because the rulings were wildly illegal. The man is not a jurist, he is an activist on the bench that decided to play judge, jury, and attorney for the defence.

Looks like you did not watch the trial either.

 

[Charmflash]

Looks like you did not watch the trial either.

why watch trial when you can watch twitter

 

[boo836]

Looks like you did not watch the trial either.

You know you have a great point when you're splitting hairs over the fact that he conspired to obtain a firearm illegally and use it to harm people, an act he fantasized so often about that he literally recorded himself talking about it.

 

[boo836]

You keep spreading alternative facts. He is not a spree killer nor is he a hero. He is a person that had to defend himself in a life-threatening situation. What I am invested in is bettering the discourse, and correcting the record when people such as yourself stoke the flames with incorrect narratives.

Just like how Dylan Klebold isn't a hero, right? Eric's just misunderstood. You haven't put yourself in his shoes. Those kids who bullied them deserved it though. I'm not evil, I just want kids like them to not feel like they're alone.

I'm friends with a reformed Columbine groupie that's coincidentally your age, which is part of the reason why I used that specific example.

That "life threatening situation" was an unarmed man who threw a bag at him, and a group of people who tried to stop an active shooter. Rittenhouse has consistently claimed to be a medic, and instead decided to run. If I shot someone in self defence, the first thing I know I'd do is call for an ambulance. He could have immediately administered first aid, as he repeatedly claimed he was trained to do. He ran. He could have made an effort to seriously surrender to the police. He did not. He could have made an effort to surrender to the crowd who tried to stop an active shooter. He did not. Instead, he decided to open fire on more people after firing on an unarmed man. At no point was Kyle Rittenhouse in any serious danger. The absurd defence was that the gun would be used against him, baselessly presuming that the crowd was out to murder him as he murdered the unarmed man. The reality is that Kyle Rittenhouse determined that they deserved to die, just as he did in his recording weeks prior.

 

[RaikouLover]

I dont know why you would think that saying this is relevant at all. The law you mention goes as follows:
In states that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

This was not the case in the Rittenhouse incident. He fell to the ground when being chased by the mob/had rosenbaum reach for his gun & touch it, and was unable to 'retreat with complete safety' in either instance.

What I was getting at is we don’t have 17 year old incels showing up in Newark or New York brandishing their AR-15s looking to shoot someone.

Kyle Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. No one is disputing the legality of what he did. The American “justice” system does not attempt to be fair or moral (by design). How one can defend a 17 year old bringing an AR-15 to a protest with people he specifically doesn’t like - then killing two of them is beyond me. That is just sick.

 

[Charmflash]

Kyle Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. No one is disputing the legality of what he did. The American “justice” system does not attempt to be fair or moral (by design). How one can defend a 17 year old bringing an AR-15 to a protest with people he specifically doesn’t like - then killing two of them is beyond me. That is just sick.

The problem is that you are zooming out way too hard. Generally "then killing two of them" is inexcusable except for a few very extraordinary circumstances. Like for example idk maybe if those two were attempting to murder somebody.