America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

So when you call him the Orange One it isn't bashing?

I thought y'all would find it funny, guess not.

Post a link, and I'll be happy to say that it's inappropriate then too.

I don't think he's done a show recent enough to include AOC. He's been getting locked up a lot lately.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why what I said is a problem. Imari mentioned something about sexual assault, I don't recall mentioning anything about assaulting her. Obviously I wouldn't give it to her if she didn't want it. So again, what is the problem except a group of people here don't like the joke?

Lets say someone made the same comment about your wife/GF. Would you find it offensive? I dont see why AOC being Latina was relevant to your comment?

Most importantly you need to understand whith whom you are making the joke. Your joke may not translate well on this forum.

 

[BobK]

I'm thinking it's a cultural type thing; I didn't see it as an intention to force himself on her. I've said similar myself, often suffixed with "but she'd have to ask me really nicely".

 

[TenEightyOne]

The only thing AOC would get from me, is the...wait I can't say that here.

Is it fair to say that that sort of sentiment is part of the problem?

I think it's the case that @ryzno finds AOC eminently tappable and has expressed that. If his comments reduced her to an objectification that he finds attractive and nothing else then I think it'd be more problematic and I'd be amongst the first to take issue with him, as it were. Personally I think she's keenly intelligent, driven, well-spoken, suitably liberal and very hot. Sue me

In other news Israel, in occupied territory recognised by nobody but themselves and the US, are naming a settlement "Trump Heights"... although creation of the settlement doesn't even seem to be legal in Israeli law at the moment due to an impending election.

EDIT: In other OTHER news... Ivanka Trump, presidential candidate 2024, a professorial politics friend of mine has a £10 bet with me that it will happen. Don't know why I took the bet, the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Sorry, I just could not make it past the 3 minute mark. He has absolutely no substance or character. He can't actually speak on a matter, all he can seem to do is wag his &!@$ around like it's impressive and denigrate anyone against him.

That is pretty sad. He is the President.

People will say things about him, but they only say things about him that they have heard from within the left wing bubble in which they reside.

God forbid they actually listen to the man.

Pathetic.

 

[Rallywagon]

Bet you wouldn't be so keen to call me pathetic without the protection of your keyboard and anonymity.

 

[Dennisch]

My keyboard is bigger than yours.

 

[TenEightyOne]

People will say things about him, but they only say things about him that they have heard from within the left wing bubble in which they reside.

God forbid they actually listen to the man.

Trump gives plenty of opportunity to listen to his words directly and to read his ramblings on Twitter. Is that a left wing bubble?

 

[Joey D]

That is pretty sad. He is the President.

People will say things about him, but they only say things about him that they have heard from within the left wing bubble in which they reside.

God forbid they actually listen to the man.

Pathetic.

Ya, so I'm pretty far from being on the left and I don't think for an instances that Trump deserves to be president. He deserves to be impeached for violating the Constitution and he deserves all the ire he gets for being a an incompetent fool.

I'm not sure how any true conservative can support Trump. He's clearly anti Second Amendment with his whole let's make law abiding bump stock and suppressor owners felons overnight. He also is bailing out farmers because of his illegal tariffs, wants to dictate how businesses should run, wants to waste a bunch of tax dollars on a wall, wants to ignore the system of checks and balances, and pretty much just wants to golf all the time...something the right heavily criticized Obama for.

Trump is like the combination of the worst ideals from both sides wrapped up in one, huge, money wasting package. He's not fit to be president, however he'd be perfect as a political talk show host on Fox News or CNN since that's about the level of knowledge he has. He could spout whatever nonsense he wanted on the two networks that have no clue what news really is.

But if you do think Trump is worthy of the office, then please, explain to me how "conservatives" can look past Trump's Communist and liberal ideals?

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure how any true conservative can support Trump.

In America today almost everybody is having an identity crisis. We live in the era of almost total polarization over identity, and there are a super-plethora of identities to choose from. I identity as an anti-war libertarian - a pathetically tiny minority with almost nobody to represent me. So who do I choose when the choice is limited to two severely damaged people, Trump or Clinton? I, like many truly conservative people (I wear both belt and suspenders), choose the person who will leave a legacy of conservative Constitutionalist appointments to the Supreme Court, and ignore all other considerations as passing and superficial, hoping they will avoid nuclear Armageddon.

 

[Rallywagon]

My keyboard is bigger than yours.

It's not about size. It's about the fact that people who usually dont have the want to be a tough guy in normal life suddenly think it's alright to disparage because of their anonymity. If not called out, I feel this place will fast become another internet cesspool.

 

[Dennisch]

If not called out, I feel this place will fast become another internet cesspool.

That's why I tried to lighten up the mood here.

 

[Daz555]

People will say things about him, but they only say things about him that they have heard from within the left wing bubble in which they reside.

God forbid they actually listen to the man.

I have heard the lies come straight from his mouth in live TV interviews. I have read his tweets - blimey his tweets say it all really. I'd laugh at the US for having the Mango Mussolini in charge but sadly my own nation is also such an embarrassing shambles (UK) that this prevents me from doing so.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

It's not about size. It's about the fact that people who usually dont have the want to be a tough guy in normal life suddenly think it's alright to disparage because of their anonymity. If not called out, I feel this place will fast become another internet cesspool.

But yet your reply transmits the same message as another idle insinuated threat in what you would do if that person made the same remarks while in your physical presence.

So you are just as much a keyboard warrior in your own rights and comments so how are you any different?

 

[Rallywagon]

That's why I tried to lighten up the mood here.

Fair enough. Hard to guess sarcasm some times and I was replying much to early.

But yet your reply transmits the same message as another idle insinuated threat in what you would do if that person made the same remarks while in your physical presence.

So you are just as much a keyboard warrior in your own rights and comments so how are you any different?

It may have been a tad passive aggressive, but I hardly see calling someone out for using language online that they wouldn't mince in public is hardly threatening or disparaging.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

but I hardly see calling someone out for using language online that they wouldn't mince in public is hardly threatening or disparaging.

Calling them out or bringing attention to their comment okay, I see that and do not disagree.

But the part of insinuating what may happen to them if they did it to your face is in my opinion also using online anonymity to safely put on an act of being the tough guy, exactly what you were calling the other person out for doing.

Ever hear of the pot meets kettle? What you said is about a textbook example of that you will ever see.

 

[Rallywagon]

When did I insinuate? I have doubts he would say it to my face. I'd concede the point if I had say something like "say that to my face and see what happens." but I didn't did I. I think you are reading into more than is there.

 

[Daz555]

But the part of insinuating what may happen to them if they did it to your face is in my opinion also using online anonymity to safely put on an act of being the tough guy, exactly what you were calling the other person out for doing.

I have read up through the posts. Where did they insinuate that something would happen if it was done to their face? I can't find anything of the sort.

 

[Danoff]

So who do I choose when the choice is limited to two severely damaged people, Trump or Clinton?

3rd party. Don't throw your vote away.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Bet you wouldn't be so keen to call me pathetic without the protection of your keyboard and anonymity.

When did I insinuate?

Where did they insinuate that something would happen if it was done to their face?

The first above quote is where I draw the assumption of a threat within the post, more specifically the "you wouldn't be so keen to call me pathetic" and the " "without the protection".

If a person was not being threatened why would they require protection?

 

[Danoff]

It's not about size. It's about the fact that people who usually dont have the want to be a tough guy in normal life suddenly think it's alright to disparage because of their anonymity. If not called out, I feel this place will fast become another internet cesspool.

I tend to agree with your interpretation. I think that the mistake here is that people are assuming that this statement was made in the physical presence of the person. So for example, suppose that two people are physically together in a room and one of them hears something and says "say that to my face". That's a threat. But when someone online says "you wouldn't say that to my face" it could be a threat, but it could also be an accusation of being a keyboard warrior, or someone who is behaving very differently because of the veil of anonymity, and who is being called upon to treat others as they might treat them in person. In short (too late), to remember that the person on the other end is a real individual and should be treated with some respect.

I think we've debated this one in that past too, and that conversation has stuck with me since then.

 

[jjaisli]

3rd party. Don't throw your vote away.

I understand that this is something which Libertarian minding people have a difficult time accepting. But let's a face it, the fact is, the United States *IS* a two party system. I don't like it, but let's call a spade a spade. And voting for an independent, at least for a federal position, amounts to throwing your vote away. Unless you're just voting against somebody or voting in protest. Be in John Anderson or Ross Perot, I can't think of anybody running for the executive office in my lifetime who stood a legitimate chance of being elected. It's the reason Bernie Sanders, an independent, tried to run as a Democrat. And heaven help us if an independent is ever elected because he or she is likely to receive no support from either 'clan'. And people will quickly learn the real meaning of the word stalemate.

As time goes by, and both sides move further to extremes, they may eventually open up the middle ground for a 3rd party. Or multiple parties. But as it stands today...

 

[Danoff]

I understand that this is something which Libertarian minding people have a difficult time accepting. But let's a face it, the fact is, the United States *IS* a two party system. I don't like it, but let's call a spade a spade. And voting for an independent, at least for a federal position, amounts to throwing your vote away. Unless you're just voting against somebody or voting in protest. Be in John Anderson or Ross Perot, I can't think of anybody running for the executive office in my lifetime who stood a legitimate chance of being elected. It's the reason Bernie Sanders, an independent, tried to run as a Democrat. And heaven help us if an independent is ever elected because he or she is likely to receive no support from either 'clan'. And people will quickly learn the real meaning of the word stalemate.

As time goes by, and both sides move further to extremes, they may eventually open up the middle ground for a 3rd party. Or multiple parties. But as it stands today...

Think for a moment about what it means to throw your vote away, or for a vote to be meaningful. If you vote for the winner was your vote meaningful? What about if you voted for the 1st loser? What about if you voted for the winner but you don't actually stand for what the winner stands for?

 

[jjaisli]

What I'm suggesting is that NO independent has stood even a snowball's chance in at least 50 years.

Let me put it this way, had he won the democratic nomination, I would have considered voting for Bernie Sanders (though I think many of his ideas are not sustainable). I likely would NOT have considered voting for him had he run as an independent, both because I doubt he could have won as an independent and because he would have been the ultimate lame duck if had managed to pull it off, nearly powerless to push through his agenda and without strong reforms necessary to fund his ideas, nothing would have changed.

 

[Joey D]

So who do I choose when the choice is limited to two severely damaged people, Trump or Clinton?

You choose the candidate that most represents you whether they stand a chance at winning or not.

And voting for an independent, at least for a federal position, amounts to throwing your vote away.

I don't believe it's throwing my vote away. In the last election, if I would've cast a vote for either Trump or Clinton, I'd felt like I was throwing my vote away since neither was qualified to be president.

Granted, I did not vote Libertarian in 2016 at least on the presidential side of things. I did vote for Evan McMullin though who got 22% of the votes in Utah. He had a legit chance at winning the state. While Utah only has 6 electoral votes and really wouldn't have made a difference in the grand scheme of things, having McMullin win the state would've sent a message.

Locally, I just vote for whoever isn't Mormon.

 

[Danoff]

What I'm suggesting is that NO independent has stood even a snowball's chance in at least 50 years.

Let me put it this way, had he won the democratic nomination, I would have considered voting for Bernie Sanders (though I think many of his ideas are not sustainable). I likely would NOT have considered voting for him had he run as an independent, both because I doubt he could have won as an independent and because he would have been the ultimate lame duck if had managed to pull it off, nearly powerless to push through his agenda and without strong reforms necessary to fund his ideas, nothing would have changed.

And your vote only has meaning if you voted for the winner? Or perhaps if you voted for someone with some kind of statistical likelihood of winning?

 

[jjaisli]

I don't want to be misunderstood. In a democratic society we should not "waste" the power we have vested in ourselves. And if you feel there is a candidate that best supports your views and agenda, by all means, vote for them. And encourage others to vote for them as well. I understand how the tone of my writing likely comes across and there is a case against being so pragmatic that we're essentially giving up democratic freedoms and rights of choice by doing so. And yes, in a state election, I would agree, that's another animal.

You certainly weren't alone in thinking that neither main party candidate represented your views. But I think enough people, who were on the fence, chose to do exactly that. Donald Trump didn't win this election because he managed to gain the support of the people. Clinton lost the election because not enough people cared (about her, her policies, her ideals, etc) to vote, period. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for either Romney or McCain in the previous two elections. And yet Trump still won. Hilary Clinton was pretty much a lock in my state. And I wasn't a big fan. So I'm embarrassed to admit, I didn't vote in the last election. Something I very much regret.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I don't believe it's throwing my vote away. In the last election, if I would've cast a vote for either Trump or Clinton, I'd felt like I was throwing my vote away since neither was qualified to be president.

But since you already knew one of the two Trump or Clinton would win the election and run the country for the next 4 years did you not prefer the policies of one over the other as being better for the country?

Sometimes voting for the lesser of two evils if they are the only legitimate choices presented to keep the greater of the evil out of the office is the smart move.

And yes it is my opinion that currently in this country voting an irrelevant 3rd party candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning is not using what vote you do have for the good of our country.

 

[jjaisli]

Sometimes voting for the lesser of two evils if they are the only legitimate choices presented to keep the greater of the evil out of the office is the smart move.

And yes it is my opinion that currently in this country voting an irrelevant 3rd party candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning is not using what vote you do have for the good of our country.

Yes, more or less what I was trying to say. (I'm trying to work here and the older I get the more I seem to fail at effective multitasking).

 

[Joey D]

But since you already knew one of the two Trump or Clinton would win the election and run the country for the next 4 years did you not prefer the policies of one over the other as being better for the country?

Not even a little bit. I thought both options were horrendous for the country and neither had policies that I thought were good. I've said this many times, but it's worth mentioning again. Democrats and Republicans, at least modern ones are largely the same.