The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Dizcrybe]

1 hour ago, TailsTellsTales said:

That came from the strong divide on democratic side during primary.

 

I know exactly where it came from; i's still an annoying hindrance that hurts us more than it helps.

[TailsTellsTales]

How do y'all feel about age discrimination against older people running for president? Older people "usually" have a deep well of wisdom that can be very useful for a job such as president. Unfortunately people seem to think older people are incapable of doing anything after certain age.

[GentlemanX]

Two of the most popular Democratic candidates right now are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden while the Republicans will back Trump. While I'm sure there is agism against older candidates, I don't think it's playing much of a role right now.

[Tornado]

That's... not age discrimination. The trend of trotting old white rich establishment politicians (who have usually already had a strong influence of their respective parties for decades) out as the leaders of the party hasn't been being met with increasing indifference from the electorate purely because of the "old" part.

[Dizcrybe]

14 hours ago, GentlemanX said:

Two of the most popular Democratic candidates right now are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden

Actually, Bernie Sanders is an Independent and always has been ever since he lost the 2016 primaries.

[Sokker]

On 11.2.2018 at 12:35 AM, GentlemanX said:

Two of the most popular Democratic candidates right now are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden while the Republicans will back Trump. While I'm sure there is agism against older candidates, I don't think it's playing much of a role right now.

Don't you mean Oprah too.

[Tornado]

Oprah needs to be a Democratic candidate before she can be a popular one.

[Chili Dawg]

Oprah should run, it would be a historic ocassion.

We'd have two consecutive presidents who have appeared on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

[TailsTellsTales]

I don't really like the idea of another billionaire vs billionaire type election even if Oprah does have good intentions.

[SSF1991]

On 2/12/2018 at 5:29 PM, TailsTellsTales said:

I don't really like the idea of another billionaire vs billionaire type election even if Oprah does have good intentions.

Not all rich people are automatically bad. If you're going to judge a candidate by the money in their wallets, rather than the goodness in their hearts, then you won't be satisfied with the idea of any type of elections.

It is inevitable that candidates will be rich in some way. Campaigns cost a ton of money. Either you rely on millions of dollars in donations, or you're rich. Otherwise, you won't be able to afford the campaign and must put it to an end.

[TailsTellsTales]

20 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Not all rich people are automatically bad. If you're going to judge a candidate by the money in their wallets, rather than the goodness in their hearts, then you won't be satisfied with the idea of any type of elections.

It is inevitable that candidates will be rich in some way. Campaigns cost a ton of money. Either you rely on millions of dollars in donations, or you're rich. Otherwise, you won't be able to afford the campaign and must put it to an end.

Well of course there are good wealthy people. However I still find it very wrong to have another billionaire candidate, not because of being evil, but because they are oblivious to the needs of working people and will only serve the rich. However again, FDR, if memory serves me right was rich too and actually did serve the working people interests. So I would love to be proven wrong but best bet is to get a regular candidate not bought by wall street which brings me to the next point.

Campaigns unfortunately do cost a lot which causes 3 scenarios to happen, either you must be already rich to help with campaign costs, depend on wall street money therefore becoming their puppet, or depend on small dollar donations from working people.

[SSF1991]

Quote

I still find it very wrong to have another billionaire candidate, not because of being evil, but because they are oblivious to the needs of working people and will only serve the rich.

How the hell does being a billionaire automatically mean they won't know the needs of working people? How does it automatically mean they'll only serve the rich? Again, you're judging people by the money in their wallets and not the goodness in their heart.

Ask "how did they get rich"? Did Wall Street give it to them? How about corporations, do they pay them? Does the NRA pay them? Were they born with it? Did they work hard and with good intentions to get it? Afterwards, see what they're doing with that money. Are they donating to charity? Are they only using it on themselves? Do they reek of corruption, and have a history of it? In fact, how much baggage do they have in the first place?

Rich people aren't always oblivious to the needs of working people. Loads of celebs support charities, get involved in good causes, and much more. Some of them are even part of the Resistance as we speak. Hell, there are even some companies that support Net Neutrality and are trying to help keep it. Just because you're rich, doesn't automatically mean you will only serve them. It depends on the person. Some do, some don't.

2 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

best bet is to get a regular candidate not bought by wall street

Yet, Oprah is not a "regular candidate" because she's "rich". Which is pretty much what you said. You just told, bluntly, that you don't like the idea of a "billionaire vs. billionaire" election "even if Oprah has good intentions". If someone has genuinely good intentions, then yes, that will get my attention.

[Tornado]

Ageism = bad. Class warfare = good.

[TailsTellsTales]

2 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

How the hell does being a billionaire automatically mean they won't know the needs of working people? How does it automatically mean they'll only serve the rich? Again, you're judging people by the money in their wallets and not the goodness in their heart.

Ask "how did they get rich"? Did Wall Street give it to them? How about corporations, do they pay them? Does the NRA pay them? Were they born with it? Did they work hard and with good intentions to get it? Afterwards, see what they're doing with that money. Are they donating to charity? Are they only using it on themselves? Do they reek of corruption, and have a history of it? In fact, how much baggage do they have in the first place?

Rich people aren't always oblivious to the needs of working people. Loads of celebs support charities, get involved in good causes, and much more. Some of them are even part of the Resistance as we speak. Hell, there are even some companies that support Net Neutrality and are trying to help keep it. Just because you're rich, doesn't automatically mean you will only serve them. It depends on the person. Some do, some don't.

Yet, Oprah is not a "regular candidate" because she's "rich". Which is pretty much what you said. You just told, bluntly, that you don't like the idea of a "billionaire vs. billionaire" election "even if Oprah has good intentions". If someone has genuinely good intentions, then yes, that will get my attention.

Because even if that person was poor before billionaire, they would have slowly forgotten what it was like to be poor and even still they would only remember what it was like to be poor during THEIR time and not in TODAY'S time which could be entirely different. But guess what? They definitely know the needs of the rich since they are one hence Donald Trump serving the rich heavily so far. Yes not everybody is like Donald Trump. But the point is the rich can not be trusted.

Most people who are rich were born into it so already your point is mostly invalid, but there are a nice chunk who did work hard for it. These are the people you could consider candidates for. Everybody knows there are wealthy people who do great things but the ones who do bad things have HUGE damaging effects to society.

Yes Oprah is not a regular candidate. Her intentions might be good but you're right, I can't trust her just because I feel she is probably out of touch with working people. I don't want to live in Oligarchy type country.

23 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Ageism = bad. Class warfare = good.

You mean classism I think it's called maybe. I like how people only say "class warfare" when it's working people and middle class trying to fight back against decades of ACTUAL class warfare by the wealthy. Yes whenever the wealthy does class warfare, these people are dead silent, but when the people being attacked fight back and ask the wealthy to pay a little more, it's class warfare. It's like older people fighting back to not be treated badly and then they get "ageism" thrown at them.

[SSF1991]

Quote

Because even if that person was poor before billionaire, they would have slowly forgotten what it was like to be poor and even still they would only remember what it was like to be poor during THEIR time and not in TODAY'S time which could be entirely different.

Now you're just making assumptions based on nothing. You don't just forget being poor. It's borderline traumatizing.

Quote

Most people who are rich were born into it so already your point is mostly invalid

And you know this...how?

No, it's not "mostly invalid". My point is to ask questions on that wealthy person, rather than just label them as "some rich, untrustworthy person". I asked much more than "are they born into it". Nit-picking 1% of my post doesn't make it "mostly invalid".

Quote

Everybody knows there are wealthy people who do great things

Okay then. So stop putting these people in the same area as the wealthy people who don't.

Quote

Her intentions might be good but you're right, I can't trust her just because I feel she is probably out of touch with working people.

She was born into poverty and remained so her entire childhood, as well as her entire teenage years. She was so poor that she was forced to wear potato sacks for dresses when she was a child. She didn't become a millionaire until she was 32. She was bullied in school, mostly due to her poverty, including in high school. She was molested when she was 9 by mutliple people, including her cousin and uncle. She ran away from home after "years of abuse" at the age of 13. She was pregnant when she was 14, and the child died after being born prematurely. She had a younger half-sister that died from a cocaine addiction at the age of 43, which was after Oprah became famous. She also had a half-brother that died to AIDS-related causes in 1989, and a second half-sister that was put up for adoption. She didn't even know about them until just 8 years ago.

She's credited for being a signifcant contributor of the tabloid talk show movement that helped bring LGBT people to the mainstream. She opposed the Iraq War, making an entire series in February 2003 that showed clips of people all over the world asking America not to go to war. She frequently used her show to address the problem of animal cruelty, and helped bring awareness to it. She's also against racism. She once said "You cannot be my friend and use [the N-word] around me. ... I always think of the...people who heard that as their last word as they were hanging from a tree". Oh yeah, and about that whole "only working rich people" thing... she once travelled to South Africa to raise awareness to young children suffering from poverty and AIDS, and did a Christmas 2004 special on it. She created a charity program called Oprah's Angel Network that lasted for over 20 years, which helped other charitable projects. 100% of the donations went to those projects. She paid all of the administrative bills herself. She even did a special called "Islam 101" in which she educated people on what Islam really is, that it's a symbol of peace and called it "the most misunderstood of the three major religions".

Meanwhile, you don't trust her "she's probably out of touch with working people". No. She is one of the working people. But, let me guess. None of that matters because "she's rich."

 

[TailsTellsTales]

4 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Now you're just making assumptions based on nothing. You don't just forget being poor. It's borderline traumatizing.

And you know this...how?

No, it's not "mostly invalid". My point is to ask questions on that wealthy person, rather than just label them as "some rich, untrustworthy person". I asked much more than "are they born into it". Nit-picking 1% of my post doesn't make it "mostly invalid".

Okay then. So stop putting these people in the same area as the wealthy people who don't.

She was born into poverty and remained so her entire childhood, as well as her entire teenage years. She was so poor that she was forced to wear potato sacks for dresses when she was a child. She didn't become a millionaire until she was 32. She was bullied in school, mostly due to her poverty, including in high school. She was molested when she was 9 by mutliple people, including her cousin and uncle. She ran away from home after "years of abuse" at the age of 13. She was pregnant when she was 14, and the child died after being born prematurely. She had a younger half-sister that died from a cocaine addiction at the age of 43, which was after Oprah became famous. She also had a half-brother that died to AIDS-related causes in 1989, and a second half-sister that was put up for adoption. She didn't even know about them until just 8 years ago.

She's credited for being a signifcant contributor of the tabloid talk show movement that helped bring LGBT people to the mainstream. She opposed the Iraq War, making an entire series in February 2003 that showed clips of people all over the world asking America not to go to war. She frequently used her show to address the problem of animal cruelty, and helped bring awareness to it. She's also against racism. She once said "You cannot be my friend and use [the N-word] around me. ... I always think of the...people who heard that as their last word as they were hanging from a tree". Oh yeah, and about that whole "only working rich people" thing... she once travelled to South Africa to raise awareness to young children suffering from poverty and AIDS, and did a Christmas 2004 special on it. She created a charity program called Oprah's Angel Network that lasted for over 20 years, which helped other charitable projects. 100% of the donations went to those projects. She paid all of the administrative bills herself. She even did a special called "Islam 101" in which she educated people on what Islam really is, that it's a symbol of peace and called it "the most misunderstood of the three major religions".

Meanwhile, you don't trust her "she's probably out of touch with working people". No. She is one of the working people. But, let me guess. None of that matters because "she's rich."

 

Great job. I did not know all of that. In that regard then yeah I can definitely give her a chance knowing she went through all that. No amount of time will make you forget that, but understand I can't help it if I don't trust rich people. I know some are good with nice intentions, it's the bad ones that are really awful. Remember it's these same wealthy people particularly CEOs making 300 times more than their average employee making poverty wages that they refuse to pay more. I find these people evil, wicked, and greedy. Anyway you did good job on proving point. If she runs for president and uses that experience than she should do nicely.

[SSF1991]

Quote

I did not know all of that.

Then you really should do research on stuff like this. I appreciate you admitting that you weren't aware of that (I don't think you realize how much I really do appreciate that), but I shouldn't be the one telling you these things. This is why I kept telling you to question who the person is, as well as their character, rather than judging what's in their wallet and assuming they shouldn't be trusted because of it. Doing the latter does no good.

Quote

understand I can't help it if I don't trust rich people. I know some are good with nice intentions, it's the bad ones that are really awful.

Yes, but we're not talking about the bad ones. They're out there. Plenty of them. And being rich doesn't exactly give me a good vibe, either. The bad wealthy people seem to be everywhere. But if there's one thing I've learned in the past few years, it's to never judge a book by its cover. There are good eggs out there. I just think the wealthy people who have good intentions, do genuinely care for working people, and do their best to help those who being discriminated and bullied shouldn't be labeled as "one of them" because they just happen to be rich too.

 

[TailsTellsTales]

59 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Then you really should do research on stuff like this. I appreciate you admitting that you weren't aware of that (I don't think you realize how much I really do appreciate that), but I shouldn't be the one telling you these things. This is why I kept telling you to question who the person is, as well as their character, rather than judging what's in their wallet and assuming they shouldn't be trusted because of it. Doing the latter does no good.

Yes, but we're not talking about the bad ones. They're out there. Plenty of them. And being rich doesn't exactly give me a good vibe, either. The bad wealthy people seem to be everywhere. But if there's one thing I've learned in the past few years, it's to never judge a book by its cover. There are good eggs out there. I just think the wealthy people who have good intentions, do genuinely care for working people, and do their best to help those who being discriminated and bullied shouldn't be labeled as "one of them" because they just happen to be rich too.

 

I definitely need to do research. And also I wasn't gonna lie. I definitely did not know that. You are right, it's wrong to judge and I'm definitely guilty of doing that in regards to wealthy running for office. I wish the good ones would be more heard because all we hear are the bad ones basically which effectively causes people to believe that all rich are evil and are trying to hurt everybody.

[Tornado]

10 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I like how people only say "class warfare" when it's working people and middle class trying to fight back against decades of ACTUAL class warfare by the wealthy. Yes whenever the wealthy does class warfare, these people are dead silent, but when the people being attacked fight back and ask the wealthy to pay a little more, it's class warfare. It's like older people fighting back to not be treated badly and then they get "ageism" thrown at them.

I like how you're so blatantly trying to change the subject here. That tells me that you do recognize the logical landmine that you stepped on, but are committed to going full speed ahead anyway. For the record, I can believe that things like the 2018 tax plan are not remotely sound financial policy without labeling it "evil and vicious" but still think that Trump himself only supported it to benefit himself and his buddies long term; so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth either.

 

 

 

And, no, when you phrase arguments the way you did it is called class warfare. You fucking said with a straight face "The rich cannot be trusted," as part of your tirade about why people like Oprah (who has spent her entire public life speaking out for the needs of ignored since she grew up dirt poor to know why she feels the need to do so now) shouldn't run for President because it's "very wrong" when she has an arbitrary dollar amount in her name that you don't like she has. That you did this on the same page where you blindly made a non-sequitur about how "younger people not wanting to repeatedly support the same candidates who have held court over the two parties for the past 20 years" is the same thing as "age discrimination" is simply icing on the cake.

[TailsTellsTales]

5 hours ago, Tornado said:

And, no, when you phrase arguments the way you did it is called class warfare. You fucking said with a straight face "The rich cannot be trusted," as part of your tirade about why people like Oprah (who has spent her entire public life speaking out for the needs of ignored since she grew up dirt poor to know why she feels the need to do so now) shouldn't run for President because it's "very wrong" when she has an arbitrary dollar amount in her name that you don't like she has. That you did this on the same page where you blindly made a non-sequitur about how "younger people not wanting to repeatedly support the same candidates who have held court over the two parties for the past 20 years" is the same thing as "age discrimination" is simply icing on the cake.

Most of the rich still can not be trusted. Look at what wall street greed did to the economy. They caused severe damage. Wealthy people priorities are very different from your everyday normal person. I am sorry if you did not experience damage from recession the way my family has, but that recession demonstrated that wall street is evil and that a majority of the rich can not be trusted but again does not mean they are all evil and can not be trusted as SSF1991 demonstrated.

[Candescence]

Your inherent distrust of rich people is irrational and baffling. Including Oprah, who is known to be an extremely generous woman who actively gets involved in charitable causes.

Hell, the Buffett Rule was named after Warren Buffett, basically the world's third wealthiest person, who proposed the idea himself after realising it was utter bullshit that his own secretary was paying more tax than he was. Though he is also a notable philanthropist himself.

[Dizcrybe]

9 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I am sorry if you did not experience damage from recession the way my family has, but that recession demonstrated that wall street is evil and that a majority of the rich can not be trusted but again does not mean they are all evil and can not be trusted as SSF1991 demonstrated.

First of all, I'm pretty sure the only people that didn't get hit hard by the recession were rich people, so this baseless assumption makes no sense. It's just that a lot of us have concluded that grouping every single person with a six-or-higher-figure salary into this cigar smoke-filled bubble called "the rich" so as to give us something to point our fingers at is a bit silly.

Second, do you realize what you're saying here? "Sure, some rich people can and have done good things, but these other rich people didn't so the rich are untrustworthy."

[TailsTellsTales]

3 hours ago, Candescence said:

Your inherent distrust of rich people is irrational and baffling. Including Oprah, who is known to be an extremely generous woman who actively gets involved in charitable causes.

Hell, the Buffett Rule was named after Warren Buffett, basically the world's third wealthiest person, who proposed the idea himself after realising it was utter bullshit that his own secretary was paying more tax than he was. Though he is also a notable philanthropist himself.

I apologize if it seems bafflable. What you say is strongly true.

2 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

First of all, I'm pretty sure the only people that didn't get hit hard by the recession were rich people, so this baseless assumption makes no sense. It's just that a lot of us have concluded that grouping every single person with a six-or-higher-figure salary into this cigar smoke-filled bubble called "the rich" so as to give us something to point our fingers at is a bit silly.

Second, do you realize what you're saying here? "Sure, some rich people can and have done good things, but these other rich people didn't so the rich are untrustworthy."

Let me change this up. As you know politicians are mainly purchased by wealthy individuals ever since citizens united ruling. Do wealthy people ever try to stop that? I do not know. I do know that whatever the wealthy wants, the government will give it to them even if a majority of the U.S. are against it because money equal control of politicians. Wall Street got a bail out twice. Regular people got nothing.

I say it again. I know not all rich are bad and some do really great things.

I did not always have this view and in fact I thought rich were regular people like everybody else, but when the recession came and I saw the effects, it changed how I view the rich big time. I hope that might help a little make sense of things. Of course if wealthy person came along and had strong economic platform, then yeah I give them chance.

[KHCast]

Is anyone else getting a bit tired of the endless cycle that goes with each shooting? It’s always the same arguments, anger, offense, etc, and ultimately nothing gets done and the next one happens. We’re already at 18 school shootings, and we haven’t even come to a agreement about homegrown terrorism being a threat. I mean this guy was a trump supporting bigot that threatens students and teachers and claimed all Muslims were going to bomb them. These aren’t just lightning in a bottle coincidences. I’m tired. This is just ridiculous. There’s always something wrong with how we discuss this. It’s too soon, we shouldn’t talk about the guns and instead only the mental illness of the shooter, and just accept that there’s nothing we can do regarding guns that doesn’t translate to “taking away my gun rights” to half the country.

[PaddyFancy]

Shootings > Injuries/Deaths > Thoughts & Prayers > Too soon to talk gun control > Shootings > Injuries/Deaths > Thoughts & Prayers > Too soon to talk gun control > Shootings > Injuries/Deaths > Thoughts & Prayers > Too soon to talk gun control > Shootings > Injuries/Deaths > Thoughts & Prayers > Too soon to talk gun control > Shootings > Injuries/Deaths > Thoughts & Prayers > Too soon to talk gun control...

Is it still too soon to talk about gun control after the Las Vegas shooting that was 4 months ago? Is it still too soon to talk about gun control after the Orlando nightclub shooting that was 18 months ago? Is it still too soon to talk about gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting 6 years ago? Is it still too soon to talk about gun control after the Columbine massacre 18 fucking years ago?