America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

Teach proper sex ed and the cost of raising a child to people and there will probably not be a need to regulate the population.

 

[Danoff]

Teach proper sex ed and the cost of raising a child to people and there will probably not be a need to regulate the population.

It's a self-correcting thing anyway. Costs rise as population density grows, putting a downward pressure on peoples' interest in having children. If governments are adhering to human rights, they can't make contraception illegal, so people have control over their reproduction. And if parents try to avoid responsibility by refusing to provide food, clothing, medical care, or education, that can be corrected by protecting the rights of the child.

Like you say, no real need to regulate the population.

 

[Grayfox]

Because, the First amendment of the US Constitution

What does free speech have to do with abortion?

Some pollies dont like it because it is a "sin" in the bible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What does free speech have to do with abortion?

Huh? Presuming that you're not being sarcastic... no business should have to undertake an action in support of idea they don't agree with regardless of how horrible their thinking may seem to any other minority or majority.

 

[mustafur]

America is broken: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...urglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.7a0bcf7fe875

 

[WhoosierGirl]

What does free speech have to do with abortion?

Some pollies dont like it because it is a "sin" in the bible.

The first line of the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as I was taught this is the establishment clause, which means the state or federal government can not establish a church, pass laws to aid religion, or prefer one religion over another.

So your religious beliefs or the "pollies" beliefs should not legislate birth control.

 

[DK]

Robert Mueller will investigate transactions by the Trump Organisation as part of the probe on possible Russian interference in last year's election.

 

[FoRiZon]

Well, that's horrible news that nobody wants to hear. A particularly nasty cancer too - I hope commentators are able to leave politics aside in this matter.

More heartwarming when I see this.


Had 2016 election be like this, most of people in the world, including myself, would hold America at the highest regard.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary

 

[UKMikey]

Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary

I guess that woman who does impressions of him on Saturday Night Live is going to have to look for a new job now.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I guess that woman who does impressions of him on Saturday Night Live is going to have to look for a new job now.

She bears a passing resemblance to Huckabee Sanders so I doubt she'll skip a beat.

 

[Imari]

Had 2016 election be like this, most of people in the world, including myself, would hold America at the highest regard.

This is what I feel politics should be like. People who have disagreements about how a country should be run, but can respect the skill and service and dedication that they each have for that country.

 

[Joey D]

I totally agree I wish politics in America was less about how terrible of a person is and more about the issues. I think if people respectively disagreed and talked about it, more people would listen and we'd be better off. I'm sure it's like that in other countries but I don't have enough experience to say that's true one way or another.

 

[BobK]

I totally agree I wish politics in America was less about how terrible of a person is and more about the issues. I think if people respectively disagreed and talked about it, more people would listen and we'd be better off. I'm sure it's like that in other countries but I don't have enough experience to say that's true one way or another.

Mudslinging has always been a factor in politics but it seems that this millennium it has come to pretty much dominate political "discussion" and certainly campaigns.

That being said, I agree we'd be better off if we had actual discussion.

 

[polysmut]

I guess that woman who does impressions of him on Saturday Night Live is going to have to look for a new job now.

She does alright for work.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I totally agree I wish politics in America was less about how terrible of a person is and more about the issues. I think if people respectively disagreed and talked about it, more people would listen and we'd be better off. I'm sure it's like that in other countries but I don't have enough experience to say that's true one way or another.

Those days are long gone. You can thank social media, twitter, Youtube et. al. for that. Everyone has a say now but not everyone has something intelligent to say.

 

[UKMikey]

She does alright for work.

No duh...

 

[polysmut]

Those days are long gone. You can thank social media, twitter, Youtube et. al. for that. Everyone has a say now but not everyone has something intelligent to say.

I think blaming social media for the fact that the top political players in the country campaign negatively is a touch facile.

 

[Liquid]

I think blaming social media for the fact that the top political players in the country campaign negatively is a touch facile.

True but there's also the point that 24/7 micronews and accessibility means that not only do politicians have the platforms to be graceful or tactless by their own choice but the public also has the means to be as contrarian, sycophantic or blind as they want on a stage where everyone can see at every given moment.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think blaming social media for the fact that the top political players in the country campaign negatively is a touch facile.

The post I responded to talked about people in general or at least that's the way I read it. In a world where everyone has a say and everyone looks relatively equal in doing so, you're going to have discourse that ranges from rational to the absurd. The days of respectively disagreeing and resulting discussion are fast disappearing until someone comes along to change the narrative. IMO Obama started the ball rolling by constantly whining about Fox News and it's pundits and Trump has taken it to a level I never thought I'd see in a major political figure. Now that the floodgates are open they're going to be awfully hard to close.

 

[Biggles]

The post I responded to talked about people in general or at least that's the way I read it. In a world where everyone has a say and everyone looks relatively equal in doing so, you're going to have discourse that ranges from rational to the absurd. The days of respectively disagreeing and resulting discussion are fast disappearing until someone comes along to change the narrative. IMO Obama started the ball rolling by constantly whining about Fox News and it's pundits and Trump has taken it to a level I never thought I'd see in a major political figure. Now that the floodgates are open they're going to be awfully hard to close.

I'm not sure that you don't have it backwards. Fox News started the ball rolling with it's hyper aggressive commentary from people like O'Reilly & Hannity & increasingly partisan general reporting & commentary. Obama occasionally commentated (hardly "constantly whining") about Fox coverage. But the reality is, that kind of focused partisan coverage drew great ratings, so Fox had no commercial reason (let alone an ideological one) to stop doing it.

Since Trump has arrived on the scene, CNN has become totally obsessed with Trump, more & more partisan & is now almost unwatchable for general news coverage ... and guess what? It's ratings have soared. Apparently, MSNBC's ratings have increased by an even greater amount. In a divided country with an increasingly fragmented media landscape, creating a strong niche audience seems to be a successful strategy. Stephen Colbert's show is an even more striking example of this.

 

[DK]

I'm amazed no-one's talking about Kushner's behind-closed-doors and not-under-oath testimony before Congress. Has /r/The_Dorito_Cult failed to come up with a coherent party line yet?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not sure that you don't have it backwards. Fox News started the ball rolling with it's hyper aggressive commentary from people like O'Reilly & Hannity & increasingly partisan general reporting & commentary. Obama occasionally commentated (hardly "constantly whining") about Fox coverage. But the reality is, that kind of focused partisan coverage drew great ratings, so Fox had no commercial reason (let alone an ideological one) to stop doing it.

Since Trump has arrived on the scene, CNN has become totally obsessed with Trump, more & more partisan & is now almost unwatchable for general news coverage ... and guess what? It's ratings have soared. Apparently, MSNBC's ratings have increased by an even greater amount. In a divided country with an increasingly fragmented media landscape, creating a strong niche audience seems to be a successful strategy. Stephen Colbert's show is an even more striking example of this.

Have what backwards? It's not a who threw the first stone situation, it's a first President to constantly whine about media bias situation. I don't recall President Bush complaining constantly about individual commentators or networks the way Obama did. In the past Presidents were above that sort of juvenile nonsense. Obama was the first President to my recollection that constantly acknowledged the press. Once you acknowledge individual commentators and media outlets you put them on a pedestal. That wasn't his intent I'm sure, his intent was to discredit them and that worked with his base, but the other side probably said to themselves, "we're getting under his skin, keep it up". It was high school stuff and it obviously backfired tremendously because look who got elected after him. Like it or not, Obama is the forefather to Trump's actions today, Trump just took it 10 steps further than anyone thought possible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Have what backwards? It's not a who threw the first stone situation, it's a first President to constantly whine about media bias situation. I don't recall President Bush complaining constantly about individual commentators or networks the way Obama did. In the past Presidents were above that sort of juvenile nonsense. Obama was the first President to my recollection that constantly acknowledged the press. Once you acknowledge individual commentators and media outlets you put them on a pedestal. That wasn't his intent I'm sure, his intent was to discredit them and that worked with his base, but the other side probably said to themselves, "we're getting under his skin, keep it up". It was high school stuff and it obviously backfired tremendously because look who got elected after him. Like it or not, Obama is the forefather to Trump's actions today, Trump just took it 10 steps further than anyone thought possible.

Half-a-like for half-agreeing

 

[DK]

Anyone heard anything about sleet or snow in Hell? Breitbart has just attacked Trump!

Maybe Bannon thinks Sessions losing out in the late 80s on becoming a federal judge due to concerns over racism makes him more of a martyr than Trump getting sued for discrimination in housing back in the 70s.

 

[andrea]

Imagine announcing that on Twitter.

 

[Danoff]

Imagine announcing that on Twitter.

"burdened".... the US military budget can't handle the burden. Unbelievable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"burdened".... the US military budget can't handle the burden. Unbelievable.

It is a huge burden - presumably if they get shot then they need boy AND girl medicine. Seemples.

 

[Touring Mars]

Imagine announcing that on Twitter.

If only the first and last tweets weren't there.

 

[Liquid]

Yeah, because it's GI Joe not GI Josephine who conspicuously has a beard (!)

I would be very interested to know exactly what the consultation with US armed forces top brass actually was.