US Politics - or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Don

[Week]

26 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

IMO, what this particular issue is that you have both parties treating minorities as nothing but a vote because they want to win. Once again I see very little difference in racism and bigotry.

Both parties treat them as a vote - yet one actively disenfranchises them treating them as less than a vote. And southern strategy, birtherism, etc. etc.

Not sure if it is willful ignorance or just ignorance, though your lack of effort is pretty apparent. 

[LongRider]

Quote

 

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross singled out changes to the nation’s free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada on Wednesday as “the first thing” he would address if confirmed to lead the Commerce Department in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration.

Speaking before the Senate Commerce Committee, Ross said that the United States should open its economic borders to countries that “play by the rules.” But those that do not, he said, “should be punished — severely.”

“I am not anti-trade. I am pro-trade,” Ross said. “But I am pro-sensible trade, not pro-trade that is to the disadvantage of the American worker and the American manufacturing community.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/18/commerce-nominee-ross-says-top-priority-is-renegotiating-nafta/

[DunderMifflin]

14 minutes ago, Week said:

Both parties treat them as a vote - yet one actively disenfranchises them treating them as less than a vote. And southern strategy, birtherism, etc. etc.

 

I don't think what you are saying is true though. Certainly not to any significant degree of difference between the two parties.

14 minutes ago, Week said:

 

Not sure if it is willful ignorance or just ignorance, though your lack of effort is pretty apparent. 

And this is clearly you just wanting to say something shitty. Why attempt to antagonize a civil debate with childishness?

[Week]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

And this is clearly you just wanting to say something shitty. Why attempt to antagonize a civil debate with childishness?

I didn't even ask for a cherry on top. Yay!

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

As far as Snowden is concerned, I don't think the mantle of "whistle blower" sits easily on him.  I don't think he wound up in Russia by accident.  The claim that he was trying to get to South America is a smokescreen.  Assange is nothing but a trafficker in stolen property.  His latest activities indicate he is allied with Putin.  I'd have no problem with lengthy incarceration for Snowden and Assange.

I think Assange is a piece of shit, but unless something more compelling comes out I have very major issues with any incarceration for him by the US. He's not a US citizen and as far as I can recall there has been no accusation he's done anything on US soil. For a foreign national to receive information that is classified in the US and then publish it is not a crime and the US reaching its long arm around the world to impose its laws on others is terrifying as a non-American. If he lands in the US and has broken your laws in doing this then OK, but extraditing him without him having been in the US for any of these alleged crimes or passing through the US is just not OK.

[Kalbear]

Rick Perry thought the Department of Energy was about oil and gas, not the actual nuclear energy stockpiles that the US has. He had no idea, and neither did Trump.

Quote

"WASHINGTON — When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.

In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal. 

 

 

[Sivin]

5 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I understand what you've said.  I resolved the conflict I felt in this manner.  If the army hadn't subjected her to excessive solitary confinement and confinement in an all male facility, I would have no problem with her serving her entire sentence.  Adding to this, the army's meting out additional punishment for her attempt to end her life, provided me with a clue of what they intended.  For those reasons, I have no problem with the sentence commutation.

As far as Snowden is concerned, I don't think the mantle of "whistle blower" sits easily on him.  I don't think he wound up in Russia by accident.  The claim that he was trying to get to South America is a smokescreen.  Assange is nothing but a trafficker in stolen property.  His latest activities indicate he is allied with Putin.  I'd have no problem with lengthy incarceration for Snowden and Assange.

As usual, you're on top of it from my perspextive. Fuck Snowden and fuck Assange, sorry Karradin but U.S. law is best law

Snowden fleeing justice tells me he committed a criminal act in his own mind and Assange committed espionage against this state. If his country wants to defend his actions I get it, hiding in an embassy for years on end is not acceptable.

ETA: I wonder if my continued unease with the Manning situation is from judging what she did from the perspective of soldier to soldier. And in a theater of war no less. 

Unless I've completely lost my stomach for politics I think that might be the only explanation.

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

There should be plenty of room since no one else seems to be going.

Nice.

40 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Rick Perry thought the Department of Energy was about oil and gas, not the actual nuclear energy stockpiles that the US has. He had no idea, and neither did Trump.

 

I tried to tell someone this weeks ago (what the department of Energy is) and he was completely unconcerned saying "these people know what they're doing".

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I tried to tell someone this week's ago (what the department of Energy is) and he was completely unconcerned saying "these people know what they're doing".

So, I guess four years ago, he wanted to eliminate the Dept of Energy (as soon as he remembered it, that is) because then he could deregulate the oil and gas industry.  Well doggone it!  He can't do that but perhaps he'll deregulate the nuclear industry instead for a consolation prize. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Clearing quote

 

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Rick Perry thought the Department of Energy was about oil and gas, not the actual nuclear energy stockpiles that the US has. He had no idea, and neither did Trump.

 

Wait until he finds out Department of the Interior employees are allowed outside

[karaddin]

I see we've circled back around to the "Americans I like express opinions which scare the shit out of me" segment of US Politics thread, not to be confused with the usual program of "Americans I don't like constantly scare the shit out of me". I know you're half joking Winterfox but that stuff is really really offputting. If Assange has broken a proper law, if he was specifically inciting Chelsea to steal the information and pass it on then you could bring a conspiracy charge, but just for being a general fucking asshole, taking information and publishing it? He's an Australian citizen, he has no duty to your country, he has no obligation to your country. Even the latest with publishing the Russian leaks to interfere with the election, his part is free of crime.

Fuck him for being a hypocritical piece of shit, but the US should not be able to just imprison anyone they like from anywhere in the world for not serving their interests.

[BloodRider]

7 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BR,

That's true.  However, lack of nuance and suggesting that racism is a binary examination (it is present or it is absent) serves to raise all actions however harmless or unintended to the level of slavery.

There needs to be a mean between these two positions.

No shit Scott.    That was kinda my point.  But you don't get to steal thousands of dollars and then cry that you are not a criminal because of Bernie Madoff when someone calls you a thief.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't think what you are saying is true though. Certainly not to any significant degree of difference between the two parties.

And this is clearly you just wanting to say something shitty. Why attempt to antagonize a civil debate with childishness?

Because what you do is not debate. It's a pedantic refusal to accept a widely considered truth. You can't even start to have a meaningful conversation with someone who refutes simple reality. 

[BloodRider]

5 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Regardless, I have no way to prove that the majority of race discussion is based on political affiliation. But I can prove there is A LOT of race discussion that is based on political affiliation. Which still supports my point. 

There is clearly something sinister going on when people treat voting Democrat as some sort of badge to chastise and preach to others about racism. As if voting for someone means youve done your part and now are so keenly aware of who and what is racist that your perception is flawless. 

Again I mean you in general not personally.

also , not singling out democrats here. Just using it as an example.

There is also a lot of science discussion is based on political affiliation.  Is evolution now a sinister Democratic plot?  Republicans were the ones to politicize these things - be it race, news, science.  They chose to be on the wrong side of reality and morality almost every damn time - and now they want to call it politics so they can continue their bullshit behavior.  Fuck that.  I have no sympathy for them when they find themselves on the pointy end.  

[Sivin]

7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I see we've circled back around to the "Americans I like express opinions which scare the shit out of me" segment of US Politics thread, not to be confused with the usual program of "Americans I don't like constantly scare the shit out of me". I know you're half joking Winterfox but that stuff is really really offputting. If Assange has broken a proper law, if he was specifically inciting Chelsea to steal the information and pass it on then you could bring a conspiracy charge, but just for being a general fucking asshole, taking information and publishing it? He's an Australian citizen, he has no duty to your country, he has no obligation to your country. Even the latest with publishing the Russian leaks to interfere with the election, his part is free of crime.

Fuck him for being a hypocritical piece of shit, but the US should not be able to just imprison anyone they like from anywhere in the world for not serving their interests.

An absolutely fair point of view, but my initial perspective is always to protect the welfare of this state and its citizens, I admit my bias. 

To be absolutely clear, I would expect Australia to protect Assange if the state thought he was free of wrongdoing. And thus the situation could be resolved in an official capacity.

The man hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy for 3 years accomplishes nothing. If him publishing ill gotten information is not a crime, his state and the aggrieved should hash the matter out and the result can form a basis of action going forward. Either don't publish those DNC emails because the Americans are going to come get you/impose sanctions on your country, or just avoid jaywalking if you're ever in New York. 

I am aware that the DNC emails are not state secrets, but they work for this example.

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because what you do is not debate. It's a pedantic refusal to accept a widely considered truth. You can't even start to have a conversation with someone who refutes simple reality. 

Nice use of "pedantic"! Just enough to be loud, not enough to detract from your statement.

[karaddin]

I really don't like the precedent of bullying countries because their private citizens do things you don't like without actually breaking any laws either though. Re: the hiding in the embassy - while his claim is that he's hiding from US charges, the legal mess he's currently in is with regards to Sweden where he is accused of actually breaking the law and is a different story. He should move his ass out of that embassy and face the music in Sweden where he'll probably be convicted of a crime that at this point I'm pretty confident he committed given what he's shown us of who he is. I'm specifically talking about the idea of the US scooping him up and serving time there without any conspiracy to cause the leaks.

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think Assange is a piece of shit, but unless something more compelling comes out I have very major issues with any incarceration for him by the US. He's not a US citizen and as far as I can recall there has been no accusation he's done anything on US soil. For a foreign national to receive information that is classified in the US and then publish it is not a crime and the US reaching its long arm around the world to impose its laws on others is terrifying as a non-American. If he lands in the US and has broken your laws in doing this then OK, but extraditing him without him having been in the US for any of these alleged crimes or passing through the US is just not OK.

Yes, but publishing or trafficking in credit card numbers or other personal financial information is.  And this he did do, and has admitted to it, in a very big "fuck you, yes I meant to do that" kinda way.  The US certainly has more than enough to issue an arrest warrant.

[DunderMifflin]

57 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because what you do is not debate. It's a pedantic refusal to accept a widely considered truth. You can't even start to have a meaningful conversation with someone who refutes simple reality. 

Can you please elaborate on what you specifically mean by this?

What exactly is the truth I refuse to accept and how widely is it accepted?

This is an extremely vague indictment against me here. Like any more vague than this would be "you are wrong and I'm right - The End"

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

Can you please elaborate on what you specifically mean by this?

What exactly is the truth I refuse to accept and how widely is it accepted. This is an extremely vague indictment against me here. Like any more vague than this would be "you are wrong and I'm right - The End"

If this was the first time you argued this way I wouldn't come at you this way, but it is a "tactic" you employ over and over again. You stating that you don't see any difference between preventing someone from voting and someone attempting to call out this sort of behavior is a prime example. If you can't perceive the difference between these two things then you don't belong in the conversation. You don't get a place at the table.

Hell, take racism out of it altogether. Voter suppression is anti-democratic. It goes against the core tenets of system. The whole ideal is to have complete participation. For everyone to express their view with their vote. Any attempt to enact legislation that suppresses this is unAmerican. That it affects minorities more so than anyone else, makes it racist. 

[DunderMifflin]

55 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

If this was the first time you argued this way I wouldn't come at you this way, but it is a "tactic" you employ over and over again. You stating that you don't see any difference between preventing someone from voting and someone attempting to call out this sort of behavior is a prime example. If you can't perceive the difference between these two things then you don't belong in the conversation. You don't get a place at the table.

Hell, take racism out of it altogether. Voter suppression is anti-democratic. It goes against the core tenets of system. The whole ideal is to have complete participation. For everyone to express their view with their vote. Any attempt to enact legislation that suppresses this is unAmerican. That it affects minorities more so than anyone else, makes it racist. 

Then felons should be voting. Yet there is no significant "calling out" of these people that are stripped away of their right to vote. A policy that fits your criteria of affecting minorities at a higher level. So yeh, I'm not seeing any righteousness here, just people that want to win elections and have power. 

And again, your charges against me and my "tactics" are extremely vague. Not sure what this widely accepted truth I'm denying is. 

 

 

 

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

There is also a lot of science discussion is based on political affiliation.  Is evolution now a sinister Democratic plot?  Republicans were the ones to politicize these things - be it race, news, science.  They chose to be on the wrong side of reality and morality almost every damn time - and now they want to call it politics so they can continue their bullshit behavior.  Fuck that.  I have no sympathy for them when they find themselves on the pointy end.  

I believe there's a lot of science that is politicized for gain. 

Take climate change, I'm a firm believer in it. At the same time I don't consider myself any better than anyone else due to my belief. A certainly don't consider politicians any more moral just for believing in it, there is outrageous money to be made on the back of climate change and that alone makes me not trust politics to be moral and have the best interest of future generations. 

The rest of your post seems to digress into the typical "them guys are bullshit but my team is number 1" 

I watch all these groups claim they are at the height of morality and point fingers at the bad guys only to completely shut people down when a finger gets pointed at them.

Trump supporters pointing fingers at Crooked Hillary only to be offended when someone calls them racist.

Hillary supporters pointing fingers at Trump supporters only to call it bullshit when Bernie supporters call their morality into question.

Yet somehow they all continue to imply how moral and righteous they are by pointing at the bad guys over there.