American Politics Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

that is a pretty nihilistic viewpoint.  on the one hand you complain about "intolerance" then on the other you express your malcontent on people of faith, and brand them right wing as if there are no left wing people of faith.

the modern progressive view on intolerance is anyone that rejects a conflicting ideology, especially those based on ultra minority views, precipitated through persecution syndrome and encourage the use of censorship and tribunals to brand people who don't agree with your world view as evil.  we have a word for that, it's called fascism.

the most contentious issues with progressivism are typically subjective experience and forced acceptance of that reality on the majority who don't support it.   

Islam is very big here, it is the prominant religion between, Black, coloured and Indian communities, the mere devotion to faith doesn't make a person evil. 

I've got no problem with believers that keep their beliefs out of everyone's politics. Secular society is always better than society that's got faith and politics intertwined.

You can't have a free society when zealots are in charge, history's been pretty clear on that.

[Rucksackfranzose]

3 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

parliamentarian majority requires 2/3 majority, the US is 50/50.

the reality is nobody really is concerned about people want to erase the consequences of their actions, nor is your average citizen interested in welfare to woman for children.   the majority of people are concerned about rampant corruption between government on corporate elite leading to power monopolies and the complete destruction of the private sector.

the latest issue in the US, the Hawaii fires were blamed initially on "global warming" and it transpires the real reason was the Hawaii government failing to update aging electrical infrastructure and the money allocated to it has mysteriously vanished into democrat pockets, because morality is such an effivesant thing.

I think there are far more concerning people that religious people.  wolves in sheep's clothing.

I would hardly call cannibal cults Christian lol.  

In Germany only correct, if the basic law is to be altered. Otherwise a normal majority is completely sufficient. Also an unqualified majority is enough in most countries. In other words the bolded part is not universaly correct.

[Rucksackfranzose]

3 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

parliamentarian majority requires 2/3 majority, the US is 50/50.

the reality is nobody really is concerned about people want to erase the consequences of their actions, nor is your average citizen interested in welfare to woman for children.   the majority of people are concerned about rampant corruption between government on corporate elite leading to power monopolies and the complete destruction of the private sector.

the latest issue in the US, the Hawaii fires were blamed initially on "global warming" and it transpires the real reason was the Hawaii government failing to update aging electrical infrastructure and the money allocated to it has mysteriously vanished into democrat pockets, because morality is such an effivesant thing.

I think there are far more concerning people that religious people.  wolves in sheep's clothing.

I would hardly call cannibal cults Christian lol.  

In Germany only correct, if the basic law is to be altered. Otherwise a normal majority is completely sufficient. Also an unqualified majority is enough in most countries. In other words the bolded part is not universaly correct.

[Dr. Gonzo]

@OrangeKhrush you also bring up a lot of points that aren't anywhere near mentioned in my post 

I don't mention "tolerance" or "intolerance" a single time in my post. I didn't condemn believers as "evil" either - I didn't push any contentious issues other than saying religious and culture-war norms being forced on a whole wide group of people is antithetical to a free society. I'm not making morality judgments about anyone in making that statement. That's just taking my point, making up shit about it, and then refuting the shit you've made up about what I said and pretending like you've countered what I've said.

Even amongst the religious, there's a huge spread of thought on how devout a person needs to be. Islam's a massive religion and pork and booze are forbidden to the devout, yet there's tons of Muslim people who consider themselves Muslim and love beer and having pizza with pepperonis on it. But applying Shariah Law to them imposes the strictest religious standards on them and takes away from their freedom to live how they want.

The same thing works in a hypothetical where you get Zealots like Mike Pence and Amy Covid Barrett changing laws for the US. Secular society is meant to protect people from zealotry. Protecting a secular society is just as important as rooting out corruption, like the corruption in Maui that led to the loss of life and historical and cultural sites.

[OrangeKhrush]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

@OrangeKhrush you also bring up a lot of points that aren't anywhere near mentioned in my post 

I don't mention "tolerance" or "intolerance" a single time in my post. I didn't condemn believers as "evil" either - I didn't push any contentious issues other than saying religious and culture-war norms being forced on a whole wide group of people is antithetical to a free society. I'm not making morality judgments about anyone in making that statement. That's just taking my point, making up shit about it, and then refuting the shit you've made up about what I said and pretending like you've countered what I've said.

Even amongst the religious, there's a huge spread of thought on how devout a person needs to be. Islam's a massive religion and pork and booze are forbidden to the devout, yet there's tons of Muslim people who consider themselves Muslim and love beer and having pizza with pepperonis on it. But applying Shariah Law to them imposes the strictest religious standards on them and takes away from their freedom to live how they want.

The same thing works in a hypothetical where you get Zealots like Mike Pence and Amy Covid Barrett changing laws for the US. Secular society is meant to protect people from zealotry. Protecting a secular society is just as important as rooting out corruption, like the corruption in Maui that led to the loss of life and historical and cultural sites.

In all faith you get orthodox and you get reformed,  how a person practices is their own choice.    Mike Pence nor Amy Coney Barrett have changed any Laws.  A Court of Law cannot make law only interpret Law,  when a Ruling is passed it can become binding precedent particularly if it is a lower Court which is bound to the obiter of a superior Court,  that said it does not amount to Rule of Law which per the doctrine of separation of powers vests exclusively in National and Provincial/State/Regional Legislatures.    The decision to reverse Roe vs Wade was to reverse the erroneous decision of the Court giving the Federal government the power to legislate which is beyond the scope of the executive. 

America is one of the only Countries that don't have national legislation regarding abortion,  very odd that countries like China, North Korea, Russia all have similar abortion laws to that of Europe, Australia, South Africa.   The solution is very simple,  just conform to western normative standards and remove welfare,  that way it will create a society that is responsible.    With STD"s/STI"s at a 47 year high in the US,  I do hope that rampant break out of syphilis and gonorrhea changes that. 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/19/sexually-transmitted-disease-rise-syphilis-us

https://www.statista.com/topics/3485/sexually-transmitted-diseases-in-the-us/#topicOverview

Maybe a real "government of the people,  for the people" should look to detract from debauchery and smut,  but sex is everywhere,  deliberately,  its condoned by the government as a means to distract people from America's real growing problems.   

 

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

In Germany only correct, if the basic law is to be altered. Otherwise a normal majority is completely sufficient. Also an unqualified majority is enough in most countries. In other words the bolded part is not universaly correct.

In South Africa a 50+1 for basic laws that have no consequences on protected rights,  any Law that infringes on constitutional rights requires a 2/3 and 75% for amendments to the Constitution,  which i  would have preferred to be 90% as a ruling party with 60% and a kings maker minority party with 15% or more can alter constitutional rights which leads to major societal issues.  A constitution should be entrenched and hard to amend other that with a super majority. 

The issue of abortion is weighting the right to life vs the right to autonomy,  that is a question that is posed for a Constitutional Court to determine the Constitutionality of such Law and if it is deemed to be unconstitutional it should be referred back for amendment.   The principal of democracy is in multi party legislatures,  there needs to be convergence of interests,  when hyper partisan ideologies are pushed,  it leads to stagnant sessions.   Germany's abortion Laws are perfectly fine. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

21 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Mike Pence nor Amy Coney Barrett have changed any Laws. 

Yeah, I said "hypothetical" didn't I? And I was using the example of 2 prominent zealots in US politics. I find their ideology to be quite dangerous and anti-democratic.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Latest in the clown show that is US national politics is GOP majority leader of the house Kevin McCarthy announcing that the house is beginning an official impeachment inquiry into Biden.

This is after 9 months of investigating Biden to find any evidence of wrongdoing to merit an impeachment. So after 9 months of investigating and finding nothing... I suppose it's time to step up the investigation into an inquiry. 

[Stan]

 

 

[CaaC (John)+]

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

US government primed for another shut down because they've got stupid rules that don't force congress to do their fucking jobs and don't call for special elections if they can't form a budget.

[Dr. Gonzo]

RFK Jr. to stop pretending to be a democrat and run as an independent. This is good news, may splinter the far right.

[OrangeKhrush]

They are now building the wall,  they won't tell you the real reason but mass illegal immigration is the obvious reason,  another victory for Trump and another show that the democrats are nothing more than populist showpony's that will say and promise anything for votes, then not deliver.   Its 3 years and this administration has done sweet f all.  

[Dr. Gonzo]

15 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

They are now building the wall,  they won't tell you the real reason but mass illegal immigration is the obvious reason,  another victory for Trump and another show that the democrats are nothing more than populist showpony's that will say and promise anything for votes, then not deliver.   Its 3 years and this administration has done sweet f all.  

The funds were already allocated for the wall and Biden asked they be reallocated elsewhere, but house republicans refused. Because in the US, congress is in charge of funding of federal agencies that the president oversees. Rather than not spend the money and face a lawsuit from republicans that would likely just further waste taxpayer money, they've just gone ahead with it. It's also a repair of existing portions of the wall... which has existed for years before Trump was ever elected to office. It's one of the things I thought was so strange about the "build the wall" crowd - I live close to the US-Mexico border. There's already a wall. Illegal immigrants still get across.

But never mind that, most illegal immigrants to the US come through on plane and just overstay their visas. So perhaps visa enforcement should be more of a priority than building a wall that already exists.

The wall and illegal immigration being massive issues to the rest of the country is so funny for so many people who live on the US-Mexico border. There's a billion other problems in the US that are far more serious of an issue. But some dickheads in Ohio and Alabama are just terrified of Mexicans in California and Texas, I guess.

[Viva la FCB+]

I just still dont understand how people keep talking about Trump as if hes some deity and isnt currently battling what 4 criminal indictments and something like 90 felony counts? Its just laughable trying to compare him to any past or current US President honestly. Cultism really is fascinating man, its just blind obedience at this point idk.

One of the latest to come out of the document handling was Trump was sharing classified sub documents with some Aussie billionaire at MaraLago. The guy then went ahead and shared that with 45 people alledgedly  details including locations and which ones where carrying warheads etc etc. The stuff made its way to Aussie government officials as well reportedly. 

 

[6666]

Who would be the best choices for the Democrats and the Republicans? Biden & Trump can't be it. It was embarrassing in 2020 and it'll be even more embarrassing in 2024.

They'll both be clowned the whole time and that'll be funny but a serious US president would be good.

[Dr. Gonzo]

20 minutes ago, 6666 said:

Who would be the best choices for the Democrats and the Republicans? Biden & Trump can't be it. It was embarrassing in 2020 and it'll be even more embarrassing in 2024.

They'll both be clowned the whole time and that'll be funny but a serious US president would be good.

For the Republicans it's hard to say. The current crop of those vying for the candidacy is basically a selection of clowns + Nikki Haley, who I think is politically repulsive - but she's probably the "most serious" option out of the current crop. DeSantis is Trump light except nobody likes him. Pence is hated by the Trump base and is a religious zealot. Herd and the other moderate guy who's name I forget have basically no chance of getting through the primaries because they're basically viewed as Biden-light (and they're really not wrong, Biden is about as middle of the road as an American politician could get - and a pretty right leaning democrat).

For Democrats, it's hard to say (lol). I think as a serious candidate for someone with experience running a large state with a powerful economy - Gavin Newsom's not a bad shout. If California was a country, it would be one of the biggest economies in the world (it's even overtaken the UK, although Brexit did help with that) - and it's the economic powerhouse of the US, basically bankrolling a ton of the red states that don't want to contribute their own money to provide social services. The problem with running someone like him is that a good amount of Americans in other states simply hate California and everything to do with it. I dunno why though  Personally, I think the best candidate would still be Bernie Sanders - but the US is far too right wing for that to ever happen. He's also not really a democrat so the fact he was even close to the democratic nomination is pretty impressive, but when he runs for the senate he runs as an independent.

I don't think the democrats will primary Biden though, I'm not sure if that's ever really happened in US history - or modern US history, where a sitting president is primaried by his party to be replaced as the nominee. I think democrats want to be the party that can demonstrate unity, while the republicans have been an absolute mess in 2023, from their criminal former president constantly finding himself in increasing leadership trouble, the infighting of the republican candidates in debates, and their revolt in the house of congress that's left congress's majority party without a leader.

Realistically, the contest is going to be: Trump v. Biden, pt. 2. Trump's got an everlasting hold on Republican voters, democrats will stick by Biden for the appearances of being the stable party.

[MUFC]

Women from both sides Marching.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

For the Republicans it's hard to say. The current crop of those vying for the candidacy is basically a selection of clowns + Nikki Haley, who I think is politically repulsive - but she's probably the "most serious" option out of the current crop. DeSantis is Trump light except nobody likes him. Pence is hated by the Trump base and is a religious zealot. Herd and the other moderate guy who's name I forget have basically no chance of getting through the primaries because they're basically viewed as Biden-light (and they're really not wrong, Biden is about as middle of the road as an American politician could get - and a pretty right leaning democrat).

For Democrats, it's hard to say (lol). I think as a serious candidate for someone with experience running a large state with a powerful economy - Gavin Newsom's not a bad shout. If California was a country, it would be one of the biggest economies in the world (it's even overtaken the UK, although Brexit did help with that) - and it's the economic powerhouse of the US, basically bankrolling a ton of the red states that don't want to contribute their own money to provide social services. The problem with running someone like him is that a good amount of Americans in other states simply hate California and everything to do with it. I dunno why though  Personally, I think the best candidate would still be Bernie Sanders - but the US is far too right wing for that to ever happen. He's also not really a democrat so the fact he was even close to the democratic nomination is pretty impressive, but when he runs for the senate he runs as an independent.

I don't think the democrats will primary Biden though, I'm not sure if that's ever really happened in US history - or modern US history, where a sitting president is primaried by his party to be replaced as the nominee. I think democrats want to be the party that can demonstrate unity, while the republicans have been an absolute mess in 2023, from their criminal former president constantly finding himself in increasing leadership trouble, the infighting of the republican candidates in debates, and their revolt in the house of congress that's left congress's majority party without a leader.

Realistically, the contest is going to be: Trump v. Biden, pt. 2. Trump's got an everlasting hold on Republican voters, democrats will stick by Biden for the appearances of being the stable party.

There is no crisis in the Republican party, all that is happening is the voter base is rejecting the hacks and neo cons, and are completely behinf Trump, it is as unified as it has ever been.   The hacks are getting routed out and replaced by people that better represent the values and struggles against repression of American values and customs.

on polls, Trump is walking it and he doesn't even need to debate, nobody is interested in the others, Donald Trump goes to an event in Iowa and it's viewed by a lot more than those who watched the debates.   

the reason for Bidens border shift is skirted with a wet wipe explanation but the democrats are failing to see that 65% of Americans are concerned about open borders and illegal immigration.   Joe is going to try claim a W but he is falling behind.

As for Gavin Newsome, that's the funniest thing I have read today.  commidant blackface whose policies favour the affluent over poorer Californians, draconian demarcation of land for the rich to build apartments then please rent them out for rip off money, the greatest portion of budget allocations get diverted to rich area including education and medical and California is #1 in the greatest disparity between have's and have nots.    

Then there was covid parties, giving illegal aliens money over struggling Americans.   you could only suggest worse if you said Joe Biden or brought up Nancy "shit creek" Pilosi.

I will agree that Bernie Sanders is probably the least controversial option but he has little support on both sides.  Bernie Sanders remains the guy with ideas but no suggestion on how to implement them.  He is pretty awful on the podium, but nowhere near as bad as the blithering idiot currently asleep at the wheel.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

50 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

There is no crisis in the Republican party, all that is happening is the voter base is rejecting the hacks and neo cons, and are completely behinf Trump, it is as unified as it has ever been.   The hacks are getting routed out and replaced by people that better represent the values and struggles against repression of American values and customs.

on polls, Trump is walking it and he doesn't even need to debate, nobody is interested in the others, Donald Trump goes to an event in Iowa and it's viewed by a lot more than those who watched the debates.   

the reason for Bidens border shift is skirted with a wet wipe explanation but the democrats are failing to see that 65% of Americans are concerned about open borders and illegal immigration.   Joe is going to try claim a W but he is falling behind.

As for Gavin Newsome, that's the funniest thing I have read today.  commidant blackface whose policies favour the affluent over poorer Californians, draconian demarcation of land for the rich to build apartments then please rent them out for rip off money, the greatest portion of budget allocations get diverted to rich area including education and medical and California is #1 in the greatest disparity between have's and have nots.    

Then there was covid parties, giving illegal aliens money over struggling Americans.   you could only suggest worse if you said Joe Biden or brought up Nancy "shit creek" Pilosi.

I will agree that Bernie Sanders is probably the least controversial option but he has little support on both sides.  Bernie Sanders remains the guy with ideas but no suggestion on how to implement them.  He is pretty awful on the podium, but nowhere near as bad as the blithering idiot currently asleep at the wheel.

 

Theres no crisis in the Republican Party?

Did you miss the entire removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the house?

I’m not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote, you don’t have a clue about US politics despite being obsessed with it from abroad.

[OrangeKhrush]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Theres no crisis in the Republican Party?

Did you miss the entire removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the house?

I’m not even going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote, you don’t have a clue about US politics despite being obsessed with it from abroad.

that is because McCarthy does not represent Republican voters, he like all RINOS represent his handlers.  He is a backstabber that got back stabbed.   He will be well and truly at home if he jumps over to the Democrat caucus, he is cut from the same cloth as the elites.

I can suggest a few that need to fuck right off as well, Mitch McStroke, Liz Charlatan Chaney, Mit irrelevent Romney, Mike DNC plant Pence, Donny let the door hit you on the way out.

[Dr. Gonzo]

19 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

that is because McCarthy does not represent Republican voters, he like all RINOS represent his handlers.  He is a backstabber that got back stabbed.   He will be well and truly at home if he jumps over to the Democrat caucus, he is cut from the same cloth as the elites.

I can suggest a few that need to fuck right off as well, Mitch McStroke, Liz Charlatan Chaney, Mit irrelevent Romney, Mike DNC plant Pence, Donny let the door hit you on the way out.

Lol those are the actual republicans though. The MAGA crowd are genuine RINOs wanting to push the part further and further right.

The thing about Kevin McCarthy being cut from the same cloth as elite, while you worship people like Trump, a billionaire who lived in a literal golden tower in New York City before fucking off to live in a country club in Florida, and Russel Brand, a celebrity, is hilarious, or Tucker Carlson a prep school elitist heir to a frozen foods fortune. McCarthy’s a shitty politician and a shitty person, for sure. But you seem quite fond of the elite tbh.

If the republicans were lock step in unity, the new speaker contest would probably not have been a close contest between Scalise and Gym Jordan. In fact, the guy who covered for his pedo friend probably would have won if the GOP was unified - that’s what Trump wanted. Instead it was a close vote with the Trump speaker candidate losing.

[Cicero]

Economists now putting economic recession in 2024 back on the table. 

When was it ever taken off? 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Cicero said:

Economists now putting economic recession in 2024 back on the table. 

When was it ever taken off? 

I think a recession in the US is inevitable. Some economists think that the fed chair (forget his name) can guide the economy to a "soft landing" - but I don't see how that's possible. These are all the recent things that are going to have a negative impact on the economy in the US: 1.) the auto strike; 2.) student loan payments resuming after a 3 year halt; 3.) surge in oil prices (and global prices went up 4% after Hamas's attack... so thanks for that Hamas, I suppose); 3.) the global economic slump - don't think the US will be unscathed from China's real estate crisis or European lending contractions; 4.) impending government shutdown - Kevin McCarthy staved off a shutdown in October... but it only kicked the can down the road to keep the government open until mid-November. There's no guarantee that this divided and chaotic house of representatives can keep the government open; 5.) interest rates being higher for longer - which has already slowed the already slow US housing market pretty significantly in the last year. 6.) Debtors are defaulting on their loans at higher rates.

The people arguing for a "soft landing" to avoid recession have pointed to things like: the number of job postings going down, while unemployment is remaining very low (although some economists think the US level of unemployment is too low currently), productivity in US business being way up in 2023; Biden's industrial policy resulting in higher business investment that's kept the economy growing, I think there's also optimism that the auto strikes don't go on for too long, that Biden's new plan for student loan forgiveness takes some sting out of Americans suddenly spending less because they've got to pay their extortionate loans back... and shit like that.

But I don't think it's realistic for Americans to think their economy is so insulated from the global economy that it doesn't feel the economic sting of all of the shocks to the economy worldwide like other countries. The last economic shutdown cost the US an absolute fortune in GDP loss and the state of the house right now... I think a November shutdown is incredibly likely unless there's another bipartisan agreement again - but after what happened with Kevin McCarthy, can a speaker of the house reach to the democrats to make a deal? Inflation and high interest rates are hurting the working and middle class disproportionately. Everything's more expensive, loans have much higher monthly payments. Couple that with a lot of Americans having less money to spend per month because they've got to pay the government back because the government didn't put a cap on how much schools can raise their prices each year and just gave students loans regardless... I've got a lot of friends and colleagues that have expressed significant dismay at the return of their student loans while everything is so expensive right now.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Lmao Scalise drops his house speaker bid because he can’t secure the votes. GOP truly in unity

[Dr. Gonzo]

Republicans tried round 2 of getting a new house speaker leading to the GOP pro-pedo candidate Jim Jordan to be the speaker and he fell short of becoming one of the most powerful people in the US due to 20 of his party members objecting to him being speaker. The minority leader of the house got more votes than him for speakership.

Truly a party in unity, some on this forum might say the party is "as unified as it's ever been" 

There was another vote scheduled for today, but it had to be postponed because the GOP is in such shambles.