Flying Squirrel Entertainment

The Lounge => Off Topic => Topic started by: BabyJesus on November 13, 2016, 08:53:20 pm

Title: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 13, 2016, 08:53:20 pm
Since there is a UK thread I'm guessing this is allowed. Keep it civil and on topic. If you can't do that then gtfo

A lot of stuff happened in America recently. Trump won the electoral college, Hilary won the popular vote. States like California and New York still have some absentee ballots they never counted for some reason. There are an estimated 7 million of them.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 13, 2016, 08:55:47 pm
I think everything is going as planned for Hillary and George Soros. They planned to lose the election and then spark riots to get rid of the electoral college which hurts the Democrat party since most of their votes come from major cities.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Cazasar on November 13, 2016, 09:01:49 pm
how bad are the riots if I may ask? I cant imagine that they are enough to actually matter, I mean it has to be a small minority right?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 13, 2016, 09:11:49 pm
how bad are the riots if I may ask? I cant imagine that they are enough to actually matter, I mean it has to be a small minority right?
Well the riots vary. Detroit and some other cities have some peaceful protests (I think their still going on). I think it's pretty bad on the west coast. Their attacking cars, shops, and bystanders. There's a video of an old man who voted for trump getting beat and his car stolen. In Philly, a homeless veteran has been beat to death. There has also been cop that has been killed (maybe some more that were wounded). The cops began using riot gear. That's about as far as I know.

Portland, Oregon is where the worst of it is happening.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: The Mighty McLovin on November 13, 2016, 09:29:22 pm
And they blame Trump for saying that he wouldn't accept the election outcome.
Sigh, why can't people accept the result of a presidential election?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Cazasar on November 13, 2016, 09:30:12 pm
Did this get posted yet? One of the best Videos I watched in a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 13, 2016, 09:38:02 pm
Did this get posted yet? One of the best Videos I watched in a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
yea that videos been posted a couple of times. It never gets old
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Norwegian13 on November 13, 2016, 09:53:30 pm
Hilarious double standards going on in the U.S right now.

Remember how everyone got upset because Donald Trump said that he won't say if he will or will not accept the election results before the actual results are published and everyone got mad at him? Well, look, now it's Hillary's supporters being all upset about the result and going out in the streets to protest a DEMOCRATIC choice and election. It seems to me like they're trying to fight democracy, because Trump is a democratically elected president. This whole "#HeIsNotMyPresident" campaign and calls to assassinate him are utterly ridicoulous. They really just should get over it and accept the fact that he is now their new president. It's funny that the mainstream media is barely reporting this, when there are people calling for a president to be killed and rioters on the streets are trying to make sure that a democratically elected president doesn't take office. Imagine how it would be if it was the other way around, eh? If it was Trump's supporters, not Hillary's that were out on the streets. I'm sure the mainstream media would have a lot of fun with them.

Oh and look, they're trying to get the electrocal college to make Hillary president. It's funny how people haven't really complained about the Electrocal College system being "undemocratic" until this point, where a candidate that isn't supported by the mainstream media wins. #DoubleStandards

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2170017/guardian-journalist-sparks-fury-after-calling-for-donald-trumps-assassination-over-twitter/
http://www.dailystormer.com/paki-terrorist-monisha-rajesh-calls-for-trump-assassination-on-twitter-deletes-account/ - This was actually quite funny, she deleted her entire Twitter account and everything. Don't see why she isn't arrested yet though, making threats against a person shouldn't be allowed regardless of their position.)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 13, 2016, 10:12:15 pm
Hypocritic or not, you are always entiteled to (peaceful) protest. They're not claiming (or at least, they shouldn't and I don't it happening a lot) that Hillary Clinton should be president: They are saying Trump is not fit to be, whatever the outcome of the election says. I also wouldn't argue the protest is meaningless; consider it a show of the vocial minority (or majority, actually) that want to remind Trump they will not make it easy for him. Democracy is important, but not as important as the rule of law. We don't want the USA to become Russia 2.0.

Also, I don't want Trump impeached or killed. Mike Pence is just as bad and twenty times as conservative.

Electoral college should be thrown out, yes. Or at least made proportional.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 13, 2016, 10:17:53 pm
I'm 100% fine with peaceful protests. I'm not fine with what's going on in Portland

I think it would be interesting what would happen if every state was like Maine and Nevada. I think that would be interesting
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Norwegian13 on November 13, 2016, 10:26:42 pm
Yes, I too am fine with peaceful protests but it's kinda funny when the Clinton campaign was telling the Trump side not to protest and be mad if they lost.

I also back what BabyJ said, and as long as the protests are peaceful I'm fine with it. One thing that really got me angry one day, was that I saw a video of some black people attacking an elderly man just because he had voted for Trump and was supporting him. That shouldn't be acceptable, because afterall, the U.S claims to be a democratic country, and everyone should be entitled to voicing their own opinion without being attacked for it like happened in this instance.

Generally, I have always been against the Electoral College, as I personally, see it as a undemocratic way of going forth, but now that it's been used in this election, I would not support dismantling it now and then re-counting the vote to be the popular vote. If they wanted to do that, they should have done it before the elections, not after. However, dismantling the Electoral College is something they can do for the next presidental elections, but for now people should just accept the fact that Trump has been elected, and not incite any violence upon people that have voiced their support for him.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 13, 2016, 11:13:43 pm
By the way, I removed the political thread because this thread sorta takes over its purpose and it was far too big anyway.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 14, 2016, 03:52:05 am
A lot of the processes and systems which seem bizarre in the united states of America are an artifact of the fact that they are united states and not a single entity. Though the electoral college is flawed its existence comes from the fact that American citizens are meant to be citizens of their state first and the union second. Thus citizens of a state decide by popular vote who will represent their state (or the criteria is whatever the state legislature decides because hey it's their state). It's one of those states rights things, and the controversy of course always comes to if states rights are going against individual rights. If the electoral college is to be dismantled, America would need to centralize, or if the electoral college is to stay, America would need to decentralize. I'm not familiar with how the EU does it, but the EU seems to be much less centralized than the USA and seems to be the way the USA is supposed to be, but I'm not too knowledgeable on that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 14, 2016, 05:18:10 am
new poll
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on November 14, 2016, 05:20:51 am
I know you guys talk about these civil issues, not saying they don't matter by any means such as with racism, protests, immigration; but at the other spectrum already Trump has talked to Ian reed and other big pharma figureheads who are actively considering staying or relocating to the US, if the tax rate is lower/ providing way more higher paying jobs here.  Even Apple is considering it.  So M&A activity in big pharma, tech, energy sectors will increase/ which is another reason why Wall Street is looking good. 

In regards to electoral college, it does come down to states rights and equal representation of the state.  States are different, in economics, culture, laws, etc... and if the electoral college was dismantled and it went by popular vote/ then more states than the few blue would feel there representation didn't mean anything at all, and that a few states gain full power.  That's why it exists in general, so I don't believe in a full dismantlement but definitely needs to be modified in terms of gerrymandering and other sketchy policies
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on November 14, 2016, 05:31:20 pm
Yeah but karth, we are no longer states as a union but rather a union with states. What i mean is that since the creation of the country, the federal government has gradually gotten more power and more influence. I can understand your argument if it was 1790 but its not. The truth is, small states dont have to worry about big states because the fed has all the power anyways. So what im saying is that if we are going to have a federalized system then it would make sense to have that system not even take states into account. Governors are elected via popular vote of the state, it makes sense that Presidents should be elected via popular vote of the nation.

As it stands, someone from wyoming holds 4x the voting power of someone from california...that shouldnt even be possible.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 14, 2016, 06:16:57 pm
The house of reps. is currently capped at 435. Idk why the cap is there, but that leads to underrepresentation of bigger states.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 14, 2016, 06:28:55 pm
Quote
In regards to electoral college, it does come down to states rights and equal representation of the state.


If anything, it completely botches equal representation.

Quote
States are different, in economics, culture, laws, etc..

So? That's sorta the nature of regions. They differ. You also differ from your neighbour, but you don't claim that you are entiteled to four times his voting power.

Quote
and if the electoral college was dismantled and it went by popular vote/ then more states than the few blue would feel there representation didn't mean anything at all,and that a few states gain full power.


It really wouldn't. This is all from the mythical idea that a few states with democratic majorities would have their ENTIRE population vote Democrat and would therefor make a Republican victory impossible, which is miles from the truth. More people voted Republican in California then in Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Nebreska and West Virginia combined. Millions of Americans don't even bother going to the polls because their vote literally makes no difference . There really are no red or blue states anyway. If seats were given out proportionally, Clinton would have gotten 1of Alaska's 3 Electoral Votes, 16 out Texas' 38 and 4 out of Tennessee's 11. The same goes for Trump, who would have won 11 out of NY's 29, 5 out of Washington's 11 and 2 out of Rhode Island's 4.

Right now, it sucks living in a bigger state. Big states are literally underrepresentated in every branch of government, and still people dare claim the little ones are in danger.

Quote
That's why it exists in general, so I don't believe in a full dismantlement but definitely needs to be modified in terms of gerrymandering and other sketchy policies

There is no gerrymandering in the Electoral college.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: RussianFury on November 14, 2016, 10:23:23 pm
mfw Donald Trump is only going to take a $1 salary instead of $400k. TOP MEME
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 14, 2016, 10:32:11 pm
mfw Donald Trump is only going to take a $1 salary instead of $400k. TOP MEME

I think that's awesome and a great gesture

But to be fair, he didn't need it
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Norwegian13 on November 14, 2016, 10:49:17 pm
https://youtu.be/1d9lm-T87AQ

A video definitely worth a watch
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 14, 2016, 11:05:28 pm
mfw Donald Trump is only going to take a $1 salary instead of $400k. TOP MEME
didnt he say he wasn't going to touch $1 of his salary?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on November 14, 2016, 11:20:07 pm


There is no gerrymandering in the Electoral college.

sadly tho, if EC votes were provided by districts and not states, gerrymandering would have an effect. using the most recent example in 2010, after the census, republicans had taken over most of the local, state, and federal around the country.  They then used their new power when it came redrawing districts to gerrymander them.  More and more of the seats are not up for grabs between either party.   they are instead only up for grabs for the party that gerrymandered them in their favor.   Meaning only primaries matter.  outside of landslide elections, there is a good chance you will never see those seats flip parties.  Democrats did the same thing.

it leads to both parties having to run farther left or right to accommodate their base, making it harder to find moderates.  Which in turn makes it harder for things to get done in both state and federal levels.  There are exceptions, but this is how it plays out normally.

now if EC votes were based off districts, the EC votes for senators would still have to be given out somehow.  Either you make a whole new map in each state with new EC districts that aren't tied to the regular house districts, you give the winner of the state both of their votes, or you split those based on % of the vote.(at what % would the votes split?  40%+? for the loser)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 15, 2016, 10:04:19 am
Or give out the EC votes proportionally per state.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 15, 2016, 12:07:12 pm
mfw Donald Trump is only going to take a $1 salary instead of $400k. TOP MEME
didnt he say he wasn't going to touch $1 of his salary?

He said that he might have to lawfully take $1
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 15, 2016, 02:41:24 pm
mfw Donald Trump is only going to take a $1 salary instead of $400k. TOP MEME
didnt he say he wasn't going to touch $1 of his salary?

He said that he might have to lawfully take $1
there have been a couple of presidents who donated their salary to charity. He should just do that
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 15, 2016, 03:53:11 pm
mfw Donald Trump is only going to take a $1 salary instead of $400k. TOP MEME
didnt he say he wasn't going to touch $1 of his salary?

He said that he might have to lawfully take $1
there have been a couple of presidents who donated their salary to charity. He should just do that

Charity is cool and all but it won't help our debt
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 15, 2016, 04:51:16 pm
It is not like Donald Trump is going to help with the debt anyway...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 15, 2016, 04:52:26 pm
It is not like Donald Trump is going to help with the debt anyway...
hes already doing better than Obama and he's not even in office yet
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 15, 2016, 04:59:10 pm
It is not like Donald Trump is going to help with the debt anyway...
hes already doing better than Obama and he's not even in office yet

Trump has already started changing most of his policy proposals since the election, so lets wait and see what he does. However the indicators for the US economy are not good and invesotrs are increasingly bearish. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-14/trump-or-no-trump-why-next-8-years-will-be-worst-economic-period-us-history
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 15, 2016, 05:31:32 pm

So? That's sorta the nature of regions. They differ. You also differ from your neighbour, but you don't claim that you are entiteled to four times his voting power.


Your words betray your lack of knowledge of the history of the United States/States' rights.

The founders werent idiots, they aptly realized a federalist system was the best fit for the scope and diversity of the US and with their history with tyranny.

pictured: just "regions"

(https://caliglobetrotter.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/map_compare_united_states_europe.png)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 15, 2016, 05:33:17 pm

So? That's sorta the nature of regions. They differ. You also differ from your neighbour, but you don't claim that you are entiteled to four times his voting power.


Your words betray your lack of knowledge of the history of the United States/States' rights.

The founders werent idiots, they aptly realized a federalist system was the best fit for the scope and diversity of the US and with their history with tyranny.

pictured: just "regions"

(https://caliglobetrotter.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/map_compare_united_states_europe.png)
apoc o no! You revealed trumpsbplan to the EUs!
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 15, 2016, 05:34:35 pm

So? That's sorta the nature of regions. They differ. You also differ from your neighbour, but you don't claim that you are entiteled to four times his voting power.


Your words betray your lack of knowledge of the history of the United States/States' rights.

The founders werent idiots, they aptly realized a federalist system was the best fit for the scope and diversity of the US and with their history with tyranny.

pictured: just "regions"

(https://caliglobetrotter.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/map_compare_united_states_europe.png)
apoc o no! You revealed trumpsbplan to the EUs!

not apoc u pl3b
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 15, 2016, 05:36:19 pm

So? That's sorta the nature of regions. They differ. You also differ from your neighbour, but you don't claim that you are entiteled to four times his voting power.


Your words betray your lack of knowledge of the history of the United States/States' rights.

The founders werent idiots, they aptly realized a federalist system was the best fit for the scope and diversity of the US and with their history with tyranny.

pictured: just "regions"

(https://caliglobetrotter.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/map_compare_united_states_europe.png)
apoc o no! You revealed trumpsbplan to the EUs!

not apoc u pl3b
fuk there's too many cats xD
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 15, 2016, 07:20:12 pm

So? That's sorta the nature of regions. They differ. You also differ from your neighbour, but you don't claim that you are entiteled to four times his voting power.


Your words betray your lack of knowledge of the history of the United States/States' rights.

The founders werent idiots, they aptly realized a federalist system was the best fit for the scope and diversity of the US and with their history with tyranny.

pictured: just "regions"

(https://caliglobetrotter.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/map_compare_united_states_europe.png)
apoc o no! You revealed trumpsbplan to the EUs!

If I knew he was going to terraform europe into the shape of America, I would've been supporting him from day one
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 15, 2016, 08:29:23 pm
I never argued against a federal system, I argued against the election system of the federal government. You can have a federal system and still have proportional representation, like Germany, Brazil or Switzerland. You are strawmanning my argument.

The least they can do is give out Electoral Votes proportionally per state. I don't think a constitutional change is necessary for that and I don't see why anyone would argue against it. Trump would still have won, if that's what you're afraid of.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 15, 2016, 08:33:53 pm
Well talking about Germany it is currently possible for a small "parliament seating" misrepresentation. It has happened before. It is nothing major, but it does exist. I believe the current government is working on changing that though, so that in the future, we have a proper representation in the parliament.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 15, 2016, 08:35:10 pm
Yes, you have a 5% electoral treshold, which I would also argue against. Still, that's better then a majority system.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 15, 2016, 08:42:13 pm
I never argued against a federal system, I argued against the election system of the federal government. You can have a federal system and still have proportional representation, like Germany, Brazil or Switzerland. You are strawmanning my argument.

The least they can do is give out Electoral Votes proportionally per state. I don't think a constitutional change is necessary for that and I don't see why anyone would argue against it. Trump would still have won, if that's what you're afraid of.

It's up to the states to proportion their EC votes fairly, nobody's currently stopping them from doing it, and that's probably the best solution. The big stumbling block to that however is actually the Democratic party as they have a big inbuilt advantage under the Electoral College system. I can't see Democrats in New York or California allowing that to go through their state legislatures. For the same reason at a federal level they'd also try to block any popular vote system.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 15, 2016, 08:51:42 pm
You do realize that the Republicans currently control 32 state legislatures, right?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 15, 2016, 08:56:50 pm
You do realize that the Republicans currently control 32 state legislatures, right?
and they still lost the popular vote
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 15, 2016, 09:15:13 pm
You do realize that the Republicans currently control 32 state legislatures, right?

But not in California or New York they don't. So why would Texas Republicans allow part of their state's EC votes to go Democrat if big Democratic states won't return the favour? That would just hand the Dems an even bigger EC advantage than they already have. I think this needs to be sorted out at a federal level, and if Trump had any sense he'd make it a priority and let the Democrats embarrass themselves by trying to oppose a fairer voting system. It would give him a legacy plus boost Republican electoral chances.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 15, 2016, 11:19:03 pm
But trump just won due to that system, why would he try to change it?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 15, 2016, 11:27:18 pm
He would have still won if all states gave out their EC votes proportionally. And who knows if he would have lost on a popular vote contest-how many Republicans bother to turn out in safe states like California or New York? And like he said himself he would have spent more time campaigning in those places if the system was different. But I think he will change it if he has any sense-it would split the Democrats plus make it easier for Republicans to win in the Electoral College since the biggest states usually go blue.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 15, 2016, 11:46:48 pm
But trump just won due to that system, why would he try to change it?

because trump is a democrat
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 16, 2016, 04:11:52 am
Trump is more of an independent than anything

But even if he isn't, I don't really care about party  affiliation. As long as he does what he truly believes will make America great again.

I would have happily accepted Bernie as well, even though I don't agree with his policies. Because at the very least, he would be trying to make change. The type of change Obama promised but never delivered on.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on November 17, 2016, 04:01:00 pm
Again not saying we shouldn't change it, but there were over 3000 counties that voted for Trump, comparative to only over 50 for Clinton (which included obviously every major city).  Small towns and rural America wanted to be heard, and look at it this way, if the electoral college was fully destroyed; candidates would literally only campaign and care about cities and their votes, there would be no need to care about campaigning in the other thousands of counties; or for that matter give a damn about those constituents. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on November 17, 2016, 04:46:37 pm
Again not saying we shouldn't change it, but there were over 3000 counties that voted for Trump, comparative to only over 50 for Clinton (which included obviously every major city).  Small towns and rural America wanted to be heard, and look at it this way, if the electoral college was fully destroyed; candidates would literally only campaign and care about cities and their votes, there would be no need to care about campaigning in the other thousands of counties; or for that matter give a damn about those constituents.
I disagree somewhat,   Wining the rural vote or a good chunk of it is key to winning my state.  Even Obama said so the other day.    That can be similar across the nation.   but yes, major cities(not necessarily states) would have a larger effect on the vote count and get more attention.  How blue they are is debatable. I would imagine there are a fair amount of people nation wide who don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't mean(or have the chance to) anything in the EC.  Even rural counties can go blue, or less red.

Now i would agree states with smaller pop would more than likely be ignored.(as in the candidates wont spend much time there.)  Granted some of those states are so blue or red that they weren't really worth going to now either.  At the same time, we seen how a few thousand votes here and there are enough to put someone over the edge.(like PA)   Which means that getting every vote out of small states would be great in those close elections. 

I would imagine if the EC is ever changed, it is to make it so votes are proportional based on % of the Pop who voted for any one candidate.(tho this is left to the states normally.  not sure how it would come across if the US decided to change how states vote)  I don't really see it ever being scrapped.    At the same time, i cant see anything really being done either in general. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 17, 2016, 05:22:13 pm
I don't know, but to me it just doesn't seem logical. Sure Hillary only had 50 counties, but it happened that in these 50 counties, there are more people than in the 101010 remaining ones. In that sense, Hillary won.
The vote is supposed to (in my opinion) represent the people, and not the counties. More counties does not necessarily mean more people. The people should decide the vote, not a county.


In the end it all comes down that at the moment it makes (more or less) sense to have the system like it is right now. But in my opinion the states are too separated. They act almost like independent countries, but when you look at it closer, they are not. It is very weird.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 17, 2016, 05:24:26 pm
There are also counties with literally a hundred voters. County-count is a bad argument.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 17, 2016, 05:59:30 pm
I don't know, but to me it just doesn't seem logical. Sure Hillary only had 50 counties, but it happened that in these 50 counties, there are more people than in the 101010 remaining ones. In that sense, Hillary won.
The vote is supposed to (in my opinion) represent the people, and not the counties. More counties does not necessarily mean more people. The people should decide the vote, not a county.


In the end it all comes down that at the moment it makes (more or less) sense to have the system like it is right now. But in my opinion the states are too separated. They act almost like independent countries, but when you look at it closer, they are not. It is very weird.

The United States is a huge country, in both land mass and population. It just wouldn't work as anything but a federation. Running the US like a Unitary State would be like trying to run the EU as a Unitary State. Completely ignoring our history and how we began as a loose confederation of states, it iis just, quite simply, too big for a Unitary State to work. The easy fix to this is to give State governments a great deal of autonomy so they may better suit the needs and wants of each particular region. It allows the country to really deal with things on a case by case basis rather than having to use large, sweeping legislation in all cases. The Electoral College works under similar logic, allowing States to decide what best suits their needs. It is not a completely direct democracy, but I think it is the best system for the country.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 17, 2016, 07:03:27 pm
But in my opinion the states are too separated. They act almost like independent countries, but when you look at it closer, they are not. It is very weird.

Ive always found it funny that eu's grapple with the concept of the United States' federalist system.

Study US history a bit. It seems that way because it IS that way. From the outset, the US was designed to be a Union of nominally autonomous states under a federal government with limited powers.

Ironically its the same liberals that for years have cried for MORE powers to be centralized to the federal government now whining that the republicans will have too much power federally.

The States' rights that you and people like gluk have wanted eroded for years would have prevented all the issues with the current freakout about Trump, as states like California would have had more power to self govern to the benefit of their democrat majority.

The left was super happy with a ever larger government when it suited them. They made their bed and now theyre gonna lie in it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 17, 2016, 07:28:28 pm
Quote
The Electoral College works under similar logic, allowing States to decide what best suits their needs

But the 'states' do not decide. The parties do.

Also, gotta love that decentralized structure: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wesson-immigration-advocate-20161117-story.html

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 17, 2016, 07:56:47 pm
Quote
The Electoral College works under similar logic, allowing States to decide what best suits their needs

But the 'states' do not decide. The parties do.

Also, gotta love that decentralized structure: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wesson-immigration-advocate-20161117-story.html

A municipal government pretending they have any power whatsoever on the subject of immigration. Thanks for the laughs.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 17, 2016, 08:01:41 pm
Can they legally oppose it? Probably not. However, they can make it incredibly difficult, sue them at every corner, use political influence to rally and organize opposers and refuse to let municipal services aid them - such as the police or even the National Guard if the state opposes it. Trump willl, if such a thing happens, have to federalize the National Guard to kick out the mexicans, which creates some unwanted historic frames.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 17, 2016, 08:44:33 pm
What's so wrong about deporting illegal immigrants who have a criminal history?

Also i don't think the electoral college will ever disappear. In order to change the constitution you need like 3/4 of the states to agree. I don't see smaller/rural states doing that

Trump won 32 states. Hilary won 18 and DC
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 17, 2016, 08:49:07 pm
Apple investigating shifting manufacturing to the US in the wake of Trump win.

ITS GONNA BE YUUUUUUUUUGE
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Siwi on November 17, 2016, 09:14:41 pm
Want to make your city a sanctuary city? Kiss your funding goodbye

All trump has to do is tell them as long as they house illegals, no more federal monies
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 17, 2016, 09:32:31 pm
Exactly

It's like when Mexico says they aren't paying for the wall.

We have them by the balls and they know it
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 17, 2016, 10:35:31 pm
My point is that you either should have a centralized government that governs all of the US, or have it split enough to actually matter. Right now it is both at the same time, which just does not make any sense.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 17, 2016, 10:36:04 pm
My point is that you either should have a centralized government that governs all of the US, or have it split enough to actually matter. Right now it is both at the same time, which just does not make any sense.

But why
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on November 17, 2016, 11:44:29 pm
I do hope this post doesn't get deleted like every single post containing this video has in the past:

Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
[close]

I'm sure all you political scientists will enjoy it  :)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 02:44:46 am
honest all the US needs to do is get itself one of the most highest educated populations on the world
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: csderp on November 18, 2016, 03:22:57 am
Until we enact strict voter ID laws at the federal level, America can never go on popular vote. Who knows how many illegals voted this time around, but the number that's being thrown around is 3 million. 3 million, across every state that doesn't have voter ID laws, is enough to make "someone" win the popular vote without winning the EC (most solid blue states are states without voter ID, many of which contain high amounts of illegal immigrants).

Even with that, I would still want to keep the electoral college simply due to the fact that mob rule is great until you're no longer part of the mob. We would have had 4 straight Dem presidencies if it weren't for the EC keeping the executive branch in flux.

The founding fathers were geniuses to be honest.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 03:45:02 am
Honestly for the most part, the EC has served us well thus far. It's only mistake was Bush, and it just saved us from Hillary.

Why fix what ain't broken?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 18, 2016, 03:46:54 am
Most of the time the winner of the electoral college also wins the popular vote. There have only been 4 times in history where the winner lost the popular vote
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 18, 2016, 04:11:58 am
Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 05:18:35 am
Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 18, 2016, 05:29:24 am
Apoc has a 100% failure rate in duel tournaments.

Not sure about Apoc, but I do for sure.

Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

I know it is not. It is not a direct failure obviously. But they get fewer votes yet still win. Something is wrong there. It has happened 4 times in the history of the US, which makes for a 7% failure rate.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 05:29:39 am
Apoc has a 100% failure rate in duel tournaments.

Tbh I really don't care much for all your instigation, and I don't report you for it. But when you bring it here, I will report you for it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 05:32:46 am
Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

I know it is not. It is not a direct failure obviously. But they get fewer votes yet still win. Something is wrong there. It has happened 4 times in the history of the US, which makes for a 7% failure rate.

I understand what you mean, but a failure rate implies it's doing something it was not designed to do. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Besides, with the EU having so many non-elected officials I think the US having a small "failure rate" when the popular vote gets REALLY close is excusable in the western world.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 18, 2016, 06:36:07 am
Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

I know it is not. It is not a direct failure obviously. But they get fewer votes yet still win. Something is wrong there. It has happened 4 times in the history of the US, which makes for a 7% failure rate.

I understand what you mean, but a failure rate implies it's doing something it was not designed to do. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Besides, with the EU having so many non-elected officials I think the US having a small "failure rate" when the popular vote gets REALLY close is excusable in the western world.

Fair point, can't say anything against that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: csderp on November 18, 2016, 08:41:01 am
I've been constantly reminded of this failure rate meme ever since those CGP grey videos on the EC became relevant again. Thank you for taking the wheel olaf-kun :3~~
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 18, 2016, 05:25:36 pm
How does it 'work'? Does it elect the person most Americans want? No. Does it elect the person who wins a majority of the states? No. Does it force candidates to give attention to not just the great cities but to the entire country? No. Hell, no. The USA elects every single position in the legislative, executive or juridicary branches on every level of government by majority vote, except the presidency - then, suddenly, argueing that the most important position should also be elected by the majority becomes ridicious.

Please, enlighten me on how the Electoral College 'works', apart from that it happened to elect your favorite candidate this time.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 18, 2016, 05:31:10 pm
Well it works as it is intended to.
I am not saying that it makes sense. I think it should do a better job at representing the people.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 05:40:51 pm
It's literally a mix of all of the above, literally a mix of all the "Does it's?" you said. So nice bait, but I don't see a reason we should define it as "You need to win most people/states/cities" when we can do a more all of the above approach.

Also, you brought up "how is it excusable if u directly elect your congressmen, but not the president?". It's because there is literally no reason to not directly elect them. They are representatives of a very specific population and area, not a giant land mass of 300 M people. Not directly electing them also serves no benefit to the country or the state. One of the reasons the EC is like it is, is because it benefits the states. Nobody is forcing States to have "winner take all" systems, it just benefits them more. Candidates have to campaign super hard because if they lose it all even if they are just slightly behind in a state.

Also I don't see anybody calling into question the existence of the Senate when it's not based on population and "what the majority of the country wants" either.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 18, 2016, 05:45:11 pm
But the point is that it doesn't benefit the states either.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: MaxLam on November 18, 2016, 05:49:04 pm
I don't see any "failure" in this election. Democracy is not, and will never be the decision of the majority against the minority. It's much more than that. In many countries, people don't believe that a simple "majority" can be enough to make democratic decisions. Their systems are based on "consensus democracy". So there can be different democractic systems with different rules.

In the United States, the system was designed to allow a better representation of the states. If an American state was isolated from the rest of the country, where would be the democracy?

Clinton obtained the majority with a short margin. But nobody could say that Clinton would still have won with different rules, because the rules influence the campaign, and Trump, with a different campaign, might have won the popular vote.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 05:54:07 pm
But the point is that it doesn't benefit the states either.

But it does though. Candidates have to really campaign and make promises to the state. With a winner take all they are more likely to be like "hey, if I win, free Popsicles for the state of Florida" and stuff like that
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 18, 2016, 05:55:55 pm
How does it 'work'? Does it elect the person most Americans want? No. Does it elect the person who wins a majority of the states? No. Does it force candidates to give attention to not just the great cities but to the entire country? No. Hell, no. The USA elects every single position in the legislative, executive or juridicary branches on every level of government by majority vote, except the presidency - then, suddenly, argueing that the most important position should also be elected by the majority becomes ridicious.

Please, enlighten me on how the Electoral College 'works', apart from that it happened to elect your favorite candidate this time.

I assume you've now changed your opinion and the EU Commission should be elected (by majority rule) too right? Its the executive branch of the EU in the same way the presidency is the executive branch of the US.

Actually, if you take a look at how the US system of governance was designed, you will see its functionally more similar to the EU than to an average (parliamentary or otherwise) democracy. Mainly due to the vast expanse of territory and overwhelming regional disparities.

House of Representatives = European Parliament

Senate = European Council with one rep. per state instead of head of state

Executive/Presidency = European Commission - Even featuring an indirectly elected President based on representation of individual states. Fascinating... - designed to focus on national interests whilst allowing individual states to conduct their own affairs otherwise
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 18, 2016, 05:56:21 pm
The USA elects every single position in the legislative, executive or juridicary branches on every level of government by majority vote, except the presidency

That's not true-many members of the US judiciary are not elected. Not all states have judicial elections, plus all federal judges are appointed by the President. Even the ones that are elected may be under retention elections so it's not a traditional vote in that sense.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on November 18, 2016, 06:01:32 pm
A lot of people disagree with the concept of the senate like myself. It used to be worse when senators were appointed by state legislators instead of a direct vote by the people of a state.

Look this whole notion of 'muh states rights' is just bullshit that has stuck around since the fucking 1600s and has little basis in whats actually best for a nation. What even defines a state? Its not cultural, take where i live for example, our culture is that of chicago, not of indiana. Is it political? No, again with myself NW indiana votes democrat while the rest of the state votes republican. Is it geographical? Sometimes but it doesnt explain the often random straight lines. The answer is pretty much that a couple people in congress 200 or so years ago decided what is and isnt a state.

Of course local communities should have autonomy from the fed but the concept of a 'state' within a nation is rather dumb. At least the eurofags have national borders based on geography, culture and politics. We have artificial borders.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 18, 2016, 06:11:20 pm
A lot of people disagree with the concept of the senate like myself. It used to be worse when senators were appointed by state legislators instead of a direct vote by the people of a state.

Look this whole notion of 'muh states rights' is just bullshit that has stuck around since the fucking 1600s and has little basis in whats actually best for a nation. What even defines a state? Its not cultural, take where i live for example, our culture is that of chicago, not of indiana. Is it political? No, again with myself NW indiana votes democrat while the rest of the state votes republican. Is it geographical? Sometimes but it doesnt explain the often random straight lines. The answer is pretty much that a couple people in congress 200 or so years ago decided what is and isnt a state.

Of course local communities should have autonomy from the fed but the concept of a 'state' within a nation is rather dumb. At least the eurofags have national borders based on geography, culture and politics. We have artificial borders.

Quote
federalism
Federalism is a system of government in which entities such as states or provinces share power with a national government. The United States government functions according to the principles of federalism.

And the borders between states are just as real as any European borders. Read a history book from the 1600's-1700's and you'd see that. The differences between the initial 13 states were especially profound. Trace them back to their foundings and then trace the origins of the next 37 and you will see.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 06:15:38 pm
A lot of people disagree with the concept of the senate like myself. It used to be worse when senators were appointed by state legislators instead of a direct vote by the people of a state.

Look this whole notion of 'muh states rights' is just bullshit that has stuck around since the fucking 1600s and has little basis in whats actually best for a nation. What even defines a state? Its not cultural, take where i live for example, our culture is that of chicago, not of indiana. Is it political? No, again with myself NW indiana votes democrat while the rest of the state votes republican. Is it geographical? Sometimes but it doesnt explain the often random straight lines. The answer is pretty much that a couple people in congress 200 or so years ago decided what is and isnt a state.

Of course local communities should have autonomy from the fed but the concept of a 'state' within a nation is rather dumb. At least the eurofags have national borders based on geography, culture and politics. We have artificial borders.

You pretend like everyone within a border is supposed to have the same culture and political outlook.

Like look at Europe. Do you honestly for a second believe that people within England, not just the UK, are all basically the same person?

By your logic all borders are artificial.

Also its funny that you deny any culture/reason that states are the way they are, but you talk about how it has history dating back to the 1600s.

I think that you are overlooking a lot of the reason why States are the way they are.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 18, 2016, 06:16:57 pm
Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 06:19:20 pm
Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 18, 2016, 06:22:52 pm
Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.
Michigan won a war against Ohio. How many wars did Georgia win?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 06:26:13 pm
Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.
Michigan won a war against Ohio. How many wars did Georgia win?

We rekt Florida

Literally our whole existence was to protect the other colonies from the Spainish in Florida

Also we won the Revolutionary War, if that counts
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 18, 2016, 06:30:24 pm
Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.
Michigan won a war against Ohio. How many wars did Georgia win?

We rekt Florida

Literally our whole existence was to protect the other colonies from the Spainish in Florida
Georgia is weak
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 18, 2016, 06:32:30 pm
Honestly, don't make me make Russian deport you
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 18, 2016, 06:39:31 pm
I assume you've now changed your opinion and the EU Commission should be elected (by majority rule) too right? Its the executive branch of the EU in the same way the presidency is the executive branch of the US.

As the European Commission is already subject to a vote at the start its term and can be forced to resign by a vote of no confidence, I'd argue (as I have always done) that it's already elected in (well, almost) the same way the British or Dutch governments are elected. We do need to expand the powers of the European parliament to be able to fire individual Commissioners.

You could argue for a presidential system for the EU and elect the EU President by popular vote, but I'd argue against such a system anyway.

Quote
Actually, if you take a look at how the US system of governance was designed, you will see its functionally more similar to the EU than to an average (parliamentary or otherwise) democracy. Mainly due to the vast expanse of territory and overwhelming regional disparities.

House of Representatives = European Parliament

Senate = European Council with one rep. per state instead of head of state

Executive/Presidency = European Commission - Even featuring an indirectly elected President based on representation of individual states. Fascinating... - designed to focus on national interests whilst allowing individual states to conduct their own affairs otherwise

Oh wow, you mean the European Union looks more like a federation then a centralized state? No kidding.

Who sits on the European Council depends on what field the topic to be discussed/voted on is. It's never the head of state anyway - I don't recall Queen Elisabeth or King Wimlex sitting on the EC.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 18, 2016, 08:19:19 pm
I assume you've now changed your opinion and the EU Commission should be elected (by majority rule) too right? Its the executive branch of the EU in the same way the presidency is the executive branch of the US.

As the European Commission is already subject to a vote at the start its term and can be forced to resign by a vote of no confidence, I'd argue (as I have always done) that it's already elected in (well, almost) the same way the British or Dutch governments are elected. We do need to expand the powers of the European parliament to be able to fire individual Commissioners.

How is the EU Commission elected, and how is it in any way similar to the UK or Netherlands? Each country nominates a commissioner and the roles are assigned when the heads of government thrash it out at a session of the European Council. There is no democratic control over who gets nominated-the last three British Commissioners haven't been elected to anything ever (not even a local government council). Minus MEPs in the EU Parliament (strangely the only parliament in the world that doesn't have the power to make laws, so technically it's not actually a parliament) no EU official is elected, either directly or indicrectly. I mean which electorate voted for Donald Tusk to be President of the European Council? He only got the job because he was so unpopular back home as Prime Minister of Poland that he was about to lose the upcoming general election and bailed out just in time. How is any of this democratic?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 18, 2016, 08:34:33 pm
The Commission President as well as the entire Commision has to be approved by majority vote in the European Parliament. Maybe elected isn't the proper word, but there is democratic control. Besides, the nominees are nominated by their respective elected governments. They don't appear out of the blue.

The European Council is not democratic and it never was supposed to be. Maybe it should be abolished, maybe it shouldn't - while not as democratic as electing senators to a European Senate, it gives the member states a stronger, quicker and more direct say into the European Union. I do not claim to hold all the answers.

Yes, we need to give the European Parliament the power of initiative as well. And with the UK leaving us, maybe we actually be able to achieve that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 18, 2016, 09:57:02 pm
The Parliament just rubber stamps-they can either approve the entire Commission or reject the entire Commission, there's no room to reject individual appointees. Almost as if it was deliberately designed that way, huh? So the truth is the electorate don't get a direct say over who runs the Commission, can't remove them from office, and as such the Commissioners are unaccountable to the ballot box.

No wonder EU Commissioners brazenly come out with statements like this, though at least they're being honest: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-didn-t-think-ttip-could-get-any-scarier-but-then-i-spoke-to-the-eu-official-in-charge-of-it-a6690591.html
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 19, 2016, 04:17:00 am
I don't think you can defend the EU commission despite it not being a direct democracy, while also going after the EC for not being a completely direct democracy despite it being far more direct in comparison

Oh well tho

Whether or not the EU is democratic is not US politics

That is more suited for the UK politics thread
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 19, 2016, 10:03:05 am
I never said that the EU is doing better. I just think that the US should have a different system. But then again, I am not an US citizen, so I shouldn't have anything to say about it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 19, 2016, 10:49:31 am
You can remove them from office by removing the entire commision from office. Yes, we should add the ability to fire individual commissioners, but now you're just saying things which aren't true.

There is also quite a lot of negioations during the approval. It's not a rubber stamp process.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 19, 2016, 09:42:23 pm
You can remove them from office by removing the entire commision from office. Yes, we should add the ability to fire individual commissioners, but now you're just saying things which aren't true.

There is also quite a lot of negioations during the approval. It's not a rubber stamp process.

Wow Duuring that is OFF TOPIC

I demand a warning
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 19, 2016, 10:04:44 pm
*Snip* Go off topic again and you'll receive a formal warning
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 01:24:38 am by StevenChilton (FSE Head Moderator)»

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 20, 2016, 02:05:46 am
Repeated off topic posts by Duuring. Why isn't he muted? smh

Purposefully derailed US politics thread
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 20, 2016, 02:25:12 am
Hold on let me ban him. We cat avatar guys have to stand together.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Heist on November 20, 2016, 03:12:04 am
Hold on let me ban him. We cat avatar guys have to stand together.

jim avatar guys are better than cat avatar guys
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 20, 2016, 06:08:25 am
Hold on let me ban him. We cat avatar guys have to stand together.

jim avatar guys are better than cat avatar guys

do you want a race avatar war?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 20, 2016, 10:23:27 am
Hold on let me ban him. We cat avatar guys have to stand together.

jim avatar guys are better than cat avatar guys

Not true. It is scientifically proven that cat avatar guys are better.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/why-cat-avatar-guys-are-better-than-jim-avatar-guys/
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Heist on November 20, 2016, 10:46:23 pm
Hold on let me ban him. We cat avatar guys have to stand together.

jim avatar guys are better than cat avatar guys

Not true. It is scientifically proven that cat avatar guys are better.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/why-cat-avatar-guys-are-better-than-jim-avatar-guys/

Nock who is a jim avatar guy made that post because he is a scientist and then deleted it to troll you, you fell for it. If you click the link it clearly no longer exists.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 21, 2016, 09:27:55 am
I want to see Trump, Le Pen, and Farage all in power at the same time. That would be beautiful
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 21, 2016, 10:59:30 am
But Farage left the UK alone. Because reasons...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 22, 2016, 10:12:29 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xX_KaStFT8
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 22, 2016, 05:18:27 pm
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-21/trump-exploded-media-execs-during-record-meeting-it-was-f-king-firing-squad
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 23, 2016, 02:46:11 am
https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5834d9b5e4b01ba68ac386de/amp?client=safari (https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5834d9b5e4b01ba68ac386de/amp?client=safari)

This makes sense considering Ben Carson has been in a house and a city
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 23, 2016, 04:36:30 am
Are the republican candidates all going to be the justice league now
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 23, 2016, 04:48:40 am
Are the republican candidates all going to be the justice league now

yup and the dems are forming the injustice league, too bad Trump is gonna drain the swamp

(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fcasscain%2Fimages%2F1%2F1d%2FHall_of_Doom_02.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20110614113858&hash=ff121fa5fe152ebe986ec4585c1600e55eaad548)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 23, 2016, 05:14:52 am
Are the republican candidates all going to be the justice league now

You bet your ass they are

(https://i.imgur.com/DB6fG0i.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: RussianFury on November 23, 2016, 06:25:58 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjUWmRPpJyY
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on November 24, 2016, 03:24:46 am
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 24, 2016, 09:48:54 pm
Poll results:
Should Trump be the President?
37 (88.1%)Yes
5 (11.9%)No

New poll up
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on November 25, 2016, 01:11:15 am
Poll results:
Should Trump be the President?
37 (88.1%)Yes
5 (11.9%)No

New poll up

Most Hillary supporters/voters have indeed accepted the results.  The few retards who haven't are just a really vocal minority.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Slif on November 25, 2016, 09:52:49 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE5L_kFlt3k
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 26, 2016, 02:49:47 pm
Poll results:
Should Trump be the President?
37 (88.1%)Yes
5 (11.9%)No

New poll up

Most Hillary supporters/voters have indeed accepted the results.  The few retards who haven't are just a really vocal minority.

Did you just fucking assume their minority group status shitl0rd?

Trollposts like this are exactly what I do not want to see in these political threads anymore.

- Duuring
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on November 26, 2016, 03:49:17 pm
American politics right now.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1eu988.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 26, 2016, 03:56:08 pm
No, the nation-wide Democratic-organized Trump said existed that supposidly consisted mostly of false registries (immigrants, the deceased, etc) does not exist because it's the American system makes it incredibly hard to organize such a thing on any wide scale.

That's not to say that voter fraud, locally, is impossible. And if Wisconsin does turn Democrat with the recount, that will propably cause enough political uproar to have recounts and extra investigations in the other states. Enough to change the outcome of the election? Probably not. But enough to stain Trump's victory even more.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 26, 2016, 06:11:58 pm
There probably is a lot of fraud in US elections (why they don't use paper I don't know, their voting machines are always having problems), and it's kinda weird how it's not a requirement to show ID in order to vote. The obvious solution is just to have a a paper based system but have it counted two ways-once by hand and then again by feeding the slips through a machine, and then investigate any discrepancies.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 26, 2016, 07:23:40 pm
Election laws and rules differ state to state.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 26, 2016, 07:39:10 pm
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/jill-stein-now-cant-guarantee-money-will-go-to-unlikely-recount/ (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/jill-stein-now-cant-guarantee-money-will-go-to-unlikely-recount/)

Jill Stein scam

Also ID should be required.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 26, 2016, 07:49:49 pm
American consumerism never ceases to amaze me. Now I know that Americans can be duped into buying "recounts". Why would you ever need to purchase a recount, isn't it a completely legal thing where someone just brings it up in some political body like congress and it happens when a vote passes? Like how stupid do you have to be to donate money to something that doesn't require money.

Or is it meant to be used to bribe lobby politicians into getting a recount. Which is corruption. So if money isn't the answer american's are stupid and they just made jill stein rich, if money is the answer then the system is VERY CLEARLY corrupt, like we know it's corrupt but now it really cannot be disputed or denied, and americans will then be stupid if they don't do anything about it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 26, 2016, 08:22:47 pm
 In the recount I hope Trump gets all of Jill Steins votes.

Dems 11/7: "Voter ID is just a racist ploy to fix a problem that doesn't exist."
Dems 11/9: "Hacking! Fraud! Donate money for recounts!"
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 26, 2016, 09:03:11 pm
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html)

I think this is the article that makes people think this election was hacked. In the article it literally says that there is no proof. Also in Michigan, we have paper ballots everywhere
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on November 27, 2016, 03:20:23 am
Same in Pennsylvania it's paper ballots and ID required so I doubt the recounts would change anything
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 27, 2016, 02:19:06 pm
Does Penn require ID? I originally checked here and it said it and most other swing states didn't: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on November 27, 2016, 02:46:10 pm
Then that's wrong.. I voted in PA and my friends are all from different districts and all polling places required ID.  My place they even have a list where you have to sign your name next to your name in the book (of all registered voters)
So again if the recount shows Hillary winning at least in PA then it's because of some hacking and not any physical or reporting fraud
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 27, 2016, 03:39:18 pm
Hillary and the DNC were practically found guilty of fraud

I think it's hilarious they are accusing Trump of fraud

I bet there WAS voter fraud - it just wasn't on Trump's part
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on November 27, 2016, 03:57:52 pm
I heard that they called the recount in Wisconsin due to voter descrepencies (whatever that means). I think the whole thing is silly but w.e. let libs be libs.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on November 27, 2016, 04:27:49 pm
Does Penn require ID? I originally checked here and it said it and most other swing states didn't: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

i know Iowa doesn't.  I just show up, say my name, they find me in their binder, I sign my name, and go vote. i don't even need that voter id thing they send in the mail saying i am allowed to vote.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 28, 2016, 05:17:18 am
Can Trumps aides take away his twitter again?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on November 28, 2016, 06:09:42 am
Can Trumps aides take away his twitter again?
This is pure fire atm
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.prntscr.com%2Fimage%2F9af0b600fd574c8fbef786949744f1c9.png&hash=97332fea03f8d52e8c6a5602ab722aca31af0546)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 28, 2016, 06:14:00 am
Can Trumps aides take away his twitter again?
This is pure fire atm
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.prntscr.com%2Fimage%2F9af0b600fd574c8fbef786949744f1c9.png&hash=97332fea03f8d52e8c6a5602ab722aca31af0546)
is there any proof? Like any at all? No? Ok
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on November 28, 2016, 08:09:25 am
Even when he wins, he's still saying that it was rigged xD what the actual fuck. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but he won so it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: csderp on November 28, 2016, 10:19:18 am
Even when he wins, he's still saying that it was rigged xD what the actual fuck. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but he won so it doesn't matter.

So him winning means he shouldn't point out that there's a potential mass voter fraud issue? Right, he should just ignore it so next time the bloodsucking illegals can double down and vote in their guy in 2020.

I guess I should expect this from the bisexual socialist at this point.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Heist on November 28, 2016, 12:04:19 pm
When people say it's rigged it actually kind of is, and openly. It's not hard to see that the government support a particular faction that they believe gives them the greatest influence. Barack Obama standing for Hillary although they have had many disputes, the media is always pointing towards the left wing and completely demonises Trump whilst nothing is ever stated about Hillarys obvious corruption. The E-Mails for example, Hillary by the media was always made to look not guilty. If Trump was in that position he would be demonised the entire time to say he did something wrong even if the FBI hadn't found evidence. Also, how is it that it took a year to get through 33,000 emails and just a couple of weeks to get through 350,000 and call a verdict before the election was over (The FBI stated this would be impossible during Hillarys campaign). The government was always in open favour for Hillary Clinton. Which I guess is a form of corruption because a democracy and vote is meant to be about the people's views and not what the government try to make you believe - they shouldn't be given an open public opinion, the same goes for celebrities because they are given a much larger voice than your average American and the high majority are liberal supporters. The average American that works hard and gets paid fuck all is given no say other than a tick on a piece of paper, yet they are the true heros of their country.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 28, 2016, 06:16:46 pm
Even when he wins, he's still saying that it was rigged xD what the actual fuck. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but he won so it doesn't matter.

So him winning means he shouldn't point out that there's a potential mass voter fraud issue? Right, he should just ignore it so next time the bloodsucking illegals can double down and vote in their guy in 2020.

I guess I should expect this from the bisexual socialist at this point.
tes he should ignore it unless he has actual proof which he doesn't. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 28, 2016, 07:10:43 pm
Trumps a good modern day president-elect, he does what everyone else does and that is having twitter flame wars
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 28, 2016, 10:46:00 pm
So it turns out there wasn't actually a shooting at OSU. It was instead a mass stabbing. Better get rid of guns anyways
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 28, 2016, 11:23:31 pm
So one person managed to somehow stab 10 guys to death?

HOW?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on November 28, 2016, 11:47:10 pm
So one person managed to somehow stab 10 guys to death?

HOW?
'We're liberals, we're protecting you and your faith!! don't kill us D:'
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on November 28, 2016, 11:53:49 pm
Hillary will be president tbh lads
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 28, 2016, 11:58:03 pm
So one person managed to somehow stab 10 guys to death?

HOW?
he drove a car into a crowd, jumped out and just started stabbing everyone
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Locust on November 29, 2016, 12:05:47 am
We need knife free zones.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 29, 2016, 12:21:43 am
Hillary will be president tbh lads

Wouldnt surprise me if they "find" a couple hundred thousand extra votes for her.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on November 29, 2016, 12:28:15 am
That or they make some deal with the republicans to find a more suitable candidate. Maybe Pence? Either way they're really making it seem like they're going to challenge it in December. Which will be fucked up no matter the outcome.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 29, 2016, 01:42:53 am
I am going to Florida in december, so please do not start a civil war before I am back home. Thank you.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on November 29, 2016, 01:45:13 am
Haha I doubt it will ever come close to that, and if it did it would literally be California and every major city against everyone else/ not as divided regionally as in the past

They officially declared Trump winner of Michigan... so things can only get uglier once the recounts results are achieved
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on November 29, 2016, 01:54:07 am
That or they make some deal with the republicans to find a more suitable candidate. Maybe Pence? Either way they're really making it seem like they're going to challenge it in December. Which will be fucked up no matter the outcome.
Still in the denial phase I see.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on November 29, 2016, 03:44:36 am
Lol, it's not like I want Hillary. I just think it could happen based on what I'm seeing.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 29, 2016, 06:54:03 am
Jeez

When everyone is warned, nobody is warned...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on November 29, 2016, 11:05:10 am
Speaking of trump being right, another peaceful refugee from the religion of peace stoke again yesterday at osu. Let's not being that up tho. Right?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on November 29, 2016, 11:20:07 am
Collective punishments now.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on November 29, 2016, 08:05:42 pm
Speaking of trump being right, another peaceful refugee from the religion of peace stoke again yesterday at osu. Let's not being that up tho. Right?
And all the libs care about is the backlash Muslims may or may not receive because of this.

Funny thing is, the failure of a killer himself was complaining about how the media treats Muslims and how unfair it is.  Many more attacks perpetrated my Muslims will follow, as well as senseless attacks on our nation's great police officers.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 29, 2016, 08:24:52 pm
Speaking of trump being right, another peaceful refugee from the religion of peace stoke again yesterday at osu. Let's not being that up tho. Right?

it was already brought up
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Siwi on November 29, 2016, 08:35:12 pm
I am going to Florida in december, so please do not start a civil war before I am back home. Thank you.
Stay away from the gay clubs and you should be fine
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 29, 2016, 10:50:24 pm
Pretty late but I just ordered my MAGA hat
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on November 29, 2016, 11:13:45 pm
I am going to Florida in december, so please do not start a civil war before I am back home. Thank you.
Stay away from the gay clubs and you should be fine

Haha. Good thing I am not gay.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on November 29, 2016, 11:22:59 pm
Pretty late but I just ordered my MAGA hat

Not too late to MAGA.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 29, 2016, 11:35:24 pm
Pretty late but I just ordered my MAGA hat

Not too late to MAGA.
dont worry i made sure I got the one made in China
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on November 30, 2016, 12:51:26 am
Pretty late but I just ordered my MAGA hat

Not too late to MAGA.
dont worry i made sure I got the one made in China

I'm gonna get one made in america, but I'm going to make sure it was made by a robot that put someone out of work.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on November 30, 2016, 07:58:34 am
mfw

There is actually a theory floating around that Justin Trudeau is actually Castro's son.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: MaxLam on November 30, 2016, 10:29:43 am
Is that supposed to be funny?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on November 30, 2016, 10:50:53 am
It's kinda funny but I highly doubt it-Justin resembles his brother Michel quite a lot (his other brother Alexandre not so much, maybe there are question marks there), so Margaret Trudeau would have had to have done it with Fidel twice over a long time frame. Then again she regularly cheated on her husband and had loose morals so who knows-Pierre Trudeau is the intellectual godfather of the SJW movement after all, maybe he knew about it and forgave her/encouraged it or whatever. Pierre was also a well known sexual deviant (as a 47 year old man he fell in love with Margaret who was only 18 at the time) so who knows what he got up to.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 30, 2016, 04:54:18 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CycY5MbUAAAg2y6.jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CycY5MbUAAAg2y6.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on November 30, 2016, 07:27:05 pm
Praise the don
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on November 30, 2016, 10:41:16 pm
Praise the don
hallelujah
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on November 30, 2016, 11:59:16 pm
He just picked a Soros banker for Treasury Secretary

kek
#DrainTheSwamp
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 01, 2016, 12:05:12 am
He hasn't even mentioned the global bankers like Hitler did. Not even a real outsider 0/10.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 01, 2016, 12:08:44 am
He hasn't even mentioned the global bankers like Hitler did. Not even a real outsider 0/10.
Trump is literally Hitler though
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 01, 2016, 12:17:35 am
It's kinda funny but I highly doubt it-Justin resembles his brother Michel quite a lot (his other brother Alexandre not so much, maybe there are question marks there), so Margaret Trudeau would have had to have done it with Fidel twice over a long time frame. Then again she regularly cheated on her husband and had loose morals so who knows-Pierre Trudeau is the intellectual godfather of the SJW movement after all, maybe he knew about it and forgave her/encouraged it or whatever. Pierre was also a well known sexual deviant (as a 47 year old man he fell in love with Margaret who was only 18 at the time) so who knows what he got up to.

SJWs wouldn't use the war measures act to beat up quebec nationalist, they'd puss out and give them independence.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 01, 2016, 06:51:30 am
>Jill Stein starts campaign to raise money for recount

>Mysteriously raises several times the amount of money she raised for her entire presidential campaign

nice meme
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 01, 2016, 06:59:34 am
>Jill Stein starts campaign to raise money for recount

>Mysteriously raises several times the amount of money she raised for her entire presidential campaign

nice meme
HRC trying to get a recount without making it seem like she wants a recount.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: DaMonkey on December 01, 2016, 07:17:12 am
Or maybe Jill saw how much clammy money people threw at Sanders and is cashing in on the salty tears that are developing everywhere. It's a smart move really, especially when you put the disclaimer that all funds not used in the recount will go towards Green Party campaigning.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 01, 2016, 07:18:10 am
Silly drumpfs, they're just making sure our Democracy™ is working correctly.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 01, 2016, 07:33:05 am
Not saying Jill Stein isn't playing smart here, it's just a nice meme.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 01, 2016, 07:37:40 am
I am the real duuring.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 01, 2016, 07:45:13 am
Not gonna lie I thought duuring just started to spam this thread
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 01, 2016, 08:12:44 am
What do you mean? I am duuring.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on December 01, 2016, 09:03:43 am
If this unacceptable behaviour continues disciplinary action will be taken against the offenders.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 01, 2016, 11:34:14 am
It's kinda funny but I highly doubt it-Justin resembles his brother Michel quite a lot (his other brother Alexandre not so much, maybe there are question marks there), so Margaret Trudeau would have had to have done it with Fidel twice over a long time frame. Then again she regularly cheated on her husband and had loose morals so who knows-Pierre Trudeau is the intellectual godfather of the SJW movement after all, maybe he knew about it and forgave her/encouraged it or whatever. Pierre was also a well known sexual deviant (as a 47 year old man he fell in love with Margaret who was only 18 at the time) so who knows what he got up to.

SJWs wouldn't use the war measures act to beat up quebec nationalist, they'd puss out and give them independence.

Like all SJWs he had an authoritarian streak that only came out when his multicultural ideology was challenged.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 01, 2016, 05:21:11 pm
I still prefer the cats.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 01, 2016, 05:37:42 pm
Still wondering why voter I.D. cards aren't issued to Americans yet. It pretty much eliminates the illegal vote and you need an I.D. for everything else. I just don't get how that makes it 'harder' to vote. India has voter I.D. cards and it has over a billion people. Strange.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 01, 2016, 06:26:07 pm
Still wondering why voter I.D. cards aren't issued to Americans yet. It pretty much eliminates the illegal vote and you need an I.D. for everything else. I just don't get how that makes it 'harder' to vote. India has voter I.D. cards and it has over a billion people. Strange.
its cuz Americans are racist and don't give ids to minorities
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 01, 2016, 06:41:38 pm
Still wondering why voter I.D. cards aren't issued to Americans yet. It pretty much eliminates the illegal vote and you need an I.D. for everything else. I just don't get how that makes it 'harder' to vote. India has voter I.D. cards and it has over a billion people. Strange.
it is not as easy as it sounds.

Depending on your PoV, you may or may not think they are necessary in the first place.  Anyways, either state by state or the Fed gov would have to make up laws for it,(lots and lots of laws), you would have to make the ID cards which would be hard,(and make sure people cant make illegal copies), and you would have to make it EASILY accessible for everyone to get.  The moment it becomes hard for people to get their ID, you start to disenfranchise people.  and their are arguments against ID cards as they hurt the *insert group here* more than your average person.  They wouldn't have the time, ability to, and possibly other stuff prevents them from ever getting an ID when they normally could and did legally vote in the past. 

You cant charge people to pay for the IDs either,(would basically be another poll tax) so either the state or the Fed would have to eat the very expensive cost.  some States, for one reason or another have a hard time even having enough polling places due to costs.(so they say anyways)  If they cant get enough polling places to allow people to vote in a reasonable amount of time,(no one should have to wait an hour, let alone 3+ hours) how will they afford this expensive change?  I already hate going to the DMV, imagine doing this and having to wait even longer.(in some states you have to make an appointment to go to the DMV, possibly the same here)

anyways, these are some of the possible issues.   there may be other points i didnt address here.   Perhaps you or others would be able to handle the above questions if it came to making voting IDs required.   i hope anyways you can at least understand some of the issues above, even if you disagree with them or think they are minor.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 01, 2016, 07:44:55 pm
Still wondering why voter I.D. cards aren't issued to Americans yet. It pretty much eliminates the illegal vote and you need an I.D. for everything else. I just don't get how that makes it 'harder' to vote. India has voter I.D. cards and it has over a billion people. Strange.
it is not as easy as it sounds.

Depending on your PoV, you may or may not think they are necessary in the first place.  Anyways, either state by state or the Fed gov would have to make up laws for it,(lots and lots of laws), you would have to make the ID cards which would be hard,(and make sure people cant make illegal copies), and you would have to make it EASILY accessible for everyone to get.  The moment it becomes hard for people to get their ID, you start to disenfranchise people.  and their are arguments against ID cards as they hurt the *insert group here* more than your average person.  They wouldn't have the time, ability to, and possibly other stuff prevents them from ever getting an ID when they normally could and did legally vote in the past. 

You cant charge people to pay for the IDs either,(would basically be another poll tax) so either the state or the Fed would have to eat the very expensive cost.  some States, for one reason or another have a hard time even having enough polling places due to costs.(so they say anyways)  If they cant get enough polling places to allow people to vote in a reasonable amount of time,(no one should have to wait an hour, let alone 3+ hours) how will they afford this expensive change?  I already hate going to the DMV, imagine doing this and having to wait even longer.(in some states you have to make an appointment to go to the DMV, possibly the same here)

anyways, these are some of the possible issues.   there may be other points i didnt address here.   Perhaps you or others would be able to handle the above questions if it came to making voting IDs required.   i hope anyways you can at least understand some of the issues above, even if you disagree with them or think they are minor.
Valid points. The other way could be the use of a Driver's license or some form of identification such as a military ID, and if you don't have one of those, than you could apply for a voter ID card. My point is to make sure that only legal citizens are voting and that they can only vote once. I'm sick of dead people voting on both sides and the idea that illegal immigrants can sway the election is just mind boggling.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Siwi on December 01, 2016, 09:01:12 pm
Still wondering why voter I.D. cards aren't issued to Americans yet. It pretty much eliminates the illegal vote and you need an I.D. for everything else. I just don't get how that makes it 'harder' to vote. India has voter I.D. cards and it has over a billion people. Strange.
it is not as easy as it sounds.

Depending on your PoV, you may or may not think they are necessary in the first place.  Anyways, either state by state or the Fed gov would have to make up laws for it,(lots and lots of laws), you would have to make the ID cards which would be hard,(and make sure people cant make illegal copies), and you would have to make it EASILY accessible for everyone to get.  The moment it becomes hard for people to get their ID, you start to disenfranchise people.  and their are arguments against ID cards as they hurt the *insert group here* more than your average person.  They wouldn't have the time, ability to, and possibly other stuff prevents them from ever getting an ID when they normally could and did legally vote in the past. 

You cant charge people to pay for the IDs either,(would basically be another poll tax) so either the state or the Fed would have to eat the very expensive cost.  some States, for one reason or another have a hard time even having enough polling places due to costs.(so they say anyways)  If they cant get enough polling places to allow people to vote in a reasonable amount of time,(no one should have to wait an hour, let alone 3+ hours) how will they afford this expensive change?  I already hate going to the DMV, imagine doing this and having to wait even longer.(in some states you have to make an appointment to go to the DMV, possibly the same here)

anyways, these are some of the possible issues.   there may be other points i didnt address here.   Perhaps you or others would be able to handle the above questions if it came to making voting IDs required.   i hope anyways you can at least understand some of the issues above, even if you disagree with them or think they are minor.
Valid points. The other way could be the use of a Driver's license or some form of identification such as a military ID, and if you don't have one of those, than you could apply for a voter ID card. My point is to make sure that only legal citizens are voting and that they can only vote once. I'm sick of dead people voting on both sides and the idea that illegal immigrants can sway the election is just mind boggling.
Cept then you have states like California where you can get a drivers license without being a citizen

STILL WAITING FOR MY CUSTOM TITLE FOR TRUMP GETTING OVER 300 VOTES
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 01, 2016, 09:46:59 pm
Duuring took our avatars

Tyranny!
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 01, 2016, 09:58:01 pm
Duuring took our avatars

Tyranny!
Im going to write a formal complaint to olaf. TO THE DONATER BOARD
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 01, 2016, 10:10:25 pm
Still wondering why voter I.D. cards aren't issued to Americans yet. It pretty much eliminates the illegal vote and you need an I.D. for everything else. I just don't get how that makes it 'harder' to vote. India has voter I.D. cards and it has over a billion people. Strange.
it is not as easy as it sounds.

Depending on your PoV, you may or may not think they are necessary in the first place.  Anyways, either state by state or the Fed gov would have to make up laws for it,(lots and lots of laws), you would have to make the ID cards which would be hard,(and make sure people cant make illegal copies), and you would have to make it EASILY accessible for everyone to get.  The moment it becomes hard for people to get their ID, you start to disenfranchise people.  and their are arguments against ID cards as they hurt the *insert group here* more than your average person.  They wouldn't have the time, ability to, and possibly other stuff prevents them from ever getting an ID when they normally could and did legally vote in the past. 

You cant charge people to pay for the IDs either,(would basically be another poll tax) so either the state or the Fed would have to eat the very expensive cost.  some States, for one reason or another have a hard time even having enough polling places due to costs.(so they say anyways)  If they cant get enough polling places to allow people to vote in a reasonable amount of time,(no one should have to wait an hour, let alone 3+ hours) how will they afford this expensive change?  I already hate going to the DMV, imagine doing this and having to wait even longer.(in some states you have to make an appointment to go to the DMV, possibly the same here)

anyways, these are some of the possible issues.   there may be other points i didnt address here.   Perhaps you or others would be able to handle the above questions if it came to making voting IDs required.   i hope anyways you can at least understand some of the issues above, even if you disagree with them or think they are minor.
Valid points. The other way could be the use of a Driver's license or some form of identification such as a military ID, and if you don't have one of those, than you could apply for a voter ID card. My point is to make sure that only legal citizens are voting and that they can only vote once. I'm sick of dead people voting on both sides and the idea that illegal immigrants can sway the election is just mind boggling.
not everyone has a car or knows how to drive.   and siwi raised another valid point.  you dont need to be a citizen to get a license. 

really, you would probably need to  make a system that allows people easily and quickly get a voter id.  you would need one where either people can apply by online or mail(no postage charge) and have said application be easily accessible.  another possibility, even though it would require a bigger gov is to have the gov have a system where they automatically add you to the list of approved voters when you turn 18 as long as you haven't done anything to disqualify yourself.(felony)  that could be state or Fed.  and they would need to tell you if you are not allowed to vote when you apply, that way if there is an error, you can contest it. 

i am sure others can think up other ideas.  The key is to make it so that EVERYONE who is legally allowed to vote can, with little to no hassle and free of charge.  Doing anything other than that and you start disenfranchising people, and that goes against what we are suppose to be as a nation. 


and another issue with voter id is the inability to have same day voter registration.(meaning you can register to vote at your polling place)  not unless you had some way of signing up people and approving them with this new system that would be required. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 01, 2016, 11:15:42 pm
If getting ID was so difficult in the US then you wouldn't have such a big social problem with alcohol. Probably the first thing every adult does in the US as soon as they turn 21 is get/update their ID to buy it. So arguing that a large number of Americans don't have any form of ID is just wrong, and there's nothing difficult in asking people to show it in order to vote.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Siwi on December 01, 2016, 11:42:07 pm
If getting ID was so difficult in the US then you wouldn't have such a big social problem with alcohol. Probably the first thing every adult does in the US as soon as they turn 21 is get/update their ID to buy it. So arguing that a large number of Americans don't have any form of ID is just wrong, and there's nothing difficult in asking people to show it in order to vote.
If only we had this national database that includes every legal citizens name and a number that is unique to them and can be used to identify them
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 01, 2016, 11:50:58 pm
Quote
So arguing that a large number of Americans don't have any form of ID is just wrong, and there's nothing difficult in asking people to show it in order to vote.

This is wrong though. A large number of minorities, especially poor blacks and hispanics do not have IDs, and are barred from voting, especially in the south. It is an issue, I mean not like it matters either way because it's all rigged, but it is a real thing.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 02, 2016, 12:01:16 am
If getting ID was so difficult in the US then you wouldn't have such a big social problem with alcohol. Probably the first thing every adult does in the US as soon as they turn 21 is get/update their ID to buy it. So arguing that a large number of Americans don't have any form of ID is just wrong, and there's nothing difficult in asking people to show it in order to vote.
No.   you do not need to go and update your ID.  All that matters is your age.   The ID i have currently was given to me before I was 21 years old.(i am older than 21 now)  I am able to go buy alcohol whenever i feel like it.(they may not even bother checking your id.  they are suppose to, but sometimes don't.)

Not to mention, like i said before, a lot of americans do not own a car or know how to drive.(especially the poor, where requiring an ID would have the biggest negative impact on)  even your average middle class person may not know how to drive and therefore not have a license. 

and one doesn't need to have a license to obtain alcohol, they can have others get it for them.  You don't even need to be 21 to drink alcohol in certain environments.


whether you are for or against some ID requirement, it is best to look at it from both sides.   You may want an ID requirement nation wide, but there will be consequences, especially if it is not done right.  Even more so if it is  based on false assumptions like the above quote.   
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 02, 2016, 12:08:24 am
I don't think it would be that hard for the government to issue ids. Like a month after you turn 18 you are forced to sign up for the draft

Really we should just put bar codes or chips on all citizens that way voter fraud is impossible
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 02, 2016, 12:09:29 am
The problem is that states have different standards for giving out IDs, so in many areas it is next to impossible to get one if you have no income, or you're a felon (nearly impossible to avoid in some places where people are picked up off the street and charged with drug possession as a standard procedure), or if you have no permanent home, job, former registration in the state system, or other things. It's meant to intentionally disenfranchise democratic voters in the south, but they do the same thing with Republican voters in swing states like PA and Ohio.

It should just tell you that our system is so convoluted and fucked that only a complete overhaul of abolition of the current method will make it fair. That is, if you accept that voting is fair, or that it's real at all. But let's leave that out and assume it is, you can't just have a nationwide voter ID requirement without also reforming the standards for giving out IDs in every state.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 02, 2016, 12:28:15 am
Do citizens in america really not have access to photo IDs? In canada you can't do shit unless you have Photo ID, and sometimes you need TWO pieces of ID.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 02, 2016, 12:39:54 am
Do citizens in america really not have access to photo IDs? In canada you can't do shit unless you have Photo ID, and sometimes you need TWO pieces of ID.
not really, no.  Some places you will need photo id, but a lot of places dont.   and your SS card and birth certificate are needed for some stuff, but not an ID.  Sometimes just bringing mail in showing you live at an address is enough proof to say who you are.(speaking generally)

and women aren't required to sign up for the SSA, as they are not required to.  Perhaps someday how the draft works and who it picks will be changed.  You would have to change that if you want to use that as a way to sign people up to vote.(still wouldn't be full proof)


and Nipple brings up another valid point.   There have been numerous times in our history where laws were passed to restrict voters from some group from voting.  Quite often under the guise of some other issue, hiding their true motives. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 02, 2016, 12:44:44 am
I have lived and worked in three countries, and have personally never met anyone who doesn't have any form of ID. Ever. When I've applied for jobs one of the first things they do is ask for ID. Whenever I have bought alcohol or gone into a club I have had to show ID. Same for when I have applied for a license or accreditation of any kind, opened a bank account, and so on.

Dunno, maybe there are lots of people in America who have never traveled, never worked, never had to buy or rent a house, never had to learn to drive, never had to open a bank account, etc. Maybe they weren't even issued with a birth certificate when they were born. Who knows, maybe the Amish population of the USA is bigger than I thought?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 02, 2016, 12:49:15 am
I have lived and worked in three countries, and have personally never met anyone who doesn't have any form of ID. Ever. When I've applied for jobs one of the first things they do is ask for ID. Whenever I have bought alcohol or gone into a club I have had to show ID. Same for when I have applied for a license or accreditation of any kind, opened a bank account, and so on.

Dunno, maybe there are lots of people in America who have never traveled, never worked, never had to buy or rent a house, never had to learn to drive, never had to open a bank account, etc. Maybe they weren't even issued with a birth certificate when they were born. Who knows, maybe the Amish population of the USA is bigger than I thought?
I had to prove I was who I said I was in three different ways to work at McDonalds in Ontario. Two photo ID's, SS number, birth certificate.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 02, 2016, 12:56:31 am
I have lived and worked in three countries, and have personally never met anyone who doesn't have any form of ID. Ever. When I've applied for jobs one of the first things they do is ask for ID. Whenever I have bought alcohol or gone into a club I have had to show ID. Same for when I have applied for a license or accreditation of any kind, opened a bank account, and so on.

Dunno, maybe there are lots of people in America who have never traveled, never worked, never had to buy or rent a house, never had to learn to drive, never had to open a bank account, etc. Maybe they weren't even issued with a birth certificate when they were born. Who knows, maybe the Amish population of the USA is bigger than I thought?
lol.  The ignorance in this post is great, especially with the dismissive attitude.  on top of all that, you ignored what was said above.  I would recommend spending some time with the poor,(in the US) or taking a sociology class of some sort.  At least that way, you can understand what it is like to be poor.(not to mention various social standards)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 02, 2016, 01:00:23 am
Here's a solution: Conscript any people who don't have an ID so they're forced to get a military ID in the military. Everyone wins in that scenario. There's not a single problem with it either.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 02, 2016, 01:02:27 am
Quote
Dunno, maybe there are lots of people in America who have never traveled, never worked, never had to buy or rent a house, never had to learn to drive, never had to open a bank account, etc. Maybe they weren't even issued with a birth certificate when they were born. Who knows, maybe the Amish population of the USA is bigger than I thought?

Yes, that is how it is in America because unlike Europe we have a working class that makes up like 75% of the population and a government that doesn't give a shit about anything except profit. So there are third world conditions in a lot of the derp south and inner cities. But are you really refusing to believe there are this many people like that after all the zesty news coverage we've been getting?

Btw you don't need an ID for many of those things you listed.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 02, 2016, 01:08:50 am
Quote
Dunno, maybe there are lots of people in America who have never traveled, never worked, never had to buy or rent a house, never had to learn to drive, never had to open a bank account, etc. Maybe they weren't even issued with a birth certificate when they were born. Who knows, maybe the Amish population of the USA is bigger than I thought?

Yes, that is how it is in America because unlike Europe we have a working class that makes up like 75% of the population and a government that doesn't give a shit about anything except profit. So there are third world conditions in a lot of the derp south and inner cities. But are you really refusing to believe there are this many people like that after all the zesty news coverage we've been getting?

Btw you don't need an ID for many of those things you listed.

Well I guess in america you don't, in Canada all of those require photo ID so most citizens have some form of ID on them by the time they get their first job or become eligible to vote.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 02, 2016, 01:13:54 am
Well if I cant be Duuring at least I can be Thunderstormer
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 02, 2016, 01:14:48 am
Getting ID is mandatory in my country.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 02, 2016, 01:30:43 am
Quote
Dunno, maybe there are lots of people in America who have never traveled, never worked, never had to buy or rent a house, never had to learn to drive, never had to open a bank account, etc. Maybe they weren't even issued with a birth certificate when they were born. Who knows, maybe the Amish population of the USA is bigger than I thought?

Yes, that is how it is in America because unlike Europe we have a working class that makes up like 75% of the population and a government that doesn't give a shit about anything except profit. So there are third world conditions in a lot of the derp south and inner cities. But are you really refusing to believe there are this many people like that after all the zesty news coverage we've been getting?

Btw you don't need an ID for many of those things you listed.

Well I guess in america you don't, in Canada all of those require photo ID so most citizens have some form of ID on them by the time they get their first job or become eligible to vote.
you just have to remember that each state in many ways is their own country.  Each state has it's own requirements as to what is acceptable to get a photo ID.  Even when people are allowed to drive is different.  I could drive at 14(you can actually do so before this and the cops wouldn't really care depending on what you are doing), others it is 16 before you can get a permit. 

and nipple right.  Many of those things do not require a photo ID, or even an id in some cases.   Not to mention the other points raised above about certain groups being able to get a photo ID.

typos were made on behalf of xethos
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 02, 2016, 01:31:46 am
Most of the people who don't have IDs also don't have legal jobs, pay rent unofficially and buy cars with cash or through barter, or just stealing. But this is a relatively large percentage of the population, and also keep in mind that there are something like 2 million people in prison here who can't vote, and 5.8 million with past convictions (roughly 1% of the whole population put together). Oh yeah, and almost 5 million on probation and parole but that doesn't matter.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: RussianFury on December 02, 2016, 04:06:00 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JGLg-PTk8
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 02, 2016, 11:47:35 am
Everyone is born with at least one piece of ID, it's called a birth certificate. Nobody is too poor or stupid to get ID, I don't know how you could possibly live in a modern society like the US without it. This video is pretty relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llDM-44Zb8w
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on December 02, 2016, 01:29:21 pm
It is so weird to me. Because here you have to carry your ID at all times. If you leave your home, you have to take your ID with you.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 02, 2016, 01:57:20 pm
uh well idk what world they live in, but if you are 18 and older there is literally no way you can function in the US without some form of ID, unless you are one of the severely impoverished and are not doing anything
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on December 02, 2016, 03:26:35 pm
uh well idk what world they live in, but if you are 18 and older there is literally no way you can function in the US without some form of ID, unless you are one of the severely impoverished and are not doing anything

^^

I don't see the point of voter ID. We have many other forms of state identification, creating another ID card that will just eventually end up getting a counterfeit replica.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 02, 2016, 03:52:55 pm
Everyone is born with at least one piece of ID, it's called a birth certificate. Nobody is too poor or stupid to get ID, I don't know how you could possibly live in a modern society like the US without it. This video is pretty relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llDM-44Zb8w

not everyone(most do) has a birth certificate.  Others may have a birth certificate, but because how things worked out, it is not official enough  to be used and therefore not valid.   Many would not have their birth certificate on them, requiring them to go to one of the county or state offices.  Meaning another burden they would have to overcome all to get a photo ID. 

anyways, that video still doesn't refute what Nipple or I said earlier.  Not sure why you are trying to keep hitting home the point that everyone has photo ID.  They don't.  IDC how many videos you dig up of x group having photo IDs.  Not everyone has easy access to getting one either.  Especially if laws are made intentionally to make it harder for them to get the photo ID and/or vote. 

This is the real world, not some ideal one.  Your posts so far haven't shown you understand this.  It is not the well off but the poor/other groups that take an unnecessary burden when it comes to things like this.  Different groups are affected differently. It all depends on where they live and the law passed.(especially if the law was made to intentionally keep a group from voting.  our history provides plenty of examples)  If you make a law that makes millions be incapable of voting when they otherwise could have, you disenfranchised them.   That is why it is important to find a way to make it very very easy for said people to get the ID required(free at that.  if they charge for it, it would be illegal) so they can exercise their right to vote if one is required.

If you believe that everyone should have a photo id or a photo id to vote, that is fine.  That is your opinion.   Just don't assume everyone has one or easy access to getting one. That is what i have been getting at this entire time.  There are people out there(speaking generally) that want voter IDs, but do not think of any of the consequences outside of it possibly stopping voter fraud.  This is why i posted.  I wanted people to be able to look at it from the other side, even if they disagree.(do note, i haven't said one way or another who's side i support)

yes, most Americans citizens if a law was passed(depending on how it was passed as well) would be able to go out and get one in one way or another, but that is not everyone.  Not unless you take the right steps to ensure everyone can. 

uh well idk what world they live in, but if you are 18 and older there is literally no way you can function in the US without some form of ID, unless you are one of the severely impoverished and are not doing anything
yes you can.  many do. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 02, 2016, 06:30:04 pm
From the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website:

Every employer in the United States must verify that each newly hired employee can be legally employed in the United States.  A U.S. citizen may show a variety of evidence to meet this requirement:

-U.S. passport;
-U.S. birth certificate along with a government-issued photo identification document.
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/proof-us-citizenship-and-identification-when-applying-job

They even give you a list of what documentation is required:
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-documents/form-i-9-acceptable-documents

You have to show some form of photographic ID to get a job, there's no way round that. You cannot physically earn a living without ID it's just not possible, unless you're an illegal migrant who hangs around on curbs getting paid cash in hand for odd jobs here and there (in which case they shouldn't be voting anyway). This is getting silly now just admit you're wrong.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 02, 2016, 06:35:26 pm
Not all babies are born in hospitals, but besides that even if you do have some form of ID, millions of people are barred from voting for other reasons. Voter ID laws require you to get an ID like a drivers license, passport or state id. Also, even if someone has a birth certificate I'm not sure it counts everywhere, especially where you need to jump through hoops to register like the deep south.

^And wtf, it was already mentioned that a lot of people don't have legal jobs. Do you think there are drug dealer cards?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 02, 2016, 08:27:57 pm
From the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website:

Every employer in the United States must verify that each newly hired employee can be legally employed in the United States.  A U.S. citizen may show a variety of evidence to meet this requirement:

-U.S. passport;
-U.S. birth certificate along with a government-issued photo identification document.
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/proof-us-citizenship-and-identification-when-applying-job

They even give you a list of what documentation is required:
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-documents/form-i-9-acceptable-documents

You have to show some form of photographic ID to get a job, there's no way round that. You cannot physically earn a living without ID it's just not possible, unless you're an illegal migrant who hangs around on curbs getting paid cash in hand for odd jobs here and there (in which case they shouldn't be voting anyway). This is getting silly now just admit you're wrong.

yes there is and yes you can.  again real world, not ideal.  stop living in your bubble.  the fact you think everyone follows those rules, or every job out there goes through that process is cute.(or does their best to help the gov enforce them.)  if you choose to ignore this, then that is on you. if you want to keep believing you live in an ideal world, and not the real world go for it.  This is getting silly.   

and even if they have an id, it doesn't mean they are able to work legally.  One of my old jobs use to hire illegal immigrants all the time.  It would take months for the gov to come investigate and by that time, they went back to cali to get a new fake Id.(including a new SS card)  They would then return not too long later to continue working.  Yes, the people hiring knew it, but they didn't turn them in.   


poor citizens that work on the corner that do odd jobs(legal) and it is their only income  should be able to vote.   They deserve the right to vote like everyone else. 

as long as you want to live in that other world, this convo is done.  you keep proving you are ignorant on the subject.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 03, 2016, 01:54:11 am
a little ticked off Trump is calling the President of Pakistan and trying to make peace... does he not realize it's a terrorist state and that there was a guy named Bin Laden who they were protecting?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 03, 2016, 02:13:06 am
Would you rather we spend billions of dollars bombing them?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 03, 2016, 02:43:52 am
Would you rather we spend billions of dollars bombing them?
It's worked so well already.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 03, 2016, 05:10:16 am
Completely fine just leaving the middle east tbh

rip Petro-Dollar tho
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 03, 2016, 03:45:08 pm
Someone need cheap oil?? Alberta is looking for a buyer
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 03, 2016, 04:48:10 pm
Cheap? Let's wait and see how expensive it is after Trudeau implements his carbon tax.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on December 03, 2016, 06:40:47 pm
https://youtu.be/s5wysj3jvw4?t=18
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on December 03, 2016, 06:53:07 pm
a little ticked off Trump is calling the President of Pakistan and trying to make peace... does he not realize it's a terrorist state and that there was a guy named Bin Laden who they were protecting?
Question for you, do you support the Kurds?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 06, 2016, 03:12:00 pm
O shit fam I just got 2 tickets for Trumps thank you tour
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 06, 2016, 06:11:22 pm
(https://i.sli.mg/SS2MKI.png)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Jakester on December 06, 2016, 06:59:15 pm
ayy lmao
(https://i.sli.mg/SS2MKI.png)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 06, 2016, 10:17:50 pm
Got my trump hat in the mail today. #Blessed

Anyone know why only California and the other liberal states are the only ones with absentee ballots to count? It honestly seems like their just adding votes so it makes it look like Hilary crushed him
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 07, 2016, 01:39:18 am
tfw trump isnt even president yet and just brought 50000 jobs
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 07, 2016, 02:50:29 am
Once you get checkmate (electoral win) the game is over regardless of how many pieces you have on the board (popular vote). I have no idea why those liberals can't just take the L and wait for the next election to try and get socialism rolling. This special snowflake era wouldn't exist if we just had a war to start the draft or had mandatory military service to give people a chance to grow a backbone. What happened to my generation
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 07, 2016, 02:52:29 am
Once you get checkmate (electoral win) the game is over regardless of how many pieces you have on the board (popular vote). I have no idea why those liberals can't just take the L and wait for the next election to try and get socialism rolling. This special snowflake era wouldn't exist if we just had a war to start the draft or had mandatory military service to give people a chance to grow a backbone. What happened to my generation
if you wanted a war, then you supported the wrong candidate
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 07, 2016, 03:18:22 am
What happened to my generation

Shut the fuck up.

You are basically the right wing equivalent of a special snowflake when you say that.

Self-Loathing Millennials are JUST as bad.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 07, 2016, 04:24:27 am
This is what happens when you play too much Arma and counterstrike.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 07, 2016, 04:41:37 pm
Because liberals proclaim to be tolerant, loving, and open to a other beliefs and ideas, then are stunned and offended to learn there are in fact other beliefs and ideas.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 07, 2016, 05:29:40 pm
What happened to my generation

Shut the fuck up.

You are basically the right wing equivalent of a special snowflake when you say that.

Self-Loathing Millennials are JUST as bad.
I mean, yeah, but we still have to wonder what happened and how can we avoid this next time..
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 07, 2016, 06:31:12 pm
Because liberals proclaim to be tolerant, loving, and open to a other beliefs and ideas, then are stunned and offended to learn there are in fact other beliefs and ideas.

No? Of course I can't speak for all liberals, but for me, the very notion of tolerance is accepting that there are other beliefs and ideas. The only 'but' is that everyone gives the same level of tolerance to eachother on an individual level.

Though of course strawmanning the entire liberal movement is much easier then actually debating it.  ::)

William, to say that war is something we ought to have had so people wouldn't be so 'soft' is plain retarded. The suffering and traumas that come along with wars are apparantly a better alternative then a few people you find annoying? Ar you twelve or something?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 07, 2016, 09:24:25 pm
Once you get checkmate (electoral win) the game is over regardless of how many pieces you have on the board (popular vote). I have no idea why those liberals can't just take the L and wait for the next election to try and get socialism rolling. This special snowflake era wouldn't exist if we just had a war to start the draft or had mandatory military service to give people a chance to grow a backbone. What happened to my generation

was this post sponsored by the military-industrial complex? you know america has been at war for like 70 years as well right.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 07, 2016, 10:27:48 pm
I never thought weak b8 would go this far. Like almost everything I say is usually bullshit/bait and I thought you all would have figured that out by now. I think I've called for crusades, mass incarceration, making the southern border into a DMZ, reintroduction of German Secret Police to stop refugees and more. I guess I better start putting /s at the end of these posts from now on
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Dom13WorstNW on December 08, 2016, 12:27:11 am
Thanks you Weather Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M&t=10s
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 08, 2016, 01:22:12 am
What happened to my generation

Shut the fuck up.

You are basically the right wing equivalent of a special snowflake when you say that.

Self-Loathing Millennials are JUST as bad.
I mean, yeah, but we still have to wonder what happened and how can we avoid this next time..

"Wonder what happened"

Young people have basically always been more progressive than their predecessors. However even then, I feel like William is upset over a vocal minority. Almost everyone on this thread is a Millenial, and I haven't really seen any SJWs. I have seen a couple whining about Trump's election but I don't think any of them are preaching civil war and recounts.

When I see people say "Our generation needs a backbone", that's kinda bull shit. I think our generation has too much of a backbone, if you ask me. All the SJWs you are talking about you loathe are generally aggressive people. They have no issue arguing with you, fighting you, and generally telling you exactly how they feel. See, war doesn't create a generation without a backbone. It creates a generation with too much backbone. It creates a generation where people are sheltered from those horrors, people who have not yet learned to fear them and some even seem to almost glorify it like William just did.

What triggers me most of all is when I see Millennials bein like "Muh generation so bad  :'( :'( :'(". What they are basically saying is "Look at me, I have more conservative values than my peers. Look how special I am". Its the right wing equivalent of a special snowflake. You could literally replace everything William said with a leftist whining about Trump's election and still come to the "Muh generation  :'( :'( :'(" conclusion. I say suck it up snowflake, you have "no backbone" like the rest of us.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 08, 2016, 01:38:10 am
I never thought weak b8 would go this far. Like almost everything I say is usually bullshit/bait and I thought you all would have figured that out by now. I think I've called for crusades, mass incarceration, making the southern border into a DMZ, reintroduction of German Secret Police to stop refugees and more. I guess I better start putting /s at the end of these posts from now on

(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F738%2F026%2F01f.jpg&hash=4876acbf5456ffd91b98e81dd72456e4fba8690b)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 08, 2016, 02:02:21 am
Even if it was /s, I have seen many many people say the same thing but not be /s.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 08, 2016, 02:06:54 am
Thanks you Weather Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M&t=10s
i can't stand breitbart

i giggled a little bit when i saw this

(https://gyazo.com/8a2e1a28cbfb8abd1080f7af463625b3.png)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on December 08, 2016, 03:01:48 pm
Breitbart is the CNN of the right-wing.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 08, 2016, 03:32:51 pm
Apoc what happened to our generation
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 08, 2016, 03:50:53 pm
Thanks you Weather Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M&t=10s
oh my, she looks a lot like my ex, jesus  :-X
But yea denying climate change is a real thing is like denying that the world isnt flat
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 08, 2016, 04:26:30 pm
Because liberals proclaim to be tolerant, loving, and open to a other beliefs and ideas, then are stunned and offended to learn there are in fact other beliefs and ideas.

No? Of course I can't speak for all liberals, but for me, the very notion of tolerance is accepting that there are other beliefs and ideas. The only 'but' is that everyone gives the same level of tolerance to eachother on an individual level.

Though of course strawmanning the entire liberal movement is much easier then actually debating it.  ::)


Sorry for the ambiguity, didn't mean it as in all liberals.



Thanks you Weather Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M&t=10s
oh my, she looks a lot like my ex, jesus  :-X
But yea denying climate change is a real thing is like denying that the world isnt flat

If you want some laughs go through the flat earth society forums. Some of the shit there is just as hilariously crazy as you'd expect it to be if not more. From all satellites being balloons to NASA faking every experiment ever confucted anywhere by even the smallest of independant research groups.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 08, 2016, 05:22:05 pm
Apoc what happened to our generation

I'll murder your memes
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on December 08, 2016, 06:06:37 pm
Because liberals proclaim to be tolerant, loving, and open to a other beliefs and ideas, then are stunned and offended to learn there are in fact other beliefs and ideas.

No? Of course I can't speak for all liberals, but for me, the very notion of tolerance is accepting that there are other beliefs and ideas. The only 'but' is that everyone gives the same level of tolerance to eachother on an individual level.

Though of course strawmanning the entire liberal movement is much easier then actually debating it.  ::)

William, to say that war is something we ought to have had so people wouldn't be so 'soft' is plain retarded. The suffering and traumas that come along with wars are apparantly a better alternative then a few people you find annoying? Ar you twelve or something?

This guy is the biggest hypocrite I have ever met in my life.  While debating over on the Alt right thread, which was removed because it hurt duurings feelings, he told me I was no longer free to express my beliefs on "their" forum.  I was in the Off topic section, in a thread dedicated to my fellow centipedes, but my ideas were too much for his intolerance.

https://gyazo.com/6e074d1294cae773ce12a02a9906503c

He also muted me several times for calling him out or just discussing my view of the world.  And it is a near certainty that I will again be muted for doing exactly that in this post.  So do us all a favor duuring, act in accordance with your own message.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 08, 2016, 06:21:38 pm
Because liberals proclaim to be tolerant, loving, and open to a other beliefs and ideas, then are stunned and offended to learn there are in fact other beliefs and ideas.

No? Of course I can't speak for all liberals, but for me, the very notion of tolerance is accepting that there are other beliefs and ideas. The only 'but' is that everyone gives the same level of tolerance to eachother on an individual level.

Though of course strawmanning the entire liberal movement is much easier then actually debating it.  ::)

William, to say that war is something we ought to have had so people wouldn't be so 'soft' is plain retarded. The suffering and traumas that come along with wars are apparantly a better alternative then a few people you find annoying? Ar you twelve or something?

This guy is the biggest hypocrite I have ever met in my life.  While debating over on the Alt right thread, which was removed because it hurt duurings feelings, he told me I was no longer free to express my beliefs on "their" forum.  I was in the Off topic section, in a thread dedicated to my fellow centipedes, but my ideas were too much for his intolerance.

https://gyazo.com/6e074d1294cae773ce12a02a9906503c

He also muted me several times for calling him out or just discussing my view of the world.  And it is a near certainty that I will again be muted for doing exactly that in this post.  So do us all a favor duuring, act in accordance with your own message.
and banned
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 08, 2016, 06:37:32 pm
I got banned once for saying such reasonable things like that
Careful
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 08, 2016, 06:47:24 pm
If you want some laughs go through the flat earth society forums. Some of the shit there is just as hilariously crazy as you'd expect it to be if not more. From all satellites being balloons to NASA faking every experiment ever confucted anywhere by even the smallest of independant research groups.

https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=44593 (https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=44593)
This forum is satire but they still get a lot of reactions from people thinking it's real.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on December 08, 2016, 06:57:15 pm
I got banned once for saying such reasonable things like that
Careful
Liberal tolerance only applies to liberal principles.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 08, 2016, 07:01:56 pm
Won't be long before this thread gets updated lol
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=28036.msg1475251#new
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on December 08, 2016, 07:08:07 pm
Won't be long before this thread gets updated lol
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=28036.msg1475251#new

"Cheesey was banned for voicing right leaning opinions"
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 08, 2016, 07:10:51 pm
It's true.

I wouldn't exactly say this forum is very tolerant. But if that is what FSE and Duuring want, then so be it. I believe they cited the company/forum's reputation as why they locked that thread. So if they want to be seen as an intolerant forum, then so be it.

I like how the forums have pretty much died since then though. At least NA side, not sure how EU is doing.


aaaand my avatar got stolen again. Because mods love going into my profile and taking away my signatures and avatars without me violating the rules.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on December 08, 2016, 07:14:04 pm
It's true.

I wouldn't exactly say this forum is very tolerant. But if that is what FSE and Duuring want, then so be it. I believe they cited the company/forum's reputation as why they locked that thread. So if they want to be seen as an intolerant forum, then so be it.

I like how the forums have pretty much died since then though. At least NA side, not sure how EU is doing.


aaaand my avatar got stolen again. Because mods love going into my profile and taking away my signatures and avatars without me violating the rules.

They can be as intolerant as they want (libs), but to see this guy preaching about love and tolerance while doing the opposite really highlights his own hypocrisy.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Siwi on December 08, 2016, 07:46:19 pm
It's true.

I wouldn't exactly say this forum is very tolerant. But if that is what FSE and Duuring want, then so be it. I believe they cited the company/forum's reputation as why they locked that thread. So if they want to be seen as an intolerant forum, then so be it.

I like how the forums have pretty much died since then though. At least NA side, not sure how EU is doing.


aaaand my avatar got stolen again. Because mods love going into my profile and taking away my signatures and avatars without me violating the rules.

They can be as intolerant as they want (libs), but to see this guy preaching about love and tolerance while doing the opposite really highlights his own hypocrisy.
I legit just looked at this and was like, Pepper said this, why does your quote say Apoc. Nice meme
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 08, 2016, 08:19:02 pm
Freedom of speech is between you and the state, not you and other private citizens.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 08, 2016, 08:19:43 pm
Freedom of speech is between you and the state, not you and other private citizens.

We aren't talking about freedom of speech.

We are talking about tolerance.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on December 08, 2016, 08:22:02 pm
Ap0c, I fucking hate you troll. You're confusing the world with your disguises.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 08, 2016, 10:13:18 pm
Ap0c, I fucking hate you troll. You're confusing the world with your disguises.

Am I doing it right?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 08, 2016, 11:30:03 pm
Yes LOL fuck
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 09, 2016, 12:44:02 am
My dream is everyone disguises themselves as someone else
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 09, 2016, 01:33:05 am
Which is fine within a group, but don't copy Admins, because impersonating one (and yes, this counts as impersonating) is forbidden. Next one who does will be, you guessed it, muted.

Stop trying to debate me on forum policy. It's a discussion you will never win, and you know it. You have plenty of room to seriously discuss politics here.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 09, 2016, 04:44:34 am
Which is fine within a group, but don't copy Admins, because impersonating one (and yes, this counts as impersonating) is forbidden. Next one who does will be, you guessed it, muted.

Stop trying to debate me on forum policy. It's a discussion you will never win, and you know it. You have plenty of room to seriously discuss politics here.

Aight no more "impersonating" 63e_FieldMemeshal_Carp.



Anyway back on topic there's this tragedy, waiting for the faux CNN/MSM/BLM outrage on this:

http://www.walb.com/story/34007858/family-fallen-officer-died-trying-to-save-wounded-friend?utm_content=buffer83fb7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 10, 2016, 01:41:12 am
Guess we aren't allowed to debate here, because you'll just delete our posts if you start to lose.

Just stop. 

There have been plenty of on topic debates in this thread where none of the posts involved were deleted.(only posts deleted from here were off topic or obvious troll bait)  Your using this thread to attack the rules/administration is not what this thread is for.  Now stop intentionally going off topic.  This will be the last post on this.  If you have an issue, talk to your CR or duuring.


Now to being on topic.

How many electors do you think will be unfaithful for either candidate when they vote?   I can imagine a handful at most due to how intense this election was.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 10, 2016, 02:46:06 am
  If you have an issue, talk to your CR or duuring.


Now to being on topic.

How many electors do you think will be unfaithful for either candidate when they vote?   I can imagine a handful at most due to how intense this election was.

Tried that, Duuring doesn't respond on steam.

I doubt any electors will be unfaithful. With the electoral college under so much heat, the quickest way to end the electoral college is to stir up controversy like that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 10, 2016, 03:19:08 am
  If you have an issue, talk to your CR or duuring.


Now to being on topic.

How many electors do you think will be unfaithful for either candidate when they vote?   I can imagine a handful at most due to how intense this election was.

Tried that, Duuring doesn't respond on steam.

I doubt any electors will be unfaithful. With the electoral college under so much heat, the quickest way to end the electoral college is to stir up controversy like that.
one already said he was going to vote for john Kaisich instead of trump
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 10, 2016, 03:54:04 am


I doubt any electors will be unfaithful. With the electoral college under so much heat, the quickest way to end the electoral college is to stir up controversy like that.

I doubt if a handful of electors become unfaithful that it would make changing the system more favorable.  Now, if say 20+ electors(for either candidate), enough to make up a medium to large state worth do it, i can see a bigger push for a change.  Though i would imagine there would be a bigger push to a change to how the votes are casted or given, rather than it going to a popular vote.  but with todays world, one never knows what will happen.


I think the odds with today's(or the next session) congress managing to get an amendment to the constitution passed are slim anyways even if the people want it. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 11, 2016, 06:24:43 am
Rex Tillerson is currently leading for Secretary of State. What a joke
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 11, 2016, 08:31:31 am
James Mattis the absolute legend.

Quote
I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on December 13, 2016, 07:10:26 am
James Mattis the absolute legend.

Quote
I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.
F- 35's BE GONE
^commies will defend this
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpuu.sh%2FsNKxx%2F292fc281d9.jpg&hash=2f20c87d96b5e7b644273cd9782bbb6c18c47882)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 13, 2016, 06:13:41 pm
F35 is a joke. Extremely expensive, overhyped, and incapable. It's inferior at dogfighting to the point of losing in a mock dogfight with an F16, with the F16 having its external fuel tanks on. The Air Force must be on something crazy to suggest that it can replace the A10 on ground attack roles. At least the F22 can actually dogfight where as the F35 can do nothing except claim that it has stealth. Stealth is not going to protect when the plane cost the price of 5 Russian fighters such as the Su-35. 5 to 1 ratio in a dogfight is suicide. I don't even think ISIS  has anything to really shoot down American planes as well so once again conventional planes win out. The bottom line is that as long as we're fighting sand people, which will probably be for the next decade, we're not going to need high end planes for that. Hopefully someone with a brain over at Washington can realize that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 13, 2016, 06:37:55 pm
you will find a lot of stuff(not everything) with the military is overpriced with the quality being possibly suspect.  I can only wonder at how many billions are wasted every year, possibly intentionally with various parts of the military due to various reasons. 

The pentagon Wars  movie is pretty funny, and shines a light on the subject.

believe you can see the whole movie here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYpRhoZqBY

if you don't want to watch the whole thing, just search for some short vids on the movie. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 13, 2016, 07:19:49 pm
F35 is a joke. Extremely expensive, overhyped, and incapable. It's inferior at dogfighting to the point of losing in a mock dogfight with an F16, with the F16 having its external fuel tanks on. The Air Force must be on something crazy to suggest that it can replace the A10 on ground attack roles. At least the F22 can actually dogfight where as the F35 can do nothing except claim that it has stealth. Stealth is not going to protect when the plane cost the price of 5 Russian fighters such as the Su-35. 5 to 1 ratio in a dogfight is suicide. I don't even think ISIS  has anything to really shoot down American planes as well so once again conventional planes win out. The bottom line is that as long as we're fighting sand people, which will probably be for the next decade, we're not going to need high end planes for that. Hopefully someone with a brain over at Washington can realize that.

Lately I think USA cares less about Russia's military power but instead China's. The F-35 is still a mistake though, made only to bully NATO countries into spending more money on overly expensive tech.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on December 13, 2016, 09:42:21 pm
But China is slowly but steadily creeping up and even though large parts of their military are outdated, they are not too far from being not only a threat by size, but also by technology. For example, China has just "recently" developed a new missile that could render any US fleet in the area defenceless.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 13, 2016, 11:10:24 pm
But China is slowly but steadily creeping up and even though large parts of their military are outdated, they are not too far from being not only a threat by size, but also by technology. For example, China has just "recently" developed a new missile that could render any US fleet in the area defenceless.

Relevant:

(https://i.redd.it/1tjinuxy7ptx.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 13, 2016, 11:20:18 pm
Spoiler
(https://img.ifcdn.com/images/2b6a9c361ee8830c8c8c3242c2b4788c309ff406f272f70905dda3497b98932d_1.jpg)
[close]

The comic in that picture

also, another decent meme

Spoiler
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/4c/f5/85/4cf585a6c452cb37a51eefa35314251a.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 14, 2016, 03:08:50 am
The Dong-Feng has quite the range, yes, but the US loves its carriers. Fucking hard on for them. The DF-21 wouldn't even get close I don't think. Worst comes to worst, they put a helo over the carrier and let the missile hit the bird.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on December 16, 2016, 06:26:13 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0iuWh3sek

Electors are bad unless someone I don't like get's elected.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 16, 2016, 07:09:28 pm
Inb4 John Kaisich is our next president
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 16, 2016, 07:11:52 pm
that electoral thing doesnt matter, clinton has no path to victory, even if 37 electors dont vote for trump, it just goes to the house and they will either still vote for Trump or another Republican (being highly unlikely)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: DaMonkey on December 17, 2016, 03:16:34 am
I could be wrong, but if it went to the House and they didn't go for Trump, I'm pretty sure they'd have to pick someone actually in the bid for Presidency; as far as I know all Republicans dropped after the Primaries.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 17, 2016, 03:31:32 am
I could be wrong, but if it went to the House and they didn't go for Trump, I'm pretty sure they'd have to pick someone actually in the bid for Presidency; as far as I know all Republicans dropped after the Primaries.
"In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president."  i don't think anyone outside of trump and clinton got an electoral vote.(off memory)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 17, 2016, 03:36:03 am
They don't vote until December 19, it's very much possible an elector could switch to voting for someone like Kasich instead of Trump, and therefore for instance Kasich being in the top three; and when it goes to house with a majority of Republican state delegations they could convene and vote Kasich (if that doesn't work out it's another long process)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: DaMonkey on December 17, 2016, 03:38:12 am
But that's the thing, he dropped out. As far as I know, you can not re-enter the bid this late in the year.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 17, 2016, 03:40:47 am
But that's the thing, he dropped out. As far as I know, you can not re-enter the bid this late in the year.
It has nothing to do with re entering the bid, an elector can still put his name down and whoever it is, even if he wrote Vernon Supreme, the third most with highest number of electoral votes will be in contention (again technically yes they should at least have ran like Kasich did)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 17, 2016, 04:10:48 am
I wonder why an elector would choose kasich instead of Cruz. I think it would be easier to defend that pick since he did alot better in the primaries while kasich did kinda bad       

no matter what i think people in Democrat states will be pissed if they dont change their votes to hilary
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 17, 2016, 04:23:14 am
I wonder why an elector would choose kasich instead of Cruz. I think it would be easier to defend that pick since he did alot better in the primaries while kasich did kinda bad     
depends on their ideology or what they feel is right.  They may feel he is more moderate, and even someone who is a democrat, may feel they are the lesser evil from their POV.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 17, 2016, 07:08:11 pm
I have to admit that I find it somewhat amusing that there is so much confusion amongst Americans themselves on how their system works.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 17, 2016, 10:54:16 pm
I have to admit that I find it somewhat amusing that there is so much confusion amongst Americans themselves on how their system works.
Woah, so you have a perfect understanding of how the EU and Netherlands governments work? Otherwise, you can't say shit
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 18, 2016, 12:04:08 am
I have to admit that I find it somewhat amusing that there is so much confusion amongst Americans themselves on how their system works.
Woah, so you have a perfect understanding of how the EU and Netherlands governments work? Otherwise, you can't say shit

True, I spent 6 months in law school studying the governance of the EU and EU law (not voluntarily it was built into the course) and it was really, really hard. It's as if they made it deliberately confusing so that ordinary people wouldn't know how it worked and thus were kept in the dark as to what was going on. I mean take the Treaty of Lisbon (the closest thing the EU has to a constitution)- it's actually unreadable because it's basically a very long list of articles changing the wording of previous articles in previous treaties. It's the most bizarre document I've ever read, and I'm fairly sure that's deliberate. They had such massive problems getting the EU Constitutional Treaty through in 2005 (which was voted down by the French and Dutch in referendums and was far more explicit in its wording) that they re-packaged it as the Treaty of Lisbon and made it as complicated as possible so that national parliaments, ordinary citizens and the media wouldn't understand it.

Read it yourself if you don't believe me: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT&from=EN
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 18, 2016, 12:29:32 am
That document is bizarre, fuck
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 18, 2016, 03:17:04 pm
No, but like most of my countrymen, I have a pretty good understanding on how we get our executive government.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 18, 2016, 03:48:59 pm
That's the weakest defense I've ever heard. Just drop this topic before you embarrass yourself further
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 18, 2016, 04:11:25 pm
No, but like most of my countrymen, I have a pretty good understanding on how we get our executive government.

Your executive government sits in Brussels and the process for appointing the Commission is pretty far from being democratic and transparent, let's be honest. Imagine if all the governors of the US states gathered together for a few days in Washington and argued among themselves to appoint the next President and VP, who should sit in the cabinet and with what role, etc. Eventually, after a lot of horse-trading and backhand favours, they'd reach an agreement and Congress would 99% of the time rubber stamp their choices. The people wouldn't be consulted, anyone could be given a position (even someone never elected to anything in their life) and they could not be removed at the ballot box. Is that democratic? No, yet that's what happens in the EU. If you defend that as 'democratic' then you have no right to criticise the American system imperfect as it may be. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on December 18, 2016, 07:37:49 pm
That's the weakest defense I've ever heard. Just drop this topic before you lock the thread for "going off topic"
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 18, 2016, 09:22:55 pm
Don't forget the dutch are one of the most highest educated people on the world

Surely they have a complete understanding of ALL government

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Suns on December 18, 2016, 10:19:00 pm
Direct democracy and the popular vote never work. History has proved that numerous times.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: UniversitasMetal on December 19, 2016, 09:58:49 am
So is there an Electoral Revolt" or not? Can they even bar Trump from being president?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on December 19, 2016, 10:37:40 am
They can but I doubt they will.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 19, 2016, 10:43:26 am
So is there an Electoral Revolt" or not? Can they even bar Trump from being president?
Will there be?  doubt it.  Will there be a protest vote?  possibly.  can they bar trump, in theory yes, but i doubt it will happen.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 19, 2016, 12:50:06 pm
Trump got a electoral landslide so it would take quite the electoral revolt to stop him.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 19, 2016, 05:33:48 pm
Trump got a electoral landslide so it would take quite the electoral revolt to stop him.

And it would probably start Civil War II.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on December 19, 2016, 06:16:45 pm
Alex Jones is screaming 1776 of that happens.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 19, 2016, 06:29:57 pm
One elector actually voted for Bernie essentially stating that Hillary wouldn't win anyways.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-19/the-latest-electoral-college-meets-to-formally-elect-trump (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-19/the-latest-electoral-college-meets-to-formally-elect-trump)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 19, 2016, 07:39:45 pm
Do people here actually listen to Alex jones?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: RussianFury on December 19, 2016, 07:56:27 pm
Do people here actually listen to Alex jones?
yes. (why do I exist)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on December 19, 2016, 08:20:10 pm
Alex Jones gives a bad image for a lot of those who have legitimate support for trump. He's just a fat man who screams at a camera.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 19, 2016, 08:28:57 pm
Damn, reports of a truck crashing through a Christmas market in Germany. Many fatalities etc. Apparently there are no roads nearby so it may be a deliberate Nice style attack.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on December 19, 2016, 09:44:43 pm
Damn, reports of a truck crashing through a Christmas market in Germany. Many fatalities etc. Apparently there are no roads nearby so it may be a deliberate Nice style attack.

Sounds more like a post that should be on the EU politics thread. Hmm.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: McPero on December 19, 2016, 10:45:55 pm
Damn, reports of a truck crashing through a Christmas market in Germany. Many fatalities etc. Apparently there are no roads nearby so it may be a deliberate Nice style attack.

Sounds more like a post that should be on the EU politics thread. Hmm.
Yeah but its US fault it happened though.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 19, 2016, 11:09:46 pm
Damn, reports of a truck crashing through a Christmas market in Germany. Many fatalities etc. Apparently there are no roads nearby so it may be a deliberate Nice style attack.

Sounds more like a post that should be on the EU politics thread. Hmm.
Yeah but its US fault it happened though.
or its your fault for being retarded

4 electors in Washington voted for someone that wasn't Hilary lmao


Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on December 19, 2016, 11:26:02 pm
Damn, reports of a truck crashing through a Christmas market in Germany. Many fatalities etc. Apparently there are no roads nearby so it may be a deliberate Nice style attack.

Sounds more like a post that should be on the EU politics thread. Hmm.

Well someone keeps shutting down the world politics thread so I couldn't post it there.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 20, 2016, 12:17:15 am
Alex Jones gives a bad image for a lot of those who have legitimate support for trump. He's just a fat man who screams at a camera.

Basically true.

The only audience Alex Jones seems to really appeal to is an echo chamber of people who already basically agree with him.

Damn, reports of a truck crashing through a Christmas market in Germany. Many fatalities etc. Apparently there are no roads nearby so it may be a deliberate Nice style attack.

I actually heard a rumor that it was a Polish driver

Time to break out the Panzers and partition once more?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 20, 2016, 02:01:11 am
Do people here actually listen to Alex jones?

I'd assume for getting a laugh out of his conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 20, 2016, 02:24:21 am
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-9gag-fun.9cache.com%2Fphoto%2FamrR0Z9_700b_v1.jpg&hash=8f4e51c332e380a6e6f408a805554115d0027741)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 20, 2016, 02:44:17 am
Do people here actually listen to Alex jones?
Are there people here who don't listen to alex jones!?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 20, 2016, 05:21:11 am
tfw after weeks of bs about GOP electors rebelling against Trump more electors defect from Hillary than him.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 20, 2016, 05:34:08 am
Today our King was crowned Emperor

He shall soon ascend to godhood though.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 20, 2016, 06:00:31 am
Lol. We will see, questioning some of the military guys he has appointed.  Along with his pick for FDA chief being someone who thinks parents should give their children every drug until they find the one that works for them. 

This will be interesting  8)

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 20, 2016, 09:06:10 am
Lol. We will see, questioning some of the military guys he has appointed.  Along with his pick for FDA chief being someone who thinks parents should give their children every drug until they find the one that works for them. 

This will be interesting  8)

Gotta love the Mad Dog though.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 20, 2016, 09:12:38 am
"Trump won't possibly win the republican nomination, he is a clown!"

"Trump can't possibly win the presidency, he is unfit to be president!"

"The electors definitely will rebel against Trump"

I bet the Russians also infiltrated the Electoral College

Wonder what is next though, "Trump can't possibly make America great again"?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 20, 2016, 09:49:09 am
Today our King was crowned Emperor

He shall soon ascend to godhood though.
Only after he's assassinated...

Et tu, cruz? (i could totally see ted cruz assassinating trump in the middle of congress)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: usnavy30 on December 20, 2016, 12:22:47 pm
The Electoral College is not changing anytime soon, I would guess. Apparently a chosen elector can be as young as 18 years old or older.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/faithless-electors-electoral-college-donald-trump

A 19 year old from Washington state. Isn't a teenager a bit too young to fully understand the responsibility of a state elector for a national election? I wonder how that went for her to be a faithless elector.

Edit: here is a video of the elector girl
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/washington-elector-refuses-to-vote-for-clinton-in-attempt-to-keep-trump-out-of-white-house/472261138
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 20, 2016, 01:41:42 pm
Age restrictions for elected positions are just discrimination. Voters can decide themselves whether a candidate is qualified or not, regardless of age.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 20, 2016, 02:15:22 pm
tbh, i don't think that it's a big deal that some of these electors are quite young. A large population of the voter base are young so it would only make sense that these people are represented in some way.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on December 20, 2016, 06:31:31 pm
They arn' t laughing anymore.  ;)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 20, 2016, 07:12:09 pm
A 19 year old from Washington state. Isn't a teenager a bit too young to fully understand the responsibility of a state elector for a national election? I wonder how that went for her to be a faithless elector.

They're old enough to vote indirectly, they should be old enough to vote directly.

Arbitrary age restrictions past a a certain point are just ways for old men to keep their comfy jobs and not be subject to the hell that is living on a pension.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 20, 2016, 08:59:55 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0I4dx5UoAA6S1K.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 21, 2016, 02:10:40 am
mrw the state department reveals Iran never actually signed the nuclear "deal" and it is not legally binding
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-sA-NqMlvI
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: ScottyMcpancakes on December 21, 2016, 03:11:08 am
tbh, i don't think that it's a big deal that some of these electors are quite young. A large population of the voter base are young so it would only make sense that these people are represented in some way.

Well, the voting base is young but it doesn't mean they aren't uninformed or inexperienced in life overall.
People's political views change quite a bit from their uniformed years to their late adult years. And generally their opinions get more sophisticated. The whole point of a republic is to avoid overall mob-rule, having young and naive people with the power of an electoral college seat essentially undermines that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 21, 2016, 03:30:19 am
You know, I haven't had an abortion yet but I wish I did
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on December 21, 2016, 04:40:23 am
tbh, i don't think that it's a big deal that some of these electors are quite young. A large population of the voter base are young so it would only make sense that these people are represented in some way.

Well, the voting base is young but it doesn't mean they aren't uninformed or inexperienced in life overall.
People's political views change quite a bit from their uniformed years to their late adult years. And generally their opinions get more sophisticated. The whole point of a republic is to avoid overall mob-rule, having young and naive people with the power of an electoral college seat essentially undermines that.
uninformed is debateable.  You have plenty of those among the older population.  They have experience over the younger part of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a positive all the time.   it tends to be younger people who use the internet more for social uses.  Odds are, a young person will be more knowledgeable about a new subject or would of learned about  it before someone who is older.  You would hope schooling would help kids learn something from the experience of the older generations. 

 Kids today, even though the US is not #1 when it comes education, will be more educated than their parents.  I learned things in middle school and high school that my parents didn't learn till college or late in high school.   Same for their parents.  and those before them.

I don't have a problem with electors being 18.  They have the right to vote like everyone else.  If they can die for this country(and be forced against their will to serve), then they can vote. 

Besides, it is the people in one way or another who chose who their electors are.   The people will decide is someone is not qualified for the job.  and states can make laws about how the electors can vote if they really want to clamp down on what they can do. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 21, 2016, 10:08:27 am
tbh, i don't think that it's a big deal that some of these electors are quite young. A large population of the voter base are young so it would only make sense that these people are represented in some way.

Well, the voting base is young but it doesn't mean they aren't uninformed or inexperienced in life overall.
People's political views change quite a bit from their uniformed years to their late adult years. And generally their opinions get more sophisticated. The whole point of a republic is to avoid overall mob-rule, having young and naive people with the power of an electoral college seat essentially undermines that.
The irony is that this statement is more naive than the young electors. You undervalue the youth population which you yourself are likely part of.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: DaMonkey on December 21, 2016, 05:27:46 pm
While I would say that it's probably true most youth vote with their feels, I wouldn't say having such a young elector should be disallowed. Random age requirements for a bunch of different things is one of the things I hate the most. Voting age used to be higher around the nation; and the whole "you can buy cigarettes to inhale smoke at 18 but you can't drink until you're 21" seems silly to me. It would be a lot less arbitrary in my mind to just have a common "Age of Adulthood" for everything to base itself off of.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on December 21, 2016, 05:51:29 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9XZZ3SypO1U
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 21, 2016, 06:21:28 pm
While I would say that it's probably true most youth vote with their feels, I wouldn't say having such a young elector should be disallowed.

Is there evidence that older electors don't vote with their feels? You guys talk like young people are susceptible to anything but as far as I know those old congressman will do anything if you dangle a couple dollars in front of them.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on December 21, 2016, 06:21:41 pm
You can argue about the average youth, sure. But the elector mentioned in that article is naive and borderline moronic with some of her hypocritical statements.

Just another impressional teen who doesn't realise the severity of the current US-Russia political situation (among others of course but that's the most prominent).
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on December 22, 2016, 12:01:59 am
Spotted in Dallas lol

(https://i.redditmedia.com/tnSKhCzy3dHfhruK1ZWTMj0DHU0lDXcbOQGWaCdPdL0.jpg?w=1024&s=820f400de9676272af5e2f721ae666b9)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 22, 2016, 03:12:29 am
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-9gag-fun.9cache.com%2Fphoto%2Fazr4pOj_700b.jpg&hash=3d58a974abe6dc1da0f691d64f8a2b474ac63472)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on December 22, 2016, 04:07:39 am
Since Apoc got muted for these
Spoiler
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.memecdn.com%2Fgone-sexual-almost-died_o_7046623.jpg&hash=c7df052c4fc8ecd633cb21aa51c47ee0b280664f)
[close]
Spoiler
(https://img.ifcdn.com/images/2a021ef9a37918711b9d6834476f2f54c3167e6e444e3a38835f7d23c6fda907_1.jpg)
[close]
Spoiler
(https://scontent.fykz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15621763_1658755000817440_2370155890071274410_n.jpg?oh=7aba54c024662b089ef79f4d9a9f3667&oe=58DCE0AA)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on December 24, 2016, 03:50:24 pm
Goodbye Theo, user count just keeps going down around here kinda scary for a buyer's stand point. Anyways how to you all feel about trumps appointees?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 24, 2016, 05:34:44 pm
Trump's goldman sachs picks are quite funny tbh. Is there anyone who still believes he's an outsider to the political establishment at all now? Literally the exact same people that the Clintons asaociate with.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on December 24, 2016, 06:39:12 pm
Meh its Gary Cohn, the real enemy at Goldman if anyone knows about that company is actually Lloyd Blankfein.  If anything Cohn wanted to change Goldman's perception in the IB world
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 24, 2016, 06:43:48 pm
The point is that he represents the wall street lobby, which is what Trump claimed to oppose. And I doubt Sachs would choose that guy if they didn't think he would represent them properly.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on December 26, 2016, 07:32:39 pm
Well that mute was stupid, and that ban even more so. Keep up the good work whoever is trying to kill the forums.

The point is that he represents the wall street lobby, which is what Trump claimed to oppose. And I doubt Sachs would choose that guy if they didn't think he would represent them properly.

Implying Sachs chose him not Trump.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 29, 2016, 11:41:00 pm
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/u-women-hockey-team-scrimmaging-against-high-school-170704740--oly.html?client=safari (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/u-women-hockey-team-scrimmaging-against-high-school-170704740--oly.html?client=safari)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Volk on December 30, 2016, 02:24:50 am
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/u-women-hockey-team-scrimmaging-against-high-school-170704740--oly.html?client=safari (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/u-women-hockey-team-scrimmaging-against-high-school-170704740--oly.html?client=safari)

Yahoo. Lol.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 30, 2016, 09:27:03 am
Good news guys. California is legalizing child prostitution
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 30, 2016, 09:56:00 am
I know you guys talk about these civil issues, not saying they don't matter by any means such as with racism, protests, immigration; but at the other spectrum already Trump has talked to Ian reed and other big pharma figureheads who are actively considering staying or relocating to the US, if the tax rate is lower/ providing way more higher paying jobs here.  Even Apple is considering it.  So M&A activity in big pharma, tech, energy sectors will increase/ which is another reason why Wall Street is looking good. 

In regards to electoral college, it does come down to states rights and equal representation of the state.  States are different, in economics, culture, laws, etc... and if the electoral college was dismantled and it went by popular vote/ then more states than the few blue would feel there representation didn't mean anything at all, and that a few states gain full power.  That's why it exists in general, so I don't believe in a full dismantlement but definitely needs to be modified in terms of gerrymandering and other sketchy policies
Karth...no...bad karth...you're treading in my domain. For one, more jobs isn't always a good thing. The question is if these jobs are good paying jobs. Take for instance walmart okay, walmart decides to invest in more stores across the country, sounds good right? More jobs, more cheap goods for people to buy, ect. The problem becomes much more evident when you realize that walmart pays shit wages and walmart as a competitor can run many businesses into the ground. Realistically, there will be job loss and the jobs gained will be worse. To make matters even more bad, it hurts local economies because 1. like i said, it runs other businesses into the ground and 2. money spent at walmart does not stay in the area besides the poverty wages given to the employees. More money leaves the area then goes into it. Walmart as a company is an economic drain. This is the reality of economics. Many other companies are just like this, apple is okay (i guess), big pharma is awful, tech & energy is sorta 50/50. One other thing, lower taxes does not necessarily mean higher wages unless the taxes lowered are income taxes, please don't assume this. When papa trump talks about helping the economy, be very skeptical. Who is he helping? The average joe or the CEO?

As for the electoral college, it should definitely either be by popular vote or some form of alternative voting system like the euros do. The largest voting block in this country is not democrats, its not republicans, it's people who identify as independents. Right now, these people only matter in states that may flip and are completely irrelevant in either solid blue or solid red states, in addition dems in red states are irrelevant as well as reps in blue states. Essentially there are a whole bunch of people who vote who make zero impact at all in the election. Want to make people feel like their vote means something? Abolish the electoral college because as it stands, independents in swing states matter too much and republicans/democrats in opposing states matter too little. Also gerrymandering has very little effect on the electoral college. Gerrymandering has to do with state/local representatives and senators, not so much the presidential election. I believe that there are districts which can be redrawn for college electors but this really only matters if they intend to be unfaithful electors which barely happens.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Volk on December 30, 2016, 10:35:37 am
I know you guys talk about these civil issues, not saying they don't matter by any means such as with racism, protests, immigration; but at the other spectrum already Trump has talked to Ian reed and other big pharma figureheads who are actively considering staying or relocating to the US, if the tax rate is lower/ providing way more higher paying jobs here.  Even Apple is considering it.  So M&A activity in big pharma, tech, energy sectors will increase/ which is another reason why Wall Street is looking good. 

In regards to electoral college, it does come down to states rights and equal representation of the state.  States are different, in economics, culture, laws, etc... and if the electoral college was dismantled and it went by popular vote/ then more states than the few blue would feel there representation didn't mean anything at all, and that a few states gain full power.  That's why it exists in general, so I don't believe in a full dismantlement but definitely needs to be modified in terms of gerrymandering and other sketchy policies
Karth...no...bad karth...you're treading in my domain. For one, more jobs isn't always a good thing. The question is if these jobs are good paying jobs. Take for instance walmart okay, walmart decides to invest in more stores across the country, sounds good right? More jobs, more cheap goods for people to buy, ect. The problem becomes much more evident when you realize that walmart pays shit wages and walmart as a competitor can run many businesses into the ground. Realistically, there will be job loss and the jobs gained will be worse. To make matters even more bad, it hurts local economies because 1. like i said, it runs other businesses into the ground and 2. money spent at walmart does not stay in the area besides the poverty wages given to the employees. More money leaves the area then goes into it. Walmart as a company is an economic drain. This is the reality of economics. Many other companies are just like this, apple is okay (i guess), big pharma is awful, tech & energy is sorta 50/50. One other thing, lower taxes does not necessarily mean higher wages unless the taxes lowered are income taxes, please don't assume this. When papa trump talks about helping the economy, be very skeptical. Who is he helping? The average joe or the CEO?

As for the electoral college, it should definitely either be by popular vote or some form of alternative voting system like the euros do. The largest voting block in this country is not democrats, its not republicans, it's people who identify as independents. Right now, these people only matter in states that may flip and are completely irrelevant in either solid blue or solid red states, in addition dems in red states are irrelevant as well as reps in blue states. Essentially there are a whole bunch of people who vote who make zero impact at all in the election. Want to make people feel like their vote means something? Abolish the electoral college because as it stands, independents in swing states matter too much and republicans/democrats in opposing states matter too little. Also gerrymandering has very little effect on the electoral college. Gerrymandering has to do with state/local representatives and senators, not so much the presidential election. I believe that there are districts which can be redrawn for college electors but this really only matters if they intend to be unfaithful electors which barely happens.
This checks out
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: USMC_Vicious on December 30, 2016, 12:42:53 pm
Trump's goldman sachs picks are quite funny tbh. Is there anyone who still believes he's an outsider to the political establishment at all now? Literally the exact same people that the Clintons asaociate with.

Funny?No.

I can see why someone would think they are a complete opposite of what he promised when he said he would "drain the swamp" but I would disagree. Yes, he has the richest cabinet ever assembled but these wealthy successful individuals and bankers running his economy are not working for the banks anymore they are working on behalf of the United States government and I believe they will bring their deal making skills and overall money making attitude back to the USA again and make our economy great again. The thing is with Trump is that he wants to succeed and be the best President ever and he will do all he can to make that happen. He picked the best cabinet choices he could possibly make, also what did you expect him to hire guys off craigs list for the economy positions? lol.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on December 30, 2016, 09:37:57 pm
Good news guys. California is legalizing child prostitution

It's to make children who are exploited not criminals. Adult prostitution shouldn't be illegal as well.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 30, 2016, 10:21:35 pm
Trump's goldman sachs picks are quite funny tbh. Is there anyone who still believes he's an outsider to the political establishment at all now? Literally the exact same people that the Clintons asaociate with.

Funny?No.

I can see why someone would think they are a complete opposite of what he promised when he said he would "drain the swamp" but I would disagree. Yes, he has the richest cabinet ever assembled but these wealthy successful individuals and bankers running his economy are not working for the banks anymore they are working on behalf of the United States government and I believe they will bring their deal making skills and overall money making attitude back to the USA again and make our economy great again. The thing is with Trump is that he wants to succeed and be the best President ever and he will do all he can to make that happen. He picked the best cabinet choices he could possibly make, also what did you expect him to hire guys off craigs list for the economy positions? lol.

I don't see how you can think they're not working for their respective private interests. How exactly do you think Trump makes these decisions? Because he liked the cut of his jib? It's about business and power, not just personal competance. Goldman sachs is one of the most powerful banking firms in the world and closely tied to the US government and economy. Yes, Trump wants to succeed, and in order to do that he knows he needs to cozy up with the people who can make or break him. If you think he got to this point on his own and legitimately opposed the big govt and business, well I think you're severely underestimating their power.

This establishment is what makes us who we are - there is no escaping it. Trump is president because he has played their game in many critical ways. And if he legitimately resists these people and structures, he will be punished like JFK. We'll see what he does, but so far all he has done is go back on his promises to appoint his own cabinet. Right now this is extremely similar to what Clinton's would have been.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 30, 2016, 10:34:54 pm
Surely he picked 'the best cabinet choices he could possibly make'. That's why he made a brain surgeon secretary for Housing and Urban Development. Everyone knows Ben Carson's experience regarding affordable housing and development.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 30, 2016, 10:43:38 pm
Surely he picked 'the best cabinet choices he could possibly make'. That's why he made a brain surgeon secretary for Housing and Urban Development. Everyone knows Ben Carson's experience regarding affordable housing and development.
I laughed when i read this.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: USMC_Vicious on December 30, 2016, 11:58:22 pm
Surely he picked 'the best cabinet choices he could possibly make'. That's why he made a brain surgeon secretary for Housing and Urban Development. Everyone knows Ben Carson's experience regarding affordable housing and development.

I mean Obama's current head of DHS never had 0 experience with anything Homeland Security related and was a lawyer so...theres many appointees throughout many administrations who had 0 experience in the field they were chosen to lead. Regarding Ben Carson the fact he was also running for President also on top of being a smart ass mofo I think he will have no problem heading Housing and Urban Development...cant get much worse than the bozos running it now and the same can be said with the VA.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on December 31, 2016, 12:33:26 am
Yeah but wouldnt it be smart to get someone who actually knows something about HUD? I dont really agree with obamas choice either. As for. Ben carson being smart...there is this concept where if you spend all your time in one area you become an expert in that area but fall flat in everything else. Yes he is a very smart man in the field of medicine, this does not mean that he would be a good president. Just because someone is a good businessman does not mean that they would be a good president.

Also i love this "never had 0 experience" ...so he had experience? Lol. It's nitpicky of me but i couldnt help myself.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 31, 2016, 12:35:36 am
Surely he picked 'the best cabinet choices he could possibly make'. That's why he made a brain surgeon secretary for Housing and Urban Development. Everyone knows Ben Carson's experience regarding affordable housing and development.
Well I mean considering that Mr. Carson grew up in actual government housing in Detroit he at least knows what can be done to help and fix the system compared to most people who head the position and never actually grew up in government housing or had any idea what it was like..
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on December 31, 2016, 01:16:08 am
Well I mean considering that Mr. Carson grew up in actual government housing in Detroit he at least knows what can be done to help and fix the system compared to most people who head the position and never actually grew up in government housing or had any idea what it was like..

I grew up in an agricultural area. Does that mean I automatically am fully able to become secretary of agriculture?

I mean Obama's current head of DHS never had 0 experience with anything Homeland Security related and was a lawyer so...t

Wikipedia told me Jeh Johnson served as General Counsel for the Air Force in 1998-2001 and then as General Counsel for the Defense Department from 2009 to 2012. His appointment was also related to the problematic state of that department that he was meant to solve.

Now, at the very least that gives him experience in working with government and safety services, while Ben Carson has been a brain surgeon. A genious one, yes, but has he ever worked in any position of public service, in any capacity? Of course, you're right in saying that a secretary doesn't necessarily require former expertise in his specific department. It's why you often see secretaries (Or Ministers as they are called in most countries) switching between departments - they have the set of skills and experience in government work that enables them to, with added knowledge and the help of deputies, serve well. Ben Carson has none of this. His appointment is the result of a purely political bargain.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on December 31, 2016, 01:29:25 am
Surely he picked 'the best cabinet choices he could possibly make'. That's why he made a brain surgeon secretary for Housing and Urban Development. Everyone knows Ben Carson's experience regarding affordable housing and development.

I mean Obama's current head of DHS never had 0 experience with anything Homeland Security related and was a lawyer so...theres many appointees throughout many administrations who had 0 experience in the field they were chosen to lead. Regarding Ben Carson the fact he was also running for President also on top of being a smart ass mofo I think he will have no problem heading Housing and Urban Development...cant get much worse than the bozos running it now and the same can be said with the VA.

It can get much, much worse and the fact of the matter is that all of the people entering this administration have ties to the past one, and the ones before it for decades and even centuries. The president can't seriously challenge the power structure, he's just one person. We're talking about a complete monolith here, not just some empty institution that can be changed at the whim of a few people once they occupy their positions. Whatever happens in the next few years, there's a trajectory that we're following, and it's going to continue regardless of the puppet sitting in the oval office.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on December 31, 2016, 02:40:38 am
Ben Carson even said he wasn't qualified.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on December 31, 2016, 06:52:00 am
Ben Carson even said he wasn't qualified.
Carson declined a lot of appointments so it's strange to me that he decided to end up taking this one of all of them. However, nobody has even been sworn in yet with zero actions taken so I'm just going to reserve my judgement
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 01, 2017, 07:03:11 pm
However, nobody has even been sworn in yet with zero actions taken so I'm just going to reserve my judgement

Sure, now you do.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 01, 2017, 09:41:11 pm
I take a Doctor or Scientist over a Lawyer any day!

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on January 01, 2017, 10:00:18 pm
Well I mean considering that Mr. Carson grew up in actual government housing in Detroit he at least knows what can be done to help and fix the system compared to most people who head the position and never actually grew up in government housing or had any idea what it was like..

This argument makes no sense.... do you know what it takes to know about public housing? Zilch. Anyone can just go to one of these section 8 housing commissions and be eligible for a move-in packet through the housing programs. You don't have to understand the system to be a part of it when it comes to public housing. I mean, my job literally revolves around dealing with and understanding separate housing commissions. I actually have more experience on public housing then Ben Carson does LOL.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 01, 2017, 10:02:36 pm
ALl these people getting salty over Trump nominating people with zero experience in the field turned secretary or director, but no one complains about the putting a General on Defense...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 02, 2017, 01:37:54 am
ALl these people getting salty over Trump nominating people with zero experience in the field turned secretary or director, but no one complains about the putting a General on Defense...

because that makes sense
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 02, 2017, 01:55:40 am
No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 02, 2017, 02:23:27 am
The minister of defence in canada is also a military man who's been on several tour of dutys and it's not a police state here. Also I want politicians to become soldiers so that they can understand war and think things through when they declare them. They want the war, they fight it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 02, 2017, 04:08:53 am
No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

The US have had several former generals become presidents so I don't think it's a big deal over there.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: USMC_Vicious on January 02, 2017, 10:13:59 am
No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

zzzzzzzz yeah because civilian nitwits with no field experience or military experience whatsoever should dictate like the DoD? Nah I don't think so lol the whole "muh military is very strong paranoia military state" is some bs......and in this day and age we need some hard dick mofos like Mattis to lead the way and get it done the right way unlike what Obama's administration has been doing for the last 8 years. These Generals are the definition of Patriots and to think they would do anything not in the common interest of the USA and its citizens is also absurd and something some liberal who lives in SF would say. Its these same type of people who think cops have too much armament......
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 02, 2017, 11:57:02 am
I guess the US has to see their government overthrown by the military before they understand the problem of the military ruling itself.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 02, 2017, 12:07:42 pm
You guys seem to forget one thing: the secetary of Defense doesn't need experience to deal with the military. The actual military decisions are made by high command. The decisions the secretary makes are purely political. To make proper political decisions and naviate the political landscape, it helps being a career politician. Generals (or former Generals), simply do not have the same experience it takes as civilian polticians do... Surely, A General's seat is a political one, but military politics is far different than national politics.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on January 02, 2017, 03:53:41 pm
So many smarter euros that understand what happens in the states on this thread. :-\
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 02, 2017, 04:00:57 pm
Back to the old "You don't live here so you can't know shit about this!"-argument, I see.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 02, 2017, 04:17:26 pm
No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

In a functioning liberal democracy the military really isn't that powerful-how many men would obey orders to oppose a democratic government in the Western world? How could you practically get unanimous agreement from all the senior figures in the chain of command to issue those orders? The US has had a large number of former senior generals go on to become President, and about half of all US Presidents have been war veterans. Many former soldiers sit in the legislatures of western democracies and their service is usually highlighted in their election campaigns.

The important thing here is they're no longer serving in the armed forces. Mattis is retired, he's now a civilian with military experience.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 02, 2017, 05:46:18 pm
In the US, can soldiers decide not to obey orders under certain conditions?
I know in the German Military, if an order is either a suicide mission or against the law (killing civilians and shit like that) they are allowed (or actually asked...) to not obey the order. Can you do that in the US Military?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 02, 2017, 05:58:59 pm
There is a difference between a politician with a military record and someone who has never served in public office and is then appointed to office. I'm not saying Mattis will turn the USA into a dictatorship in the blink of an eye. I'm saying that appointing someone based on his military record into the position of what is supposted to be our civilian oversight of the military is a step in the wrong direction. Mattis is a great battlefield commander, but that's a skill entirely irrelevant for secretary of defense.

Quote
In a functioning liberal democracy the military really isn't that powerful-how many men would obey orders to oppose a democratic government in the Western world? How could you practically get unanimous agreement from all the senior figures in the chain of command to issue those orders?

More then you think. Following orders without getting your personal feelings in the way is sorta what you're trained for. Militairy coups don't work with generals going into a big gym of everyone involved and blatantly stating that they're gonna overthrow the government. Often, most if not all of the enlisted men have no idea they're in a coup. You're right, of course - In a working liberal democracy, the militairy isn't that powerful because it's very carefully monitored by the civilian state.

Even the Polish Home Army, the biggest single resistance force in World War 2, was controlled by a civilian government.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 02, 2017, 06:29:34 pm
In the US, can soldiers decide not to obey orders under certain conditions?
I know in the German Military, if an order is either a suicide mission or against the law (killing civilians and shit like that) they are allowed (or actually asked...) to not obey the order. Can you do that in the US Military?
Depends on the order given, you are allowed to disobey unlawful orders.  For example if ordered to execute family members of terrorists, that's obviously unlawful and the people would disobey that.  As long as you can prove in court an order is unlawful.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 02, 2017, 08:37:27 pm
The actual military decisions are made by high command. The decisions the secretary makes are purely political. To make proper political decisions and naviate the political landscape, it helps being a career politician. Generals (or former Generals), simply do not have the same experience it takes as civilian polticians do... Surely, A General's seat is a political one, but military politics is far different than national politics.

Ah yes, a general would be clueless on who to (not) declare war on and how to allocate resources in war. Better give it to a pen pusher who doesn't even know what a gun is.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 02, 2017, 09:22:58 pm
No, it doesn't. I get that it may seem like a logical step, but civilian control over our military is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The people, trough their elected officials, dictate what our Armed Forces look like and what they do. The military does not and should never decide what its own purpose is. Why? Because the military is incredibly powerful, which we never fully realize because our militaries are so firmly under control of the civilian government.

Government and the militairy should be kept seperated as much as possible. You don't want politicians becoming soldiers due to their political positions - which makes perfect sense. You also do not want soldiers to become politicians due to their military position.

zzzzzzzz yeah because civilian nitwits with no field experience or military experience whatsoever should dictate like the DoD? Nah I don't think so lol the whole "muh military is very strong paranoia military state" is some bs......and in this day and age we need some hard dick mofos like Mattis to lead the way and get it done the right way unlike what Obama's administration has been doing for the last 8 years. These Generals are the definition of Patriots and to think they would do anything not in the common interest of the USA and its citizens is also absurd and something some liberal who lives in SF would say. Its these same type of people who think cops have too much armament......
he'll never take a wife... BECAUSE HE'S MARRIED TO WAR
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 02, 2017, 09:27:57 pm
Cops are pigs! Kill the cops!
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 03, 2017, 12:15:04 am
The actual military decisions are made by high command. The decisions the secretary makes are purely political. To make proper political decisions and naviate the political landscape, it helps being a career politician. Generals (or former Generals), simply do not have the same experience it takes as civilian polticians do... Surely, A General's seat is a political one, but military politics is far different than national politics.

Ah yes, a general would be clueless on who to (not) declare war on and how to allocate resources in war. Better give it to a pen pusher who doesn't even know what a gun is.

That's... not what the function of Secretary of Defense means...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: cheeseypants on January 03, 2017, 06:28:47 pm
Tl;dr lefties still salty about the Don's stunning upset victory
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on January 03, 2017, 06:54:23 pm
ITT: lefties exerting themselves to find something to criticize Trump for on every single move he makes think they know shit about the role of SecDef and that Trump's choice is unprecedented/rare/etc., apparently dont actually know fuck all as 15 of the last 21 SecDefs (stretching back 64 years of appointments by both parties) have been ex-military.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 03, 2017, 06:56:28 pm
ITT: lefties exerting themselves to find something to criticize Trump for on every single move he makes think they know shit about the role of SecDef and that Trump's choice is unprecedented/rare/etc., apparently dont actually know fuck all as 15 of the last 21 SecDefs (stretching back 64 years of appointments by both parties) have been ex-military.

Who says I am a leftie?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 03, 2017, 09:59:04 pm
There's nothing wrong with someone having served in general. There's something wrong with appointing someone to a political position based solely on his militairy record.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 05, 2017, 09:31:57 am
There's nothing wrong with someone having served in general. There's something wrong with appointing someone to a political position based solely on his militairy record.
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpuu.sh%2FtbOuQ%2F517ab96d2e.jpg&hash=4f599578af26ba4db0740ad7b084c3d370946d56)
WRONG
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on January 05, 2017, 09:58:37 am
There's nothing wrong with someone having served in general. There's something wrong with appointing someone to a political position based solely on his militairy record.

I mean. You maintain that a military experience is an irrelevant thing to have for a secretary of defense. I disagree. I personally would like my secretary of defense to have an immense understanding of our military, an understanding that could only be gained through immersion. I want someone who knows all too well what can and should be accomplished with the best fighting force in the world. Besides that, the "politics" you guys are talking about is not as complicated of a thing that you would need to immerse yourself in it for your whole life to understand. I'm sure you would like to believe that it is, but if Trump has not convinced you that you are wrong yet, nothing will (Looking forward to your 2017 political forecast btw, as your 2016 one was so on point). That is why so many Secretaries of Defense are ex-mil, as the politics involved with it are more simple than any career politician or PolS student criticizing Trump would care to admit. Politics is really only the art of strategically choosing whose toes to step on. That is basically it. If he has managed to become a General, I would reckon he is at least fairly knowledgeable on who's toes NOT to step on internationally and who's toes he can step on for the sake of national security.

So I will respectfully disagree that a military career is "irrelevant" when considering who to appoint as a secretary of defense. As will I say that you are really overestimating the import of a career in politics for certain political offices.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 05, 2017, 01:26:40 pm
Just so you know... Just because America has the strongest military in the world, doesn't mean it is of the best quality.

Being secretary of anything, means you'll be leading the entire department in its daily 'routine'. It doesn't literally involve being busy with the department's specialty all the time. Certainly, knowledge about what it does is certainly required, but you don't have to be as immersed as you claim you should be. Especially with the DoD. In military matters, that's what the generals are for. THEY decide what actually is done in the military, the SecDef is merely the political side of it and provides the frame the military can work within. To determine those, there is a legion of advisors. The SecDef just needs to be able to 'fix it' on the political side of it.

I agree that position like VA, Education and Public housing and Infrastructure are positions where extended knowledge is required, but that is also because there is a constant danger of career politicians/ government employees who DON'T change with the President/cabinet, that make decisions that only benefit themselves and not their sector. THEN you need a Secretary who can counter such assholes, because he has more/even knowledge liek them. That argument, however, doesn't really fly with DoD.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 05, 2017, 01:45:29 pm
You cannot compare a department like Education or Health with one like Defence.
Quote
If he has managed to become a General, I would reckon he is at least fairly knowledgeable on who's toes NOT to step on internationally and who's toes he can step on for the sake of national security

International affairs is hardly the concern of the Secretary of Defence.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 05, 2017, 09:00:41 pm
Damn, some of Trump's old tweets are even more bizarre than I'd thought. This one's my personal favourite:
Spoiler
(https://i.gyazo.com/cdbe72ae039bb5c424c252b022e4a9fa.png)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/258966137302315009
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 06, 2017, 03:56:47 am
Damn, some of Trump's old tweets are even more bizarre than I'd thought. This one's my personal favourite:
Spoiler
(https://i.gyazo.com/cdbe72ae039bb5c424c252b022e4a9fa.png)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/258966137302315009
[close]

wish 50 cent would tweet like he did in the old days
(https://i.imgur.com/QgYuryE.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 06, 2017, 05:58:26 am
The United States Secretary doesn't even have any real individual power it's just another advisior to the president, christ.
Sure it would probably been better to choose someone who have more experience with foregin politics/policies but I wouldn't say he's as bad as appointing Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 06, 2017, 06:12:21 am
The United States Secretary doesn't even have any real individual power it's just another advisior to the president, christ.
Sure it would probably been better to choose someone who have more experience with foregin politics/policies but I wouldn't say he's as bad as appointing Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
but but ben carson grew up in a house
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 06, 2017, 09:04:13 pm
The United States Secretary doesn't even have any real individual power it's just another advisior to the president, christ.
Sure it would probably been better to choose someone who have more experience with foregin politics/policies but I wouldn't say he's as bad as appointing Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Secretaries are the most senior executive function in their given department. They design, enforce and are respondsible for its policies. Considering them 'just an advisor' is quite the understatement.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 06, 2017, 09:48:21 pm
And another terrorist attack....
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 06, 2017, 11:34:11 pm
And another terrorist attack....
Don't think it's terrorist. Just an Alaskan who was honorably discharged from NG with psych issues.  Probably persuaded by those Alaskan aliens
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on January 07, 2017, 12:32:42 am
Dare I say it, isn't this the ISS sign? Is this the picture of the shooter? NOT AGAIN!  :-\

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1hJOHPXAAAymaq.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 07, 2017, 12:34:40 am
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpuu.sh%2FtdCkF%2F8ef8588a03.jpg&hash=b988e586e56d2f14fd9b2695caf04fba685e531b)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 07, 2017, 12:41:50 am
And another terrorist attack....
Don't think it's terrorist. Just an Alaskan who was honorably discharged from NG with psych issues.  Probably persuaded by those Alaskan aliens
meh mass shootings, terrorist attacks. Their all the same
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 07, 2017, 12:54:20 am
He was a combat engineer who served in Iraq for 5 years, 12bang bangs always have PTSD
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 07, 2017, 12:58:27 am
Spoiler
Dare I say it, isn't this the ISS sign? Is this the picture of the shooter? NOT AGAIN!  :-\

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1hJOHPXAAAymaq.jpg)
[close]
Lol, we get issued the exact same shemaqs
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 07, 2017, 01:19:31 am
Anyways I do hope Trump understands the threat of the bear Vladimir Putin, it's pretty rare to have 4 intelligence heads this confident about Russian hacking
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 07, 2017, 01:56:25 am
Anyways I do hope Trump understands the threat of the bear Vladimir Putin, it's pretty rare to have 4 intelligence heads this confident about Russian hacking
The 80's called; They want their foreign policy back.

Honestly, we're talking about potentially getting the two most powerful countries finally restoring diplomatic and economic ties and fight terrorism together
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on January 07, 2017, 02:22:47 am
Anyways I do hope Trump understands the threat of the bear Vladimir Putin, it's pretty rare to have 4 intelligence heads this confident about Russian hacking

Pretty fucked that they'd push such an absurd claim through the most prestigious government organizations like that, and now people are relying solely on their faith in authority to believe this, and completely abandoning free thought in its entirety. It really shows just how far gone we are.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 07, 2017, 02:48:08 am
Anyways I do hope Trump understands the threat of the bear Vladimir Putin, it's pretty rare to have 4 intelligence heads this confident about Russian hacking

They have no proof. Let's not even talk about the fact that those same organizations were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq, how can you trust the people who were behind COINTELPRO and Prism. There's also huge misinformation, the media is making people believe that the hacking was on the election, but the hacking was on the DNC. Who gives a fuck who did the hacking, why aren't people focusing on the content of the data?

Only 5 years ago people applauded hackers and whistleblowers for revealing corruption in their governments, somehow everyone is turning against them.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Peppers on January 07, 2017, 04:35:53 am
Incase you didn't know the DNC is funding domestic terrorism within the United States. This video shows why I personally will never ever vote Dem again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Admittedly, the RNC isn't perfect but the DNC these people are actually funding terrorism and I'm glad the truth is coming to light if you think the hack was wrong. You should watch this video. Also, I want to say Seth Rich was a man that died for the truth. Look into his death I was able to vote in November but Seth wasn't able to, he died for us.

HIS NAME WAS S E T H   R I C H. He will not be forgotten.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nipplestockings on January 07, 2017, 05:21:10 am
Quote
This video shows why I personally will never ever vote again.
ftfy
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 07, 2017, 11:01:50 am
This guy has pretty good proof it was the Russians who hacked the DNC:
https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816621553643294720

I mean it's not exactly surprising since everyone is hacking each other. The Americans were only recently caught out by Snowden's leaks spying on their allies, conducting industrial espionage against French and German companies, hacking Angela Merkel's mobile, etc. Given the US has for a very long time tried to influence the outcome of elections in other countries this is probably karma. Obama's a total hypocrite too-he's complaining about outside interference in US elections yet he turned up in the UK during the referendum and told us to vote 'Remain' and then issued a number of threats if we didn't.

Did the Russians hand the DNC files to WikiLeaks? No, but they gave them to the person who did.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 10, 2017, 06:41:47 pm
Anyways I do hope Trump understands the threat of the bear Vladimir Putin, it's pretty rare to have 4 intelligence heads this confident about Russian hacking
The 80's called; They want their foreign policy back.

Honestly, we're talking about potentially getting the two most powerful countries finally restoring diplomatic and economic ties and fight terrorism together

Who invaded Ukraine took Crimea unlawfully invaded Georgia not long ago supports Assads terror regime and the list goes on.

Russia have also tried to undermine Nato & the EU for years.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 10, 2017, 06:57:55 pm
Anyways I do hope Trump understands the threat of the bear Vladimir Putin, it's pretty rare to have 4 intelligence heads this confident about Russian hacking
The 80's called; They want their foreign policy back.

Honestly, we're talking about potentially getting the two most powerful countries finally restoring diplomatic and economic ties and fight terrorism together

Who invaded Ukraine took Crimea unlawfully invaded Georgia not long ago supports Assads terror regime and the list goes on.

Russia have also tried to undermine Nato & the EU for years.
really makes you think...
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpuu.sh%2FthIK6%2Ff583fa1d86.jpg&hash=4a432defba742aef685a893a32e156d0a6805d7f)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 10, 2017, 07:01:24 pm
Do you guys remember when mitt Romney said Russia was our number 1 political foe and everyone laughed at him?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 10, 2017, 07:28:07 pm
Freedom of Speech in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiBKX9UVIAMBKFj.png)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 10, 2017, 07:34:17 pm
Do you guys remember when mitt Romney said Russia was our number 1 political foe and everyone laughed at him?
and than Obama said to take his 80's foreign policy back but proceeded to embark on the most anti-russia foreign policy we've had in decades? Yeah, I 'member
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y9oVC-mGW8
[close]
Freedom of Speech in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiBKX9UVIAMBKFj.png)
[close]
Last time I checked they aren't being raped to death or having multiple terrorist attacks per day

God bless
Spoiler
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/80/29/2c/80292c9ebc42f79ade13faab657dbbae.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 10, 2017, 07:42:21 pm
Do you guys remember when mitt Romney said Russia was our number 1 political foe and everyone laughed at him?
and than Obama said to take his 80's foreign policy back but proceeded to embark on the most anti-russia foreign policy we've had in decades? Yeah, I 'member
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y9oVC-mGW8
[close]
Freedom of Speech in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiBKX9UVIAMBKFj.png)
[close]
Last time I checked they aren't being raped to death or having multiple terrorist attacks per day

God bless

Spoiler
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/80/29/2c/80292c9ebc42f79ade13faab657dbbae.jpg)
[close]

No westernized country have that lel. What I'm saying is why should any westernized country that values democracy and peace support Putins Russia?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 10, 2017, 07:56:21 pm
Do you guys remember when mitt Romney said Russia was our number 1 political foe and everyone laughed at him?
and than Obama said to take his 80's foreign policy back but proceeded to embark on the most anti-russia foreign policy we've had in decades? Yeah, I 'member
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y9oVC-mGW8
[close]
Freedom of Speech in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiBKX9UVIAMBKFj.png)
[close]
Last time I checked they aren't being raped to death or having multiple terrorist attacks per day

God bless

Spoiler
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/80/29/2c/80292c9ebc42f79ade13faab657dbbae.jpg)
[close]

No westernized country have that lel. What I'm saying is why should any westernized country that values democracy and peace support Putins Russia?
Correction: Multiple terrorist attacks per year, far more than before the migrant situation. I did not mean to say per day, which was a mistake on my part for which I take responsibility for.

However, the amount of rapes has increased dramatically with most being attributed to the influx of said migrants, especially in Sweden.
Strange that approximately 4.4% of the population commits 77% of rapes, eh.

If we look at rapes, in 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.
There is an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 Muslims in Sweden, from 1.8% to 4.4% of the Swedish population of 9 million
(https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/valdtakt_2011_stor_nyb.png)
Staggering rape and assault rape statistics from Sweden from 1985-89 and 1997-2001. Rape committed by Swedish born rapists (blue) were 22.4%. Foreign rapists represent 77.6% of all figures divided into ‘normal’ representation (pink, red and orange) at 5,070; over representation (red) at 3,752 rape cases; unregistered migrants (orange) at 653 rape cases. Note that the blue bracket of Swedish rapists include foreign born persons with Swedish citizenship as the statistics are only counted on citizenship, and not nationality. This could of course mean that Swedish born Muslims could make up a bulk but we cannot be sure.
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rhen on January 10, 2017, 08:09:27 pm
Freedom of Speech in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiBKX9UVIAMBKFj.png)
[close]

Just wanted to ask a question. Ever lived or studied in Russia?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 10, 2017, 09:45:59 pm
Do you guys remember when mitt Romney said Russia was our number 1 political foe and everyone laughed at him?
and than Obama said to take his 80's foreign policy back but proceeded to embark on the most anti-russia foreign policy we've had in decades? Yeah, I 'member
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y9oVC-mGW8
[close]
Freedom of Speech in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiBKX9UVIAMBKFj.png)
[close]
Last time I checked they aren't being raped to death or having multiple terrorist attacks per day

God bless

Spoiler
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/80/29/2c/80292c9ebc42f79ade13faab657dbbae.jpg)
[close]

No westernized country have that lel. What I'm saying is why should any westernized country that values democracy and peace support Putins Russia?
Correction: Multiple terrorist attacks per year, far more than before the migrant situation. I did not mean to say per day, which was a mistake on my part for which I take responsibility for.

However, the amount of rapes has increased dramatically with most being attributed to the influx of said migrants, especially in Sweden.
Strange that approximately 4.4% of the population commits 77% of rapes, eh.

If we look at rapes, in 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.
There is an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 Muslims in Sweden, from 1.8% to 4.4% of the Swedish population of 9 million
(https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/valdtakt_2011_stor_nyb.png)
Staggering rape and assault rape statistics from Sweden from 1985-89 and 1997-2001. Rape committed by Swedish born rapists (blue) were 22.4%. Foreign rapists represent 77.6% of all figures divided into ‘normal’ representation (pink, red and orange) at 5,070; over representation (red) at 3,752 rape cases; unregistered migrants (orange) at 653 rape cases. Note that the blue bracket of Swedish rapists include foreign born persons with Swedish citizenship as the statistics are only counted on citizenship, and not nationality. This could of course mean that Swedish born Muslims could make up a bulk but we cannot be sure.
[close]

We've debunked this before do we really have to go 50 pages backwards?

Either way I don't get what this has to do with anything.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 11, 2017, 01:19:04 am
Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.ce6Ejd359#.gb7XP2Jy3

Spoiler
(https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-10-at-23.45.43.png?resize=540%2C238&ssl=1)(https://i.gyazo.com/8531c39dd4b44cc93035a41808186eb1.png)
[close]


Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 11, 2017, 01:26:49 am
Buzz feed is the best source for news
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 11, 2017, 01:52:04 am
Of course, but it's really funny even though it probably isn't true.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 11, 2017, 05:34:55 am
Furnox had the EU flag as his avatar once (corporate union fanboy), I truly wonder why he doesn't like Russia...?  ;)

Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.ce6Ejd359#.gb7XP2Jy3

Spoiler
(https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-10-at-23.45.43.png?resize=540%2C238&ssl=1)(https://i.gyazo.com/8531c39dd4b44cc93035a41808186eb1.png)
[close]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174033/Clintons-charities-got-50million-British-aid-cash-UK-government-accused-trying-buy-influence-power-family.html

Source is just as bad as yours, but it's safe to say Britain isn't exactly on Trump's side

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 11, 2017, 01:48:08 pm
That Putin quote regarding Islam is a confirmed hoax. Anyone who knows anything about Russia would know that anyway, considering that Chechnia gets away with their radical muslim stuff as long as Kadyrov stays loyal to Putin. Honour killings and child brides? All dobre in Putin's Russia.

Russia has monthly terrorist attacks in the north Caucasus republics. Of course, you, and most Russians, don't really give a single crap of what happens in those areas, but it still happens. Of all states on the European continent, Russia argueably has the biggest issues with radical islamists. But go right ahead and continue yelling that Putin ain't such a bad guy and that it's all a western conspiracy. In time, after the Putin-government has collapsed, you will deny ever saying those things or supporting him in the slighest regard. Wir haben es nicht gewusst.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 11, 2017, 03:35:04 pm
B-b-but Russia is great.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 11, 2017, 04:31:11 pm
Russia good, komrade. Russia best kountry in world.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rhen on January 11, 2017, 04:41:37 pm
@Furrnox (again), Duuring and Olafson: Ever lived, worked or studied in Russia?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 11, 2017, 05:34:45 pm
Of all states on the European continent, Russia argueably has the biggest issues with radical islamists.

Did you just deny Turkey is in Europe? I don't tolerate xenophobia. Reported.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 11, 2017, 06:17:37 pm
Wikipedia is xenophobic? FeelsBadMan
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 11, 2017, 08:07:07 pm
RUSSIA IS ULTIMATE DEFENDER OF THE WEST

IF NOT FOR RUSSIA WEST WOULD BE SHITHOLE
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 11, 2017, 08:31:38 pm
Yeah you are right. If it was not for the glorious Soviet Union (i.e. Russia) we would be nowhere near the technological progress we have made since 1945.
I actually wish the cold war was still going on, it certainly would be better for progress.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 11, 2017, 08:33:38 pm
More nukes=more peace?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 11, 2017, 10:37:59 pm
Gotta have them for future space wars. #HumanMasterRace
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 11, 2017, 10:41:11 pm
Russia good, komrade. Russia best kountry in world.
o fug : DDDD
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Ffacebook%2F001%2F040%2F976%2F79a.png&hash=31b112f5c6ce22b07a519bb17087ce01bd8fe43a)
Russia breddy gud 10/10  8)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 11, 2017, 10:50:08 pm
https://shop.buzzfeed.com/collections/garbage (https://shop.buzzfeed.com/collections/garbage)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 11, 2017, 11:04:53 pm
Buzzfeed embracing what they are?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 12, 2017, 04:36:07 pm
Of all states on the European continent, Russia argueably has the biggest issues with radical islamists.

Did you just deny Turkey is in Europe? I don't tolerate xenophobia. Reported.

I'd argue that Turkey has more trouble from Kurdish separatists, who are far more secular then the separatists in Russia.

@Furrnox (again), Duuring and Olafson: Ever lived, worked or studied in Russia?

No, I haven't. But please don't go 'You haven't been there so you don't know anything about it' on me. Have you ever lived, studied or worked in the north Caucasus region? I'm gonna guess you haven't, considering it's an active conflict zone.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 13, 2017, 05:37:13 pm
Ben Shapiro is coming to my university next month. #Blessed
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 13, 2017, 07:57:18 pm
Ben Shapiro is coming to my university next month. #Blessed
Where do you attend?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 13, 2017, 08:07:48 pm
Ben Shapiro is coming to my university next month. #Blessed
Where do you attend?
i go to Ferris State

inb4 someone tries to molest me
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on January 13, 2017, 10:21:34 pm
I don't know how someone so educated could be so dumb. Graduated from Harvard Law...says that sesame street is left-wing propaganda. What the actual fuck?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on January 13, 2017, 11:05:57 pm
I don't know how someone so educated could be so dumb. Graduated from Harvard Law...says that sesame street is left-wing propaganda. What the actual fuck?


Now going to order his book off amazon.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Grantrithor on January 14, 2017, 03:29:59 am
I don't know how someone so educated could be so dumb. Graduated from Harvard Law...says that sesame street is left-wing propaganda. What the actual fuck?

Well if you've seen the students who attend yale lately, institution reputation is meaningless now. MIT and Berkeley are still respected for Engineering and CS disciplines at least.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 14, 2017, 08:17:20 am
I dont understand how every modern media medium works


Now going to order his book off amazon.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 14, 2017, 09:41:53 am
Wasn't Berkley involved in this weird concept of the "Waterseer" (or something like that) How does that not hurt their reputation?
Or am I completely wrong, I might remember it wrong.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 17, 2017, 08:24:58 pm
Guys I think it's time for me to come out of the closet. I am asexual
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 17, 2017, 10:17:20 pm
Good for you? Who cares? Why does this belong here?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 17, 2017, 10:27:25 pm
Good for you? Who cares? Why does this belong here?
This is why your community is dead; The discrimination here is absolutely rampant and out of control, especially against a minority such as asexuals. I'm absolutely appalled that someone could say such a rude and defaming statement against a person just trying to be accepted. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 17, 2017, 11:33:11 pm
Good for you? Who cares? Why does this belong here?
im offended
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 18, 2017, 02:16:09 am
Good for you? Who cares? Why does this belong here?

Christ... Such an intolerant response from a representative of FSE.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: The Predurrdurr on January 18, 2017, 05:02:06 am
I sexually identify as sponge bob's pineapple house and im very very TRIGGERED
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on January 18, 2017, 07:20:40 pm
Boy, what a pick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF8wEH2ixak
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 18, 2017, 07:29:26 pm
Could you please keep the offtopic spam out of here? Make a new thread if you want everyone to know your sexual orientation...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 18, 2017, 08:01:27 pm
Could you please keep the offtopic spam out of here? Make a new thread if you want everyone to know your sexual orientation...
sexual orientation is actually a hot topic here in the US so it is actually relevant
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on January 18, 2017, 08:45:38 pm
Could you please keep the offtopic spam out of here? Make a new thread if you want everyone to know your sexual orientation...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Furrnox on January 18, 2017, 08:46:15 pm
Boy, what a pick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF8wEH2ixak

FeelsBadMan.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 18, 2017, 09:10:36 pm
Could you please keep the offtopic spam out of here? Make a new thread if you want everyone to know your sexual orientation...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 18, 2017, 09:39:20 pm
i just ordered one of Ben Shaprios books. Hopefully i can finish it before he comes here
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 19, 2017, 12:33:04 am
Trump's trolling the EU hard lel

(https://i.gyazo.com/2836592aff07f6926be0d6e501299300.png)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-eu-juncker-idUSKBN1522C4
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 19, 2017, 08:01:59 am
Trump's trolling the EU hard lel

(https://i.gyazo.com/2836592aff07f6926be0d6e501299300.png)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-eu-juncker-idUSKBN1522C4


That's hilarious, sad and immensely stupid at the same time.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 19, 2017, 02:50:35 pm
Lol people had a queer dance party in front of Mike pence house
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on January 19, 2017, 07:10:57 pm
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/821820204372099073
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: usnavy30 on January 20, 2017, 05:22:01 am
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/821820204372099073
Is the left media trying to stir the fires of violence? That and the CNN designated survivor video.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 20, 2017, 05:00:35 pm
This, plus globalisation, explains Trump.

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2nw1ZCXAAEVRAB.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 20, 2017, 07:03:41 pm
Well he wasn't shot, so that's always good.

Obama having to sit there with a straight face taking all that sh*t during Trump's speech was the funniest thing I've seen in quite a while.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 20, 2017, 08:06:37 pm
Kinda disappointed. It sounded like Trump actually wrote and rehearsed his speech
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 20, 2017, 10:48:30 pm
Trump is our new leader, lets see how he does.  Oh and Obama went out with a bang, literally, his last military strike authorized 2 B-2 Stealth bombers to wipe out over 100 Al Qaeda terrorists (someday I hope to be in one of those bad boys), lets see how Trump handles it.  Apparently he is poised to enact several executive orders over the next few days itself

Kinda disappointed. It sounded like Trump actually wrote and rehearsed his speech
Its fine, he included 'Make America Great Again' several times, so he was definitely prepared
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: The Rebel on January 20, 2017, 11:01:47 pm
Twas a great day. Thats all
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 21, 2017, 12:14:50 am
Really hoping that more of these Soros goons get arrested by the DC police
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Nick Lazanis on January 21, 2017, 01:35:51 am
inauguration was much better than I expected.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 21, 2017, 01:39:09 am
At one point like the camarea started to shake a lot and then a bunch of military guys started to walk towards trump. I thought there was an explosion or something. But nope all the military guys just say awkwardly behind trump for a minute
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 21, 2017, 02:08:42 am
At one point like the camarea started to shake a lot and then a bunch of military guys started to walk towards trump. I thought there was an explosion or something. But nope all the military guys just say awkwardly behind trump for a minute
yeah they kept walking back and forth it was weird
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 22, 2017, 02:09:34 am
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Fwuffy on January 22, 2017, 02:15:12 am
What is this women's march even about?
obviously lack of women's rights in the US
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on January 22, 2017, 03:28:53 am
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 22, 2017, 04:07:19 am
How nice that these A-listers have come down from their million-dollar hill top homes in California to preach to the working class...

Credit to Baldwin, he really made an effort to put on his best working class clothes.

he needs to get off my FB feed
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 22, 2017, 07:56:35 am
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
when you say women's rights, what does that mean? It is such a vague term. What rights do they want that they don't already have?

Also Madonna wants to blow up the White House. You go girl!
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 22, 2017, 01:18:18 pm
They want to have more rights than men, so that they have the same rights. Ya know, if a male and female apply for the same job, the female is chosen. Thats what they want. BECAUSE THERE ARE TO FEW FEMALES IN HIGH RANKING JOBS! ITS THE FAULT OF THE LAW, NOT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN! Makes sense, right?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 22, 2017, 01:28:45 pm
The rights legally are fine in the U.S., it's just that. especially in the South, LGBT rights are often violated, and MAYBE, just a little maybe a president now sits in the White House who has literally stated in his campaign he doesn't believe in such rights?

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 22, 2017, 01:34:57 pm
The rights legally are fine in the U.S., it's just that. especially in the South, LGBT rights are often violated, and MAYBE, just a little maybe a president now sits in the White House who has literally stated in his campaign he doesn't believe in such rights?

The correct term is 'LGBTQ+', you homophobe.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 22, 2017, 01:44:29 pm
Yes, that is my point. Legally women and men have the same rights.
A law that prefers females would be discrimination towards men.  And that is exactly what we would almost have gotten in Germany, because I don't know why, stupid politicians I guess.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 22, 2017, 04:52:44 pm
Equity is the way to equality.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: William on January 22, 2017, 05:39:00 pm
The rights legally are fine in the U.S., it's just that. especially in the South, LGBT rights are often violated, and MAYBE, just a little maybe a president now sits in the White House who has literally stated in his campaign he doesn't believe in such rights?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMnoa8dLw8
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.huffingtonpost.com%2Fasset%2Fscalefit_630_noupscale%2F58177a15150000d804530d10.jpeg&hash=6b13eea940158c762bb9d1ca8fe4fc58164878b8)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 22, 2017, 05:46:59 pm
The rights legally are fine in the U.S., it's just that. especially in the South, LGBT rights are often violated, and MAYBE, just a little maybe a president now sits in the White House who has literally stated in his campaign he doesn't believe in such rights?
trump was actually the most pro LGBT republican that ran
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 22, 2017, 06:02:12 pm
The rights legally are fine in the U.S., it's just that. especially in the South, LGBT rights are often violated, and MAYBE, just a little maybe a president now sits in the White House who has literally stated in his campaign he doesn't believe in such rights?
The rights per state are actually very different, some rights still dont even have hate crime laws against LGBT in place.  Oh and again the South is not the most hate spewing part of the country anymore (which I think given the recent election sort of shows that), some places up North have had issues against LGBT populaces for more than 50 years.  But there is still a lot that needs to be done for each state to be on the same page in regards to rights for LGBT folk.  http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/hate_crime_laws

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 22, 2017, 06:49:12 pm
Being the most pro-LGBT Republican is like being the least racist member of the KKK. Great, but sorta irrelevant.

So, meanwhile, the new White House Press secretary gave his first press conference and spend it telling blatant lies about the size of the inaugeration crowd. Strap in, America. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on January 23, 2017, 07:00:11 am
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
when you say women's rights, what does that mean? It is such a vague term. What rights do they want that they don't already have?

Also Madonna wants to blow up the White House. You go girl!
They want to have more rights than men, so that they have the same rights. Ya know, if a male and female apply for the same job, the female is chosen. Thats what they want. BECAUSE THERE ARE TO FEW FEMALES IN HIGH RANKING JOBS! ITS THE FAULT OF THE LAW, NOT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN! Makes sense, right?
When i say women's rights, i basically mean 'protecting and enforcing' women's rights. Again...
Quote
You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
Fucking hell, you think a man like that cares about protecting women's rights?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 23, 2017, 08:12:29 am
Barely a week in office and his administration has already started blundering.
I will watch this from a secure position and laugh my ass off the next four years.

One positive thing I am hoping for is an increased Defense budget. But that is just selfish =D
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 23, 2017, 12:25:19 pm
One positive thing I am hoping for is an increased Defense budget. But that is just selfish =D

Well, given the Netherlands don't even have tanks there's literally no point in having an army at all. Might as well spend the money on something else.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 23, 2017, 01:00:51 pm
Well, given the Netherlands don't even have tanks there's literally no point in having an army at all. Might as well spend the money on something else.

That's really bullshit. Just because you have no tanks means that your army has no right to excist?
Surely, you can't operate on every spectrum of violence, but only not on the heaviest. The Dutch army has APCs, so the spectrum right below steel-on-steel can be fought in.

And, as recently found out, the Dutch DO want to partake in the complete spectrum, so one German tank Battalion is incorporated in the 42 Mechanised, and one Dutch tank batallion has been formed a few months ago, with the possibility to expand ones there is budget for it.

I get that it isn't much, especially when compared to the U.S., but it's as much as can be expected with a military that has faced consistent budget cuts for the last 30 years and a size of 48.000 servicemen and -women
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: CaseliusFIN on January 23, 2017, 01:14:27 pm
Lack of mechanized formations has largely been due the fact of nations going away from facing conventional threat to unconventional warfare outside the nation's borders. Fairly many nations in Europe lack proper mechanized units. Especially members of NATO can specialize in different assets and on their own nation's special conditions to make their defense most effective.

USA is deploying armored brigade combat team to Europe after some years of absence (2013). And the Dutch are forming combined Armored Division with Germany. Some countries saw the change in geopolitics in time and started to prepare by buying from the countries which were having budget cuts. Now there is just some countries catching up to the change.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 23, 2017, 02:16:32 pm
Well, given the Netherlands don't even have tanks there's literally no point in having an army at all. Might as well spend the money on something else.

That's really bullshit. Just because you have no tanks means that your army has no right to excist?
Surely, you can't operate on every spectrum of violence, but only not on the heaviest. The Dutch army has APCs, so the spectrum right below steel-on-steel can be fought in.

I'm not saying the Dutch military has no right to exist, I'm saying it's pointless if you don't have tanks. I was taught that without MBTs you can't fight a modern war, and if you can't do that then you might as well do what the Irish and others do, i.e. have a fairly small armed forces mainly for peacekeeping (well, maybe it's best the Dutch military doesn't do that)/dealing with natural disasters at home/etc. What's the point in having 60,000 active personnel and no MBTs. Of all the things to cut that was a strange decision by the Dutch government.

And, as recently found out, the Dutch DO want to partake in the complete spectrum, so one German tank Battalion is incorporated in the 42 Mechanised, and one Dutch tank batallion has been formed a few months ago, with the possibility to expand ones there is budget for it.

Lol, so you borrow off the Germans. Now you can't go to war without the consent of Berlin.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on January 23, 2017, 03:23:24 pm
BTW shout out to all the communists on the streets making fools of themselves for all to see and not just on FSE
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 23, 2017, 03:32:29 pm
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
when you say women's rights, what does that mean? It is such a vague term. What rights do they want that they don't already have?

Also Madonna wants to blow up the White House. You go girl!
They want to have more rights than men, so that they have the same rights. Ya know, if a male and female apply for the same job, the female is chosen. Thats what they want. BECAUSE THERE ARE TO FEW FEMALES IN HIGH RANKING JOBS! ITS THE FAULT OF THE LAW, NOT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN! Makes sense, right?
When i say women's rights, i basically mean 'protecting and enforcing' women's rights. Again...
Quote
You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
Fucking hell, you think a man like that cares about protecting women's rights?
"no one has more respect for women than me."-Donald Trump
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 23, 2017, 04:40:59 pm
I'm not saying the Dutch military has no right to exist, I'm saying it's pointless if you don't have tanks. I was taught that without MBTs you can't fight a modern war, and if you can't do that then you might as well do

This is not true. Obviously you can, but as I said, you can't perform operations at the highest spectrum of violence (which in conventional land warfare is steel-on-steel tank fighting). There are many different aspects to modern warfighting than that. For example, fighting in urban(ised) areas. The best way to go about that is with light/mechanised infantry instead of armoured tanks. And since urban warfare is nowadays by far the most common in modern fighting and much less fighting in rural areas, it is not a requirement for an army to have tanks AS LONG as it can make up for that in indirect fire support, such as Howitsers, heavy mortars, CAS, which the Dutch all have to a degree considerable enough to provide for its own troops.

Without tanks you can't fight a modern war? To some degree, yes. But for the Dutch, it is unthinkable to be deployed without allies, most notably Germany primarily and the UK. That doesn't mean the Dutch army means nothing in capability when they don't have tanks.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 23, 2017, 04:55:27 pm
Lol, so you borrow off the Germans. Now you can't go to war without the consent of Berlin.

I do not think that the Netherlands, nor Germany are planning on starting/going to a war any time soon. Heck, German laws even forbid that. I am guessing that the Netherlands are following a similiar path as Germany. Which means the Army is primarily there to defend the country, not to go into the offense. Anyone attacking the Dutch has to go through Germany first anyway. And in a case Germany is attacked, I am sure the Dutch will send soldiers to help Germany out.

Besides that there is no use for a large Tank unit in the Netherlands. Both politically and geographically there is no real use for Tanks in the Dutch Army. The Netherlands are not that large and most of the country can be flooded in pretty much no time, rendering any tanks pretty much useless anyway. And then there is what Riddlez just said, urban warfare. In the Netherlands it doesn't take long to get to urban areas, there are smaller and larger towns everywhere.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 23, 2017, 07:01:22 pm
you can't perform operations at the highest spectrum of violence (which in conventional land warfare is steel-on-steel tank fighting).

In other words you can't fight a modern army. Having an army without MBTs is like having a bicycle without handlebars.

There are many different aspects to modern warfighting than that. For example, fighting in urban(ised) areas. The best way to go about that is with light/mechanised infantry instead of armoured tanks. And since urban warfare is nowadays by far the most common in modern fighting and much less fighting in rural areas, it is not a requirement for an army to have tanks AS LONG as it can make up for that in indirect fire support, such as Howitsers, heavy mortars, CAS, which the Dutch all have to a degree considerable enough to provide for its own troops.

I know of no wars where the fighting took place 100% in urban areas. Tanks can also operate fine in urban areas-it's not their natural setting but they're still very effective, hence why they've been used extensively in urban warfare all the way from Stalingrad to the Battle of Aleppo (2016). Against a conventional enemy in an urban environment commanders won't lead with lighter armoured vehicles (unless they absolutely have to) since they'll be too exposed.

Without tanks you can't fight a modern war? To some degree, yes. But for the Dutch, it is unthinkable to be deployed without allies, most notably Germany primarily and the UK. That doesn't mean the Dutch army means nothing in capability when they don't have tanks.

Can't rely on the Germans-they're very nervous about sending troops abroad and have only done so on two occasions since 1945 (and in very limited numbers).
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 23, 2017, 07:15:02 pm
F*ck TPP...

The rundown of the meeting today:

Business leaders meeting, 23rd Jan
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.512tech.com%2Frf%2Fimage_medium%2FPub%2Fp8%2F512Tech%2F2017%2F01%2F23%2FImages%2FDellTrump.jpg&hash=798f308eeced4643627a541f070207c5eea38312)
[close]


Trump stated that he plans on bringing plants and production back to the US. He plans on reducing regulation in terms of construction of plants by around 75% due to it "being impossible to do anything" as it is now, and that he also plans on cutting the current tax of plants and factories (currently around 35-38%) to the best of his ability, making it "practically nothing" if possible. He's going to make it "so easy" for businesses to build in the US, offering complete government support during construction.

In the event that a plant is closed in the US in order for it to move overseas causing great job loss, that product will receive great border tax as a result. I strongly believe all foreign products are going to see a hyped up tax however (Trump used Japan as an example of the current unfair state of trading, citing that he sees Japan bringing cars into the US on "the biggest boats I've ever seen" while it being "practically impossible" for any US factories to do the same).

He's also claimed he's cutting tax for the middle class which is cool I guess.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 23, 2017, 08:23:13 pm
I see Duuring has brought out his crystal ball again, please predict moar
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 23, 2017, 08:30:46 pm
So that $500bil army that's been protecting and funding you for three years suddenly turns on you, wat do?

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1056079/us-coalition-continue-strikes-against-isil-in-syria-iraq?source=GovDelivery

"A variety of fighters, bombers and remotely piloted aircraft engaged in the bombing run, which saw 25 strikes in Syria and six in Iraq. In Syria, two strikes destroyed ISIS units and artillery near the town of Bab. ISIS forces in Raqqa, the terrorist group’s de facto capital, took a heavy beating, as 22 strikes destroyed 12 tactical units, nine fighting positions, two underground improvised explosive bomb factories and an ISIS headquarters. The final strike targeted two ISIS oil wells in Deir ez Zour."

Still believe Obama wasn't holding back?  l   o   l
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 23, 2017, 08:49:58 pm
I see Duuring has brought out his crystal ball again, please predict moar

Next week's lottery number: 20 58 11 09

The Dutch army actually does have a small tank unit (We literaly have twelve tanks, and not all of them are battle-capable) for training purposses that's integrated in a German armoured batallion. Our mechanized brigade is, in turn, incoorperated within a German armoured division. Germans lack the mobility of our CV90's (Goddamn I love those CV90s) and we lack the firepower of their tanks. We don't have our own tanks because we can rely on our allies as they can rely on us. To think that the Netherlands is going to fight a full conventional war on its own somewhere in the future is completely unrealistic.

That being said, it's not unlikely if we'll see our tank units re-instated. Won't be surprised if they announce Tank Officer School at the KMA before the end of the year, Riddlez. Of course, unless we get a left-wing grand coalition after the election.

Urban warfare without tanks is basically siege warfare as you're incapable of mobile direct-fire artillery (which is the purpose tanks serve in Urban warfare). That, in turn, means you're less able to perform offensive operations and thus less able to surround the enemy. And while tanks are not as effective in downtown-environment with lots of narrow streets and high-rise buildings (Grozny, never forget), they're all the more effective in suburban environments to isolate an enemy.

Tl;dr whatever the situation, having tanks is better then not having tanks.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: The Rebel on January 23, 2017, 08:52:02 pm
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
when you say women's rights, what does that mean? It is such a vague term. What rights do they want that they don't already have?

Also Madonna wants to blow up the White House. You go girl!
They want to have more rights than men, so that they have the same rights. Ya know, if a male and female apply for the same job, the female is chosen. Thats what they want. BECAUSE THERE ARE TO FEW FEMALES IN HIGH RANKING JOBS! ITS THE FAULT OF THE LAW, NOT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN! Makes sense, right?
When i say woman's rights, i basically mean 'protecting and enforcing' women's rights. Again...

Women have full rights in the United States? Trump has not done anything to undermine their rights as a President. If they are so troubled with woman's rights, why don't they just go to the Middle East where women are literally treated as second class citizens and treated poorly by the Muslims.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 23, 2017, 08:52:46 pm
F*ck TPP...

The rundown of the meeting today:

Business leaders meeting, 23rd Jan
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.512tech.com%2Frf%2Fimage_medium%2FPub%2Fp8%2F512Tech%2F2017%2F01%2F23%2FImages%2FDellTrump.jpg&hash=798f308eeced4643627a541f070207c5eea38312)
[close]


Trump stated that he plans on bringing plants and production back to the US. He plans on reducing regulation in terms of construction of plants by around 75% due to it "being impossible to do anything" as it is now, and that he also plans on cutting the current tax of plants and factories (currently around 35-38%) to the best of his ability, making it "practically nothing" if possible. He's going to make it "so easy" for businesses to build in the US, offering complete government support during construction.

In the event that a plant is closed in the US in order for it to move overseas causing great job loss, that product will receive great border tax as a result. I strongly believe all foreign products are going to see a hyped up tax however (Trump used Japan as an example of the current unfair state of trading, citing that he sees Japan bringing cars into the US on "the biggest boats I've ever seen" while it being "practically impossible" for any US factories to do the same).

He's also claimed he's cutting tax for the middle class which is cool I guess.

And how is he going to pay for it?


That being said, it's not unlikely if we'll see our tank units re-instated. Won't be surprised if they announce Tank Officer School at the KMA before the end of the year, Riddlez. Of course,

You're behind Duuring ;) VTO Heavy Cavalry (Tank manoeuvre school) already excists. They already asked the first two cadets to join last september.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 23, 2017, 08:56:08 pm
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
when you say women's rights, what does that mean? It is such a vague term. What rights do they want that they don't already have?

Also Madonna wants to blow up the White House. You go girl!
They want to have more rights than men, so that they have the same rights. Ya know, if a male and female apply for the same job, the female is chosen. Thats what they want. BECAUSE THERE ARE TO FEW FEMALES IN HIGH RANKING JOBS! ITS THE FAULT OF THE LAW, NOT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN! Makes sense, right?
When i say woman's rights, i basically mean 'protecting and enforcing' women's rights. Again...

Women have full rights in the United States? Trump has not done anything to undermine their rights as a President. If they are so troubled with woman's rights, why don't they just go to the Middle East where women are literally treated as second class citizens and treated poorly by the Muslims.

This march is purely about American Merkel not being elected

http://www.infowars.com/german-feminazis-chant-allahu-akbar-at-islamist-backed-womens-march/

Yeah... women's right... ok, sure
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: The Rebel on January 23, 2017, 08:58:26 pm
What is this women's march even about? Like what rights do they want? The right to kill an unborned child?
The election, BLM, abortion, LGBT rights, woman's rights, ect. You seem to forget that the president has said in the past that he would grab women by the pussy...
when you say women's rights, what does that mean? It is such a vague term. What rights do they want that they don't already have?

Also Madonna wants to blow up the White House. You go girl!
They want to have more rights than men, so that they have the same rights. Ya know, if a male and female apply for the same job, the female is chosen. Thats what they want. BECAUSE THERE ARE TO FEW FEMALES IN HIGH RANKING JOBS! ITS THE FAULT OF THE LAW, NOT THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN! Makes sense, right?
When i say woman's rights, i basically mean 'protecting and enforcing' women's rights. Again...

Women have full rights in the United States? Trump has not done anything to undermine their rights as a President. If they are so troubled with woman's rights, why don't they just go to the Middle East where women are literally treated as second class citizens and treated poorly by the Muslims.

This march is purely about American Merkel not being elected

http://www.infowars.com/german-feminazis-chant-allahu-akbar-at-islamist-backed-womens-march/

Yeah... women's right... ok, sure
I saw that video. It's funny when you see women and gays supporting Islam yet women and gays are the one tortured.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Ted on January 23, 2017, 09:58:09 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 23, 2017, 10:54:41 pm
Wow, that was fantastic.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 23, 2017, 10:59:58 pm
Could you please not quote this much, guys? Thanks.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on January 24, 2017, 12:02:02 am
I second olaf, that was indeed fantastic. Also, this is interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAALvRcegCY

On a seperate note, richard spencer got hit. Don't like the guy, but this is plain wrong. Also, I love how he gets punched as soon as he mentions pepe. LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 24, 2017, 12:30:11 am
If you actually like Richard Spencer, you need to reevaluate your life
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 24, 2017, 02:57:39 am
If you actually like Richard Spencer, you need to reevaluate your life
he gets bitches
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 24, 2017, 03:10:43 am
Richard spencer should honestly be deported to Canada
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 24, 2017, 05:07:18 am
Richard spencer should honestly be deported to Canada
false
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 24, 2017, 08:09:24 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc

Haven't seen this yet.
It's pure gold tohugh  ;D
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 25, 2017, 06:25:28 am
Chicago already has over 200 shootings in 2017? Wtf Chicago...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 25, 2017, 08:26:42 am
Yes and now we need more guns to protect people. It truly is the only way.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 25, 2017, 03:47:04 pm
Actually the solution Trump was looking for was federal agency support not gun deregulation ^^
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 25, 2017, 06:47:25 pm
pretty sure my Econ professor is a socialist. Fun
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 25, 2017, 08:07:27 pm
So what the fuck is Trump doing at the moment?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on January 25, 2017, 08:17:45 pm
So what the fuck is Trump doing at the moment?

Probably enacting executive orders, what most presidents do when they take office.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 25, 2017, 08:48:13 pm
So what the fuck is Trump doing at the moment?
A shit ton so far lol
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 25, 2017, 09:17:44 pm
So what the fuck is Trump doing at the moment?

Probably enacting executive orders, what most presidents do when they take office.

Yes. But he is enacting some rediculous ones.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 25, 2017, 09:19:08 pm
I hope Trump really does send the feds into Chicago so I can watch some gib me dats get shot on Live Leak
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 25, 2017, 09:34:44 pm
I hope Trump really does send the feds into Chicago so I can watch some gib me dats get shot on Live Leak

As if that's going to solve anything.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 25, 2017, 09:37:55 pm
A corrupt mayor and an overwhelmed police force aren't going to be better off with intervention from the feds?

Maybe we should follow the wise Dutch example and just mock the criminals to death
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 25, 2017, 09:58:57 pm
im surprised but at the same time not surprised, he's living up to what he promised in only a few days after taking office, building the wall is no longer just a meme.  It shows he gives no crap about who he will piss off in the process.  Oh and he might bring back torture!
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 25, 2017, 10:09:40 pm
Setting America a good thirty years back in social development.

A corrupt mayor and an overwhelmed police force aren't going to be better off with intervention from the feds?

Maybe we should follow the wise Dutch example and just mock the criminals to death

It's just fighting the symptons. Surely, it will help, but replacing the mayor and making the police force larger (even if that were to become permanent) wouldn't even begin to solve the actual problems.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 25, 2017, 11:35:45 pm
Apparently he has just told EPA that he is freezing all their grants and budgets. Great news.

I wonder how long it will take until he cuts the budget of anything science related.

YAY?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 25, 2017, 11:44:37 pm
But the respectable sciences don't suffer almost as much scrutiny as that of the EPA.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 25, 2017, 11:52:59 pm
Trump's bringing back torture? Might as well make it official the CIA already tortures plenty of people in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

According to the NYT Trump's de-funding a large number of UN Agencies, which would be pretty significant since the US is easily the biggest donor to most of these organisations. Not sure many other countries can afford to pick up the funding gap either.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 26, 2017, 12:14:16 am
Cut the EPA!
(But seriously, it's a money hole)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: MrTiki on January 26, 2017, 12:58:57 am
Maybe we should follow the wise Dutch example and just mock the criminals to death
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime
If it ain't broke?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 26, 2017, 01:06:11 am
Not enough jokes exist, sadly

Spoiler
(https://i.gyazo.com/d791003a7cb84907f363f0ee582c0ba4.png)

(https://i.gyazo.com/5acdbf505b0477ab0d73256b5534c44c.png)
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 28, 2017, 01:36:55 am
I hope Trump really does send the feds into Chicago so I can watch some gib me dats get shot on Live Leak

As if that's going to solve anything.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm5K0s6W8AEH22Y.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on January 28, 2017, 03:46:38 am
Maybe we should follow the wise Dutch example and just mock the criminals to death
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime
If it ain't broke?

To be fair, netherlands is a lot smaller. Ill use another example. United States vs. Lebanon

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Lebanon/United-States/Crime
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 28, 2017, 12:57:57 pm
I hope Trump really does send the feds into Chicago so I can watch some gib me dats get shot on Live Leak

As if that's going to solve anything.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm5K0s6W8AEH22Y.jpg)

Not even true. If the US would only spend half of their military budget on the military and the other half on NASA and science in general we would be so much more advanced right now. And to be fair, even spending just half of the military budget on military is still way to much. 250 Billion US dollar...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 28, 2017, 01:12:17 pm
Most scientific achievements of the last 100 years have been as a result of military funding, including the internet. But maybe if European countries spent more on their defence the US wouldn't need to spend so much.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 28, 2017, 05:05:50 pm
Right, because the US is spending $63 billion, or 9.5% of their defense budget on Research.

The EU combined spends $225 billion on defense, the US spends $590 billion on defense. It is ridicilous to think that the US needs that large of an military.
Let's say we cut the US military budget down to the same as the EU, so both the EU and the US together spend $450 billion on their militaries. The rest of the world combined only spends $976 billion.
Don't you think that the US and the EU should be able to handle any thread well enough, even with a lower US budget?

I mean, I get your point. The only reason anyone ever went to the moon, or sent satellites into space, was because the Russians/NATO could have built a military installation there. But this is the wrong idea. We should thrive for scientific advancement, purely for the sake of advancement and not for the sake of being first to build the most powerful weapon.


And to get back to my original argument, which still holds true. If the US would spend more on NASA than on their military, we would would be much more advanced (I meant in space travel btw.) It was a hypothetical thing, IF the US would spend that much on NASA, this would happen. It has nothing todo with the point that a lot of big scientific achievements have been achieved because of war (specially the cold war).
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 28, 2017, 05:40:06 pm
If you want an illustration about what a country can achieve by rerouting defence spending to another field, look at what Costa Rica has done.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 28, 2017, 06:56:37 pm
Comparing the Costa Rican defense budget and those budgets decsions to the US defence budget is a terrible comparison.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 28, 2017, 07:15:38 pm
Well sure 100% budget cut compared to a 50% budget cut is quite a difference, but I think what Riddlez wanted to say is that having no military can work.


Costa Rica has no military and can spend that money on other things. And it actually works. So why shouldn't a 50% budget cut work? You would still have more than enough money to have a large military (and it would still be much larger than that of all the EU forces combined...(If you compare populations)) and you would have a lot more money to do other things with.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 28, 2017, 07:18:59 pm
I hope America just gets rid of their defense budget. We don't need an army
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 28, 2017, 07:22:09 pm
Is that a serious proposal Olaf?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 28, 2017, 08:31:26 pm
The US defence budget is definitely bloated I'm not gonna argue about that. But you've got to appreciate that it's defence spending that oils the wheels of the military-industrial complex, which is where most of the advancements are made. If you start reducing spending then there's less money available to BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc. The 9.5% figure is also misleading and the real figure is much higher-for example the Pentagon may buy 10,000 M1 Abrams tanks but General Dynamics designs them and does the necessary R&D. Pentagon money is simply being spent to contract out a lot of R&D to the private sector.

The Pentagon could try and do everything in house but governments aren't great at doing that sort of thing, hence why the USSR lagged behind the US technologically speaking during the Cold War.

I mean, I get your point. The only reason anyone ever went to the moon, or sent satellites into space, was because the Russians/NATO could have built a military installation there. But this is the wrong idea. We should thrive for scientific advancement, purely for the sake of advancement and not for the sake of being first to build the most powerful weapon.

That's not human nature, and never will be. And I think the search for ever more powerful weapons is probably the right idea-I highly doubt we're alone in the universe, alien civilisations if they exist are probably just as warlike as we are if not more so.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 28, 2017, 11:01:23 pm
Alright, fair points, I do not think that I can say anything about these. Good argument. The Alien stuff is bullshit though. An Alien race has nothing to gain from war with the earth. Besides that, any alien civilization capable of getting here is also capable of complete elimination of the planet/all life on it, so there is no point in focusing in that regard anyway.

There are only three reasons an alien might start war with earth. 1.) It is an accident
                                                                                                      2.) The alien is a single being or a hivemind that simply wants all the universe for itself.
                                                                                                      3.) The alien civ somehow thinks that the earth is a threat to its existence.

None of these are very likely. Besides that, the likelihood of meeting an Alien race is extremely slim, if even possible at all. Your thinking is also crooked, an alien civilization that is like us would not start war with us. It would gain absolutely nothing from it.

Is that a serious proposal Olaf?

Decreasing the defence budget? Yes. Spending everything on NASA? Personally I wouldn't mind, I don't live in the US, but obviously it would be way better for the US itself if the money were to be spend equally on various different fields.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 28, 2017, 11:03:03 pm
One thing though, NASA may look sophisticated and great on the surface, but they are a huge bureaucracy.  They butt heads with every private organization that wants to fund their own space explorations.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 28, 2017, 11:09:39 pm
Doesn't the U.S have over 600,000 active ground troops? Isn't that a bit excessive seeing it'll realistically never fight a nation were that many troops are required for immediate combat? The USAF and Navy will win wars. The Army and Marines just hold onto the ground. But there is no country where you will instantly need 600,000 men to hold the ground. If you cut spending to the number of ground troops and focused on training and equipment instead wouldn't that be more practical? 50% cut to the military wouldn't be a good idea seeing 65% of the funding goes into the Air force and Navy. But the Army could probably do for a 33% cut in its funding via freezing recruitment for a good long while. That way the army just become more professional by keeping its equipment up to date but doesn't tank in cost for no reason. You could probably even relocate come of that money saved to help veterans and their families.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 28, 2017, 11:11:15 pm
Reducing the US defense budget by a drastic amount would shock the international security community.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 28, 2017, 11:14:52 pm
Well, technically what I said isn't one drastic change. It would gradually decrease the budget in a certain field. A 50% cut would almost certainly cause shit to go wild though.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 28, 2017, 11:18:24 pm
What Conway proposed makes sense, cut where you are overdoing it. The US is practically an Island. No military will ever be large enough to land so many troops on the US coast that the US has to send in ALL of their soldiers. It is just unrealistic.
The Navy and Airforce keep the country protected, with the backup from the Marines. The Army is more of a reserve needed when doing large scale invasions or when defending the country on land (which will practically never happen anyway).


Reducing the US defense budget by a drastic amount would shock the international security community.

I don't know, how so?

Instead of having 101010101010 tanks, now the Us only has 10101010 (active) Tanks (They could still keep the other tanks in store, in case they do actually need them, because I don't know why). Not going to hurt anyone. The US could still keep troops in foreign countries and deploy their navy world wide, they just would cut the troops situated in the US.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Thunderstormer on January 28, 2017, 11:49:07 pm
i cant see the US cutting spending on the military in the slightest for various reasons.  the slightest cut gets perceived as a weakening of the military.  a loss of influence around the world.  etc,.  even trying to phase out old stuff(that requires more men and material to do the job) for a more economical stuff that does the same job, if not better for less cost in resources can be perceived as a horrible cut to the military.  quite often it is how the politicians spin what is happening which influences how people think about the possible changes rather than what will actually happen.

The US loves its military.  You would have to convince them that whatever changes are for the best, both locally, nationally, and globally. 

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 29, 2017, 12:07:15 am
Well yeah, obviously all of this just hypothetical.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 29, 2017, 12:37:32 am
Remember, even for a country as small as Iraq and Afghanistan, they deployed reserve and NG battalions to keep up with the surge. The # of active duty didnt cut it. So they want to be prepared as realistically the next 'conflict' would happen with a country much larger and more sophisticated
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on January 29, 2017, 12:49:36 am
If the US decreased their military budget the world would actually die
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 29, 2017, 03:54:58 am
In response to what Thunderstormer said - Olafson is right, 100% hypothetical. I decided to leave out the part in my original post on how the Republicans would cry bloody murder and call the President a soldier hating communist if large military cutbacks were even whispered.

In response to Karth - From what I understand the national guard and reserves served mostly as a cheaper way to maintain and control occupied territory. Cheaper as in the alternative was more regular troops.  I believe they were deployed for more of a "boots on the ground" purpose rather then to participate in any large scale military operations. That way active troops could be focused on combat rather than patrol and guarding large military complex's. Of course correct me if this is false.

I think BabyJesus just had a lil bit of a stroke.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 29, 2017, 07:41:39 am
Err yea, I know about the wars, my assistant principal was KIA during the surge (he was a NG reservist).  The NG and Reserve troops actually going through the same basic and advanced training (depending on MOS) as active duty soldiers (albeit not as many trainings as they do after they get their stripes).  On deployments the paygrade is also the same as active duty, they dont differ from paygrade.  During the Iraq invasion, supporting all those active duty components required FOBs to be built continuously and maintained (building defenses, having soldiers occupy them, etc..) to maintain a presence around the country, along with a bunch of specialized logistical MOS's.  So you had over 140,000-150,000 troops in just Iraq at that time, along with ongoing operations in Afghanistan, WHILE maintaining numerous bases around the globe (which require active duty presence, or at that instance, reservists would be placed in their stead, in hotspots like Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait, etc..) 

Main point is: in today's modern age, even to invade and occupy a country like Iraq requires hundreds of thousands of troops, if the invasion wasnt a 'coalition', then the US would have had to double its numbers, again just for a country like Iraq.  So think of an Iran or North Korea, that would definitely require way more, and thats how they are justifying the 600,000 active duty or so and wanting to expand that. 
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 29, 2017, 08:08:39 am
Err yea, I know about the wars, my assistant principal was KIA during the surge (he was a NG reservist).  The NG and Reserve troops actually going through the same basic and advanced training (depending on MOS) as active duty soldiers (albeit not as many trainings as they do after they get their stripes).  On deployments the paygrade is also the same as active duty, they dont differ from paygrade.  During the Iraq invasion, supporting all those active duty components required FOBs to be built continuously and maintained (building defenses, having soldiers occupy them, etc..) to maintain a presence around the country, along with a bunch of specialized logistical MOS's.  So you had over 140,000-150,000 troops in just Iraq at that time, along with ongoing operations in Afghanistan, WHILE maintaining numerous bases around the globe (which require active duty presence, or at that instance, reservists would be placed in their stead, in hotspots like Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait, etc..) 

Main point is: in today's modern age, even to invade and occupy a country like Iraq requires hundreds of thousands of troops, if the invasion wasnt a 'coalition', then the US would have had to double its numbers, again just for a country like Iraq.  So think of an Iran or North Korea, that would definitely require way more, and thats how they are justifying the 600,000 active duty or so and wanting to expand that.
Alright, fair enough. Given you'd know more on the topic then me I'll retract my earlier statement. I was thinking solely in terms of a military victory which, would require less ground troops and rely more on Air and Sea. But I didn't really think about any long term occupations so fair enough.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 29, 2017, 11:58:10 am
Well yeah, but that just agrees with what I said earlier.

The Army is more of a reserve needed when doing large scale invasions or when defending the country on land (which will practically never happen anyway).

 You obviously do need the numbers when you start invading something, but my idea was that you would cease doing that, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on January 29, 2017, 12:41:31 pm
Just to come back on the military-industrial complex providing for the country: this is true, though it's actually way less profitable for a country than you'd think. Say, a billion spent op military industry provides way less profit for the country (both in goods, services and provision of jobs), than that same billion would in public sectors as healthcare, education or construction.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 29, 2017, 12:51:09 pm
^This. Wars aren't economical.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 29, 2017, 01:50:27 pm
Just to come back on the military-industrial complex providing for the country: this is true, though it's actually way less profitable for a country than you'd think. Say, a billion spent op military industry provides way less profit for the country (both in goods, services and provision of jobs), than that same billion would in public sectors as healthcare, education or construction.

Not true, the US defence industry is one of the cornerstones of the American economy and is highly profitable-many of them rank highly on the Fortune 500. Plus you've got to think about the supply chains involved and how that benefits the wider economy.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 29, 2017, 02:13:48 pm
It's profitable for some, yes. But not for the country as a whole.

European countries will have to start investing more in their defensive capabilities, this is undoubtly true. Defence is important in the next General Election here, with pretty much everybody calling for more defence spending (Though the Socialists and Greens are sorta weird and ambigious about it, which even I, a Green member, have to admit) and some even calling for the re-activation of conscription.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 29, 2017, 04:41:49 pm
Greens are always weird. In the UK the Greens said it shouldn't be a crime to join ISIS at the last election.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 29, 2017, 05:31:52 pm
The Dutch Greens have been a medium-sized player in Dutch politics ever since it was created and so lost most of their more ridicious tendencies. They're polling at a (relative) huge win of up to 15 seats, bypassing Labour (12) and the Socialist Party (13). Of course, polls are polls. I'm hoping for twelve seats.

With the Dutch, German, and French Elections coming up, we might as well create a thread specifically for that.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 29, 2017, 05:53:23 pm
What's the main Dutch centre-right party? I assume it's not Wilders.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 29, 2017, 06:31:01 pm
What's the main Dutch centre-right party? I assume it's not Wilders.

See the other thread.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 29, 2017, 08:39:27 pm
So...

1. Trump did the ban thing

2. Federal Court ordered the release of Green Card and Visa holders

3. Trump apparantly ordered the Custom and Border Patrol to continue with that practise and in Dunnes attorneys weren't allowed to visit jailed refugees.

So if point 3 is true, which is very much appears to be, I do believe he is breaking constitutional law? Not bad for day 10.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 29, 2017, 08:44:12 pm
Dulles* but that seems so
Even though the spirit of the law makes sense to me, I would think citizens and Green Card/Visa holders would be allowed. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't free movement into and out of the country guaranteed for citizens in the constitution?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on January 29, 2017, 08:55:50 pm
Yea of course. But how are green card and visa holders citizens lol
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 29, 2017, 09:00:26 pm
They aren't, but I would think they'd at least deserve entry.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on January 29, 2017, 09:03:57 pm
Which is why the 'spirit of the law' makes no sense at all. It bans Green Card holders solely because of their place of birth. It doesn't protect anyone, and meant solely to please some of Trump voters who don't know, but mostly honestly don't care, about the finer points of constitutional law or human rights.

They're not citizens, but they're entitled to rights based on that Green Card or Visa just like American citizens are. In a similair way, citizens of other European countries can enter, live and work legally in EU memberstates, even though they're not citizens. Besides, there is now a court order by a Federal judge that dictates Green Card Holders must be allowed entry to the United States, so until that court order is recinded or struck down by a higher court, Trump is simply disregarding the constitution he swore an oath to protect just nine days ago.

Of course, the problem with this is that, like I said, most Trump supporters really don't care about constitutional law until it stops protecting their guns.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 29, 2017, 10:07:09 pm
Ignore the hysteria from the media, this is what the facts are about Trump's Executive Order from the UK Foreign Office:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3XUk3YXAAIxinR.jpg)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: junedragon on January 30, 2017, 04:57:41 pm
Spoiler
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatreallyhappened.com%2FIMAGES%2Fdonotinvestigateriggedelection.jpg&hash=dcf27839d01edfeb5267a790b3537157ec188792)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
[close]
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 30, 2017, 05:43:14 pm
Spoiler
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatreallyhappened.com%2FIMAGES%2Fdonotinvestigateriggedelection.jpg&hash=dcf27839d01edfeb5267a790b3537157ec188792)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
[close]
Oh crap, the left is staging a big coverup! You got a Obama, Hillary, Green Lady and News man working together to coverup rigging the election! That image actually looks like something you'd find posted by RebelMedia.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 30, 2017, 06:27:06 pm
When ^ misses the point
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 30, 2017, 10:22:54 pm
Spoiler
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatreallyhappened.com%2FIMAGES%2Fdonotinvestigateriggedelection.jpg&hash=dcf27839d01edfeb5267a790b3537157ec188792)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
[close]
Oh crap, the left is staging a big coverup! You got a Obama, Hillary, Green Lady and News man working together to coverup rigging the election! That image actually looks like something you'd find posted by RebelMedia.

Stuck up liberals speaking like this is exactly why Trump won...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 30, 2017, 10:29:05 pm
Spoiler
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatreallyhappened.com%2FIMAGES%2Fdonotinvestigateriggedelection.jpg&hash=dcf27839d01edfeb5267a790b3537157ec188792)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
[close]
Oh crap, the left is staging a big coverup! You got a Obama, Hillary, Green Lady and News man working together to coverup rigging the election! That image actually looks like something you'd find posted by RebelMedia.

Stuck up liberals speaking like this is exactly why Trump won...
I mean, I think his targeting of the key battleground states by saying he would bring jobs back their along with the general mistrust people had in Hillary is what won him the election - But yea, it was us "liberals" poking fun at bullshit images that brought Trump to victory. Well done RickPerry.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 30, 2017, 10:42:28 pm
It's okay if you continue talking like that. Means we get more Trumps.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 30, 2017, 10:53:01 pm
Kevin O'Leary 2019
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on January 30, 2017, 10:53:55 pm
Hopefully not
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on January 31, 2017, 03:41:02 am
Stuck up "liberal" who laughed at anyone suggesting Trump will win now trying to lecture on how Trump won (live on forum)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on January 31, 2017, 04:03:28 am
Kevin O'Leary 2019
isn't that the guy who told veterans not to be proud or some shit
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 31, 2017, 04:15:39 am
Stuck up "liberal" who laughed at anyone suggesting Trump will win now trying to lecture on how Trump won (live on forum)
I can tell you for certain, that I never claimed he wouldn't become POTUS. Seeing most people (myself included) give zero fucks about PC shit, I really don't think that was a driving force in the election. But then again, anyone who dislikes Trump is just a "SJW Libtard Communist Cuck" amirite?

Kevin O'Leary 2019
isn't that the guy who told veterans not to be proud or some shit
Yep, and hes currently ahead in the leadership race. He is basically running off of his similarities to Trump. Hopefully the NDP can pull out a stellar candidate to face Trudeau - I have my doubts on that though.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 31, 2017, 12:37:31 pm
Kevin O'Leary isn't a good fit with the Canadian Conservatives but he's probably best placed to defeat Justin Trudeau. Not my preferred choice of leader but getting rid of Trudeau is quite vital as he's a moron. I wanted it to have been Jason Kenney but he's gone back to Alberta to try and be the next Premier (which is fair enough as Notley is awful).
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Olafson on January 31, 2017, 01:29:14 pm
Kevin O'Leary 2019
isn't that the guy who told veterans not to be proud or some shit

You sure this is not Germany?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 31, 2017, 04:47:38 pm
Kevin O'Leary isn't a good fit with the Canadian Conservatives but he's probably best placed to defeat Justin Trudeau. Not my preferred choice of leader but getting rid of Trudeau is quite vital as he's a moron. I wanted it to have been Jason Kenney but he's gone back to Alberta to try and be the next Premier (which is fair enough as Notley is awful).
I'd fucking kill for Danny Williams to comeback and kick the liberals out of NL. I bet if Harper came back he could probably win. But you're right in saying that O'Leary has the best shot.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on January 31, 2017, 05:43:27 pm
Kevin O'Leary isn't a good fit with the Canadian Conservatives but he's probably best placed to defeat Justin Trudeau. Not my preferred choice of leader but getting rid of Trudeau is quite vital as he's a moron. I wanted it to have been Jason Kenney but he's gone back to Alberta to try and be the next Premier (which is fair enough as Notley is awful).
I'd fucking kill for Danny Williams to comeback and kick the liberals out of NL. I bet if Harper came back he could probably win. But you're right in saying that O'Leary has the best shot.

Not a fan of Williams in terms of his relationship with the rest of Canada, I think he took things too far. Maybe he was good domestically I don't know I'm not from Atlantic Canada.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on January 31, 2017, 06:22:47 pm
Kevin O'Leary isn't a good fit with the Canadian Conservatives but he's probably best placed to defeat Justin Trudeau. Not my preferred choice of leader but getting rid of Trudeau is quite vital as he's a moron. I wanted it to have been Jason Kenney but he's gone back to Alberta to try and be the next Premier (which is fair enough as Notley is awful).
I'd fucking kill for Danny Williams to comeback and kick the liberals out of NL. I bet if Harper came back he could probably win. But you're right in saying that O'Leary has the best shot.

Not a fan of Williams in terms of his relationship with the rest of Canada, I think he took things too far. Maybe he was good domestically I don't know I'm not from Atlantic Canada.
I think he had the highest approval rating for any federal or provincial leader in the country, ever. Could be wrong on that. He basically made sure we kept our oil and prevented us from going broke for the time being. However what followed him was a shitstorm and so now the Liberal government has to kill us with taxes to pay for what his successors did. We will pretty much be dirt poor until 2041 when Quebec fucks off from our hydro.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on February 01, 2017, 05:53:16 pm
Trump made his SCOTUS pick. Democrats aren't happy
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on February 02, 2017, 01:40:25 am
Aye we might finally be able to invade Mexico
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on February 02, 2017, 02:04:31 am
Aye we might finally be able to invade Mexico
or we can just wall it off and act like they don't exist
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on February 02, 2017, 10:03:37 am
Aye we might finally be able to invade Mexico
or we can just wall it off and act like they don't exist
but... muh bloodlust
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpuu.sh%2FtKQ6q%2F2f51b6c33f.jpg&hash=78b58840c0893f723b7bf6cb11a1eeebf6f994c9)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on February 02, 2017, 06:01:17 pm
Aye we might finally be able to invade Mexico

Mexicans can't steal our jobs if there is no Mexico
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on February 02, 2017, 10:07:06 pm
I hope leftists keep having these violent riots. it just turns more people away from their cause
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: GeneralSquirts on February 03, 2017, 09:58:54 am
I hope leftists keep having these violent riots. it just turns more people away from their cause

I find it funny because all they do is give the other side more ammo. I don't like Milo or what he represents, but you probably are worse of a person than him if you aren't someone who believes in the principle of free speech, especially when it comes from someone with opposite standings. Sad to say, but true.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Riddlez on February 03, 2017, 01:03:55 pm
I hope leftists keep having these violent riots. it just turns more people away from their cause

Like right-wing protests, they have nothing to do with the far, FAR larger majority of people. Violent protests seldom go violent because the protest is intended to be violent.
There is usually a very small group whose soul purpose is to riot, and they somehow take loads of people with them in the violence. That's more group dynamics and a small number of fuckheads, than that 'leftists' or 'right wing' is inherently more violent than the other.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 03, 2017, 03:17:06 pm
Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on February 03, 2017, 03:36:27 pm
Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.
except they look like the facists for shutting down free speech
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Karth on February 03, 2017, 03:47:02 pm
I don't understand how their protests will help gain more support, if anything the moderates will just ignore them, and when it's time for next election same thing will happen, they won't be united and Trump will win.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: AP0CALYPS3 on February 03, 2017, 04:34:57 pm
Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.

I think the Black Bloc has harmed the Proletariat more than the "bougies"
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 03, 2017, 05:29:31 pm
Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.

Nothing like getting your federal funding cut

Nothing like giving Milo attention

Nothing like showing the true nature of American liberals
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 03, 2017, 06:09:46 pm
Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.
except they look like the facists for shutting down free speech
yeah except fascists advocate genocide which imo isn't a legitimate opinion worth hearing.

Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.
I think the Black Bloc has harmed the Proletariat more than the "bougies"
Oh, i'll just forget about all those south american countries who were genocided because of american business interests. Never happened...

Nothing wrong with a black bloc every once in a while to keep the bougies and the fascists scared.
Nothing like showing the true nature of American liberals
No one who participates in a black bloc is a liberal. These aren't the folks who voted for Hillary.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 03, 2017, 06:23:37 pm
No one who participates in a black bloc is a liberal. These aren't the folks who voted for Hillary.

They work towards the same goal though. Funded by the same guy, too.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 03, 2017, 07:08:55 pm
No one who participates in a black bloc is a liberal. These aren't the folks who voted for Hillary.
They work towards the same goal though. Funded by the same guy, too.
Literally no idea what you are talking about. No one 'funds' a black bloc, are you stupid? If they need funds, it's from within the bloc.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 03, 2017, 07:32:05 pm
No one who participates in a black bloc is a liberal. These aren't the folks who voted for Hillary.
They work towards the same goal though. Funded by the same guy, too.
Literally no idea what you are talking about. No one 'funds' a black bloc, are you stupid? If they need funds, it's from within the bloc.

Doubt that.

No one 'funds' a black bloc

Yeah, let's not count someone paying for signs, transport and literally a pay cheque as "funding".

Quote from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/
"In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations."

Quote
Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation — all funded in part by Mr. Soros — descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month.

And since you cited CNN in a reply to Apoc:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/soros-dc-march-partners/

 :) :)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on February 03, 2017, 08:06:27 pm
Breitbart is actually cancer.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 03, 2017, 08:44:14 pm
Both them and CNN are terrible references but since we're going that low anyway...
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 03, 2017, 09:43:53 pm
No one who participates in a black bloc is a liberal. These aren't the folks who voted for Hillary.
They work towards the same goal though. Funded by the same guy, too.
Literally no idea what you are talking about. No one 'funds' a black bloc, are you stupid? If they need funds, it's from within the bloc.

Doubt that.

No one 'funds' a black bloc

Yeah, let's not count someone paying for signs, transport and literally a pay cheque as "funding".

Quote from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/
"In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations."

Quote
Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation — all funded in part by Mr. Soros — descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month.

And since you cited CNN in a reply to Apoc:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/soros-dc-march-partners/

 :) :)
Your stupidity is amazing dude. How you can just spout so much shit about things you know nothing about. A black bloc is not just a simple protest, it's a specific kind of protest, typically used by socialists, anarchists, and ANTIFA. The shit at ferguson was NOT a black bloc, holy fuck dude. Black blocs are self-funded... why would any business in their right mind fund a black bloc? Something that actively tries to dismantle businesses and capitalism in general.

In addition, i cited CNN because they point out the nationalities of previous terror attacks. That's not opinion, that's fucking fact. You can't debate the nationality of the terrorists. None of those nations are on Trump's ban, that's a fact. Just because you don't like CNN, and i don't either, doesn't mean that facts suddenly aren't facts anymore.

Seriously dude, did you just climb out of a fucking dumpster? You're worse than fucking theo, at least he makes coherent arguments.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 03, 2017, 10:03:55 pm
Like anyone takes you seriously anyway, representing the "black block" and sprouting shit about how they're supposedly intimidating. The rioters are fucking retards who make spelling mistakes in their signs amongst attacking their own ("let's smash fascism by burning this Muslim's limo" lmao). They're even mocked by Brits.

Once again you take the high ground with "at least X is actually X". "At least", lol, fuck off back to debate class.

Black blocs are self-funded... why would any business in their right mind fund a black bloc?

Because Soros makes power grabs through creating chaos in a nation and generally destabilising the target government. His foundation fund isn't a business; it doesn't make monetary profits you retard. Did you even read into his actions in Ukraine, or do you not read articles that aren't written by CNN?  :)

why would any business in their right mind fund a black bloc? Something that actively tries to dismantle businesses and capitalism in general.

Destroying a university is dismantling business and capitalism? The fact that you've chosen to represent this gang of utter chromosomes and even FEEL PROUD about their actions is hilarious.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on February 03, 2017, 10:35:43 pm
Yes, Soros started the war. Russia's military invasion had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 03, 2017, 10:43:14 pm
Yes, Soros started the war. Russia's military invasion had nothing to do with it.

I didn't say he started the war, but it's popular consensus that he is responsible for making sure Ukraine stays in crisis state.

Good to see you still have the cheek to make these smart remarks after banning everyone that disagrees with you in the last two threads.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on February 03, 2017, 11:02:18 pm
Yes, he is responsible for keeping Ukraine in a crisis state. Russia's military invasion has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on February 03, 2017, 11:25:00 pm
Yes, he is responsible for keeping Ukraine in a crisis state. Russia's military invasion has nothing to do with it.

Soros was intimately involved in Ukraine and the crisis there-don't forget this is a man who has the ear of a large number of Western politicians, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, and regularly 'advises' them on geopolitics.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-20/leaked-memo-proves-soros-ruled-ukraine-2014-minutes-%E2%80%9Cbreakfast-us-ambassador-pyatt%E2%80%9D

This is part of a long-term project aimed at getting Ukraine to move into the Western sphere of influence, despite knowing full well that the country is internally divided between its pro-Russian Eastern and pro-European Western halves. Ukraine can only exist as a unified country so long as it doesn't commit to either side, which was the status quo agreed by all the major powers at the end of the Cold War. Upsetting that delicate balance was always going to start a war.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on February 03, 2017, 11:38:27 pm
You're forgetting that national souvereignity dictates the people within a nation (or actually its government, but let's assume that in proper democracies that's the same thing) are the only ones who can decide which alliances or treaties a country wants to be a part of, or not. You cannot defend a Brexit and than proceed to say Ukraine has no right to request membership of the EU because of apparent secret dealings. Either you're a full-blown Offensive Realist and you should argue the EU should invade Britain to avoid a secession, or you're defend national sovereignty, but you really can't have both.

Ukraine has been working at improving her institutions, economy and democracy ever since independence and the role the European Union has played in this, however minor, is something to be proud on. There is no grand regime-change-conspiracy, as much as you'd love there to be.

Internal division on the European Union is surprisingly small, by the way. 51-55% of Ukrainians support joining the EU, while only 15-19% support joining Russia's Custom Unions, with the rest either wanting to join both or none. 43% of Ukrainians would vote in favour of joining NATO if a referendum was called, against 29% against. Invasion tends to change perspectives.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: StevenChilton on February 04, 2017, 12:50:41 am
The last Presidential election in Ukraine, before the coup, was won by the pro-Russian candidate. As you can see from how the results looked, Ukraine is a very divided country:
Spoiler
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png/1280px-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png)
[close]

The pro-EU candidate lost. That's democracy. Now I dunno where these 'opinion polls show Ukrainians love the EU' come from but it's not borne out by those election results. And given there's a war in Eastern Ukraine I'd like to know how those people were polled.

Ukraine has been working at improving her institutions, economy and democracy ever since independence and the role the European Union has played in this, however minor, is something to be proud on

God bless the European Union for doing something totally out of the kindness of its own heart and without any thought for its own gain.

There is no grand regime-change-conspiracy, as much as you'd love there to be.

You are so gullible Duuring. We know for a fact that the US destabilises countries around the world to suit its own ends, most recently in Syria. Hardly a stretch to believe the same happened in Ukraine, especially when 'Euromaiden' looked extremely well planned including how all of a sudden senior EU and American politicians turned up to cheer the protesters on. I mean I'm not arguing about the moon landings being faked or shape shifting lizard reptiles secretly controlling the world here. But I guess to you it's just a coincidence that the leader of a strategically important country like Ukraine, where Russia and the West have been facing off for years, goes against Western interests and then all of a sudden gets deposed in a coup and then a new government comes in and completely changes course. Yeah that happened without any outside help at all how silly of me to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Theodin on February 04, 2017, 03:42:10 am
Thanks Gluk
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 04, 2017, 07:22:58 am
Like anyone takes you seriously anyway, representing the "black block" and sprouting shit about how they're supposedly intimidating. The rioters are fucking retards who make spelling mistakes in their signs amongst attacking their own ("let's smash fascism by burning this Muslim's limo" lmao). They're are even mocked by Brits.

Once again you take the high ground with "at least X is actually X". "At least", lol, fuck off back to debate class.

Black blocs are self-funded... why would any business in their right mind fund a black bloc?

Because Soros makes power grabs through creating chaos in a nation and generally destabilising the target government. His foundation fund isn't a business; it doesn't make monetary profits you retard. Did you even read into his actions in Ukraine, or do you not read articles that aren't written by CNN?  :)

why would any business in their right mind fund a black bloc? Something that actively tries to dismantle businesses and capitalism in general.

Destroying a university is dismantling business and capitalism? The fact that you've chosen to represent this gang of utter chromosomes and even FEEL PROUD about their actions is hilarious.
I can guarentee you that George Soros is not funding black blocs. This is from (fucking kill me) breitbart,
Quote
many people not intimately associated with the radical left have the false belief that all protesters are such events as merely paid flunkies funded by a leftist financier like George Soros.

It’s important that Americans not be lulled into a false sense of security by such an oversimplification. While it’s been proven that funders like Soros and the Democrat party have paid protest organizers and some protesters, groups like the violent Black Bloc typically aren’t motivated by money, but instead come to protests because of their anti-American ideology, base criminal desires and thill seeking.
Even breitbart isn't that stupid. I applaud you though for the effort.

As for the rest of it, I don't really care about george soros. You keep bringing him up and i just explained, he doesn't fund black blocs so really i don't care about him or his funds or whatever the fuck.

I just want to point out one last thing though
Quote
The rioters are fucking retards who make spelling mistakes in their signs amongst attacking their own ("let's smash fascism by burning this Muslim's limo" lmao). They're are even mocked by Brits.
I know it's not technically a spelling mistake but still...It's ironic.

Thanks Gluk
You're welcome.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Duuring on February 04, 2017, 01:31:40 pm
The last Presidential election in Ukraine, before the coup, was won by the pro-Russian candidate. As you can see from how the results looked, Ukraine is a very divided country:
Spoiler
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png/1280px-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png)
[close]

The pro-EU candidate lost. That's democracy. Now I dunno where these 'opinion polls show Ukrainians love the EU' come from but it's not borne out by those election results. And given there's a war in Eastern Ukraine I'd like to know how those people were polled.

If you take a map of any election outcome, the country will look divided. Poroshenko was elected by a million votes more then Yanukovich in the first round, in an internationall recogised election. Parliamentary elections again confirmed a mandate to establish closer ties with the European Union. The pro-European candidates won - that's democracy.

so divided, wow
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2014/06/Kandydaty-prez-lidery-2014.jpg)
[close]

Signing the Association treaty was an election promise of Yanukovich anyway, and his sudden 180-turn is what started the protests against him. He fled the country to plead Putin for a military invasion, which is the clearest sign of treason one can imagine.

The war in Eastern Ukraine is only happening in two of eastern regions, and then in only half of them. The districts under control of the Ukrainian Army have access to all government agencies, have elected respresentatives in parliament and voted in the presidential elections. I don't know why people keep picturing Ukraine as this wartorn-country all the way to Kiev.

You can find the poll here:

http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/iri_ukraine_poll_-_october_2016.pdf

Of course, undoubtly there would a higher percentage of pro-Russian Ukrainians if all of the country was polled, but A. Not really their fault Russia is invading their country and B. enough to take down that -30% difference? I doubt it.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 04, 2017, 06:51:45 pm
Yeah but a grammar mistake on an internet forum isn't comparable to mispelling "fascism" or whatever on your sign board and then having 1000 images all over the web  ;)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Rutger Müller on February 05, 2017, 07:08:51 am
Didn't Trump choose a Jew affiliated with Goldman-Sachs and who used to work for Soros as fucking Treasury Secretary?

inb4 5th dimensional checkers
ITS A PLANT

WE HAVE BEEN MISLED
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 05, 2017, 08:34:14 am
You're pretty 2000-and-late
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 05, 2017, 07:00:33 pm
You're the one crying


Now, back to your protests kid
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BabyJesus on February 05, 2017, 07:57:39 pm
Spoiler
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F001%2F213%2F947%2F222.png&hash=e1bc0998881719eb685d0a4b9c4f974470b11b8a)
[close]

Still nothing on why Trump gave an international jewish banker control over hard working white tax dollars
#KilltheJews?
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 05, 2017, 08:11:44 pm
Angry Arab screams "The Jews!!!" live on forum.

I'm with Israel, the enemy of my enemy etc.

Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 05, 2017, 08:37:32 pm
You people are the dumbest folks i've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on February 05, 2017, 08:52:35 pm
You people are the dumbest folks i've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
How much did George Soros pay you to say that? huehuehuehuehuehuehueMAGAhuehuehue
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 05, 2017, 09:12:48 pm
You people are the dumbest folks i've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
How much did George Soros pay you to say that? huehuehuehuehuehuehueMAGAhuehuehue

A fucking leaf ;D ;D ;D

Because it's 2 0 1 6
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Conway on February 05, 2017, 09:37:38 pm
You people are the dumbest folks i've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
How much did George Soros pay you to say that? huehuehuehuehuehuehueMAGAhuehuehue

A fucking leaf ;D ;D ;D

Because it's 2 0 1 6
Oh, right. I forgot I like Trudeau. Ye got me. Ye got me reaaaaal good.
Also she's 2017. And that was a 2015 meme. gj.
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Edwin on February 05, 2017, 09:42:36 pm
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/BB8wm2W.png)
[close]
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/0NmIlfb.png)
[close]


They work towards the same goal though. Funded by the same guy, too.

Also I'm not an arab lel

That swear-filled rant about how Arabs get dirty looks on the subway back on TWP thread gave me a different impression on top of your avatar ;))))
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: Gluk the Walrus on February 05, 2017, 11:08:21 pm
You people are the dumbest folks i've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
How much did George Soros pay you to say that? huehuehuehuehuehuehueMAGAhuehuehue
None of your business. Speaking of which, that check came in the mail today.

(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/16427707_1367628109965429_5890441007341095108_n.png?oh=7e6f98189b3700f137ae9da4ae322c62&oe=5942A225)
Title: Re: US Politics thread
Post by: BlueMoon_IT on February 05, 2017, 11:16:19 pm
Trump is working with jews.

Keep crying faggot.
No truth allowed on this forums you vile anti semite