Jump to content
Awoo.

The General American Politics Thread


turbojet

Recommended Posts

Expect to see reports of civil unrest eventually.

That kinda worries me considering my parents are in Wuhan. I hope they don't get caught in the crossfire if shit does go down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A downside to economic growth for any powerbroker is that it tends to lead to larger amounts of educated people. Educated people very often find their hands on forbidden literature promoting things like democracy, human rights, limited government, etc.

 

The moment the economy starts to crumble, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few opposition leaders rise to prominence. It helps that China's government by and large seems to have abandoned a lot of the harsher measures of most dictatorships, instead opting for constant harassment of opponents akin to East Germany's model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a billion impoverished citizens in China, who barely got by during the good times. How do you think a downturn is going to hit them? Badly. Combined with an educated and growing middle class aware and desiring of a more representative political system, that's a conflict waiting to happen.

It's up to the Chinese government and military to try and hold the country together while the economy adjusts to the unwelcome encroachments of reality. I don't see the country splintering apart, but it'll be a painful and inward looking period for the country, marked by paranoia and unrest, as well as rising tensions with the west, because Japan will likely weather and come through the economic storm long before China does. That does not a happy China make.

I have also to wonder what the wealthy coastal cities of China will make of a more inward looking period? These cities benefit enormously when China opens up to the world, but if the country shies away (as it has a few times in the past 200 years), they aren't going to be happy. A good deal of unrest might emerge not from the country's economic troubles, but from how its government chooses to react to them and the unrest they might well generate.

Edited by Patticus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else China benefits by and large from a united identity. So it won't fall apart in the same way the Soviet Union did. The last thing it needs on top of socioeconomic issues are ethnic ones.

 

Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.png

 

It will be interesting to see how the Tibetans and Turkic citizens react to any chaos, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

politifact%2Fphotos%2FOcc_Dem_Jindal.jpg

 

This meme is making the rounds but it's only half true. Jindal's parents did not use him to gain citizenship due to the terms of the law, as an "anchor baby" can't be used for citizenship until the child is at least 21.

 

What is hilarious is he's griping about citizenship he probably wouldn't have had for much of his life otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reporter thing this morning is insane. Don't think anything like that had ever happened outside of Vietnam or Afghanistan or whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy shit, I just looked into that. What the fuck is wrong with America?

 

Plenty of western countries have high gun ownership (albeit not as high as ours), and yet our crime is disproportionately higher. It can't even be chalked up to background checks or the like, because researchers have found to their horror that there is no shooter profile.

 

There's something wrong with our culture as a whole that drives people to kill like this.

 

My condolences to the families... this is just unreal.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apparently this is a guy who legitimately went postal. 

So apparently this is a guy who legitimately went postal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrible news, and I fear that the media's coverage of this tragic event will only serve to inspire others to commit similar and worse acts. :(

Something has done be done about America's gun culture and the romanticism thereof, and murder glorification across the media.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason guns are at the focus of the debate is really a matter of American pride. When we assume crime to simply be a result of how few or many guns there are, it feeds into American patriotism and exceptionalism.

When in reality, we can see signs it's more than just the guns and how little difference either decision will make. In that small town that mandated gun ownership for all, violent crime dropped... but there was still a good amount of it. If we ban firearms, it goes without saying right-wing states will probably nullify it just as left-wing states have nullified marijuana law. Then you have such things as the Iron Corridor and a swathe of criminal enterprises ready to get in on the arms trade if we illegalize it, and criminals will still obtain them. This is to say nothing of how American history has put more value on the firearm than most Western countries can relate to.

The fact is, it's not the guns or their regulations. I'd wager it's the fact we as a culture rationalize and/or glorify violence.

A woman gets raped? She probably deserved it by the dress she was wearing.

An innocent man is executed? Such is the price of justice being served.

Indians driven off their land? They had an inefficient economic system.

Person gets shot by the police? The police surely had a motive for doing so.

Bombing other countries and killing civilians in collateral damage? We need to protect our interests and collateral damage is inevitable.

Swear or show some skin in a movie? Enjoy your R-rating. Blow a bunch of stuff up? Sweet stuff you'll just get PG-13.

Served in the military? There's no other better thing you could have done with your life. Cures for cancer and the like are secondary to "national" interests you know.

It goes on and on. A lack of social services, institutionalization of violence, and widespread access to firearms have combined into a lethal cocktail.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing's going to be done because people aren't interested in hearing about practical solutions which may target the lines we've drawn concerning the availability of weaponry. Everyone freaked out after 9/11 and now you still can't even carry a mini-bottle of hand sanitizer on a flight all in the sake of "protecting ourselves against terrorists," but you get the body count equivalent of ten 9/11s happening every year due to gun violence and it's always "too early/disrespectful to politicize the tragedy." People just don't give a shit. The lives of these reporters is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for never having to do anything. That's what pisses me off: the fact that these two people- young, engaged, in their careers, and having a blast with life- maybe wouldn't have lost their lives so terribly today had we had a decent fucking conversation about this sooner. And they're not going to be the last. America's laid its bed and doesn't want to get up. Only practical thing you can do is just pray it never happens to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing's going to be done because people aren't interested in hearing about practical solutions which may target the lines we've drawn concerning the availability of weaponry. Everyone freaked out after 9/11 and now you still can't even carry a mini-bottle of hand sanitizer on a flight all in the sake of "protecting ourselves against terrorists," but you get the body count equivalent of ten 9/11s happening every year due to gun violence and it's always "too early/disrespectful to politicize the tragedy." People just don't give a shit. The lives of these reporters is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for never having to do anything. That's what pisses me off- the fact that these two people- young, engaged, in their careers, and having a blast with life- maybe wouldn't have lost their lives so terribly today had we had a decent fucking conversation about this sooner. And they're not going to be the last. America's laid it's bed and doesn't want to get up. Only practical thing you can do is just pray it never happens to you.

Never mind going after the guns is the lazy approach to the issue.

This goes far, far beyond whether or not you need to go to a local store or some back alley dealer to get a weapon. It comes down to the collective American perspective on violence, and the many social and political factors that drive people towards violence.

Racism. Sexism. Nationalism. Capitalism. Authoritarianism. Militarism. A whole slew of -isms that ingrain the idea violence is natural, acceptable or even desirable in our lives.

Throw consumerism in there too, actually. People mauling each other over electronics on Black Friday for God's sake. Never mind the media and pop culture.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going after guns is just one solution among other solutions to a multifaceted issue. I'm not arguing it's the only one and frankly I'm sick of us saying we literally have to topple entire fucking sociological systems like we're on Jones' Manor before we say, "Hey, maybe some decent background checks in the interim of working on the other problems would help." We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, similar to how you tend to say that before we can even talk about racism in law enforcement we need body cams on them first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I can concede that, but it's just a token measure at the end of the day. It might stop a few casual gun nuts, but anyone who is seriously intending to kill people is going to find a supplier, no different than a drug addict. There's no shortage of e-commerce websites that make illegal activity terrifyingly easy to engage in.

I understand it's better than nothing, but "better than nothing" initiatives generally serve no purpose other than for politicians to give themselves asspats that they did something rather than seriously addressing an issue. Obamacare is a steaming turd of an initiative and doesn't even come close to fixing America's healthcare problems, but it was "better than nothing," right?

But again, it's an issue of enforcement. The gun culture is incredibly powerful and I wouldn't be surprised if stricter federal regulations, if they could pass, would be flouted. On top of that, no shortage of criminals will deliver guns into the hands of people who want them the same way they're doing it for marijuana and did it for booze. These people want to be butchers, they're going to be butchers no matter how hard Uncle Sam tries to say otherwise.

I'm seeing a few more casual gunmen being deterred, but it overall seems like putting a Band-Aid on a mortal wound.

And it does nada about the clean gun owners who flip their lid one day.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about only working on one aspect of gun control and then saying we did a good job because three people were saved, nor is it about ignoring other things. It's about understanding that the general lack of control on guns does play a part in gun violence, and thus assuming multiple different policy and enforcement approaches that have worked in different scenarios and countries under the general umbrella of "gun control." If you're going to make perfect the enemy of good, then at least be consistent and admit that for any type of solution across the board rather than dismissing gun control as something that's as useless as a band-aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying demand creates supply. When goods are banned, the goods don't stop being produced. They simply move to different channels. Channels that are already well-established in the United States.

 

I'm not saying we can't pursue broader background checks, just stating they're going to be a drop in the bucket unless they're part of some wider package.

 

11885092_1131362103541433_76983583091556

 

Can we agree this countercriticism is idiotic?

 

When you are illegally on someone's land, you are not yourself illegal. It means you are not legally supposed to be there.

 

I am not arguing for or against anything on this issue. I just dislike when this "rebuff" is issued. I question the intelligence of a person who makes it, since they're not understanding the issue - the issue isn't the person, it's their legal status of being somewhere. The same way that if I went to another country without going through customs, I am not legally there. I am not myself "illegal."

 

Now people do call illegal aliens "illegals" but come the fuck on. It's pretty obvious it's just a shorthand.

 

Let me flip it to the other side. To me, when a person says this, it is comparable to when a guy replies "gays have equal rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like me!" on issues of gay marriage. You are deliberately trying too hard to not understand what the other person is talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is about the dehumanizing and politicized way in which the term "illegal" has been used to denigrate both illegal and legal immigrants of Hispanic origin and how that has been played into aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric and outright racism against Hispanics by the right. It's an attempt to humanize themselves, not to subvert the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not even a "right-wing" argument with Bernie Sanders arguing against them as well. The vast majority of Americans do not like people being here illegally (even if most will concede some sort of citizenship plan, more as a practical thing than one of principle). It's one of the few things that most agree on. It's why shit goes belly up whenever Congress starts debating amnesty plans. Only things like SOPA attract that much bipartisan opposition from the general public.

 

Sure, there's no doubt the term is used in a racist fashion. But it's still a status conferred by law.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was reading up how a very small portion of crime is caused by mental illness, decided to do some digging, and holy crap.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/08/29/wapo-every-mass-shooter-since-jan-2009-could-pass-nics-background-checks/

 

In short: most shooters pass federal background checks (which already account for mental illness, prior convictions, etc.). Those who don't just steal their firearms (Sandy Hook) or otherwise obtain them through straw buyers (Columbine). While some like Virginia Tech would have theoretically been prevented... I really don't doubt he'd have stolen his guns same as all the others who couldn't obtain them legally. Short of expanding the police state to monitor every firearm and its owner, I don't really see what else can be done. Perhaps make it a crime in its own right to try and obtain a gun when you should be well-aware if you don't qualify, with immediate notification of authorities?

 

Going to say I remain firmly convinced most ideas of gun control are a Band-Aid for a mortal wound. I'd like a surgeon, please.

 

Granted, said surgeon is out of his office for a few decades since this is a cultural problem that no law is going to fix, so I don't blame people for defaulting to gun control. It's a lot more palatable as a proposal since it doesn't require a drastic re-engineering of American society away from glorification of apathy and violence.

 

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cultures change over time, though. If America liberalizes with the passing of the baby boomers and their followers, so too should it's majority stance on firearms change. Right? Only another 30 years of daily mass shootings to go... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the perspective on firearm law changes, I don't think that will make that much of a difference. Doubly so since firearm usage is a pastime for a lot of people regardless of political orientation, even if it's associated with the right.

 

Different laws will change things in that we'll catch a small percentage of would-be mass shooters, but the real cultural change needs to come in different ways.

 

I think the real change will be that with a more liberal populace, we'll see a rolling back of the police state and officer numbers will be cut. More reasonable prison sentences will lead to less families being destroyed, which means less people with serious mental and financial issues down the line. The abolition of capital punishment will remove just one small way in which violence and killing are celebrated in our country. Similarly, Castle Doctrine will lose ground, and human life will be valued more than property.

 

When we begin to abandon the idea we can interfere in other countries' affairs, we likewise create the idea that while your personal interests are important, it does not justify destroying other people's lives and quality of life.

 

With better, affordable healthcare, people with violence-inducing mental problems can get the help they need. With better social programs, less and less people will feel inclined towards crime, keeping families whole and encouraging healthy ways of functioning in society. Minorities will be able to better voice their concerns with more economic equality, and this will probably go a long way towards curbing racism, another part of the culture of violence.

 

The status quo perpetuates an overall idea that violence is good if it benefits you in some way, and that you have no choice but to be violent at times because society will not help you. A change in foreign, social and fiscal policies like all the ones described above will attack this sentiment.

 

I think the only things left after that would be our victim-blaming culture and pop culture/media depictions of violence, but I imagine that on their own those won't be too destructive. Let's remember: ever since games like GTA came out, youth crime rates have plummeted. Martin Luther was onto something when he suggested a little indulgence in vice is a great way to prevent a much more grievous exercise of it.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/dying_vets_fuck_you_letter_to_george_bush_dick_cheney_needs_to_be_read

 

2 years old, but a good read for all the warmongering types in America.

 

I find it delicious how being anti-war has merged with being anti-soldier in right-wing dogma. "If we give up now, all the soldiers who died for no reason will still have died for no reason!"

 

No, the real patriots are the ones who oppose wars that don't serve an explicit defensive purpose. They are the ones who don't want to throw young men and women's lives away without damned good reason.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a surprisingly moving letter. I knew that the servicemen who fought over there had essentially been left for dead upon their discharge from the military, but I didn't know that they knew how conniving, scheming and manipulative the leadership that ruined their lives had been.

I've heard it told that the Iraq War was launched because Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush Jr. could not contain their anger following 9/11, even as the Afghan War was unfolding; they just had to have another punching bag to unload on. I don't know, maybe Afghanistan was too hard a nut to crack or something and they wanted an easy war with all the attendant glory and dead foes, and it just so happened that Bush Jr's daddy had left "unfinished business" in the same region - Iraq. A convenient target, and the easiest to justify war against.

I don't know if that's really how it all went down, but I wouldn't put it past that administration to have allowed the shady as fuck Curveball evidence to justify their national angry-fist-through-the-dry-wall moment.

I also agree that the real patriots aren't the ones who blindly support whatever wars the country finds itself waging, they are the ones who can smell a rat, who can understand when a target nation isn't a threat worth going berserk over (even if that country's regime is awful).

Saddam might have been overthrown during the Arab Spring, he might not, and he was a shitty man with an awful regime - but so is Assad, so is the House of Saud, Kim Jong-Un and god knows how many others out there. If you, as Bush did, use regime change as an eventual justification for your war (which is illegal under international law), you pretty much have to invade the rest of the world after, one country at a time. Treat everyone the same.

Anyway, patriots aren't necessarily the ones voting with the incumbent administration. Speaking of Bernie Sanders (man, what a segway!), a new NBC/Marist poll has found him leading Hillary Clinton by 9 points in New Hampshire. I know it's still early days, that the all-important primaries are yet months away, and that the DNC is openly fucking Sanders over with its pitiful debate schedule; I just can't help but feel that if this trend continues, the Clinton ship is sunk.

Senator Bernie Sanders has opened a nine-point lead over fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton among party supporters in New Hampshire, according to an NBC News/Marist Poll released on Sunday.

The survey showed that 41% of Democratic voters would back Sanders while 32% would cast a vote for Clinton if the poll were held today – and Vice-President Joe Biden were on the ballot.

Support for Biden, who has yet to decide whether to run after the death of his son Beau in May, was at 16%.

Draft Biden, a group urging him to put his name forward, said the poll showed “a deep desire among Democratic primary voters to have Vice-President Biden join the presidential race”.

In July, in the same poll, Sanders had 32% support while Clinton had 42%.

Sanders, from next-door Vermont, has appealed to young and working-class voters as he challenges the former first lady, New York senator and US secretary of state, who is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.

New Hampshire is due to hold its presidential primaries in January and many campaigns are courting voters in the small New England state.

NBC also reported that its polling showed Clinton with a lead in Iowa, anotherstate with an early voice in the nomination process, though her margin over Sanders had shrunk to 11% from 24% in July.

Besides Biden, several other Democratic candidates have garnered only low single-digit support in the last several such polls.

The New Hampshire poll of 356 people was taken this month and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2%.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-poll?CMP=fb_us

As for Biden, I'd gladly take him in place of Sanders, should he run and Sanders loses the primaries.

Edited by Patticus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden has a valuable position as an incumbent leader, so he can use that against pretty much any contender. He might not have been making most of the decisions, but his close proximity to Obama naturally would have given him all sorts of valuable information he could use as a full President.

 

I do hope he'd be the last Democrat contender, though. The Democrats' biggest advantage is they have their field pretty narrowed down already. They have historical mammoth Clinton, surprisingly popular Sanders, and possible incumbent Biden to go behind. All the the while, the GOP is trying to tame Trump with nonbinding pledges. I'd prefer all other Democrat hopefuls just work on possible appointments to federal offices so they can help future campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden is even more of a political non-entity for the top job now than he was in 2008 when he ran against Hilary and she also kicked the shit out of him. Any perceived worth the public saw him having as part of Obama's Presidency is more than mooted by the fact that Hilary was also part of Obama's Presidency and actually appeared to do things proactively instead of just being trotted out to comment on things when Obama was too busy to do so. So long as this email well of hers doesn't keep getting deeper, Biden might as well not even show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.