American Politics

[trystan]

1 hour ago, AngelsSin said:

Apparently doesn't understand religious liberty includes all religions.

none of the xian nationalists do - they think xianity is dying and they're being persecuted.

I'm pretty sure most xians don't even know what that means. (I mean, they know definitions and all, but they don't know.)

 

1 hour ago, AngelsSin said:

you can wave the truth in front of their faces but they can't accept anything else but what they want to believe.

and they'll tell you the truth is 'fake news.'

I know not to engage with them, my boss is one.  we haven't had a political conversation since sometime back in 2016.  and then I moved all the way to the other side of PA.  i still work for her, but I work from home now.  

[AngelsSin]

27 minutes ago, trystan said:

and they'll tell you the truth is 'fake news.'

Lol i hear that a lot from them. If i say anything i get fake news if i say anything opposing them they get angry and tell me to "stop".

Apparently only they are allowed to comment on politics, I am not.

Usually i avoid the topic but sometimes i just can't let what they say slide.

Edited December 17, 2023 by AngelsSin

[purpledragonclaw]

3 hours ago, Jamari said:

You fail to see the truth of the matter. I'm merely conveying a statement of fact from an unbiased source. Joe Biden was untruthful with the public. If you have a problem with the House of Representatives discovery of the facts as of Dec. 16 2023, you'll need to take that up with them.

 

You actually didn't provide a source. You posted a screenshot with a link to the general msn website, but not the story on the site to support your claims.

[trystan]

30 minutes ago, AngelsSin said:

Apparently only they are allowed to comment on politics, I am not.

Usually i avoid the topic but sometimes i just can't let what they say slide.

exactly *sigh*

[Fuzzbucket]

Don't sigh. Just use the ignore button.  

[purplehaze]

33 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Don't sigh. Just use the ignore button.  

No "ignore" button in person, though! Sadly!

[Fuzzbucket]

Is so. Go to your profile top left, and ignored users is in the drop-down menu. I see their posts no more, though I can click to see them if I want.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Fuzzbucket

[trystan]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Is so. Go to your profile top left, and ignored users is in the drop-down menu. I see their posts no more, though I can click to see them if I want.

well yes.

but, as purple is saying,  there's no ignore button if they're in your presence in real life 

[Fuzzbucket]

Oh. um. co!our  me not very bright 

[trystan]

7 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Oh. um. co!our  me not very bright 

ah, you're fine.

[Aldarion]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:22 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

What exactly counts as right wing for you?

 

Basically this.

On 12/16/2023 at 11:22 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

Several countries where wind is extensively used would disagree.  And take a look at the Orkneys. But as you are right, whatever I say, I'm out.

Yes, "several countries". But you are making a mistake of assuming that just because something occasionally works, it always works.

 

How many countries are where that is actually a viable solution?

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/renewable-energy-cant-replace-fossil-fuels

 

Problem with your "whatever you say" is that most of it is wishful thinking. At this point you are arguing that "we have to use wind/solar/whatever power because it sounds nice". Unfortunately, reality doesn't care about what sounds nice.

On 12/15/2023 at 9:11 PM, purpledragonclaw said:

You're still not providing me with a source. And it's unprecedented because we have a sizeable chunk of the Republican party, including the 2024 leading presidential candidate, talking about jailing political opponents, locking non-Christians and immigrants in cages, and executing people who they feel have impeded their mission. Show me where the Left has done this in America ever, because that's the unprecedented situation I'm talking about.

 

I mostly move in right-wing circles and I have literally never come across anyone proposing any of what you have listed.

 

Extremists do, of course (or at least so I assume - as I said, haven't seen it myself). But you have extremists everywhere, and those on the Left are hardly any better. As a matter of fact, leftists in Croatia talk about that all of that all the time (of course, targets are obviously different). And not only do they talk about it, they have historically done all of it, and worse.

On 12/15/2023 at 9:11 PM, purpledragonclaw said:

You're providing a source from The Heritage Foundation, which is the Conservative thinktank that birthed Project 2025. Do you have a more neutral source?

 

I don't think a "neutral source" is something that even exists.

 

Best "neutral" source would be actual video evidence, but that would be difficult at best. As it is, we are left with interpretations, and these are not neutral by their very nature.

On 12/15/2023 at 9:11 PM, purpledragonclaw said:

You may consider the Democrats to be Left, but they are not. There are Democrats like AOC that are Left, but the majority of the party are not.

 

Why do you think they are not the Left?

[TCA]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Basically this.

Hey, as someone who grew up around this kind of ideology and mindset, I say this with compassion: you're not doing yourself any favors by sticking to arbitrary definitions of 'left', 'right', etc. that you happen to like more than what's commonly in use by participants who are trying to establish a dialogue between all sides involved.

 

Most everyone else is approaching "left" and "right" with something approximating the Wikipedia definition, and it'll be much easier to communicate what you intend, and understand what others are communicating, if you at least humor that that's what is generally meant and understood by those terms.

 

I know that's not comfortable because if you're wrong about one thing, you could end up being wrong about other things and have to end up confronting things about your own views on what's right and wrong and what's helpful and what's harmful, but...

 

...speaking from personal experience and from psychological studies, the more small and isolated and self-serving a group of people is, the less they are willing to help and support others who aren't exactly like them. The particular link I quoted out of you sounds all fine and reasonable and all on the surface, until you start picking apart the realities of implementing such things in reality. Most people would not be better off in such a world, in part because you cannot control for all differences, and people who are already used to treating everyone outside of their in-group as "the other" are more likely to be cruel to people who don't fit in. I've been bullied both online and offline for being autistic, and it's been much worse in right-wing groups and groups where you're "not allowed to discuss politics", which always means that there's a mix of ideologies.

[purpledragonclaw]

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Basically this.

 

Did you write this yourself?

 

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I mostly move in right-wing circles and I have literally never come across anyone proposing any of what you have listed.

 

Mike Davis has said he wants to put kids in cages and deport anchor babies, their parents, and their grandparents.

 

Trump has said immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.

 

Trump said he wouldn't mind being dictator for a day.

 

Trump wants to lock up his political opponents if he becomes president again.

 

Trump compares his political opponents to "vermin" and wants to "root them out."

 

I have moved in right-wing circles too, and if you haven't heard this rhetoric (and far worse than what I will list in this forum) you're not following sources that would share that information with their audience. And at this point, if they're not, that's intentional.

 

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Extremists do, of course (or at least so I assume - as I said, haven't seen it myself). But you have extremists everywhere, and those on the Left are hardly any better. As a matter of fact, leftists in Croatia talk about that all of that all the time (of course, targets are obviously different). And not only do they talk about it, they have historically done all of it, and worse.

 

Nothing I linked is extremist. You also keep using the straw man of the Left in other countries, but are not giving any examples in America where this has happened. After three posts asking for information, I'm going to assume you can't. 

 

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I don't think a "neutral source" is something that even exists.

 

I didn't ask you for a neutral source, I asked you for a "more neutral source." There's a difference, one you chose to ignore.

 

I'm done engaging with you as well after this. The way you debate and the sources you provide, plus how you have been reading and reacting to posts here, does not show me you're open to accepting new information. I also can't debate with strawmen arguments.

Edited December 20, 2023 by purpledragonclaw

[Aldarion]

3 hours ago, TCA said:

Hey, as someone who grew up around this kind of ideology and mindset, I say this with compassion: you're not doing yourself any favors by sticking to arbitrary definitions of 'left', 'right', etc. that you happen to like more than what's commonly in use by participants who are trying to establish a dialogue between all sides involved.

 

Most everyone else is approaching "left" and "right" with something approximating the Wikipedia definition, and it'll be much easier to communicate what you intend, and understand what others are communicating, if you at least humor that that's what is generally meant and understood by those terms.

Problem is that "Left" and "Right" is locally variable and very relative. Croatian right wing, which is what I am familiar with, is not necessarily similar at all to, say, American right wing. And as I have said, both HDZ and SDP in Croatia are heirs of the Communist Party and thus left-wing by default.

 

What I know about American Right is that they basically support individualism, oppose state or organizational intervention in their life and want to hold onto traditional values because they see them as necessary to raising people who are self-sufficient.

3 hours ago, TCA said:

...speaking from personal experience and from psychological studies, the more small and isolated and self-serving a group of people is, the less they are willing to help and support others who aren't exactly like them. The particular link I quoted out of you sounds all fine and reasonable and all on the surface, until you start picking apart the realities of implementing such things in reality. Most people would not be better off in such a world, in part because you cannot control for all differences, and people who are already used to treating everyone outside of their in-group as "the other" are more likely to be cruel to people who don't fit in. I've been bullied both online and offline for being autistic, and it's been much worse in right-wing groups and groups where you're "not allowed to discuss politics", which always means that there's a mix of ideologies.

Yet larger the group, less likely is it to be capable of implementing things capable of satisfying all or even most of its members, which means that leadership of larger group is - unless group is heavily decentralized - more liable to default to usage of force or generally oppression to generate compliance.

 

It is always a tradeoff.

57 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Did you write this yourself?

 

Yes.

58 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Mike Davis has said he wants to put kids in cages and deport anchor babies, their parents, and their grandparents.

 

Trump has said immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.

 

Trump said he wouldn't mind being dictator for a day.

 

Trump wants to lock up his political opponents if he becomes president again.

 

Trump compares his political opponents to "vermin" and wants to "root them out."

 

I have moved in right-wing circles too, and if you haven't heard this rhetoric (and far worse than what I will list in this forum) you're not following sources that would share that information with their audience. And at this point, if they're not, that's intentional.

Thanks. Yeah, these are definitely problematic.

 

But no, I generally do not follow American sources at all unless there is something that interests me. And things that do interest me are things that are likely to "jump the pond", so to speak.

1 hour ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Nothing I linked is extremist. You also keep using the straw man of the Left in other countries, but are not giving any examples in America where this has happened. After three posts asking for information, I'm going to assume you can't. 

 

I keep giving examples of other countries because I am more familiar with them than American politics. But politicians are same everywhere.

 

As for examples, I believe I already have given some, at least in terms of book censorship:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/conservative-liberal-book-bans-differ-amid-rise-literary/story?id=96267846

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-the-aclu-want-to-ban-my-book-11605475898

https://www.realclearbooks.com/2020/11/16/does_the_aclu_want_to_ban_my_book_649869.html

 

The only difference is that Left generally doesn't need to resort to governmental laws to ban books. They do it through soft power: again to use Croatia as an example, why bother banning books when you can easily make sure that any undesireable book will never even get printed in the first place? And in Australia same thing happens:

https://catholicleader.com.au/news/australia/author-who-claims-discrimination-by-printer-refusing-to-print-book-accepts-decision-says-he-wont-take-action/

 

I have also managed to find examples by the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/01/19/publishers-and-authors-manifesto-we-wont-publish-books-by-people-who-were-in-the-trump-administration/

https://newrepublic.com/article/158166/book-publishings-next-battle-conservative-authors

https://www.thesfnews.com/publishers-refusing-to-publish-memoirs-by-conservative-politicians/72920

 

And there was also pressure by other authors onto publisher to cancel Justice Barrett's book:

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/05/penguin-refuses-to-stop-publishing-justice-amy-coney-barretts-book/

[purpledragonclaw]

37 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

I have also managed to find examples by the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/01/19/publishers-and-authors-manifesto-we-wont-publish-books-by-people-who-were-in-the-trump-administration/

https://newrepublic.com/article/158166/book-publishings-next-battle-conservative-authors

https://www.thesfnews.com/publishers-refusing-to-publish-memoirs-by-conservative-politicians/72920

 

And there was also pressure by other authors onto publisher to cancel Justice Barrett's book:

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/05/penguin-refuses-to-stop-publishing-justice-amy-coney-barretts-book/

 

What these describe is capitalism and the free market at work. Publishers deciding not to do business with people is a business decision. Not the same thing as government censorship through banning books in schools via state law. This isn't the Left at work, these companies just want to make as much money with as little controversy as possible. And if you check donation histories for these companies, they don't tend to skew Left. I could go on a whole rant about corporatocracy and its outsized influence on politics, but that's another topic.

 

Thank you for taking the time to address my post and read my links. I now have a better understanding for where you source your info, and why it's not as informed on the state of American politics.

 

 

[requiesticat]

18 hours ago, TCA said:

Hey, as someone who grew up around this kind of ideology and mindset, I say this with compassion: you're not doing yourself any favors by sticking to arbitrary definitions of 'left', 'right', etc. that you happen to like more than what's commonly in use by participants who are trying to establish a dialogue between all sides involved.

 

Unfortunately it's difficult to change people's mindsets once they're indoctrinated. They fully believe they are in the right to harbor viewpoints that actively cause harm, insisting that noone should tell them what to do while taking the word of politicians who do just that as gospel. At times it borders on brainwashing, and it's honestly disturbing how willingly people buy into this, especially when it comes to conservatives. While I'm not trying to imply you're doing this here, in general, challenging these views will be met with resistance, and ultimately devolve into an argument that frustrates both sides. Not worth the frustration.

 

Quote

...speaking from personal experience and from psychological studies, the more small and isolated and self-serving a group of people is, the less they are willing to help and support others who aren't exactly like them. The particular link I quoted out of you sounds all fine and reasonable and all on the surface, until you start picking apart the realities of implementing such things in reality. Most people would not be better off in such a world, in part because you cannot control for all differences, and people who are already used to treating everyone outside of their in-group as "the other" are more likely to be cruel to people who don't fit in. I've been bullied both online and offline for being autistic, and it's been much worse in right-wing groups and groups where you're "not allowed to discuss politics", which always means that there's a mix of ideologies.

 

I very much agree with this. There's a small section of the internet that consists of websites dedicated to harassing and doxxing individuals who are deemed as being "worthy of mockery" thanks to factors like these. They create a sort of cult-like rightwing environment that's easy to get sucked into, and even harder to escape. I know from experience that users who join these sites aren't exempt from scrutiny, as they can be turned on by the community if they disagree with how things are run, or reveal too much about their personal lives. It's ironic, that the userbases of these sites consist of people who judge others for "strange" behavior when they themselves willingly stalk their targets, and engage in illegal activity.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by requiesticat

[TCA]

6 hours ago, requiesticat said:

Unfortunately it's difficult to change people's mindsets once they're indoctrinated. They fully believe they are in the right to harbor viewpoints that actively cause harm, insisting that noone should tell them what to do while taking the word of politicians who do just that as gospel. At times it borders on brainwashing, and it's honestly disturbing how willingly people buy into this, especially when it comes to conservatives. While I'm not trying to imply you're doing this here, in general, challenging these views will be met with resistance, and ultimately devolve into an argument that frustrates both sides. Not worth the frustration.

 

I know it's extremely hard. Like I said, I grew up with parents who absolutely believed that kind of thing and was not exposed to particularly diverse groups as a kid (I think the most "diverse" it got was my middle school best friend being Jewish), and even though I'm naturally inquisitive and had a... passable... education when it came to history, it still took me until I was... about 19 to really start undoing the deeper roots of how fractally wrong the fundamental basis of the mindset I'd been told was right really was. And that took watching my parents spiral into worse versions of themselves in the wake of Trump's election. Or showing what they'd always believed but felt they could now express freely? I don't know. I don't know if I want to know.

 

But it did work on me eventually so sometimes I like to give it a shot, just in case.

[Jamari]

now, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I was taught in school, that in a democracy, anyone is free to run for office. Any office. If I'm wrong, someone please explain it to me ? I also know felons can't vote or run for office, but what about everyone else? Also, I am under the assumption that a person charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty? I'm confused.

[trystan]

27 minutes ago, Jamari said:

in a democracy, anyone is free to run for office. Any office. If I'm wrong, someone please explain it to me ?

this is correct, yes.

the Constitution sets laws for this, including who may not run in the 14th Amendment, Section 3:

Quote

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

i've bolded the parts to simplify the Amendment. 

there have been people who have been found to fit this description.

Judge removes local official for engaging in Jan. 6 'insurrection'

Edited December 21, 2023 by trystan

[Fuzzbucket]

Isn't there an exclusion for convicted felons ? I know there is in some individual states - like Florida, for one. And West Virginia you have to complete your sentence before you can run.

 

But it seems that there really are no such limits to run for federal office. That's actually quite appalling.

 

Then again: news just in:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-removed-colorado-ballot-2024-presidency-b2467139.html

Edited December 22, 2023 by Fuzzbucket

[Jamari]

Ok, that makes sense. But why did Pelos  block the National Guard from helping the police?  { on Jan 6th}  Maybe that would have saved that .police officers life? At least I think it was  a police officer I'm not positive.

Edited December 21, 2023 by purpledragonclaw

[Lagie]

3 hours ago, Jamari said:

Ok, that makes sense. But why did Pelos  block the National Guard from helping the police?  { on Jan 6th}  Maybe that would have saved that .police officers life? At least I think it was  a police officer I'm not positive.

She didn't.

[Jamari]

Thank you for the link Lagie. In addition to your link, I kept searching on other news on Jan 6th as well, and I'm sorry but your link is just a matter of someone's opinion. All the-articles I read seem to be just someone's opinion that wrote the article. Some say yes, she did, and some say she didn't. But thank you again for your input. 😉

Edited December 22, 2023 by Jamari

[purpledragonclaw]

3 hours ago, Jamari said:

Thank you for the link Lagie. In addition to your link, I kept searching on other news on Jan 6th as well, and I'm sorry but your link is just a matter of someone's opinion. All the-articles I read seem to be just someone's opinion that wrote the article. Some say yes, she did, and some say she didn't. But thank you again for your input. 😉

 

Lagie's article laid out the protocol which does not fall solely on her. That's not opinion. Do you also blame McConnell since he also had authority? 

[Jamari]

 

 

 I haven't blamed anybody for anything. I read her link, then I punched in other links. I never saw or mentioned 'McConell or read anything about McConell.  Every article I read had a different opinion. on Jan 6th She said "she didn't," and that's her opinion according to her link. I have no problem with that. I just don't see the fairness of your assumption that I "blame" her for anything. I do however blame Biden for the border crisis because I watched him sign the decree on television along with the rest of the planet. In my mind, the Jan 6 thing pales in comparison to the border crisis, I see  nothing more important than that, In my opinion.. And as you know, I've always had a problem with authority. 🫠

Edited December 22, 2023 by Jamari