Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Raavi

General US Politics Discussion

Recommended Posts

Twang.

 

I think people should give the man a chance.

The man ran and won on a campaign of fear and hatred, he also refused to acknowledge whether or not he would accept the outcome of the election if Clinton won.

 

With that in mind are you still so sure that a man who would have seemingly been unwilling to give his opponent a chance, has never held a political office and won thanks to making an amalgamation of impossibly ignorant statements deserves a chance?

 

Even if you are do not act as if Donald Trump hasn't given those demographics you listed and many more besides a reason to worry.

 

I'm giving the dude himself a chance, considering his relatively-reasonable and bipartisan statements over the last few days. That doesn't mean I'll forget the sh*t he said and did on the campaign trail. Even if he turns out to have been bullsh*tting the whole time and isn't any more radically right-wing than a white orange Obama, that doesn't mean he didn't turn the already-abysmal state of US politics into a massive sh*tshow, nor does it excuse him for emboldening a section of our society that was better left to rot in the margins.

 

This whole time I've seen his campaign as a symptom of a disease, rather than the disease itself. He's not the puppet-master here. I'm not saying someone else or some group is pulling the strings, but his populist tendencies opened him up to having his campaign steered far in that direction. I'll give the man himself a chance, but his fans have already proven themselves to be as sh*tty as they seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

California on its own has something like the 6th largest economy in the world. Oregon can't make the same claim, but some of the talk has them, Washington, and California seceding together. The biggest concern for Cali is that they have a huge problem with regards to their water supply, which makes a team-up with Washington almost completely necessary.

That's nice to know, for a relatively small state they could possibly support themselves. It's interesting thinking of a CalOreWasExit in our lifetime which I personally see possible because the West Coast will be fed up with the United State's policies soon enough.

 

 

The geographic and political realities make this unlikely.

 

First of all, everything in-land is conservative. So the further East you get into California, Oregon and Washington the more support for secession will dwindle. Washingtonians already talk about making an "East Washington" because they feel like they're not represented. The liberal contingency of all these states generally lies in one large metropolitan area.

 

Secondly, Southern California would be F-U-C-K-E-D f*cked in terms of water. That state basically has none of its own sustainable water-ways. First of all, Washington's water empties into the Coloumbia river and out of the ocean. Oregon and Northen California get their run off from the run-off of the Canadian Rockies. Southern California relies on water from the Colorado Rockie and Sierra Nevadas. All of these water-ways originate in states like Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, etc. Once again, the conservative support is going to be more more prevalent in the rural and agricultural portions of those states, and who do you think will have the most control over the water?

 

If there was any kind of hope for that type of secession, California would have to rely on the more in-land Western states for access to those water-ways and I don't think there would be any chance of those states joining.

 

It's simply a geographical impossibility unlike with the American south which was mostly flat lands and hills... Hard to call the Appalachian mountains mountains compared to the Rockies and Cascades. Beyond that, the Mississippi drove tributaries into nearly every portion of the South so it wasn't as if there water access became hindered at all.

 

Literally the only thing that the West Coast would be able to do is threaten the control of ports and water-ways. Since most of the coastal areas are the only places where there is even remotely any support for secession that's likely what would happen, and that's a pretty big portion of our economy that would be cut off from the rest of the country. That would be our one bargaining chip for water-rights, and if import increased through Eastern ports instead then we wouldn't really have much to negotiate with. The states who controlled our water-ways wouldn't even save money transporting goods from the West coast because it would have to cross mountains instead of plains, so there would be no incentive for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheFrank

I just want to leave this here because it is hilarious.

 

Like I've said elsewhere; he was a Clinton ally there to make her look good, but something went hilariously wrong and here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

If you consider yourself left leaning do you agree that left can accept some responsibility for Trump's popularity and eventual win or is it bollocks? I think there's something to be said for Pie's sentiments. Evidence of the college campus protests in the US over the last 2 or 3 years and the alt-right movement that's countering that social justice movement seems to suggest there's a lot of people that may once have considered themselves liberal or left leaning are fed up of "victim culture" safe spaces and all that and have aligned with the alt-right and Trump. What are you thoughts on this?

 

 

(Sorry if it's been posted in here all ready)

.

The only way that 'the left' is to blame for Trump is for allowing the 'safe' side of the party to call the shots. I think it's more a matter of complacency: things were going their way so they didn't have a reason to make a change to the party structure. It was the (relatively) conservative branch of the Democratic party that lost this election. He said it himself: if they went further left with Sanders, this would have been a landslide victory.

 

The idea that this is a result of "PC gone too far" is purely confirmation bias for Reddit 'moderates.' Consider if Hillary had won...they'd still blame it on PC culture, saying the "obviously more qualified" Trump only lost because he said mean things (they were already ramping up to that prior to the election). There's no denying it played a part, but it was far far far from the deciding factor. This is just more of the classic liberal self-flagellating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythical_Lotus

I just want to leave this here because it is hilarious.

Awww, too bad you're so late to the party. Everyone is aware of his past positive view about Hillary.

 

I've got something else, something that isn't hilarious at all: he already seems to be breaking one of his campaign pledges, specifically the one about repealing ACA:

 

The hashtag #AssasinateTrump has been trending on Twitter.

And if Trump continues down this path of being unfaithful with regard to his commitments, then it won't be someone on the Left who will assassinate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

Such edge. Assassination is highly unlikely, no matter what he does. We're going on 16 years straight (if not more) with one highly-divisive president after another. The Secret Service is really really good at their job at this point. Don't kid yourself, Obama didn't survive 8 years just because conservatives weren't angry enough. There's a reason there hasn't been a high-profile presidential assassination attempt since Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

I've got something else, something that isn't hilarious at all: he already seems to be breaking one of his campaign pledges, specifically the one about repealing ACA:

 

I don't know what I find more amusing; the fact that his backers took what are obvious pie in the sky promises as serious legitimate policy proposals, or the fact that Trump, having been President-elect for just shy of 4 days, is already turning into the politician his backers elected him to be the antithesis of.

 

There won't be a wall, Hilary won't be imprisoned, he's not going to back out the Paris agreement. Why? Because he, put quite simply, can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Audiophile

 

I've got something else, something that isn't hilarious at all: he already seems to be breaking one of his campaign pledges, specifically the one about repealing ACA:

 

I don't know what I find more amusing; the fact that his backers took what are obvious pie in the sky promises as serious legitimate policy proposals, or the fact that Trump, having been President-elect for just shy of 4 days, is already turning into the politician his backers elected him to be the antithesis of.

 

There won't be a wall, Hilary won't be imprisoned, he's not going to back out the Paris agreement. Why? Because he simply can't.

 

 

I think the meeting he had with Obama sent a chill down Trump's spine because he is slowly realizing he now has to deliver on all his BS and he has absolutely no political experience to navigate the situations that will be thrust upon him.
He’s an entertainer and an attention whore, not a public servant. He wants to be on TV and in front of crowds, not actually working a difficult, grueling, stressful job he can’t opt out of. He’s going to have to sit through SO many meetings, be forced to read SO many briefings, get shoehorned into serious business all day every day, without crowds to perform for, and he’s going to hate Every. Single. Minute. And then, when he doesn’t deliver on his promises, when he doesn’t build the wall or create jobs or make people rich, when it becomes clear how incompetent and buffoonish he is, the country and all his supporters will turn on him. They’re gonna start blaming him for everything, and those crowds that cheered for him are going to start booing.
If he’d lost to Hillary, he would have played the martyr forever, called everything rigged, and had a cushy gig on Fox News complaining every day about how he would have done it better. But now he’s going to have to actually WORK, he’s going to be forced to deal with RESPONSIBILITIES, while surrounded by people who hate him and don’t respect him, people vastly more intelligent and competent than him, and he will be exposed. He’ll have no one to blame but himself.
I think what makes me laugh the most is that they wanted to elect someone who will make a change, drain the swap and not be a puppet. Trump has no political knowledge or experience. He has no idea how to navigate this new world he is in. Meaning he will have to rely on those around him - and he's already filling it up with Washington Insiders, lobbyists and Wall St. - he will probably be the biggest puppet of all, easily swayed. Whereas Clinton had a real talent for navigating politically and even Republicans respected her. I think she really could have done a lot. Whatever your issues with Hillary are (believe me, I have my own) she'd have been just fine as President.
Slowly but surely, most of his supporters will realize he is a conman who lied and finessed them the entire time. This is a man who is woefully unprepared and unfit.
They lost what could have been real progress on climate change, tuition, healthcare, infrastructure for petty sh*t Trump can't deliver on because most of it was BS and funny one-liners for the memelords on the internet and telling people what they wanted to hear.
To use a sh*tty internet meme: Trump and his supporters played themselves.
Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Race relations have got worse under Obama's presidency, the U.S. is far more divided. That has made people more tribal and vote along racial lines. That's at least partly why a lot of white voters switched to the Republicans and voted for Trump. It was largely the left, that was stoking identity politics, not the right. Who was encouraging the irresponsible and false narrative of racist police murdering black people? Who was encouraging BLM? Who was encouraging the stupid "safe spaces" "culture appropriation" and that whole university movement, who was encouraging black people to boycott the Oscars? There has been constant race baiting by the left, and they have created the hostility that exists, which helped Trump come to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

It was largely the left, that was stoking identity politics, not the right.

you're a special kind of dumb, aren't you?

 

before Obama could even take office the GOP was stoking the fear of racial tension by questioning whether or not he was an America citizen, questioning whether or not he was a "patriot," and whether or not he was a secret Muslim. the current President-elect himself was the number one cheerleader for the (clearly racist and xenophobic) 'birther' movement. the day Obama took office the GOP leadership stood up and declared that their primary legislative agenda was no longer to fulfill their constitutionally-sworn duties as elected officials, but to deny the new president of everything and hold hostage an entire branch of government.

 

Obama endured unprecedented levels of disrespect as Commander in Chief from GOP congresspeople and Red state governors.

but you'll pretend that none of it happened and claim that Democrats are responsible for this state of affairs. you're insane. but what else is new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

 

It was largely the left, that was stoking identity politics, not the right.

you're a special kind of dumb, aren't you?

 

before Obama could even take office the GOP was stoking the fear of racial tension by questioning whether or not he was an America citizen, questioning whether or not he was a "patriot," and whether or not he was a secret Muslim. the current President-elect himself was the number one cheerleader for the (clearly racist and xenophobic) 'birther' movement. the day Obama took office the GOP leadership stood up and declared that their primary legislative agenda was no longer to fulfill their constitutionally-sworn duties as elected officials, but to deny the new president of everything and hold hostage an entire branch of government.

 

Obama endured unprecedented levels of disrespect as Commander in Chief from GOP congresspeople and Red state governors.

but you'll pretend that none of it happened and claim that Democrats are responsible for this state of affairs. you're insane. but what else is new.

 

Some might say Obama's election shined a light on the roaches in the darkest corners of American politics. Racism wasn't absent beforehand, but instead it was cleverly hidden in our institutions. To say minorities and liberal whites created more racism by addressing those issues is the smelt-it-dealt-it theory of causation that is so popular with conservative types. To say they should have just let it be in order to preserve peace...well, I'm sure everyone has seen that MLK quote on white moderates by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Audiophile
Clinton put out the most detailed policy proposals of any Presidential candidate to date. She talked about them on the campaign trail etc. BUT NO ONE CARED. And this translated into news coverage. Policies are boring. Scandal and bombast make headlines.

And when she answered policy questions during the debates, when she wasn't dealing with the fact that she had a petulant child beside her, she generally gave pretty good answers. It's just that no one listened or remembered them next to whatever the f*ck crazy sh*t Trump said that translated into countless internet memes and jokes.


She had incredibly detailed policy plans, but how she campaigned (in terms of commercials, main reasons behind of her campaign), she only focused on how bad he is. She didn't mention raising the minimum wage anywhere near enough, she didn't mention expanding social security anywhere near enough. She mentioned them during the debates and at rallies, but those are the types of things she could have made central to her campaign and she didn't. During the election, I thought that Hillary was presenting her policies as if she was already drafting bills. She had some very inspirational ideas, and she made it clear that she is very knowledgeable, but her mistake was trusting voters to do their homework instead of giving them a tl;dr over and over again.

Trump is just making sh*t up on the fly. "We'll talk about it later lul".


Her campaign massively miscalculated. They kept pushing the "I'm not him" message so much that they failed to push most anything else. She spent too much time trying to flip Republicans to vote for her and be a President for everyone when she should have been focused on her base. On the rust-belt states that cost her the election. That she took for granted as her firewall. That all the flawed polls were saying she would win, when people on the ground in those states were driving past countless Trump signs and seeing what the polls weren't reflecting. So much arrogance and hubris thinking they had this in the bag. So much time spent on trying to flip voters instead of covering her base.


Honestly, I don't think they could have run a worse campaign but that's how much of a joke Trump seemed as a candidate. This is what pisses me off so much. There is no reason she should have lost to Trump.

Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mascara Snake

Hillary and the DNC killed themselves by assuming voters wouldn't care so much about their sneaky, underhanded tactics. Despite Trump employing similarly awful tactics throughout his life, people ignored that because, well, he isn't a politician. He was someone different on the surface, but underneath he's really more of the same. The main difference is that he'll be utterly incompetent as a president.

 

As of now, my main concern with Trump, as well as a republican controlled House and Senate, is that they'll tear our environment a new one. We're at a do or die point when it comes to climate change, and we don't need a bunch of skeptics bringing us down the wrong path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Original Light

 

I've got something else, something that isn't hilarious at all: he already seems to be breaking one of his campaign pledges, specifically the one about repealing ACA:

 

I don't know what I find more amusing; the fact that his backers took what are obvious pie in the sky promises as serious legitimate policy proposals, or the fact that Trump, having been President-elect for just shy of 4 days, is already turning into the politician his backers elected him to be the antithesis of.

 

There won't be a wall, Hilary won't be imprisoned, he's not going to back out the Paris agreement. Why? Because he, put quite simply, can't.

 

 

From what I've read, he can easily can back out of the Paris agreement.

 

"Alternatives were to send a letter withdrawing from a 1992 Convention that is the parent treaty of the Paris Agreement, voiding U.S. involvement in both in a year’s time, or to issue a presidential order simply deleting the U.S. signature from the Paris accord, he said."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paris-climate-agreement_us_58277f3de4b060adb56ebd29

 

I'm not positive how trustworthy this apparent "source" from the Trump transition team is, so as always, take it with a grain of salt.

 

Another alternative is to simply not pay the fees, and simply ignore the agreement altogether. The fact that he's hired a climate change denier to head his EPA transition team, and possibly lead the EPA altogether, will likely aid his ability to reverse other Obama regulations that aren't related to the Paris agreement. Automakers have already asked Trump to lower CAFE standards, as well as review existing autonomous vehicle regulations.

 

Trump is heavily against automation and the replacing of jobs, so I'm not sure how much he's going to support autonomous vehicles. I believe these go directly against everything his campaign base is founded on, which is bringing jobs back to the middle class. Millions of jobs are at risk with the automation of vehicles, so I suppose we'll see how he deals with it in the coming months.

 

The automotive industry is certainly going to change, for better or worse, with a Trump administration. Another impact will certainly be immigration, which I expect will see a huge backlash from protesters if he actually fulfills his campaign promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paris-climate-agreement_us_58277f3de4b060adb56ebd29

 

I'm not positive how trustworthy this apparent "source" from the Trump transition team is, so as always, take it with a grain of salt.

 

Oh, I don't doubt there is some loophole or addendum somewhere that gives him the means to bypass the 4 year wait and scrap the signature. He shouldn't have the ability to erase anything for such a vital treaty, but Obama was forced to ratify the Paris Agreement by decree due to the majority-Republican Congress unabashedly blocking or stonewalling any piece of legislation or treaty that even has a semblance of a net negative impact on their fossil fuels lobby friends. It's just that the notion of him, or any one person having a choice in the matter is so arrogant and daft it's almost amusing, either we take serious steps to significantly cut our global emissions now or we're done for as a civilization and there won't be a United States left to be self-destructing president of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Audiophile

either we take serious steps to significantly cut our global emissions now or we're done for as a civilization and there won't be a United States left to be self-destructing president of.

Trump supporter here. Instructions unclear, pls explain. Got lost on my way to Making 'Murika Great again.

 

Okay, to be serious since this is the debate thread - this is frightening when you look at who is said to be among his top picks for cabinet. Sarah Palin for Interior Secretary. Ben Carson among names for Health and Human Services or Education. Myron Ebell for EPA. Oh, and yeah, Rudy Giuliani for Attorney General or Secretary of State. David Clark for Homeland Security. Lul.

Like I wrote earlier because it rings true the more we get into this madness. I don't think the people who spewed the "one is as bad as the other" line really thought through the consequences. There was so much opposition to her that Clinton bringing benefit was completely dismissed, but the definitive destruction that would happen without her under Trump was ignored. Almost aggressive ignorance and lack of foresight. As flawed as she was as a candidate due to baggage and a miscalculated campaign, there is still no way she should have lost to Trump of all people.

 

I know some of you will cry "mass media" but this is worth a watch (gets bad towards the middle). Too bad they weren't reporting on this sh*t before Nov. 8 and too busy giving Trump free airtime while circle-jerking that Clinton had it in the bag.

 

Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Nice Person

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/11/12/493288/US-foreign-policy-Syria-Daesh-ISIS-Assad-ouster

 

Don't know if this is a good souce but it's nice he's doing something right, oh wait..

The video above beings up a good point in Florida's tourism, namely Disneyworld, because while I was there this summer a number of muslims visited... and even if the ban doesn't get proposed Muslims wouldn't be happy going there, same with Europeans who can actually afford to go to Florida :/

Edited by Mion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Audiophile

Also, I just want to say: Comey can f*ck off. He shilled for Trump and the Republicans. Al Franken has said that hearings may happen based on Comey's handling of the situation. I hope they do because you cannot say this did not interfere with the election.

October 28 he magically decides to look into more emails after concluding the investigation in July. November 6 "lol my bad, nvm our conclusions in July are unchanged".

 

The Comey letter put everyone on the fence into the Clinton-is-a-crook camp; surely there must be something huge if the FBI is writing a letter to congress 12 days before an election, right?!
And the letter "exonerating her" 2 days before didn't help either. Anytime the emails bullsh*t was on the news it was terrible for Clinton. Comey helped throw the election. There is no doubt in my mind.
Of course, there are lots and lots of other reasons why and how the election could have been won, but Comey reigns supreme.
I've been seeing the following pop up on Twitter and it makes me laugh:

Russia hacked for him.

The FBI director shilled for him.
Wikileaks leaked for him.
And he kept telling us it was rigged.

 

Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slimeball supreme

Race relations have got worse under Obama's presidency, the U.S. is far more divided. That has made people more tribal and vote along racial lines. That's at least partly why a lot of white voters switched to the Republicans and voted for Trump. It was largely the left, that was stoking identity politics, not the right. Who was encouraging the irresponsible and false narrative of racist police murdering black people? Who was encouraging BLM? Who was encouraging the stupid "safe spaces" "culture appropriation" and that whole university movement, who was encouraging black people to boycott the Oscars? There has been constant race baiting by the left, and they have created the hostility that exists, which helped Trump come to power.

 

[citation needed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flachbau

Oh my lord, you're absolutely pulling my leg right now. How did Obama even divide the country? So what if he / "the left" encouraged BLM? A majority of demonstrations from that group are peaceful. The whole country got upset over some random NFL player kneeling during the national anthem. Boo hoo. Trump BUILT his campaign on derogatory crap that singled people out and labeled them all one way or another. He made people feel like sh*t and he kept going. He gained a support base that is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the U.S. Does all of this this not contribute to the division of the United States? Can we take a moment to just realize this; our president-elect has made absolutely no effort in trying to unite the country and to make everyone come together while tons of people protest against him while others feel unsafe. What does that say about him?

Edited by Alchemist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

the irresponsible and false narrative of racist police murdering black people?

 

 

There's video evidence and testimonials which clearly supports the argument. Not that I'd give particular credence to a white brit who preaches the conservation of "ethnic british" and uses the word "c u c k" unironically.

 

edit: filter changed it to "nice person"

Edited by Marwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

It was largely the left, that was stoking identity politics, not the right.

No. Just ask yourself the simple question: Who benefits more from a divisive nation and bad racial relations? The answer is easy: The right and in the United States, that's the Republicans.

 

The left didn't create Donald Trump, the right did. Where the left is at fault is that they allowed Donald Trump to happen.

 

Looking throughout history, humanity have in broader terms always been moving towards fewer restrictions on rights (i.e. less discrimination) and more cooperation between people and peoples (read: nations). If you draw a line from Caesar's death till few centuries in the future, the idea of a world government doesn't seem that far-fetched.

 

Generally speaking, the left have been the progressive ones in this endeavour, while the right have been the conservatives (conservatism is - after all - about maintaining the status quo). So as the left pulls our societies further ahead, what the right has to do to stop this is encourage a critical number of voters to refuse to participate in this progression.

 

So in a sense, the left did open the gap, but it was the right that widen the gap. And the left ignored it, because sooner or later, they usually come around. They just haven't since the 1980s. And in all that time, the right have made sure they didn't.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/11/12/493288/US-foreign-policy-Syria-Daesh-ISIS-Assad-ouster

 

Don't know if this is a good souce but it's nice he's doing something right, oh wait..

It's not, Press TV is an English Language news station run by the Iranian government.

 

That's at least partly why a lot of white voters switched to the Republicans and voted for Trump.

This is clearly utter nonsense. The demographic that won Trump the election don't give a sh*t about BLM, the alt-right, safe spaces and cultural appropriation. Pretending they do because those are issues of importance to you is patently ridiculous.

 

Anger at the nonexistent American left had nothing to do with his victory. A narrative that give answers, no matter how facile, impractical or illogical, to rural America after decades of being largely ignored for "big city" problems like those you cite? That's far closer to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

 

That's nice to know, for a relatively small state they could possibly support themselves. It's interesting thinking of a CalOreWasExit in our lifetime which I personally see possible because the West Coast will be fed up with the United State's policies soon enough.

The geographic and political realities make this unlikely.

 

<snip>

 

Curious. I assume at present California gets the water for free? Imagine how much it would improve Nevada's, Arizona's and Colorado's economies if California had to pay for the water. And California could afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

 

It was largely the left, that was stoking identity politics, not the right.

No. Just ask yourself the simple question: Who benefits more from a divisive nation and bad racial relations? The answer is easy: The right and in the United States, that's the Republicans.

 

The left didn't create Donald Trump, the right did. Where the left is at fault is that they allowed Donald Trump to happen.

 

Looking throughout history, humanity have in broader terms always been moving towards fewer restrictions on rights (i.e. less discrimination) and more cooperation between people and peoples (read: nations). If you draw a line from Caesar's death till few centuries in the future, the idea of a world government doesn't seem that far-fetched.

 

Generally speaking, the left have been the progressive ones in this endeavour, while the right have been the conservatives (conservatism is - after all - about maintaining the status quo). So as the left pulls our societies further ahead, what the right has to do to stop this is encourage a critical number of voters to refuse to participate in this progression.

 

So in a sense, the left did open the gap, but it was the right that widen the gap. And the left ignored it, because sooner or later, they usually come around. They just haven't since the 1980s. And in all that time, the right have made sure they didn't.

 

 

You're making the mistake of assuming the left can't benefit from a situation of enhanced racial tensions. Bringing things to a heat, in order to then bring change, is a widely used tactic on all sides of the political spectrum. I'm stating the following: The left thought that by agitating the situation, it would "shine a light" on things. That this raised public consciousness would lead to in their view, positive change, and in the long term an improvement for minorities and race relations overall, even if in the short term it may be harmful. It just happened to backfire.

 

It's the same with the media and Trump. They thought that as long as they "shined the light" on Trump and in a particular way, that the public would react in the way they wanted and they'd get the result they desired. But it backfired. The establishment misread the entire public mood on just about everything else, is it really that hard to imagine they misread the public mood on things like police shootings, BLM etc?

 

The right only benefits on racial tensions if the majority of people actually sympathise with them and agree with them. For example a spate of right wing terrorist attacks would increase racial tensions, but it wouldn't benefit them. The increased racial tensions of the civil rights movement benefited the left not the right, because the public sympathised with the movement.

 

The Obama birther thing was right wing initiated but it had a pretty negligible impact on the public mood. Nobody was killed over it, there weren't protests. It was pretty minor really. The focus on police shootings, BLM, was initiated by the left, and it had a huge impact on the public mood. There were huge protests, there were terrorist attacks in response to it, it was a massive series of events that dominated the news and public discourse. But it didn't benefit the left like they thought, it wasn't a catalyst for the result they wanted. It completely worked against them. I certainly think it helped Trump and played into his hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The establishment misread the entire public mood on just about everything else, is it really that hard to imagine they misread the public mood on things like police shootings, BLM etc?

Isn't this just cognitive bias on your part, though? "Oh, the media got the public mood on X wrong (for reasons I'm not actually going to explore", therefore the must have got the public mood on Y equally wrong even though the circumstances, reasoning and evidence are all completely different". If you want to assert the media misread the public mood on issues like police violence and the BLM movement, you can do so with some actual evidence rather than supposition.

 

 

But it didn't benefit the left like they thought, it wasn't a catalyst for the result they wanted. It completely worked against them. I certainly think it helped Trump and played into his hands.

This simply doesn't reflect reality, though. It wasn't the opponents of movements like BLM that won Trump the election, it was the huge swathes of rural America that don't see it as an issue to them; who care more about local economic and social issues caused by decades of effective stagnation and city-centric policies enacted by successive governments regardless of political affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

yeah guys, Black Lives Matter is totally racist and definitely not a response to appeals of division.

why can't you see this?

 

XCt6VkI.png

 

having your cake and eating it, too.

 

uNjmXq1.png

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheFrank

What really cost her the election was people getting their health insurance bill and seeing their premiums triple, not Comey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Come on guys. You can't just let the black guy into the White House and expect the racists not to react and then overreact. It's obviously the fault of the left because they had the nerve to vote for Obama. See how it all makes sense now. Just keep voting for white guys and everything will be alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

What really cost her the election was people getting their health insurance bill and seeing their premiums triple

Isn't that the responsibility of the health insurers, whose primary role is to turn a profit? You wouldn't be fretting about health insurance costs if you emulated literally every other developed country in the world and had a public healthcare system rather than a hodge-podge of for-profit providers pretending to offer choice.

 

Come on guys. You can't just let the black guy into the White House and expect the racists not to react and then overreact.

I glossed over this a moment ago but the notion that the birther movement is anything other than a fundamental expression of racism is ridiculous. No white president would ever be subject to those kinds of accusations. It just wouldn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

    • Svip
×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.