The General American Politics Thread

[Pelly <3's U]

There is a lot in moral and ethical debates that hinges on whether or not speech can be have a causal relationship to action. Research has shown that in some cases, people's passive reactions to stuff can lead to a higher likelihood for them to go out and violate the rights of others. I haven't looked into or heard any to do with hate speech, but there certainly could be an interesting discussion and critical analysis of whether the preventing rights violations justify the state being able to censor speech.

Superstingray, you incorrectly tried to argue for CSS using the slippery slope fallacy. If CSS was arguing the hate speech (Cause A) lead to an increase in hate crimes or violence (Effect A) there is no slippery slope fallacy going on due to the relationship between them (Cause A -> Effect A). Of course it could also be stated as (Cause A -> Reaction A -> Effect A) but that still doesn't discount Cause A being the cause to the effect. A slippery slope fallacy is arguing for an effect by means of a causal chain wherein the causes are not supported.

Also SpikeySprinter, we're arguing for this (perhaps in the wrong thread) because it is a touchy subject and there are a lot of implications and arguments one can make in different directions. Your constant appealing to the constitution and your own beliefs provide no arguments to back up your statements, and you only come off looking ridiculous then when you criticize people for making actually valid arguments for their points on the basis that you believe in a premise with nothing to establish it.

And I'm anti censorship, but it's intellectually unreasonable to just make presumptions and discredit the use of debating and critically thinking/examining them.

[CanofEpicSauce]

Fox News will always be #1, because it tells the truth without this unprofessional Limey bullshit.

Really? Rea-Re REALLY?!

If you really look through Fox News' history, that comment could easily be proven wrong

VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG

Edited November 18, 2011 by CanofEpicSauce

[Biafra Republic]

Okay, here's my two cents on the whole stinking mess thus far:

The GOP, in no particular order:

John Huntsman: Aside from his Mormon faith handicapping him in the race (despite an ambivalence on religion and the presidency), his refusal to sink to the other candidate's level is hurting his chances even further. The latest polling shows Huntsman's days numbered, with 3% support.

Rick Perry: Where do I begin with this jackass? His jobs plan in Texas (hire more gub'ment workers) not only runs counter to the GOP line, but is also sadly unsustainable as well. His lapses recently on the campaign trail are certainly not helping either, and don't get me started on the hunting ranch. Sitting at around 6% in the polls, this is a clear indication that one brain-dead Texan in the Oval Office this political generation is enough even for the GOP.

Ron Paul: Another candidate sitting around 8% in the polls as well, Dr. Paul (he was a OB/GYN before entering politics) is to the Republican Party as Dennis Kucinich is to the Democrats: a far-out whackjob. Speaking of whackjobs, that brings us to...

Michelle Bachman: Tanking fast from an 8%, down to a 2%, the teabagging, birther, papers-please lady might also be making an early exit with Huntsman if she doesn't chill the fuck out pronto.

Rick Santorum: Largely panned as a joke candidate supported by pro-life Catholics unwilling to support a Mormon. Ironically, his support is tied with Huntsman's (above) at 3%.

Herman Cain: The Herman Cain Train seems to be going off the rails recently with the sex scandal, and his 9-9-9 plan offers nothing new (see FairTax on Wikipedia) and damages the middle class. His allure to the GOP seems to come (in my opinion) from some circles who want to split the black vote between Obama and Cain, though these plans may come to naught as the sex scandals unfold (or maybe not, stranger things have happened in elections past) as his support takes a dip to 15%.

Mitt Romney: The former Governor of Massachusetts is, like Huntsman, affected in his chances by his Mormon faith. However, his extra stumbling block is Massachusetts's own version of what conservative's deride as "Obamacare" and the legalization of gay marriage (both of which happened under his watch), which brand him as a 'liberal' candidate and will not make him many friends in the predominant conservative wing of the party. Still he goes doggedly on with 22% in the latest polling...

Newt Gingrich: Taking a page from President Obama's campaign in 2008, he has largely eschewed matching Federal campaign money, along with his sanity. The most vocal opponent of the Occupy movement, when not vacationing on his Greek yacht, he is supporting a revival of the 1994 "Contract with America" which brought in the GOP to ruin Washington politics as we know it. The current 'anti-Romney' leader, he is sitting at 23%, statistically tied with Romney.

On the Democratic side:

Barack Obama: While he stumbled some with his domestic policy, he clearly made a name for himself on the international stage, making a clear break in the latter from the international policies of former president George W. Bush. President Obama's approval rating might be low, but don't count him out yet.

[turbojet]

John Huntsman: Aside from his Mormon faith handicapping him in the race (despite an ambivalence on religion and the presidency), his refusal to sink to the other candidate's level is hurting his chances even further. The latest polling shows Huntsman's days numbered, with 3% support.

Another completely competent choice being undercut because he isn't a certain way.

Herman Cain: The Herman Cain Train seems to be going off the rails recently with the sex scandal, and his 9-9-9 plan offers nothing new (see FairTax on Wikipedia) and damages the middle class. His allure to the GOP seems to come (in my opinion) from some circles who want to split the black vote between Obama and Cain, though these plans may come to naught as the sex scandals unfold (or maybe not, stranger things have happened in elections past) as his support takes a dip to 15%.

I am sick, and I mean fucking sick, of this thinking. Instead of actually appealing to the group's desires as in dealing with the disproportionately high unemployment rate for them or the whole drug war, disenfranchisement issue, or welfare issues across state lines, these assholes just think that "well we can just pick a black candidate and not do a goddamn fucking thing for them." African Americans voted universally high for the Democrats when there were 2 white candidates and they would vote the same way for two black candidates because the democrats appeal to their issues and aren't as lethargic to them as republicans.

Newt Gingrich: Taking a page from President Obama's campaign in 2008, he has largely eschewed matching Federal campaign money, along with his sanity. The most vocal opponent of the Occupy movement, when not vacationing on his Greek yacht, he is supporting a revival of the 1994 "Contract with America" which brought in the GOP to ruin Washington politics as we know it. The current 'anti-Romney' leader, he is sitting at 23%, statistically tied with Romney.

Newt Gingrich is as pitiful as a candidate as one could get. This is nothing, but a desperate attempt of the right to get the guy who remotely resembles their politics as the candidate.

Barack Obama: While he stumbled some with his domestic policy, he clearly made a name for himself on the international stage, making a clear break in the latter from the international policies of former president George W. Bush. President Obama's approval rating might be low, but don't count him out yet.

I am not huge on Obama either and I am far fucking left. Obama just needs to act like a president and drop his literalist view of the Constitution. He needs to be assertive. He needs to read Article II and think "It doesn't say that I can't."

I am not angry because they might win. I am angry because how laughable the candidates are in a times of crisis.

Edited November 20, 2011 by turbojet

[Tornado]

No. Them being wrong takes care of that part quite nicely.

[Flyboy Fox]

Spiky, with all due respect, I cannot understand how anyone can honestly believe that Fox News is an unbiased bastion of truth. I enjoy being challenged by people with opposing views to my own, especially from the opposite side of the political spectrum... but you must understand how difficult it is to take you seriously when you assert that an incredibly openly right-biased media outlet is impartial and trustworthy. Both left and right are guilty of hyperbole and spin, I accept that, but you seem rather blind to it. It makes you come across as indoctrinated and that's a shame when there's a good old fashioned debate to be had.

[Tornado]

The only one who leans to remotely the same level as Fox is MSNBC, and no one watches MSNBC.

[Nepenthe]

They don't get demonized for having a bias. They get demonized for lying about having a bias and in effect lying about the scope of current events to a great deal of people, by pretending to be neutral when they really aren't, an act which is summed up nicely in their slogan: "Fair and Balanced." Being "fair and balanced" implies having some standards of impartiality in place, but if you're doing everything in your power to impart a neoconservative agenda on your audience, you're not being fair and balanced. Let them do as they please, but every time one of those primetime anchors falsely claims impartiality, they deserve a rhetorical curb-stomping from guests and from the public as well.

[Nepenthe]

I do wish they'd get rid of that slogan. They're not fooling anyone. It's embarrassing.

That's the thing: They've fooled enough people into actually believing that slogan that they've amassed the ratings to tote around as proof of their legitimacy, which is also illogical but w/e. Overall, there actually are some really good sources of news out there, such as Al Jazeera for example. Fox isn't one of them, and it's their chest-thumping even against the mounds of documented evidence and pure common sense that gets on most people's tits, not their inherent conservative leanings.

[SuperStingray]

The thing is Fox doesn't exactly LIE outright that often, but they do tell a fuckload of half-truths. The most outrageous one in recent memory was when that Norwegian terrorist hit the scene trying to spread a rightwing anti-Muslim message, Fox never denounced that course of action to their viewerbase, but essentially told them that just because this guy wasn't Muslim not to forget that there are terrorists who ARE Muslim. Considering the disproportionately large number of major liberal news organizations there are, I'm all for more conservative ones, but the least they can do is be responsible and accountable.

Depends on what you think is right and what you think is wrong. I don't care how big your text gets, you're not convincing me. Just because Jon Stewart and the rest of Hollywood tells you that they're wrong doesn't mean they actually are.

Edited November 21, 2011 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

The thing is Fox doesn't exactly LIE outright that often, but they do tell a fuckload of half-truths.

This or they only tell one side of the story/coin i.e the one that fits their political agendas.

Plus they have obnoxious hosts and talk shows.

[turbojet]

Omission of the truth is lying.

[Stacy]

American posters probably know this but Herman Cain has suspended his presidential campaign under allegations of sexual harassment and adultery.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cain-halts-white-house-bid-citing-false-allegations-035201636.html

Should of learned from ol' Bill!

[TheGerkuman]

I really hope that Cain endorses Romney over Gingrich. While I'd prefer Obama to stay (and maybe grow a pair instead of staying ineffectual), at least Mitt has sense.

[turbojet]

I really hope that Cain endorses Romney over Gingrich. While I'd prefer Obama to stay (and maybe grow a pair instead of staying ineffectual), at least Mitt has sense.

Maybe you don't understand the concept of endorsement.

Romney wants to win the election.

[Delta Starfire]

Omission of the truth is lying.

Agreed. Why else would you make any omissions if not to distort the truth? Lying by omission seems to be the modus operandi for Fox News, much of the time.

Personally, I would strongly recommend having a look at this channel on YouTube to anyone who is under any illusion that Fox News is either fair, balanced, or accurate. The channel's owner does come from a liberal leftist position (he makes no pretence otherwise), but his analyses of various reports on Fox News do not seem to be encumbered by that.

I'll be back later with some thoughts on the actual topic, probably.

[TheGerkuman]

Maybe you don't understand the concept of endorsement.

Romney wants to win the election.

Umm, doesn't endorsement generally mean that the Candidate is saying. 'Oi! All you people who were going to vote for me. Vote for him!'. Tends to give you more votes than having a controversial figure liking you, otherwise Obama would have been stymied by Hillary Clinton's endorsement.

[Nepenthe]

I think he's implying that being endorsed by a candidate that was as controversial and ignorant as Cain would actually cost Romney the election. xP

Now it seems Gingrich is the front runner, and that man incenses me. His stance on child labor laws and what it revealed concerning his views on lower class people (e.g., "they just don't work hard enough to be rich"), as well as the recent gaffe involving what constitutes lobbying or not makes my blood boil. However, I still wish him the best. At the very least, his continued support will create some good times, especially as the media starts digging into his history.

But I still wonder what Romney's chances are, though. The GOP is keeping up this game of hot potato- desperate for a candidate that will stick- and just completely ignoring the man in the process. At this rate, Bachmann and Santorum will be the front runners.

[Tornado]

Umm, doesn't endorsement generally mean that the Candidate is saying. 'Oi! All you people who were going to vote for me. Vote for him!'. Tends to give you more votes than having a controversial figure liking you, otherwise Obama would have been stymied by Hillary Clinton's endorsement.

When you get endorsed by a candidate pulling out of the election, you get their supporters and their detractors. Over the past couple weeks, Cain has lost nearly all of his support anyways, so all an endorsement would do is cause problems for whoever he endorsed. A similar thing happened when Bush was finishing up his presidency, because there was an internal email that got spread around regarding whether any of the GoP candidates wanted Bush to endorse them or if they would rather go it alone.

The situation with Hilary/Obama is different, because Hilary supporters were so pissed when she lost the primaries that they were threatening to vote Republican if Hilary didn't give him her endorsement.

[Delta Starfire]

When you get endorsed by a candidate pulling out of the election, you get their supporters and their detractors. Over the past couple weeks, Cain has lost nearly all of his support anyways, so all an endorsement would do is cause problems for whoever he endorsed. A similar thing happened when Bush was finishing up his presidency, because there was an internal email that got spread around regarding whether any of the GoP candidates wanted Bush to endorse them or if they would rather go it alone.

I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall to Bush endorsing McCain. Though I think Palin did far more damage to his campaign than an endorsement from Bush could have done...

The situation with Hilary/Obama is different, because Hilary supporters were so pissed when she lost the primaries that they were threatening to vote Republican if Hilary didn't give him her endorsement.

I remember that... Given that a lot of Hillary's supporters were women concerned with women's issues, that never made a lick of sense to me.

[Tornado]

I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall to Bush endorsing McCain. Though I think Palin did far more damage to his campaign than an endorsement from Bush could have done...

He did in the end, but there was a period of time (I believe it was about a month or so before the GoP chose McCain) where the Bush presidency was offering to stay out of the election completely for fears that it would derail whoever they endorsed by association. You are probably right that in the grand scheme of things Palin was something alone the lines of a gunshot wound compared to a paper cut for the McCain campaign, though.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Tornado

[Conando]

I didn't see anyone mention how Herman Cain had been quoting the Pokemon: The Movie 2000 theme song during his race. I think that adds to the absurdity of this whole Republican race even more. Newt Gingrich is going to win by default, and that's terrible.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I didn't see anyone mention how Herman Cain had been quoting the Pokemon: The Movie 2000 theme song during his race. I think that adds to the absurdity of this whole Republican race even more. Newt Gingrich is going to win by default, and that's terrible.

[turbojet]

He did in the end, but there was a period of time (I believe it was about a month or so before the GoP chose McCain) where the Bush presidency was offering to stay out of the election completely for fears that it would derail whoever they endorsed by association. You are probably right that in the grand scheme of things Palin was something alone the lines of a gunshot wound compared to a paper cut for the McCain campaign, though.

And the numerous white women that he slept with were something of a nuclear bomb.

Speaking of which, what is with pizza and politicians? Cain committed adultery numerous times in order to preserve his pizza establishment. Clinton started his affair with Monica when she delivered a pizza that he ordered. Hoes and pizza, man. Hoes and pizza.

Regardless, I am just waiting for Gingrinch to implode. The man was a notorious womanizer and something of chauvinist pig.

[SuperStingray]

I didn't see anyone mention how Herman Cain had been quoting the Pokemon: The Movie 2000 theme song during his race. I think that adds to the absurdity of this whole Republican race even more. Newt Gingrich is going to win by default, and that's terrible.

First of all, he didn't hear that song from Pokemon, he heard it from the 2000 Olympics; he only gave credit to it because several blogs like Kotaku called him out on it. Secondly, it doesn't matter where it came from- it's a good quote. For the record, I'm not siding with Cain, but I don't think that's something that should be held against him either.