Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Yep.  And all the ****ers commentating on that like it matters have one thing in common.  Leave it out, Geoff.

Talk about triggered! I don't really care about what others say but if you're going to throw shite because not everyone is as upset as you then bash on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JFK-1

    2793

  • Maple Leaf

    2200

  • Justin Z

    1584

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    1485

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Geoff Kilpatrick
47 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

When I said "politically tricky" I meant to imply that we've had politicians who are cowards.

 

The Citizens United SCOTUS decision, which wiped away restrictions on campaign expenditures, continues to haunt us.

 

Also, what passes for the Left/progressives/whatever has been a disorganized mess my entire life. It's far less bad than it was in the 80s and 90s but the fact that Bernie Sanders, a generally good but notoriosuly cranky long-time Senator from a tiny state, was everyone's best idea of who to run on that wing should be an indicator of how barren the cupboard has been for so long.

The left's fundamental flaw is that they believe people can be changed to be as "virtuous" as them. Therefore they fall out between the pragmatists and the zealots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
52 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

So when do the states get to decide on slavery.

You've never heard of the Emancipation Act then? Slavery isn't possible at state level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

No, you think we should be constantly re-examining their theory of instant man by magic spell too? 

I don't know what you are on about but it has nothing to do with a single thing I've posted.

You seem to be on some kind of a mission on this thread so it's pointless discussing  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

What part of "go away and stop being a hysterical troll" did you not understand?  And, like I said, read the history and then comment.  I know that's a bit deeper than you normally go (so to speak), but for once in your life drop the style and see the substance.

 

AF1CC38A-023D-48D4-A853-A35C3105F1CA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
8 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Talk about triggered! I don't really care about what others say but if you're going to throw shite because not everyone is as upset as you then bash on.

Yes he is certainly triggered and became quite abusive . Usually quite a sane and reasonable poster. He stooped quite Low with some of his comments though . Disappointing . 

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Why are decisions like gun laws and abortion, not put to referenda.

Some things are best not left to the majority of the general public to decide . I can almost guarantee that hanging would be brought back , gay marriage would not have been allowed , gun laws would def be safe , slavery probably not brought back ( think people wouldn’t go that far ! ) but you never know in the secrecy Of the ballot box . It should be the politicians who decide things as we give them that power . If they do things we don’t agree with we vote them out . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's hoping that the far right now turn their pro life ire and attention to the sin of onanism and the daily death toll in USA running into thousands of billions on a daily basis. Time to put an end to men in USA!!
 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America a playground for right wing sociopaths. Through Trump they found their voice. Vicious gun toting trolls dressed up as moral crusaders just following God's orders from a book. Gotta use theirs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
14 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Well said JHB 

 

 

 

 

 

a fact-filled ..

 

 

:spoton:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer
34 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

 

7C53B791-B984-47C2-8557-4E263CB5370B.jpeg

 

probably contains facts and other fillers 

 

😃👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
10 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

a fact-filled ..

 

 

:spoton:

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
9 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

probably contains facts and other fillers 

 

😃👍

It’s a great meme . 👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ulysses said:

.  And frankly, if those who have dicks faced either the same potential risks, the same potential hardships or the same potential responsbilities every time they shagged, this problem simply would not exist because they'd have written the law to suit themselves long ago.

 

Unfortunately true .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
9 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Why are decisions like gun laws and abortion, not put to referenda.

 

I think everyone with an R in their username should be forced to wear a steel chastity belt 24/7 and just sit about in their own filth.

 

Why are decisions like this not put to referenda, surely your body's a democracy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because referenda are stupid.

Representative democracy exists to take those decisions out of the hands of the idiot public.

The entire point of politicians is to stop the place being run by mob rule.

If everything was decided by referenda then the world would be in a shit state.

Many things that are unpopular but necessary (taxes, laws, regulations) would be abolished and the world would run on mob rule and anarchy.

 

Referenda are a sign that the politicians have failed to reach a goal by diplomatic consensus and have turned to the mob as a last resort.

 

First-past-the-post is a form of open referendum and look at the state of this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I think everyone with an R in their username should be forced to wear a steel chastity belt 24/7 and just sit about in their own filth.

 

Why are decisions like this not put to referenda, surely your body's a democracy too.

Better asking the women about this in a vote and everyone on guns. Elections don't put the majority in charge, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cade said:

Because referenda are stupid.

Representative democracy exists to take those decisions out of the hands of the idiot public.

The entire point of politicians is to stop the place being run by mob rule.

If everything was decided by referenda then the world would be in a shit state.

Many things that are unpopular but necessary (taxes, laws, regulations) would be abolished and the world would run on mob rule and anarchy.

 

Referenda are a sign that the politicians have failed to reach a goal by diplomatic consensus and have turned to the mob as a last resort.

 

First-past-the-post is a form of open referendum and look at the state of this place.

Looks to me, that the idiots are in the top end of politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big decisions should not be left to bias political parties who rig the supreme court.

 

At least you get an answer with a straight yes or no.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

 

That raises some pretty big implications, the most obvious being that if it were left to women to vote on the issue, with men out of the picture, there’s a good chance that the result would be in favour of restricting abortion. On the flip side, if only men voted, they’d almost certainly vote in favour of women’s reproductive rights.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malinga the Swinga
3 hours ago, FWJ said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

 

That raises some pretty big implications, the most obvious being that if it were left to women to vote on the issue, with men out of the picture, there’s a good chance that the result would be in favour of restricting abortion. On the flip side, if only men voted, they’d almost certainly vote in favour of women’s reproductive rights.
 

 

We will never know because US won't hold referendum.

Republicans reverting back to 1950's with same sex marriage firmly in their sights, as well as contraception and any acts passed that don't fit in the right wing Christian dogma they're adopting as part of their revisionist agenda.

The ridiculous senate elections that allow states with 20 people and a hundred vows to have same representation as California.

This method ensures that minorities can inflict their will on the majority of electorate as long as they win enough small to mid size states.

Add that to the loading of supreme court with ****wit creationists, that country is ****ed.

No longer the 'Land of the Free', more like 'Land of the easily led'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

We will never know because US won't hold referendum.

Republicans reverting back to 1950's with same sex marriage firmly in their sights, as well as contraception and any acts passed that don't fit in the right wing Christian dogma they're adopting as part of their revisionist agenda.

The ridiculous senate elections that allow states with 20 people and a hundred vows to have same representation as California.

This method ensures that minorities can inflict their will on the majority of electorate as long as they win enough small to mid size states.

Add that to the loading of supreme court with ****wit creationists, that country is ****ed.

No longer the 'Land of the Free', more like 'Land of the easily led'.

 

Certain small groups have greater influence in the USA than their numbers deserve.  One of them, as you mention, is that small states have the same number of senators as large states. 

This phenomenon is more obvious in the area of religion.  Only about 30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christian, but they are currently setting the national agenda on social issues.  And only 20% of Americans are Catholic, but they hold 6 of 9 seats in the Supreme Court.

Similar situations probably occur in other countries, but it has become glaringly obvious in the US where the Supreme Court is making rulings that fly in the face of public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
10 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Certain small groups have greater influence in the USA than their numbers deserve.  One of them, as you mention, is that small states have the same number of senators as large states. 

This phenomenon is more obvious in the area of religion.  Only about 30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christian, but they are currently setting the national agenda on social issues.  And only 20% of Americans are Catholic, but they hold 6 of 9 seats in the Supreme Court.

Similar situations probably occur in other countries, but it has become glaringly obvious in the US where the Supreme Court is making rulings that fly in the face of public opinion.

"Only about 30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christian"

 

That's pretty scary in itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

"Only about 30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christian"

 

That's pretty scary in itself

The thing is that the US goes to great lengths to ensure religion isn't in schools. If it can make education secular it can make other aspects of life secular. It just needs politicians with the gumption to take action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

"Only about 30% of Americans identify as Evangelical Christian"

 

That's pretty scary in itself

I know what you mean, and they're punching above their weight.  It's even more worrisome when you understand that their long-term objective is for the USA to become a Christian theocracy.  Based on recent events, the country seems to be heading in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

The thing is that the US goes to great lengths to ensure religion isn't in schools. If it can make education secular it can make other aspects of life secular. It just needs politicians with the gumption to take action.

That coat is on a shoogly peg, imo, and I expect things will change in the near future.  If school prayer returns, you can then expect creationism to be taught is science classes as an alternative theory to evolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
9 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

I know what you mean, and they're punching above their weight.  It's even more worrisome when you understand that their long-term objective is for the USA to become a Christian theocracy.  Based on recent events, the country seems to be heading in that direction.

 

Their opponents seem exhausted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

AF1CC38A-023D-48D4-A853-A35C3105F1CA.gif

 

I knew there'd be a shallow response in there somewhere, I just wasn't sure which one.

 

Straight.  Wind-up merchant.  Nap.

 

 

Edited by Ulysses
Removing unintended # sign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Talk about triggered! I don't really care about what others say but if you're going to throw shite because not everyone is as upset as you then bash on.

 

Privacy is important to me.  It's less important to you.  That's fine, it's all about how you view these things.  No need for you to personalise it, though?

 

Is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes he is certainly triggered and became quite abusive . Usually quite a sane and reasonable poster. He stooped quite Low with some of his comments though . Disappointing . 

Some things are best not left to the majority of the general public to decide . I can almost guarantee that hanging would be brought back , gay marriage would not have been allowed , gun laws would def be safe , slavery probably not brought back ( think people wouldn’t go that far ! ) but you never know in the secrecy Of the ballot box . It should be the politicians who decide things as we give them that power . If they do things we don’t agree with we vote them out . 

 

Shriekbot shrieks, Quelle surprise.  I guess everyone plays to their strengths.

 

The Irish public got the chance to vote on marriage equality in 2015, and we got the chance to vote for a specific provision to allow termination of pregnancy in 2018.  We grasped both opportunities with both hands. With that in mind, is your "best not left to the majority" comment just bullshit, or are you claiming that the Irish public have some level of political maturity not available to other societies?  Think carefully before you answer (sorry if that puts you under pressure :laugh:)

 

The majority of the American public has repeatedly expressed support for additional controls on owning and carrying guns.  Maybe the average American voter has more sense than their politicians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Privacy is important to me.  It's less important to you.  That's fine, it's all about how you view these things.  No need for you to personalise it, though?

 

Is there?

Pots and kettles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Pots and kettles.

 

I dunno Geoff.  I could post some superficial trivial nonsense instead of engaging as well if I wanted to.  Post.  Or piss off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

I dunno Geoff.  I could post some superficial trivial nonsense instead of engaging as well if I wanted to.  Post.  Or piss off.

You bash on. I didn't realise you were still trying to moderate the board in your post-moderation world but on you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You bash on. I didn't realise you were still trying to moderate the board in your post-moderation world but on you go.

 

Cross?  Or just wanting to block the rights of individuals to their privacy and bodily integrity?

 

Stop being a personalising **** and say what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

Cross?  Or just wanting to block the rights of individuals to their privacy and bodily integrity?

 

Stop being a personalising **** and say what you want.

I'm not "wanting" anything and even if I did "want" something there's bugger all I would be able to do about it in any case. I was commenting on why Roe v Wade was overturned. It doesn't mean I "wanted" a particular outcome. It's a matter for the US to address and maybe they might try to do so now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm not "wanting" anything and even if I did "want" something there's bugger all I would be able to do about it in any case. I was commenting on why Roe v Wade was overturned. It doesn't mean I "wanted" a particular outcome. It's a matter for the US to address and maybe they might try to do so now.

 

Sure, Geoff.  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Stop being a prick.

 

Why are you so intent on personalising this?  I think privacy and bodily integrity are quite crucial.  Don't you?  Leave out who's asking you, and focus on the question.  It's all the same what your answer is.  It just looks to me as if it's important to me and not so important to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why are you so intent on personalising this?  I think privacy and bodily integrity are quite crucial.  Don't you?  Leave out who's asking you, and focus on the question.  It's all the same what your answer is.  It just looks to me as if it's important to me and not so important to you.

No point in disabusing your perceptions.

 

I would like to hope that Congress would make some legal moves on abortion now and to take the Supreme Court out of things. I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No point in disabusing your perceptions.

 

I would like to hope that Congress would make some legal moves on abortion now and to take the Supreme Court out of things. I doubt it.

 

Thanks.  I'm not at all sure about this disabusing perceptions of which you speak, but thanks.  I'd also like to think that Congress would make some legal moves on abortion.  And I doubt that Congress will.  That's what I respect about what happened in Ireland in the run-up to 2018.  We debated in a very public and very difficult space, then our national parliament made a call in a very clear way and handed the baton over to us - and we took hold of it.  I find it hard (impossible, frankly) to believe that our body politic has some wisdom that other societies don't.

 

Like I said, privacy and bodily integrity are (IMHO) crucial.  I'm the kind of grumpy bollox who won't share my personal information with anyone unless it's really essential.  If privacy and bodily integrity don't matter as much to others, it's up to them to have that view even if I couldn't possibly get on board with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
8 hours ago, FWJ said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

 

That raises some pretty big implications, the most obvious being that if it were left to women to vote on the issue, with men out of the picture, there’s a good chance that the result would be in favour of restricting abortion. On the flip side, if only men voted, they’d almost certainly vote in favour of women’s reproductive rights.
 

 

 

Not sure why the UK and the US are so different, but it's the opposite here.

decision-approval-all-women.png

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-react-to-roe-v-wade-overturn-opinion-poll-2022-06-26/

 

 

5 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

States can hold referendums. I don't think the federal government has ever held one.

 

Legally it would be extremely difficult to figure out how a national referendum would be interpreted and binding.

 

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

That coat is on a shoogly peg, imo, and I expect things will change in the near future.  If school prayer returns, you can then expect creationism to be taught is science classes as an alternative theory to evolution. 

 

Even though they'll try, the Establishment Clause in the first amendment is pretty hard to get around. The worst it will get is that certain states will have Evangelicals dictating school religion classes. However, the current anti-abortion faction, as I mentioned, is made up of white Evangelical Protestants (Black Evangelicals are far less likely to base political allegiances on abortion) and a subset of Catholics. Once you start putting official religion in schools, that coalition cracks like an egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
26 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No point in disabusing your perceptions.

 

I would like to hope that Congress would make some legal moves on abortion now and to take the Supreme Court out of things. I doubt it.

 

There is already substantial political organizing happening to make this happen. It would effectively require eliminating the Senate filibuster, at least in part (which is likely just a precursor to eliminating the whole thing), but a lot of us are getting campaign pledges from Senators up for election this year to do just that. A gain of 2 Senate seats and a hold of the House might be enough (given that Manchin and Sinema remain two useless shitheaps), 3 would probably do it, 4 would certainly do it.

 

Our Democratic candidate here in NC has already committed to it, as have several others.

 

But more than that, Democrats need to explicitly run on changing filibuster rules and enshrining Roe protections via legislation. It's a winning issue if they'll stop quaking timorously that it might make someone in the GOP a little mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Not sure why the UK and the US are so different, but it's the opposite here.

decision-approval-all-women.png

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-react-to-roe-v-wade-overturn-opinion-poll-2022-06-26/

 

 

 

Legally it would be extremely difficult to figure out how a national referendum would be interpreted and binding.

 

 

Even though they'll try, the Establishment Clause in the first amendment is pretty hard to get around. The worst it will get is that certain states will have Evangelicals dictating school religion classes. However, the current anti-abortion faction, as I mentioned, is made up of white Evangelical Protestants (Black Evangelicals are far less likely to base political allegiances on abortion) and a subset of Catholics. Once you start putting official religion in schools, that coalition cracks like an egg.

 

 

Is it reasonable to assume that women and men each account for about 50% of voters in the United States?

 

If so, does that mean that women - the people whose privacy and bodily integrity is actually affected by the decision - disapprove of the overturning of Roe v Wade by 67-33?  And does it mean that men - the ones without a uterus whose privacy and bodily integrity is, erm, like, not the slightest bit affected - disapprove by only 51-49? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

There is already substantial political organizing happening to make this happen. It would effectively require eliminating the Senate filibuster, at least in part (which is likely just a precursor to eliminating the whole thing), but a lot of us are getting campaign pledges from Senators up for election this year to do just that. A gain of 2 Senate seats and a hold of the House might be enough (given that Manchin and Sinema remain two useless shitheaps), 3 would probably do it, 4 would certainly do it.

 

Our Democratic candidate here in NC has already committed to it, as have several others.

 

But more than that, Democrats need to explicitly run on changing filibuster rules and enshrining Roe protections via legislation. It's a winning issue if they'll stop quaking timorously that it might make someone in the GOP a little mad.

 

The Social Security Act of 1935.

 

Of course, that assumes that Joe Biden is a fraction of the man FDR was.

 

 

   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
10 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

There is already substantial political organizing happening to make this happen. It would effectively require eliminating the Senate filibuster, at least in part (which is likely just a precursor to eliminating the whole thing), but a lot of us are getting campaign pledges from Senators up for election this year to do just that. A gain of 2 Senate seats and a hold of the House might be enough (given that Manchin and Sinema remain two useless shitheaps), 3 would probably do it, 4 would certainly do it.

 

Our Democratic candidate here in NC has already committed to it, as have several others.

 

But more than that, Democrats need to explicitly run on changing filibuster rules and enshrining Roe protections via legislation. It's a winning issue if they'll stop quaking timorously that it might make someone in the GOP a little mad.

That will be the interesting part of this, especially as Trump is claiming all the credit for getting Roe overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Maple Leaf changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

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.




×
×
  • Create New...