General US Politics Discussion

[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]

I'm willing to bet that the 2020 election will be a face off of the new Progressive Party (Or maybe the progressive part of the Democrat party, like Bernie Sanders) and the Libertarian Party (Or the libertarian section of the Republican party, like Rand Paul)

Edited April 30, 2017 by smiskers

[make total destroy]

I'm willing to bet that the 2020 election will be a face off of the new Progressive Party (Or maybe the progressive part of the Democrat party, like Bernie Sanders) and the Libertarian Party (Or the libertarian section of the Republican party, like Rand Paul)

I hope you're willing to lose that bet, too.

[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]

 

I'm willing to bet that the 2020 election will be a face off of the new Progressive Party (Or maybe the progressive part of the Democrat party, like Bernie Sanders) and the Libertarian Party (Or the libertarian section of the Republican party, like Rand Paul)

I hope you're willing to lose that bet, too.

 

 

People are tired of the current political dynamic

 

 

I think this sums it up pretty well

 

 

 

 

http://graphics.wsj.com/third-party-candidate-impact/

[make total destroy]

Nice Ben Garrison comic, nerd.

 

 

 

You're even more unoriginal than the other guy that mimicked my avatar and sig combo, by the way

[Creed Bratton]

Apparently Trump is considering amending or even abolishing the 1st amendment: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment

 

Funny how the alt-right turned out to be a bunch of snowflakes that are against free speech. Almost as if they were projecting.

Edited May 1, 2017 by The Yokel

[Svip]

But the constitution is archaic, The Yokel! It's really bad. I mean, it was written over a hundred years ago, it's very bad for the country.

 

They don't need to amend or abolish the 1st amendment, they need a new constitution!

[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]

Nice Ben Garrison comic, nerd.

 

 

 

You're even more unoriginal than the other guy that mimicked my avatar and sig combo, by the way

 

I prefer 'Took inspiration from'

[Creed Bratton]

But the constitution is archaic, The Yokel! It's really bad. I mean, it was written over a hundred years ago, it's very bad for the country.

 

They don't need to amend or abolish the 1st amendment, they need a new constitution!

A Democrat wouldn't be able say 1% of the things that come out of Donald's mouth on a regular basis without being labeled a traitor and a fascist within minutes. For a good reason.

Edited May 1, 2017 by The Yokel

[Tchuck]

sh*t, he can't even come up with a plan to replace the ACA. Can you imagine trying to come up with a new constitution?

[Creed Bratton]

sh*t, he can't even come up with a plan to replace the ACA. Can you imagine trying to come up with a new constitution?

Of course he can't do it. The problem here is that the US now has the president who doesn't value even the basics of the constitution that he swore to uphold. And the people who voted for him supposedly LOVE freedom of speech. They keep accusing the left of being against it all the time.

[DangerZ0neX]

The most insecure conservative on Earth, such a shame that he drives a Ford, I own one and I hate the redneck imagery associated with the company.

 

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The most insecure conservative on Earth, such a shame that he drives a Ford, I own one and I hate the redneck imagery associated with the company.

 

I don't think that is any truck.

 

That's Trumps' own one he is keeping in storage while he's POTUS.

[make total destroy]

 

Nice Ben Garrison comic, nerd.

 

 

 

You're even more unoriginal than the other guy that mimicked my avatar and sig combo, by the way

 

I prefer 'Took inspiration from'

 

>when you hate antifascists and communists so much that you try really hard to imitate them

Edited May 1, 2017 by make total destroy

[El Dildo]

too bad the license plate isn't visible on the Ford.

 

could've doxxed that stupid cuck and sent a bunch of glitter bombs to his home mail and place of work.

Edited May 1, 2017 by El Diablo

[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]

too bad the license plate isn't visible on the Ford.

 

could've doxxed that stupid cuck and sent a bunch of glitter bombs to his home mail and place of work.

 

So, because someone disagrees with you (And is incredibly arrogant about it) means that you want to release all their personal information? In what world is that OK?

[RedDagger]

While I imagine it was more of a joke (don't blame him if it isn't tbh) I always find it disingenuous when people boil down stuff like this into "because they disagree" or "because they have a different opinion".

 

Technically, yes, that's what's happening, but you know full well that's misleading. It implies someone has a mentality of rejecting everything they disagree with or is of a differing opinion, when that ain't the case most of the time. It's the specific beliefs they have that matter, and again in this case yes, none of the stickers or whatever are directly hateful, but then again throwing away nuance, context, dog-whistles etc. is to deliberately ignore the issue. Bit of an over-analysis, but gotta fill the void of an over-simplification.

 

Personally I don't think this warrants doxxing, but hey, glad no one disagrees that a glitter bomb ain't out of the question

[DangerZ0neX]

 

too bad the license plate isn't visible on the Ford.

 

could've doxxed that stupid cuck and sent a bunch of glitter bombs to his home mail and place of work.

So, because someone disagrees with you (And is incredibly arrogant about it) means that you want to release all their personal information? In what world is that OK?

They voted an orangutan into office just to spite the liberals out of sheer petty hatred, and while doxxing seems to take it a bit far, glitter bombs are incredibly mild.

 

I think sending a box containing a MAGA hat filled with cow manure is a more appropriate package for such individuals, they do like spouting and listening to bullsh*t afterall.

[make total destroy]

If you've ever wondered what a pile of /pol/ nerds on the sidewalk looks like, wonder no more

 

 

[Sunrise Driver]

 

too bad the license plate isn't visible on the Ford.

 

could've doxxed that stupid cuck and sent a bunch of glitter bombs to his home mail and place of work.

 

So, because someone disagrees with you (And is incredibly arrogant about it) means that you want to release all their personal information? In what world is that OK?

 

In liberal world of double standards. Having the car with left slogans on all sides is perfectly fine and revealing that person's contacts is intrusion into private life.

[Eutyphro]

What, and unapologetically defending the gratuitously unnecessary general use of lethal force whose express purpose is to maintain the political and economic status quo somehow isn't? This is just laughable; you can't spend paragraphs vigorously defending the status quo then assert that it's being maintained by the very people you're rallying against. It's intellectually disingenuous, not to mention downright f*cking silly.

So you clearly miss the difference between defending the right of police to use lethal force, to defending all use of lethal force by police. I'm doing the former, not the latter. Furthermore, I've agreed on many issues, like that we should end mass incarceration and the war on drugs, and that crime is caused by social factors like income inequality. All of this is compatible with the other claims I have made. And lastly, I'd like to hear from you explained how the use of lethal force by police against violent and dangerous suspects is intended "to maintain the political and economic status quo." Are violent criminals rebelling against the unjust political and economic status quo? I'm unable to see the connection.

 

Apart from that I was going to say that truck from DangerZ0neX post is pretty dope, but I would've been taken seriously.

[sivispacem]

So you clearly miss the difference between defending the right of police to use lethal force, to defending all use of lethal force by police. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

Eh? That's not even remotely true. Firstly the insinuation that I've even reflected upon the question of the validity of a monopoly on violence is completely misguided. It's a complete misreprestation of everything I've said, and is, frankly, ridiculous.

 

As much as you seem to think otherwise, your argument is, at it's core, apologism and normalisation for the actions of US police. You seem to believe that violence levels are to be expected given the circumstances- effectively blaming the victims of excessive violence- whilst shamelessly posting the analyses of various right wing bloggers and police advocacy organisations as supposed "evidence" that a racial bias in police fatality statistics is because ethnic minorities are nasty and violence and therefore warrant getting shot more than whites. The fact you seem oblivious to this is astounding.

 

And lastly, I'd like to hear from you explained how the use of lethal force by police against violent and dangerous suspects is intended "to maintain the political and economic status quo."

It's much easier to create straw men if you don't read the posts you're responding to, isn't it? Try posing this question in a way which doesn't completely misrepresent it and I'll dignify it with a response instead of laughter.

 

Use of domestic force by the security apperatus, including police, is expressly designed to maintain the status quo. It's literally their designated purpose- uphold political, economic, legal and social norms. Not that that was even the point of my comment; it was to highlight the complete contradiction in you defending the actions of police on the question of race in shootings, whilst simultaneously accusing the wealthy and politically powerful, whose interests, especially in the US, the police primairly protects, of engineering racial violence.

 

In essence you're absolving the actual perpetrators of aggressive actions but blaming the elements of society they primarily represent for engineering a racial issue you say doesn't actually exist.

 

It's frankly drivel.

[Eutyphro]

Eh? That's not even remotely true. Firstly the insinuation that I've even reflected upon the question of the validity of a monopoly on violence is completely misguided. It's a complete misreprestation of everything I've said, and is, frankly, ridiculous.

So, first you misrepresent me as an apologist for excessive police violence, then when I point out that I'm simply defending the right of the police to use lethal force, and that you are therefore misrepresenting me, I'm misrepresenting you? That's nonsense.

 

As much as you seem to think otherwise, your argument is, at it's core, apologism and normalisation for the actions of US police. You seem to believe that violence levels are to be expected given the circumstances- effectively blaming the victims of excessive violence-

Defending the right of the police to use lethal force is not the same as defending excessive police violence, and it is idiotic to pretend it is. Higher numbers of police violence are to be expected when they face high numbers of violent suspects, as the data indicates. In a less violent society lower levels of police violence are to be expected. Which part of that logic is escaping you?

 

whilst shamelessly posting the analyses of various right wing bloggers and police advocacy organisations as supposed "evidence" that a racial bias in police fatality statistics is because ethnic minorities are nasty and violence and therefore warrant getting shot more than whites.

Only one of the two sources I referred to was actually a conservative. The other one was a sociology professor and former policeman who had written an entire book about how he opposed the war on drugs among other subjects. But you fail to notice and dismiss it as 'right wing racism' because that's more convenient to you.

 

In essence you're absolving the actual perpetrators of aggressive actions

I'm not. I'm disagreeing on the extent to which aggressive action is racially profiled, because the data points out it isn't. Either the data is false and incomplete, or the narrative is false. The data we have, which I've pointed you to, doesn't conform to the narrative on racially profiled police violence.

 

but blaming the elements of society they primarily represent

So those who own large media corporations are represented by the police? No, not really.

 

for engineering a racial issue you say doesn't actually exist.

Because the media is economically right wing, it rather focuses on racial issues that are non economic, like police violence. And identity politics, because it also doesn't pose an imminent threat to the economic privilege of the wealthy, is also a favored angle. Therefore they love politicizing race. It keeps people resentful and divided. The reason this part of your reasoning is false, is because the premises that I have just debunked, are false.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

So, first you misrepresent me as an apologist for excessive police violence

You have been an apologist fur police violence? That's exactly what "BLM are full of sh*t, there's a reason proportionally more blacks get shot" is.

 

then when I point out that I'm simply defending the right of the police to use lethal force

Except you're not. You might claim that you are, but it's an untenable position given the things you've actually said. None of this discourse has even referenced the right of police to use lethal force until your post before this one.

 

Defending the right of the police to use lethal force is not the same as defending excessive police violence

Which would be relevant if any of your arguments to this point had been about defending the right of police to use lethal force, but they haven't been. They've been apologism for the statistical disparity in violence which you've essentially boiled down to "well if you're a minority in a rough area then it's kinda tough that you're massively more likely to be shot regardless the circumstances of the shooting".

 

Which part of that logic is escaping you?

Perhaps it's the shameless mental gymnastics you've used to try and retrospectively turn an argument on one topic into an argument on another?

 

The other one was a sociology professor and former policeman who had written an entire book about how he opposed the war on drugs among other subjects.

Is he or is he not a police advocate in this context? Do you even read?

 

I'm not. I'm disagreeing on the extent to which aggressive action is racially profiled, because the data points out it isn't.

That's not actually what the data says, but you seem to have bought into a particular brand of rhetoric which tries to handwave away the disparity with red herrings and seem rather oblivious to this fact despite the number of times it's been pointed out.

 

So those who own large media corporations are represented by the police? No, not really.

Nice straw man.

 

it rather focuses on racial issues that are non economic, like police violence

Which is clearly a contradiction in terms; partly because, if police violence is as proportional to crime as you seem to claim, it is definitely an economic issue; partly because it mistakenly casts a unified "media" narrative whilst ignoring a frankly massive number of outliers that don't fit the stereotype you perpetuate, something which seems to occur frequently in these discussions. It's also completely nonsensical; do you genuinely think that the WSJ and NYT are upholders of the socioeconomic status quo but the US law enforcement and criminal justice system isn't?

[El Dildo]

In liberal world of double standards. Having the car with left slogans on all sides is perfectly fine and revealing that person's contacts is intrusion into private life.

see, you thought you were being clever here, but you're still wrong.

 

I hate loudmouth ignorant liberals as much as I hate loudmouth ignorant conservatives.

it's not about what "side" they're on, it's about how shamefully stupid they look.

Edited May 2, 2017 by El Diablo

[Creed Bratton]

r/The_Donald right now:

 

[Shaundi.]

This video might make you angry..

 

 

This guy is the face of absolute pure evil. Deserves to be run down by a car and so does any Republic*nt from Alabama who voted for him. But if he gets a catastrophic brain injury by being run down by a car for being pure evil that's his own fault innit, cause y'know a brain in your head preexisting condition..

 

Seriously, what the actual f*ck is wrong with Republic*nts?

[DangerZ0neX]

Seriously, f*ck everyone for voting this clown in, if only you were the ones suffering the consequences and not the entire nation.

 

[ten-a-penny]

And those f*ckable losers have the nerve to call yourselves "Christians". You're a far cry from 'true' Christians. A Christian would never let people suffer because reasons.

[dice]

Not everyone who are against obamacare are against it because they hate society in general but because they believe there can be a better system in place. In my country im all for state sponsored healthcare but not if the state holds a monopoly on insurrance with nontransparent price listings on medicine and equipment and doesnt allow me to opt out if im dissatisfied with their services.

[sivispacem]

If you've got a proper free at the point of access state healthcare system the lack of price transparency and choice is sort of irrelevant, because you aren't paying money anyway (or at least not directly). It really does astonish me that people think for-profit healthcare providers result in high standards of care.