The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Or, if you MUST have a finite comparison of where we stand...

So, people are supposed to support the DNC and whoever they pick, because they're the DNC... but people can't have their own self interests, which the DNC seem incompatible with if they're choosing Hillary over Bernie?

No. This is why I've said, "liberal and conservative", the established 2 parties, are out of touch with the people, and deserve only their die-hard true fandom of no more than 12% in the election.

If the DNC/GOP do not have the people's best interest in mind, the people shouldn't vote for them. Marijuana prosecution and the like, are hardly having the people's best interest in mind. Social healthcare, not going to happen with the DNC, would be evidence of having the people's best interest in mind.... and elected politicians, on the "civil" works platform of the DNC or otherwise, are NOT acting in the obvious best interest of the people, nor are acting transparent with layers and layers of disassociation with their agenda.

Such as Clinton's disassociation with receiving the questions for the debate in advance, or Trump's disassociation with Russian communication. "It wasn't me, it was a subordinate acting lone". Typical.

Honestly, if Police work should be documented with cameras, maybe official work hours of politicians should too.

As it stands, NOTHING matters now, that people elected the politicians. Unelecting them, electing someone else in their place, someone entirely different, is all that matters. Not electing them in the first place was suggested, but we can't do THAT now, can we? That was the BEST option, it's not my fault that it was disregarded, there ARE no easy options anymore, and nothing is important, because in reality, 4 months ago decided the next 4 years. The people have a vocal nudge in the steering of the nation now that they've set autopilot with the election.

I didn't say "the people" are meant to support anything.

I'm just pointing out that issues with the Republican Party are deserving of as much drama as was dragged out of the Democratic Party and their leadership candidates.

By the time Trump throws you in guantanamo for "group of enemy of the people" you'll be wishing someone stood up for your rights. problem is there'll be noone to do that everyone having made it "not their problem" just like you are right now.

I can't believe how you fail to see that this behavior will betray you in the end.

there's an incredible dissonance between your claims and your 'actions'. or between two claims you choose...

You don't seem to realize what sort of "mentality of the people" go hand-in-hand with a dictatorship. Do you think the pro-nazi german people believed they were in a dictatorship? Do you think north koreans do?

You certainly are clueless as to what's happening so what makes you think you'll be able to tell the difference?

you have the same kind of apathy and detachment in you as pro-nazi germans tucked safely in their homes while 6 million were sent to gaz chambers.

You're not seeing the issue with trump calling the press an "enemy of the people", with people taking the fall for trumps mishaps by the dozen...

Such a racist nurse... he shouldn't care that much about the skin and more about their illnesses.

@gmase you're the racist one. context is key. and undeniably america has a problem where majoritarily Caucasians make it out better than the rest. that nurse is just bearing witness in detail. The color part is actually not as accentuated in this text as you make it out to be.

takes a racist to hone in on that in this text like it's the only thing that matters.

Everyone has limited his power, as was designed by the constitution, in order to prevent him even creeping toward that level of power. How can you not see it? America, has Trump in check, not vice versa.

What actions? Not nominating one Hitler-esque liberal-authoritarian, for a conservative gentlemans-club authoritarian? I voted essentially for "the guy Iran always shoots right before the election". Thank goodness we're not Iran.

You don't seem to realize what sort of "mentality of the people" is actively preventing a dictatorship. We don't give our leader power limitless. We're not Germany in at least 20 different factually important ways. Who are the "jews" this time? Where are the camps? How long did it take Hitler to get things set up? How did he do it? You'll find them ALL absent of this.

You don't want to understand something can be similar. no in your preconception things can only be exactly the same. maybe that's the root of the problem.

As Americans you'll now have to prepare for your ISPs to trade with your internet habits it seems.

Okay I didn't start this comparison, but here a few fun things I remember from school and can verify with a little google:

Actually at a certain point the same thing was said about Hitler in Germany. But then **** hit the fan:

How do you think the USA right now would react to another 9/11?

What kind of crazy things could Trump come up with and push through in the wake of a mass hysteria inducing event?

For Hitler an event that could be compared to a terror attack was also quite important.

Hitler had just been made Chancellor a month before the Reichstag fire. The powers that put him in that position did so because they saw him as a tool that could be controlled to get rid of the communistic party, as a potential rise of communism was seen as the greater threat.

But the Reichstag fire was just what Hitler needed: Within a very short time frame Hitler managed to establish a few laws to ensure security from those evil communists who were blamed for the Reichstag fire. Those laws basically got rid of all civil liberties and turned Germany into a dictatorship within a few month.

So actually a lot of stuff is not absent at all, but right there. The situation is quite reminiscent, you're sorta at the step before the catastrophic event that distorts public opinion based on fear mongering.

Now I don't think Trump is anything like Hitler if you're looking at the situation a little closer, but from a very rough standpoint there sure are similarities.

So, step 1, was to elect a leader, and step 2, was a catastrophic event. By that logic, EVERY election is "step 1", and it NEVER gets to "step 2". The closest it ever came, was the absolutely blind trust in the Afghan and Iraqi war. That wasn't a dictatorship, but you were right, it led to blind trust in an extreme cause, as a reaction to catastrophe (9/11).

Trump, would never have the support, given his constant government tie-ups at the now, to ever install a dictatorship. Claims otherwise, are tin-foil-hat worthy. "Everybody knows jet fuel can't melt steel beams" type of anti-republican concern.

E.g.: "Obama, was elected, but if a catastrophic terror attack rattled the nation, he could suspend congressional powers and regulate the nation for safety and prosperity. That could mean martial law, curfew, media censorship, limit to assembly, limit to speech, essentially Korean conditions with a better economy, socialist-pro, complete government regulation and claim to resources."

Could have. Might it have really happened with a "catastrophic" event? Did anyone have reason to worry? I really doubt it, people didn't sit well with Obama either.

A leader clearly unfit to do his job, unless the governmental institutions keep him in check.

Do not underestimate the power of mongering fear after something like 9/11. The current stance of the Government is no indicator how people would react in that kind of extreme situation.

You might not get a dictatorship. But another absurd war or two? A few more laws taking away all sorts of civil rights? Mass deportation of anybody who looks remotely Arabic?

One thing is certain: Trump would not do anything good given a 9/11 scenario. To not go down a road to hell, as Bush did, in that kind of situation you'd need someone cool headed who can stand up to all sorts of insane fear mongering that such an event causes.

Trump is the exact opposite of that: He tends to fear monger himself in his favor. You can be certain he'd abuse such a situation for his own gain as much as he can and not care about the damage he might cause to American democracy or human rights in doing so.

Well, do you think Hillary, given her Syrian stance, would have a favorable reaction to a 9/11 catastrophe?

How about Bernie?

Gary Johnson?

Do you think, a knee-jerk war is a "democratic" reaction, a reaction most people have to their nation coming under attack? It's a dumb one, but is it a reaction with 200m citizens' support?

Trump might not be the "reason" something like that happens, if something like that were to happen.

Remember, those smaller terror attacks in the UK and France, are triggering their countries to let loose the bombers every time they happen, and round up more than a few arrests. Sounds like they have "rational" reactions too.

We definitely shouldn't intern or deport anyone with dark skin. That's a fallacy when caucasians can also be terrorists and have treasonous ties to war enemies. A knee-jerk reaction, isn't something that any nation can 100% prevent though.

What would be silly, is Trump spinning a terror attack, as a reason to declare war with Columbia. Essentially what 9/11 felt like, tbh.

2:42 x'D

The whole point of a representational democracy is to prevent stupid overreactions due to public opinion being all over the place on a daily basis?

I am pretty sure I said in the past that I think those reactions to be highly unwise.
But you're yet again just pointing at all the other bad people making bad decisions to evade any discussion about Trump. Well I guess another way to phrase this is you probably agree Trump would not come up with anything wise, so we agree on that and there is not much to say. How bad his decisions actually would be... hopefully we'll never have to find out.

We need to start somewhere we can control, if we ever hope for it to look good enough to elect instead of what we can't control.

We have 300m citizens. After that video, despite "lack of experience" (bureaucratically challenged at best), I'd still vote Penn. He ain't running, neither was George Carlin, but these are people I'd elect ahead of any politician. Along with myself, at least I don't have a power trip. I already jot down creative new political ideas when I come up with them. I'd also shamelessly rip laws from other countries, they're reasons those laws work and I completely respect that.

Please, don't let me deflect discussion of Trump again. Trump is so bad, he's worse than I would be as president. I'd get impeached probably, especially given all the technicalities and lack of transparency i'd have, with no or few political allies. I'd at least get impeached for the right reasons.

I'd really "drain the swamp", though i'd not call it that, that's stupid, i'd call it "removing disingenuous bias from exective enforcement and legislation, and encourage the same at the congressional and state level".

I'd push for term limits on congress. Obvious reasons. Heard some negatives, am not convinced they matter.

I'd push for a change of how the judicial branch is set up. The SCOTUS shouldn't be appointed by the president imo. I like the idea of "Vatican style" appointment, through all votes submitted to fill a position, by congregation of peers (federal judges). In tandem, there are already ways to remove judges from office, they should be reviewed so it can be done but not frivolously, so that it can't start becoming biased in corporate favor like congress or some judges already are.

I'd push for reduction of prosecution and laws, so as to focus on laws that create actual victims. "The government enforces laws by gun, when you break a crime, to enforce it, through refusal to comply, to subdue someone breaking a crime, you eventually escalate things to a beating and gunpoint-control". The government should treat EVERY law, by what is worth enforcing with a gun if it became necessary.

While in the exact opposite direction, police enforcement, should be aware of "why would you shoot a citizen to death, and then bill their family for medical treatment (autopsy??)". The criminal should have to open fire first, to invoke lethal force. Until then, police can take any precaution from bodycam to tactical cover, to engage a suspect without lethal force or any risk to themselves. Unarmed police across the world do it, it's not a difficult request, to stop shooting citizens so easily.

Why a laundry list of people wasn't elected, including myself and any civil advocate whatsoever, is the problem. Hillary and Trump were't in the top 3,000,000 of eligible citizens to hold that office. I'd say Johnson might have been, and Sanders might have been. I'd even say Hillary was way more qualified than Trump, which means nothing since her qualifications are high while her "intent" and "trust" are low, making her a highly skilled politician with an agenda to help nobody who actually needs it. Vermin Supreme was way less qualified than Trump, but had way better "good intent" than Hillary and Trump combined. The ideas were edgy and psychotic, to avoid economic trouble by "becoming amish", but Vermin Supreme had better intent than Hillary or Trump, "being amish" is definitely not a corporate lobbied position.

so Neil Gorsuch... any opinions?

Hey I linked about that already. But I guess any content in a post drawing similarties to Hitler is doomed to fall under the table.

The whole idea of putting people into such an important position for life is questionable.

1) People do NOT support it. Cards Against Humanity's creator threatened to buy the internet history of politicians if it happens.

2) It's not a fascism or dictatorship. This **** happened under Obama, it'd happen under Hillary, I 100% believe and not just suspect Hillary would pass this because this is an authoritarian thing and in no way a partisan agenda. This would NOT happen under Johnson unless it had a 2/3rd congressional veto, which it might, because the entire political system are arseholes.

I'd veto it. Then again, 200m Americans would. Who the **** would want this, besides someone who saw "citizens" as "pawns" and "livestock" more than "people"?

Your government apparently. Or from what I remember of that one private Internet advertisement that listed Senators planning to vote for yes: Politicians with an (R) in front of their name.

Nothing new I guess. No need to yet again bring up Obama, Hillary or any other politician who is not in charge right now.