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

Raavi

We could be looking at a 7-2 majority in the supreme court... with young far-right justices. We get we want.

 

This sums up pretty succinctly what's wrong with the Supreme Court. The role of the Supreme Court ought not to be about giving the political party that is in office what it wants, it ought to be about "interpreting" and upholding the constitution for all. When we've reached a point where political party allegiance is the best indicator of how a judge will rule however, the integrity of the judge and legitimacy of the institution as a whole is put in peril. In fact, I'd argue that the whole notion of a President effectively 'picking' a Supreme Court justice that fits their political agenda in the first place, conflicts with the core principle of judicial independence. Not even mentioning the concept of "Lifetime appointments"; should a singular election have such an unrelenting impact on the Highest Court in the land and with it affect the rights and liberties of the citizenry for decades to follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

This clearly hasn't sunk in for you yet: One party is now ruling our country. We could be looking at a 7-2 majority in the supreme court... with young far-right justices. We get we want. ACA is dead. Dodd Frank is dead. Immigration, entitlements, sanctuary city funding, foreign aid... these things are on the chopping block now. All you seem to care about is legalized pot and gay marriage; talk about f*cked up priorities. By the time 2020 rolls around even if Trump is voted out the 'damage' will be done. If he's impeached before then that's fine. Pence is even further right.

lol.

 

you really don't understand how Congress OR legislation works.

the Democrats still have filibuster power for one. the GOP won't be rolling new laws down the assembly line. you also don't just kill the ACA or Dodd Frank because they were passed as laws. the ACA has to be replaced with something. it doesn't automatically go to the "chopping block."

 

you should do some basic research...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonshield

Wonder what kind of riots Trump supporters would have pulled off if his all-mighty lord would have lost the election.

 

It's pretty easy to imagine - some have already threatened armed rebellion.

 

7WJpyIX.png

 

This is a former US congressman.

 

This is a tweet after the election, once protests cropped up:

 

oRF1aP4.png

 

So is civil disobedience worse than threatening open rebellion?

 

The biggest immediate problem I have with this final verdict is the validation many racist whites have for acting out against people who don't look like them. Across the country there have been reports (police reports and otherwise) of people being assaulted and accosted because they're muslim, latino, and are otherwise not white. What recourse do we minorities have besides going to the police? What should we do if we're assaulted by a gringo who doesn't like the way we look? They were just told that they can consider us lesser and the future president is okay with it.

 

What the f*ck america?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

lol.

 

you really don't understand how Congress OR legislation works.

the Democrats still have filibuster power for one. the GOP won't be rolling new laws down the assembly line. you also don't just kill the ACA or Dodd Frank because they were passed as laws. the ACA has to be replaced with something. it doesn't automatically go to the "chopping block."

 

 

If you can keep telling yourself this it might preserve your sanity a little longer. You are relying on the "power" of a filibuster to save your ideology. That's what I call desperation. I am supremely confident that you're wrong but I guess time will tell. We've got 4 years of President Trump starting 1/20.

 

Also seeing you write about doing research is comical. You can't even identify meta-analysis when you see it or distinguish actual research from a comedy sketch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheFrank

Lot of ugliness going on, it's been brewing for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaundi.

The fabulous Ann Coulter, a woman I would marry if I wasn't such a flaming homosexual

I don't know why anyone in their right mind would call Ann Coulter "fabulous". She's a racist and looking at this tweet, a white nationalist too. Are you ill?

 

OFJKMcxl.jpg

 

Yeah, she'll be fabulous, when she's dead. Her, including David Duke deserve a bullet between the eyes.

 

4 grandparents, she does realise that Asians, Hispanics and blacks have been in the United States for generations, long enough to "have" 4 grandparents, immediately makes her logic redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craigsters

Donald Trump well have a interview on 60 minutes this Sunday, usually American football interrupts and postpones 60 minutes here in Canada, so sitting the PVR for it is senseless

Edited by Craigsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

I may recall incorrectly, but I think he just felt that Sanders had no chance of winning from the beginning.

 

Yeah, and he was wrong. Sanders had a media campaign against him that ridiculed him and that wanted Clinton to win from the start. Many minority voters that voted for Clinton in the primary, didn't know Sanders well, simply because msm were reporting 90% Clinton vs 10% Sanders We also know the DNC supported the failed candidate Hillary Clinton before even one vote was cast. They systematically helped the media and the Clinton campaign building a narrative against him.

 

I hate Trump so much, but the fact that Hillary lost is great. The msm and the dnc got their karma.

 

I'm not entirely convinced Sanders would've beaten Trump. Sanders had big big trouble with minority voters; you can check the statistics. Blame that on the Hillary/DNC lockdown of black/hispanic voters if you will. but it's the truth. Sanders may have won the Rust Belt, but I'm not so sure he would've taken care of everything else. I wasn't saying Biden or Sanders would've won the election (the former had a better shot than the latter), moreso that they were ignored in terms of campaigning. Hillary Clinton had no economic message whatsoever, and didn't go after rust belt voters. Their "Data" showed them that the rust belt was solidly democratic and it wasn't the case.

 

 

 

Not even mentioning the concept of "Lifetime appointments"; should a singular election have such an unrelenting impact on the Highest Court in the land and with it affect the rights and liberties of the citizenry for decades to follow?

Yes. Lifetime appointments are an absolute necessity for a Supreme Court to ensure it remains nonpartisan and not influenced by the public.

 

 

 

 

Pretty funny stuff btw. Trump isn't this far right wing guy they thought they elected. Already today he's said Obamacare will be kept and that the wall isn't a physical wall, but an idea. These people that voted for him will eat up anything.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-aides-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/2016/11/11/9196b364-a82f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html

 

They removed the Muslim Ban from the website and are now pretending it never existed either, and that it was about having "Targeted screening for high risk countries"

 

Also, supposedly Trump has been hanging around more with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the past 72 hours than Ryan/McConnell.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

People forget that Trump was once a Democrat who brushed shoulders with all sorts of politicians his entire life.

 

He's constantly pacing and leading, which is a tactic of gaining loyalty and trust, assuming the lead, and then getting the people to follow. It's effective persuasion and negotiation, and it's what won him not only the primaries, but the general. Everything he does is a negotiation. What's being considered 'backpedaling' now looks like nothing more than what's commonly referred to the 'highballing' and 'incremental persuasion' in negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

 

Wonder what kind of riots Trump supporters would have pulled off if his all-mighty lord would have lost the election.

 

It's pretty easy to imagine - some have already threatened armed rebellion.

 

7WJpyIX.png

 

This is a former US congressman.

 

This is a tweet after the election, once protests cropped up:

 

oRF1aP4.png

 

So is civil disobedience worse than threatening open rebellion?

I am afraid I am no expert on American law, but are comments like this even protected under free speech? They are treasonous, they should, by all rights, result in jail time. On the flip side, I have also read numerous comments wishing death on Trump and hoping for an assassination, which I have heard is a felony in regards to a President.

Are people really allowed to say these things without any kind of legal action by the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Notice how you just admitted that the lawsuit against him had nothing to do with editing?

I don't think I ever claimed specifically that the lawsuit(s) had anything to do with the editing, just that it came under scrutiny during it.

 

The fact that people get fired after his videos are released and his lawsuits are for invasion of privacy rather than slander or defamation lends credibility to his work.

People get fired due to untrue allegations all the time. I don't think that the response of an organisation in a country that holds the rights of employers to hire and fire basically at will sacrosanct is suggestive of any validity in the original accusation, no. Additionally, as I'm sure you're aware, it's much harder to successfully sue for slander or defamation in the US than it is just about anywhere else. Suing for breach of privacy instead is a "quick win", reading much more into it is fallacious.

 

I think it's far more telling that all criminal investigations against ACORN and its staff were dropped in the wake of O'Keefe delivering the original, unedited videos to law enforcement, which he did to avoid criminal charges himself having been reported to the police by the same ACORN employee he later paid a six figure settlement to.

 

After all, the FEC is investigating Clinton based on his video evidence.

Because they're obliged to investigate allegations of campaign finance impropriety. It's literally their job.

 

Also I noticed how you dropped the Wikileaks bit.

Because it was a straw man that I felt no need to rise to. I never claimed that Wikileaks had an organisational bias against the Democrats, or even implied that. You've misconstrued my categorisation of them having a political agenda, which is pretty much undeniable, because it fits your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

 

I may recall incorrectly, but I think he just felt that Sanders had no chance of winning from the beginning.

 

Yeah, and he was wrong. Sanders had a media campaign against him that ridiculed him and that wanted Clinton to win from the start. Many minority voters that voted for Clinton in the primary, didn't know Sanders well, simply because msm were reporting 90% Clinton vs 10% Sanders We also know the DNC supported the failed candidate Hillary Clinton before even one vote was cast. They systematically helped the media and the Clinton campaign building a narrative against him.

 

I hate Trump so much, but the fact that Hillary lost is great. The msm and the dnc got their karma.

 

 

I'm not entirely convinced Sanders would've beaten Trump. Sanders had big big trouble with minority voters; you can check the statistics. Blame that on the Hillary/DNC lockdown of black/hispanic voters if you will. but it's the truth. Sanders may have won the Rust Belt, but I'm not so sure he would've taken care of everything else. I wasn't saying Biden or Sanders would've won the election (the former had a better shot than the latter), moreso that they were ignored in terms of campaigning. Hillary Clinton had no economic message whatsoever, and didn't go after rust belt voters. Their "Data" showed them that the rust belt was solidly democratic and it wasn't the case.

 

Why would Sanders have had trouble with minority voters over Clinton? Can you think of one rational explanation for that? Have you even looked at the polling data, or even thought about explaining it? We know how mediocre Clinton has done with the minority vote, or else she would've been president elect now.

 

The polling data proved minority voters were unfamiliar with Bernie Sanders. Apart from that the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign comanufactured a false narrative that minorities didn't like Sanders, and generally underreported Bernie Sanders' giant rallies. They also underreported Sanders more generally, and overreported Clinton's mediocre rallies. The narrative that African Americans didn't like Bernie was a mainstream media and Clinton campaign created fake narrative, and I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton hired those BLM activists to disrupt a Bernie rally.

 

But I see that now that Clinton was humiliated you have changed your narrative to that Biden would've been a good candidate, eventhough the election result has proven how done the US people are with right wing democrats.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

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.

Edited by Finite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

We're already starting to see the jarring disconnection between the platform and agenda he ran on, and the policy proposals being put forward. Things like retaining the main pillars the Affordable Care Act and not actually building a wall on the Mexican border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythical_Lotus

The man ran and won on a campaign of fear and hatred

Nope. Just because he wasn't pandering to minority groups doesn't mean he promoted hatred.

His campaign was based on protecting the livelihood and culture of working-class Americans.

 

he also refused to acknowledge whether or not he would accept the outcome of the election if Clinton won.

HA!

 

716f8736f0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

His campaign was based on protecting the livelihood and culture of working-class Americans.

I think the notion of a billionaire property developer and committed nepotist with no grounding in governance, economics, political science or international relations having even the most basic understanding of how to protect the livelihoods of working class people is laughable.

 

But given your contributions to discussion so far have simply been flippant one liners and Twitter screen-grabs with no effort to actually engage with anyone who responds to your drivel, it's not really surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pinkerton

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)

.

Edited by Mister Pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

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.

If this really was a significant factor you would have expected to see voter demographics reflect it, but Trump did poorest amongst the younger generations and the better educated. The issue for the Democrats appears to be far simpler than a supposed backlash against social justice movements, though the emphasis given to such movements by both sides in the debate belies this problem. It's rural America.

 

Large swathes of America simply don't give a sh*t about these kinds of things, BLM, college protests, the alt-right, which they see as "city issues". They care about decades of economic stagnation caused by an increasingly urban-centric political and social system. They're the chunk of Trump support which hasn't been properly represented in polling, simply because they're hard to accurately poll. I'd argue they typically lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to social policy issues, but their largest area of concern is stimulating economic growth and preventing the collapse of small, close-knit and insular communities- and they want it quickly. Only one candidate sold a set of policies which aimed to do that; never mind the feasibility of those policies or whether or not they would actually achieve the goals they'd been sold as achieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

Looks like the New York Times has made an appeal to its readers in a statement about its commitment to fair and impartial journalism after the election.

 

As Frank Slaughtery from 25th Hour said, "Well, f*ck the Times. I read the Post." The damage has been done.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

Nope. Just because he wasn't pandering to minority groups doesn't mean he promoted hatred.

His campaign was based on protecting the livelihood and culture of working-class Americans.

So what exactly would you describe his endless idiotic rambling about ISIS, Syrian refugees, the Mexican border wall, the email scandal and the FBI as exactly?

 

It seems abudantly clear that he's played to the emotions and fears of Americans rather than "protecting the American working-class". Seriously? This is a man who believes without any doubt that trickled-down economics not only exists but is an effective way to distribute wealth.

 

HA!

 

716f8736f0.png

Give it a rest. Edited by Finite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Nice Person

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

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.

 

It's got no chance, needs a much catchier name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythical_Lotus

But given your contributions to discussion so far have simply been flippant one liners and Twitter screen-grabs with no effort to actually engage with anyone who responds to your drivel, it's not really surprising.

You also shouldn't be surprised if some users choose to avoid interacting with a moderator who shows nothing but contempt and is overly insolent towards people of different political sensibilities.

 

My schedule has been hectic these past days, I was too tired to make elaborate statements. I will make time tomorrow to answer all the people that have replied to my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

On behalf of those people. Please don't.

Edited by Finite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythical_Lotus

On behalf of those people. Please don't.

Yet another disgraceful reaction from the open-minded and tolerant liberals. :lol:

 

If my opinions displease you, you are free to ignore them. But I won't silence myself just because you get emotionally charged from hearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

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?

 

If indeed the reactionary Trump voter was so fragile and irrational(something we should not rule out), anything would have "set them off" towards voting for him anyway.

 

 

On behalf of those people. Please don't.

Yet another disgraceful reaction from the open-minded and tolerant liberals. :lol:

 

If my opinions displease you, you are free to ignore them. But I won't silence myself just because you get emotionally charged from hearing them.

 

 

How come you don't have to "make time" to answer with stupid one-liners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

If you can keep telling yourself this it might preserve your sanity a little longer. You are relying on the "power" of a filibuster to save your ideology. That's what I call desperation.

you really don't get it.

it's not about my sanity. I'm fine, I'll be fine, my skin is still white, I'm still upper-middle-class; it's not me I'm worried about.

 

but you literally don't seem to understand Congress.

it's cute watching you reply to me because each of your comebacks are less substance and more insult. because you simply don't get it.

 

Democrats still have filibuster power.

Republicans won't simply abolish the filibuster because they're going to need it again in the future. the GOP doesn't have automatic firing power on new legislation. when they decide to end the ACA they don't merely put it on the guillotine. they will be forced to replace it with a plan of their and they're going to find it difficult. you can't just kick 20million people back off of health insurance coverage without backlash. the individual provisions of the ACA are extremely popular. people enjoy not having to worry about lifetime spending limits or pre-existing conditions.

 

this information is not hard to find.

but you choose to ignore it. because you still haven't done the basic research... but go ahead, try again when you're ready.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheFrank

 

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.

 

 

Better chance of the Big One hitting the West Coast and Nevada becoming primo surfer paradise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You also shouldn't be surprised if some users choose to avoid interacting with a moderator who shows nothing but contempt and is overly insolent towards people of different political sensibilities.

And you shouldn't be surprised to see comments you post subject to critique in a subforum called "Debate and Discussion". If you don't want to do either, there's plenty of other bits of the forum you can post on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Audiophile

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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