The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Also, Trump separates the last word with a period, usually the last word itself has an exclamation mark, it's repetitive, but technically grammar. I don't expect you to understand after the above sentence though. By the way, you scored a 40 on your capitalization test, Tatsu. Study harder.

Back to politics instead of bullshit distractions. As I was saying before, Trump could NEVER win against someone DECENT, so if there were another election (unlike Europe, US is notorious for disqualifying or impeaching, and then putting the unloved vice-pres in charge instead), then anyone EXCEPT Hillary could win. It's fantasy, but it'd be the best chance the Dems had to nominate someone "good".

who here likes InfoWars

Define "likes".

I mean I like this video, for example: https://www.facebook.com/godsaveourgraciousmeme/videos/1402038923150650/

a) Forgetting capitalisation (with an 's') of a perfectly-constructed sentence is not the same as breaking grammar rules as you did.

Proportional response, and all that. I mean, I wouldn't have even replied, but you put tatsujb down and then attempted to pass it off as a "bullshit distraction". Hypocritical, considering you attempted to indulge in it.

b) Your personal feelings on what candidates are considered "decent" (or "DECENT", if you're a stickler for capitalisation) is a false equivalence. Politicians are, in general, by common standards, not considered decent. They have to sacrifice a lot of morals to even do the simple parts of their job.

This isn't a defense of them, this is me stating what happens. Power corrupts, in an absolute fashion. But a lot of this is because politicians have to sometimes weigh a horrible decision against a slightly-less horrible decision. That is a consequence of having power over life and death on such a grand scale. It's why Obama, as good a President as I considered him to be, is still complicit in events that have caused a loss of life and so on, in nations across the world.

Hillary was a decent candidate. I'm not sure the Democrats made the best campaign decisions (at all), but she was a career politician with a solid history behind her. Trump wasn't a politician, had effectively zero experience or knowledge of politics, and is arguably a pretty terrible human being too (evidence: making suggestive comments about underage girls).

So your statement is not only arguably wrong, it's demonstrably wrong. It's rooted in your subjective desires to label Hillary as "not DECENT" despite her being a pretty standard politician as far as politicians go.

holy smokes.

wow.
uhhh

let me land on my feet again.

just remember this guy's now trump's informer and validator.

Wait, what? Alex Jones got hired? This is news to me.

no not hired. it's basically a free consultant

Not hired, but making calls to the President, apparently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/media/alex-jones-conspiracy-theories-donald-trump.html

Well I mean by that measure any news / opinion site is technically a free consultancy service.

I do like to occasionally read InfoWars because it's always at the very least entertaining. But then I also read stuff on Occupy Democrats every so often for the same reason.

Oh. Well. That's interesting.

What kind of drugs? ...

EDIT:
In the end he says I think "watching the enemy", but I misheard it like three times as "watching the anime", as that would make a lot more sense in the context of what he is saying.

Oh, for the love of... we've been through all this before.

1) I was not first grammar nazi. I feel no sympathy for poor tatsu, for going grammar fascist on me. He wants pity, it won't be from the target he belittles. **** 'em.

2) I will indulge in what I want, because, see #1, "**** 'em".

3) 10m less people voted for her, than Obama, and well under 1/5th the US Population and well well under 1/2 the US Voterbase. She got most popular votes, she also drove people to drinking instead of voting on election day. If she won in light of that, it'd be pretty pathetic. It's pretty pathetic she didn't win, but it's pretty pathetic how pathetic it'd be if she did.

4) She was a politician with negatives, he was a non-politician in a moment where people didn't want career politicians. There is nothing I hate more, than a career politician. "Yes, let's pay them to occupy a position with no new ideas whatsoever", said nobody ever. Trump's pretty bad, but he's no career politician. His cabinet is pretty bad, but at least a lot of them aren't career politicians. Law and law school and legal gymnastics, is convoluted as it seems to be, and why would it be a "good thing", with it's inhuman level of "rules" that do nothing but force one to jump through hoops?

5) You don't have to argue to me that she's "decent". You have to argue to the voters. They decided. You'll bring up majority vote, but it was never "majority", it was always 1/5th the population of the country and 2/5th the eligible voter population. Her favor rating is terrible, argue it to those people.

1. "he started it so it's okay mom" is hardly a mature or rational defense for indulging in hypocrisy. If you don't like being called on it, don't be hypocritical. Simple as.

2. And yet more people voted for her than Trump. Which I can predict you're going to counter with the argument of "but that doesn't matter because she didn't win", which is fair enough (and you used it at the end of your post), but in that case completely invalidates you raising up how many votes less than Obama she got because it doesn't matter. Obama got less votes the second time around than he did the first time around, yet he still won.

You attempting to use the popular vote to support your argument is silly. It makes no sense.

You hate career politicians . . . but you trust a non-politician to do a politician's job. This isn't a movie. This isn't a game. This is a complex administration with centuries of history (not all of it good) that you can't just wander into and hope to do well. If you honestly believe this, then you're more naive than I thought you were, and your actions and words are complicit in the harm the current administration is enacting (either intentionally, or by dint of by being incompetent).

I don't have to appeal to anyone. That's not why I'm posting on this forum, replying to you. I'm replying to you because I believe you're wrong. I don't need any more of a reason than that.

And as a final point, I bet you think DeVos is alright. How clueless can you get?

"What difference does it make?" ~Hillary, on Benghazi

DeVos, is in charge, of a federal department, that didn't exist before the 70s, and the education was higher-ranking among other nations then, than it is now. Libertarian rationale, we don't NEED that department. It has done nothing but drag progress down. Same thing with FDA halting progress of medical breakthroughs. These are shitty agencies, Hillary couldn't fill them with a better person, because the person shouldn't exist. If I were president, I'd seriously consider the legalities of "If I can just leave the position open, and never fill it, period".

You're complicit to being a grammar nazi. Piss off. I'm just complicit, of standing in opposition to convoluted indirect politics. You support other governments, who are less convoluted, but think it's okay for the U.S. to have convoluted departments and agencies oppressing the people with marijuana prohibition and medical monopolization and other bullshit. If Europeans love this so much, Europeans should try LIVING it. They'd be against it the very first da-no, THE VERY FIRST HOUR of the very first day, they'd be saying this ****'s for the birds.

Breaking News: The whole DAPL thing finally came to police raiding and clearing/arresting protesters after an order to vacate the land. How did they get an order on land they don't own? Oh, right, the land actually belongs to existing pipelines on same route, outside of reservation land. They set fire to their stuff before leaving, btw. A "Leaving Ceremony", they call it. Probably as bad for the environment, as their "staying ceremony" was the last few months. Also, a teen girl was injured with burns, bet a liberal tear of pride rolls down a cheek somewhere in the distance.

Harsh yet fair equality and irony, dictates that EPA should fine the protesters there, for littering. If it did happen, it'd be the Secretary's fault and Trump's fault, but again, if you can't regulate the department's actions, why create it?

I don't wanna address the rest just wanna intercede here to say that that is strictly false and in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

don't just make stuff up because you feel like saying it ?

Oh tatsu, I'm not Trump. This is reality spewing from my mouth, at a level accurate enough to be the possible source of creation itself.

In case you don't click the link, it says a Republican proposed a bill to repeal the whole damned department of Education, it narrowly voted to be introduced, and the department has only been around since 1980.

The state-level, of successful red and blue states, have successfully managed nationally-leading colleges and grade-schools, all on their own, better than the federal statistics of the last decade (under Obama, or is it "Bush's fault"?).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/318310-gop-lawmaker-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education

well that's more like it... I thought you were saying it was a democrat idea .... very well ... I stand corrected(?) carry on.

Yes, please do quote a single line of my post and attribute it to a politician on a subject that wasn't even remotely the point of discussion.

That certainly encourages me to take you seriously.

And yes, I was indulging in being an arse about grammar, but I wasn't the one attempting to leverage the moral high ground by criticising tatsujb about it. You were. You were being a hypocrite. Deal with it.

I don't support insurance companies deciding who lives or dies. I'm actually in support of legalising marijuana (but then again that's quite a liberal position to take, isn't it?). But that doesn't mean I think support GOP / Republican initiatives that harm transgender people, that revoke medical coverage for people who are suffering from life-threatening (and genetic) illnesses, that harm people who want abortions, and so on.

Democrats aren't perfect, never pretended they were. But let's not pretend the current alternative is any better. You can cherry pick historical statistics or current events that personally benefit you, but that's just being selfish. That's only thinking of yourself.

You're trying to speak for all Europeans, telling us to put ourselves in your shoes? Try putting yourself in the shoes of marginalised Americans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Breaking news: the DAPL project is unethical and is only having to be routed near Native land because suburban American residents complained it was going to be near their town. So it was rerouted. But not for the Native Americans who then complained.

Weird, huh?

Also, you were accusing me of indulging, then proceeded to indulge. Talk about hypocrisy, I guess it takes a hypocrite to evaluate a hypocrite.