Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

So do you think there are people out there who use welfare to pull themselves out of a bad situations?

 

The way I see it, you're always going to have people exploiting any kind of social safety net, but it's worth it in the end because it actually does help lots of people get through hard times and back to being productive members of society.

 

As for the gun hate, in my experience it's just people who want to do something about shootings and have settled on the most obvious (but not effective) solution. Taking away guns to stop gun violence is like building a giant border wall to stop illegal immigration. It's a brute force knee-jerk solution that doesn't effectively impact the ultimate issue. The intentions behind these beliefs are good, we just need better solutions that both sides can get behind.

I think the welfare system is. heavily abused.

 

i remember when my father had to goto the unemployment office back when i was a kid, he hated it and while it helps some, ultimately he never gave up finding a job. govt didnt need to find. him one, he did. the assistance helps but i think it needs to be tweaked more so that it isnt abused.

 

i technically used the govt state grants and loans to help me go thru college... and now im paying back my loans. i think there are some great programs but alot of them. need work and need to be completely removed.

Share this post


Link to post

She didn't steal shit. Not many dems ran against her because she was heavily favored. Bernie came out of nowhere and ran a good campaign against her, but in the end, she beat him fair and square. She won the democratic nomination and deservedly so.

her emails say otherwise... bernie was an actor.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Her unfavorable % and trustworthiness from the exit polls say otherwise.

Yeah, but you were saying the same thing about Trump a few weeks ago, "if it were any other republican(like Rubio) than Trump, they would beat Hillary easily". I don't know about that. But I do know that far more people were excited more for Trump than the establishment republicans that ran against him.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this isn't a political show, but I thought Ernie Johnson really hit the nail on the head last night with this speech...

 

 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

She didn't steal shit. Not many dems ran against her because she was heavily favored. Bernie came out of nowhere and ran a good campaign against her, but in the end, she beat him fair and square. She won the democratic nomination and deservedly so.

Just the super delegates alone. But ya she stole that nomination fair and square.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know this isn't a political show, but I thought Ernie Johnson really hit the nail on the head last night with this speech...

 

 

https://twitter.com/NBAonTNT/status/796884883750518784

that was spot on.

 

i just dont get why people take trump campaign rhetoric so out of proportion. i mean, it's like you can call people stupid... or slow... or. challenged... so then what do you call them?

 

I feel like we as a country are becoming so fucking sensitive to everything that one day the best way to communicate will be thru silence.

 

I still dont get the crying thing. Trump's words on the wall, muslims, illegals, you name it... it was selectively interpreted.

 

Mexico sends their rapists and murderers across the border... how in the hell is that hateful rhetoric?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just the super delegates alone. But ya she stole that nomination fair and square.

Even without those, she still wins.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Even without those, she still wins.

Well we can disagree. But one thing for sure you have to be wanting to play the fool to remain part of either party that thinks they know better than you and intend to fix your mistakes. I am done considering myself a Republican. When Colorado allows no voting by the rank and file then it isn't my party.

Share this post


Link to post

No way. Hillary was far and away the favorite and the best candidate the dems had to offer. It's why nobody wanted to run against her in the dem primaries and why Bernie couldn't beat her. And if another dem did run and beat Hillary, they would have been just as exposed for their flaws and she was for hers.

 

you're right about this one. the national bench for democrats is dangerously thin. they had very few options to put out there. 

 

that was spot on.

 

i just dont get why people take trump campaign rhetoric so out of proportion. i mean, it's like you can call people stupid... or slow... or. challenged... so then what do you call them?

 

I feel like we as a country are becoming so fucking sensitive to everything that one day the best way to communicate will be thru silence.

 

I still dont get the crying thing. Trump's words on the wall, muslims, illegals, you name it... it was selectively interpreted.

 

Mexico sends their rapists and murderers across the border... how in the hell is that hateful rhetoric?

people don't have to "selectively interpret" donald trump's rhetoric to find hateful messages that are genuinely concerning at the bare minimum. i think you need to watch the ernie video again and actually digest it.

Share this post


Link to post

She didn't steal shit. Not many dems ran against her because she was heavily favored. Bernie came out of nowhere and ran a good campaign against her, but in the end, she beat him fair and square. She won the democratic nomination and deservedly so.

nah

Share this post


Link to post

you're right about this one. the national bench for democrats is dangerously thin. they had very few options to put out there.

 

people don't have to "selectively interpret" donald trump's rhetoric to find hateful messages that are genuinely concerning at the bare minimum. i think you need to watch the ernie video again and actually digest it.

He's only getting. flack for his words because he's not falling in line with the traditions of politics. im sorry but we are not proper englishmen from some aristocracy.

 

i imagine our founding fathers had some choice rhetoric as well.

 

people need to stop being so sensitive.

Share this post


Link to post

Mexico sends their rapists and murderers across the border... how in the hell is that hateful rhetoric?

 

It's at least sensationalist, and extremely misinformed. A google search got me to this article.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798.

 

A quote from it below.

A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

 

And then there is the question of his motivation when he said it. Did it sound like a calm and rationally thought out argument to you?

 

To me it seemed like a guy who was saying whatever came to his mind in an emotionally charged campaign speech. Definitely not what I would call a responsible or informed statement. He may not actually hate them personally, but that statement surely wasn't going to have a positive influence on anything other than the outrage level for both sides, so it's at least irresponsible imo. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

She was everything the dems wanted, an expansion of Obama's policies.

what election were you watching? dems were not excited about her at all, especially the younger ones.

Share this post


Link to post

what election were you watching? dems were not excited about her at all, especially the younger ones.

You mean, they weren't excited for 4 more years of Obama's policies? Because she was quite open about how great she thought Obama was and wanting to continue his "legacy".

 

Share this post


Link to post

You mean, they weren't excited for 4 more years of Obama's policies? Because she was quite open about how great she thought Obama was and wanting to continue his "legacy".

came across as more of desperate pandering to try to capture some of Obama's audience than anything.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

He's only getting. flack for his words because he's not falling in line with the traditions of politics. im sorry but we are not proper englishmen from some aristocracy.

 

i imagine our founding fathers had some choice rhetoric as well.

 

people need to stop being so sensitive.

he's getting flack because his choice of words earns him his labels, regardless of the politics or position he's running for. i bet our founding fathers had some pretty awful things to say too! it's almost like after 200 years we should expect to be better people! it's not a matter of sensitivity lol, it's at the very least just rejection of a bad person.i wouldn't hire a person with donald's awful character to manage a village of 500 people based on his flaws.

Share this post


Link to post

came across as more of desperate pandering to try to capture some of Obama's audience than anything.

Were her policies not in lockstep with Obama's? I think the general consensus amongst both conservatives and liberals was that she would have been 4 more years of Obama. So, I think a big part of her loss was that people were not excited about another 4 years of Obama's policies.

 

Share this post


Link to post

 donald's awful character

Well, that is your opinion. You may think he's the biggest asshole in the world, but I think he is absolutely amazing.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Were her policies not in lockstep with Obama's? I think the general consensus amongst both conservatives and liberals was that she would have been 4 more years of Obama. So, I think a big part of her loss was that people were not excited about another 4 years of Obama's policies.

they weren't excited about 4 years of hillary

 

Well, that is your opinion. You may think he's the biggest asshole in the world, but I think he is absolutely amazing.

did you need a trigger warning before i stated something? do i need to appeal to your delicateness and explicitly say "well in my opinion". 

 

 

 

also

acc6cbd349fc9a00404d3856a3990dc6.png

 

hahahaha

Share this post


Link to post

I've been reading some stuff on the Internet for the past few days, and I've come to realize: the Democrats gave Trump the win.

 

The biggest factor in Trump's victory was the Silent Majority, and many brushed this off as a myth like it was an attempt to one-up Hillary. Welp, turns out this apparent majority was totally real, and hit harder than most anyone could have expected.

 

How did this happen?

 

The sheer complacency of the Left and their reaction to Trump supporters. Here's the deal: if you keep calling non-racist, non-sexist, non-bigoted Trump supporters racist, sexist bigots, they're not going to like you very much. The Left have effectively turned things such as "racist" or "bigot" into bogus buzzwords which have lost their meaning. This cry-wolf mentality ended up shaming many Trump supporters, most of whom remained quiet out of fear of being ridiculed and, dare I say, physically assaulted. It gave the Democrats a false sense of security as Hillary led in most of the polls. So they had nothing to worry about, right? I mean, all they did was lose their ground game and marginalized their whole campaign from undecided voters.

 

And surprise, some people had legitimate reasons to vote for Trump. If coal mines or factories or whatever are shutting down, husbands will worry about how they'll feed their families. Some people don't have the luxury to base their votes on morals, some must vote on survival. But instead of coming to understanding this side of the coin, Democrats were more satisfied in calling everyone who disagreed with their opinions as intolerable racist misogynists. When you demonize people for their beliefs you destroy any chance you ever had of changing their minds. Total shame.

 

And I'm not generalizing every single person on the Left spectrum. I've known many leftists in my life, many of whom I'm proud to call my friends; but this attitude people take up where every single thing will offend you (you're a sexist for questioning feminism, you're a homophobe for disagreeing with gay culture, you're Islamophobic for holding objections to Islam, et cetera), it turns people irrational and destroys opportunities for thoughtful discussions and meaningful interrogations of opinions. Being "offended" does not give you special rights, let alone excuse debates, which is downright intellectually lazy. That's another reason why Trump won: this whole "offended by everything" generation.

 

It's also why I value debating so much.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

well i mean, we could start with the fact that no sudden "silent majority" decided to show up after sleeping for 8 years. Donald won on the standard number of republican votes that went to McCain and Romney, and with the same demographics. this loss is squarely on the shoulders of Democrats failing to produce an inspiriting candidate, and failing to show up to vote. yeah there's plenty to talk about when it comes to the relationship between members of the two parties, but let's not base it on a "historic turnout" that didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post

well i mean, we could start with the fact that no sudden "silent majority" decided to show up after sleeping for 8 years. Donald won on the standard number of republican votes that went to McCain and Romney, and with the same demographics. this loss is squarely on the shoulders of Democrats failing to produce an inspiriting candidate, and failing to show up to vote. yeah there's plenty to talk about when it comes to the relationship between members of the two parties, but let's not base it on a "historic turnout" that didn't happen.

The silent majority was there for Trump, not the other Republicans. Trump supporters were entirely bullied and shut down; it's markedly more dangerous to publicly call yourself a Trump supporter than it was to call yourself a Romney supporter back in 2012. It's also why, according to numerous media outlets such as CNN, Hillary was leading in virtually every single poll shown, with many expecting her to win in an unprecedented landslide. But no, Trump won with over fifty seats.

 

Hillary Clinton, as bad as she is to me, did really well with the Democrats. She had a highly-funded campaign going, had tons of support from most of the mainstream media and celebrities, Obama expected her to win, and she beat all of the other candidates. People say she rigged the system against Sanders, but that's a conversation for another day.

 

I think a historic turnout is indeed what happened.

Share this post


Link to post

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

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.