Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Hate to spoil your party, but most of these leaks are completely LEGAL!.

And if it's all kosher, then why aren't the leakers putting their name to it?  Instead we get "officials familiar with" or "sources say".

Maybe you say "but they'll get fired if they reveal who they are!"  They know they have no protection or justification for leaking these things.  This isn't whistleblower stuff; it's just smear.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

They do the same thing for a sports story.  "On condition of anonymity."  I don't see what the big deal is?  Hillary was sunk by the same nonsense that put Captain Orange in the White House.  What goes around, comes around.  This is the same President to lies day and night, and literally makes stuff up about people, such as questioning the prior President's birth certificate.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

In the latest reversal of campaign rhetoric, the Trump administration is not ending the DACA program.  "Dreamers" will continue to receive work permits and be protected from deportation.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Sorry for my late response. For some reason, I thought that summer would be the best time to build a retaining wall, so I've spent the past week outside all day and wanting to do as little as possible once I got inside. For the record, it's hot in Texas. Go figure.


Anyway...

No, not all of the leaks have been illegal. Some of them have been (even before Trump was President), and those people need to be thrown in prison. While other leaks may not be illegal, they should not be without consequences. People should be fired. And I'm not just talking about the lowly clerks who leak things to the press because they want to feel important, I'm talking about the high ranking officials who don't have the evidence that they wish they had to prosecute someone officially, so they decide to destroy them in the press instead. This is happening a lot with Trump.

As I've said before, I don't like Trump. If it comes time for him to get gone, so be it. However, I don't like being misled or blatantly lied to. I like facts, and people working for our government are supposed to be serving the people, not their own opinions and interests. When government are actively working to legitimize the President for no reason other than the fact that they think he's a creep, we have a problem. And it's not the President.

You say that Trump is a lame duck at this point. That may be true, but it's not something to celebrate, no matter how you feel about Trump. He can't get anything done because people don't like him as a person and they're throwing the most epic tantrum imaginable. This will cost us a lot of money. It will do harm to the American people. It could cost lives. This isn't the prom that we're talking about, it's the free world, at a time when there are a lot of bad people who want to kill as many of us as possible. And I'm not blaming the democrats for this. The republicans are equally to blame, if not more. Conservatives should be having a field day right now, but our own damn people are getting in the way of doing anything. The establishment republicans might as well be democrats at this point. They need to go.

A President shouldn't be able to do whatever they want without any question or debate. We've seen that happen in the past, and it usually doesn't result in a good outcome. Issues should be discussed and debated before they're voted on, and I'm not saying that Trump should be given a blank check. But the way this is happening is wrong. We have politicians working with the press to actively mislead (and by this I mean that they're blatantly lying to) the American people, not just about the issues, but about the President himself. At this point, the New York Times could publish a picture of Trump shooting an elderly woman and I probably wouldn't believe them, because they've lied too many times.

How is any of this productive? How is any of this good for us? Barack Obama was a self-absorbed idiot who did a lot of damage to this country, but we didn't see this level of effort going into destroying the office of the President in order to take down the man who was occupying it. The branches of the government are supposed to regulate each other, but they're not supposed to each work toward building their own shadow government.

And sorry, but this is nothing like Obama's birth certificate. Obama actively worked to keep his birth certificate from being released, despite many requests by people who had a right to confirm the eligibility of a man who has a pretty unique background when it comes to citizenship. John McCain had to show his birth certificate, and his citizenship was questioned as well, despite the fact that there really was no question about it. Obama could have put that issue to rest within a day, but it made for great press, painting his opponents as racist conspiracy theorists. That whole scandal was of Obama's making.


The system is a mess right now, and a lot of people want to put the blame for that on Trump. Sorry to say, but he (and his stupid twitter account) is probably the least of the problems that we're facing right now. People are trying to pin a lot of Hitler-y stuff on him, just to make the "rebellion" look less batsh*t crazy, but none of it holds water. And while they throw their tantrum, their followers are still assaulting people, burning things, tipping cars, and shooting up baseball fields. And I'm going to include that because you know that if that wacko had worked on Trump's campaign, he'd be forced to own that shooting.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

One of my favourite games is to keep track of the kinds of people Informant considers to be above reproach. You either have to be the laughingstock of American politics (Sarah Palin), a noted fraudster (James O'Keefe) and apparently, supporting moronic conspiracy theories of zero-evidence but plenty of hatred for black people is also an excellent way to win his approval.

And if you can also be an incompetent US President who blurts out classified information and thinks the best way to avoid obstruction of justice charges is to fire an FBI director in order to obstruct an ongoing investigation, Informant will claim all your problems are someone else's doing!

Leaks to the press are currently one of the few means of holding Trump accountable for his actions given his current hold of the White House, the Senate, Congress, the Department of Justice and his personal wealth. The press is one of the few avenues in which he does not have a high level of control. Furthermore, none of these leaks are in any way illegal because the information is not remotely classified. Is it a firing offense? Certainly. A criminal one? If it were, anyone angsting in a bar about a lousy day at work would be sitting behind bars.

Furthermore, Trump has confessed in one of his random outbursts that he fired the former FBI director to impede the investigation into suspected collusion with Russia. It is illegal to engage in obstruction of justice and to interfere with a criminal investigation regardless of being innocent of the suspected crime. The tradition of the White House and the FBI staying on separate paths is to prevent the executive branch from influencing the Department of Justice for the benefit of the executive branch because it can lead to criminal actions like curtailing proceedings that threatened the commander in chief's legal standing.

As for the complaint that people wanted to impeach Trump before he'd even been sworn into office -- part of it was indeed sour grapes and it'd be silly to think there wasn't a desire to impeach in advance of finding cause. But Trump's behaviour in his business dealings have largely been through fraud: encouraging investors to fund real estate deals designed to collapse with Trump taking their money and running, a fraudulent university, engaging the services of construction and law firms and refusing to pay.

Trump earned his fortune on cheating people and students of his past had a reasonable expectation that Trump take improper advantage of his presidency for personal gain on criminal terms

Shooting Republicans is wrong. Trying to run them off the road is wrong. I'm also uncomfortable with punching Nazis unless it's a time of war. However, it is intriguing that the people who cite acts of Liberal on Republican violence have next to no comment on the burst of hate crimes in the wake of a Trump presidency. The truth is likely a middle ground where anger and partisan rage against either side has led to people revealing their most hateful, volatile and aggressive instincts whether it's on one side or the other.

But regardless of where we stand politically, the US election was subject to a blatant attack on a democratic electoral system by a foreign power that did so to the benefit of a particular individual, possibly in tandem and possibly not, but the truth must be found because this isn't the end. The Russian administration will only increase and further advance their methods of interfering in the process of US government and the consequences will be severe for everyone whether we live in the States or don't. Like it or not, America has led civilization into freedom and progress for over 240 years and it must be defended and protected not just geographically, but ideologically, politically and therefore technologically. I'm not an American, but if you go down, we all go down.

A supposedly innocent President should welcome a full and invasive investigation in order to clear himself and his office, as opposed to firing the former lead investigator and hoping to fire the next one. It's not only the behaviour of a guilty man, it's arguably illegal if evidence can establish the intent to block the investigation. Mueller is a registered Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush as the sixth FBI director. He won universal acclaim from both parties upon his appointment and he should be encouraged to conduct his investigation and find the truth. A person who objects to his investigating Russian interference, potential collusion with Americans and the president obstructing justice is a person afraid of the truth.

The fact that Informant is against a full investigation of the Russian assault on the American electoral process and the potential involvement of the President makes me wonder if Informant loves America as much as he likes to say he does.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

One of my favourite games is to keep track of the kinds of people Informant considers to be above reproach. You either have to be the laughingstock of American politics (Sarah Palin), a noted fraudster (James O'Keefe) and apparently, supporting moronic conspiracy theories of zero-evidence but plenty of hatred for black people is also an excellent way to win his approval.

I think that there is a phantom me living inside your head. Because most of what you say about me isn't based on anything I've ever said. In fact, it often runs directly counter to what I've said.

Phantom Me stands behind you, whispering evil little things into your ear as you read my comments, giving you the impression that I'm saying them, even if it's not true. But hot-damn is Phantom Me starting to annoy the real me. Now he's a racist?! I fucking hate this guy!!! Can we ban him from the board or something?

And if you can also be an incompetent US President who blurts out classified information and thinks the best way to avoid obstruction of justice charges is to fire an FBI director in order to obstruct an ongoing investigation, Informant will claim all your problems are someone else's doing!

There are man reasons why Comey was fired, and many of them should have had him fired months ago. Some of them should now have him investigated for crimes. I'm not going to shed a tear for weasel. I know you love ignoring the misdeeds of anyone that sympathizes with your cause, but I'm not as easy to win over. Also, you love racists. 

Leaks to the press are currently one of the few means of holding Trump accountable for his actions given his current hold of the White House, the Senate, Congress, the Department of Justice and his personal wealth. The press is one of the few avenues in which he does not have a high level of control. Furthermore, none of these leaks are in any way illegal because the information is not remotely classified. Is it a firing offense? Certainly. A criminal one? If it were, anyone angsting in a bar about a lousy day at work would be sitting behind bars.

I've already said that not all of the leaks are criminal offenses. However, some of the leaks that have come out of this culture of leaky sources have been illegal.

If you think that Trump is currently commanding that much power, you are watching the wrong news. Seriously, even Grizzlor has referred to him as a lame duck president at this point, because the man can't get a second scoop of ice cream without it becoming a national scandal. Sorry, but you're projecting a Lex Luthor image onto him, and it doesn't really gel with reality (not Winner... just actual reality).

The press isn't holding Trump accountable for his actions. Oftentimes, they are making up the story and creating facts to back it up. There is a difference between reporting truth, and creating stories that will give the public the image of the truth that you want them to believe. How many people do you think even know what Russia did when they "interfered" in the election? Do you know?
And how man people believe that Trump was absolutely involved, despite having absolutely zero evidence? This is because of selective leaks of suggestive "facts", and the withholding of any information that wouldn't support the story.

Trump may not have control of the press, but they have lost their control as well. They're every bit as juvenile and insane with their reporting as Trump is with his Twitter account.


Furthermore, Trump has confessed in one of his random outbursts that he fired the former FBI director to impede the investigation into suspected collusion with Russia. It is illegal to engage in obstruction of justice and to interfere with a criminal investigation regardless of being innocent of the suspected crime. The tradition of the White House and the FBI staying on separate paths is to prevent the executive branch from influencing the Department of Justice for the benefit of the executive branch because it can lead to criminal actions like curtailing proceedings that threatened the commander in chief's legal standing.

Except that Trump wasn't under investigation... something which the leakers just happened to leave out of the newspapers. Comey (by virtue of being one of those leakers, which he has admitted) has misled the American people into believing something that he knew was not true. This is on top of his lying under oath about Trump being the only president that he ever felt a need to take notes about after meeting with him (references to such notes being written after meeting Bush are in the book "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency", released in 2009)

We did learn some interesting details about Comey's work under the previous administration, in regards to the Hillary Clinton investigation, but how much of that can be trusted? The man is a liar, with zero credibility. He absolutely deserved to be fired. And while I'm not sure that Trump can be found guilty of trying to put an end to an investigation into himself, which was neither taking place at the time, nor seems to be going away anytime soon, I'm sure that if he is guilty of trying to interfere with an investigation, he will pay the price for it. Just like all of the other presidents who have done such things... right?

Also, you love Sarah Palin. I don't know why, but you seem to really love her. A lot. It's not healthy.


As for the complaint that people wanted to impeach Trump before he'd even been sworn into office -- part of it was indeed sour grapes and it'd be silly to think there wasn't a desire to impeach in advance of finding cause. But Trump's behaviour in his business dealings have largely been through fraud: encouraging investors to fund real estate deals designed to collapse with Trump taking their money and running, a fraudulent university, engaging the services of construction and law firms and refusing to pay.

Trump earned his fortune on cheating people and students of his past had a reasonable expectation that Trump take improper advantage of his presidency for personal gain on criminal terms


Yup. He's not a man that I like. Still, I don't put the cart before the horse. Obama gave many people many reasons for wanting to get him out of office, but we still had to be realistic about it. I like to make jokes about the fact that he didn't even know how many states there were when he was running for office (he said it was he'd been to fifty-seven, with one more to go... Hawaii and Alaska. Seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws ) but I would have thought it was stupid to make an actual scandal out of it, the way "legit" news sources tried doing with Trump's Twitter spell check error.


Shooting Republicans is wrong. Trying to run them off the road is wrong. I'm also uncomfortable with punching Nazis unless it's a time of war. However, it is intriguing that the people who cite acts of Liberal on Republican violence have next to no comment on the burst of hate crimes in the wake of a Trump presidency. The truth is likely a middle ground where anger and partisan rage against either side has led to people revealing their most hateful, volatile and aggressive instincts whether it's on one side or the other.

The problem is that we have celebrities, journalists and even politicians urging violence. Who, on the right, has called for violence? And in regards to hate crimes, there is a lot to look at there. First of all, I know of several cases of hate crimes being reported and heavily covered in the media, only to turn out to be false in the end. So, just like with "cops kill black people!" outrage, I would have to look at each case individually.

What can I say about hate crimes under Trump? If there are more, I don't get it. Trump isn't saying anything racist or homophobic, and none of his policies have reflected any sort of hate. I don't get the connection between Trump and hate crimes.


But regardless of where we stand politically, the US election was subject to a blatant attack on a democratic electoral system by a foreign power that did so to the benefit of a particular individual, possibly in tandem and possibly not, but the truth must be found because this isn't the end. The Russian administration will only increase and further advance their methods of interfering in the process of US government and the consequences will be severe for everyone whether we live in the States or don't. Like it or not, America has led civilization into freedom and progress for over 240 years and it must be defended and protected not just geographically, but ideologically, politically and therefore technologically. I'm not an American, but if you go down, we all go down.

I agree. Russia needs to be stopped. Perhaps this problem wouldn't exist if Obama had taken the Russia threat seriously, instead of making a "The 80's called..." joke when Romney brought it up, but here we are. It's a problem. It needs to be dealt with. But instead of dealing with the Russians, the focus is on our own President, who was legally elected, since there is zero evidence of actual voter fraud. The Russians released incriminating information about the democrats (who were themselves trying to manipulate the election). What Russia did was wrong and should be dealt with. But... the democrats were also really wrong there and still deserved to lose. As of right now, there's more to incriminate Hillary of trying to sway the election than there is Trump, but nobody is mentioning that.



A supposedly innocent President should welcome a full and invasive investigation in order to clear himself and his office, as opposed to firing the former lead investigator and hoping to fire the next one. It's not only the behaviour of a guilty man, it's arguably illegal if evidence can establish the intent to block the investigation. Mueller is a registered Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush as the sixth FBI director. He won universal acclaim from both parties upon his appointment and he should be encouraged to conduct his investigation and find the truth. A person who objects to his investigating Russian interference, potential collusion with Americans and the president obstructing justice is a person afraid of the truth.

As I've said before, there are many reasons why Comey deserved to be fired. Trump firing him in order to end an investigation into himself, which wasn't taking place when Comey was in office... doesn't make sense.

I'm concerned with finding the truth. I want to know if Trump did something wrong. However, I don't want a witch hunt. I don't want to waste time and money, just so the press can keep spinning out Trump-bashing stories about something that they have no evidence of. When did it become wrong to want actual information before drawing conclusions?


The fact that Informant is against a full investigation of the Russian assault on the American electoral process and the potential involvement of the President makes me wonder if Informant loves America as much as he likes to say he does.


I'm not opposed to an investigation into the Russian assault on the American electoral process. And if that investigation turns up evidence that Trump was involved, boot his ass out of office, by all means. But right now, everyone is playing that Dr. Google game, where they read a bunch of random symptoms that sound vaguely similar the the itch they have on their ass, and decide that they have incurable cancer before they so much as schedule an appointment with an actual doctor. It's hysteria, and I'm not going to feel bad for not jumping into that.

If these Trump-hating investigators had some damning information that linked Trump to the Russians, we would know about it by now. They're not great at keeping secrets. Or, they would do their job and go through official channels, in which case they wouldn't need to schedule a clandestine meeting with a NYT reporter every time Trump takes an incredibly suspicious piss.


I love my country. It's the greatest country on the planet. And from where I'm standing, the people who are crapping all over this great nation are the people who are willing to destroy the system that has made us great, just because they don't want to end their truly epic post-election tantrum.

An I don't know what your obsession with Dick Cheney is, but your fanboy drooling over his time as VP is both disturbing and, frankly, inappropriate.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Red Pill. Anyone seen it?

For those who don't know, it's a documentary made by a woman, Cassie Jaye, who came into the project as a feminist who had read some bad things about the men's rights movement, and she set out to investigate. As she made the movie and spoke with several of the activists, as well as feminists and other people, and as she did research into specific issues and cases, Cassie began to question her own beliefs, and while she still believes in a lot of equality issues, she no longer calls herself a feminist.

The movie has been getting a lot of attention lately, both good and bad (depending on who you're reading/watching/listening to). I happened across an interview with Ms. Jaye, from Australia ( https://youtu.be/xvLsslFEv7k ) which I thought was really frustrating to watch, because the interviewers had refused to watch the movie (despite their comments in the interview, Jaye has proven that the full screener was sent to the interviewers three times over the course of about a month, as well as being available on sites like Google Play, etc), yet they were criticizing her approach to making the movie. She was constantly telling them that she had addressed their points in the film, but they kept pressing the matter as though she hadn't... all without having seen the movie.

I see this all over the place, and not just with politics. People comment on issues, or TV shows, or movies, or articles, all without having actually looked at the piece itself. They base their opinions on preconceptions and third-party talking points, and then argue those opinions to the death. It annoys the crap out of me, which is why I have a general policy against criticizing things that I haven't personally looked into/watched/read/etc. (there is a lot of criticism of The Handmaid's Tale now, but I haven't seen it, so I won't criticize it... but I do plan to sit down and watch it when I get some time. I did the same with Dear White People a while back.)

So, I saw that the movie was available on Amazon Prime. I have Prime, so I decided to take the couple of hours to sit down and watch the movie. I wanted to see what was so scary and offensive about what Ms. Jaye was saying.

The movie is actually really interesting. It says a lot of stuff that I've known for a long time. There's no support for men who are sexually assaulted or who are victim of domestic violence. I've read stories where the police will actually laugh at the men who seek help. I've looked up the statistics on male rape in the past... basically, none of the major points were really news to me. I don't necessarily agree with everything that the men's rights activists say (I have no problem with a policy of women and children first in an emergency, and I don't want women drafted into combat situations... though I probably wouldn't mind them being drafted for other wartime roles. Stuff like that), and I don't know that Jaye did either. However, I found her personal journey throughout the making of the movie to be really interesting. You can see legitimate change coming over her as she actually talks to people, from both sides.

The thing that is annoying is the concept that in order to give an inch to one person/group, you must take away from someone else. This is all over the place in our culture. There are no shades of gray. There is no nuance of opinion. History is often more processed than canned cheese products. I don't buy into this. I don't think that in order to want to help female victims of domestic violence, you must turn a blind eye to the male victims.

There's this thing with the Black Lives Matter movement, where if you don't support #BlackLivesMatter, you are a racist. If you say that all lives matter, or that police lives matter, you are a racist. However, Black Lives Matter isn't a simple sentiment, it's an organization. It's an organization that has proven to be racist, divisive and violent. So while I might believe that black lives matter, I don't support Black Lives Matter. However, that distinction will have me labeled as a racist, alt-right, neo-whatever.

I've even seen this pop up with stupid TV show or movie arguments. It's not just politics.

At some point, the groups, which essentially becomes competing teams, cause more harm than good. Gender equality shouldn't be about supporting one and bringing down another.

An interesting part about the movie was in watching the different approaches that interviewees took. The men's rights people (often considered to be the evil, sexist ones) were basically just fighting for causes like custody rights, support for male victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, and stuff like that. Meanwhile, the feminist interviewees were fighting against the men's rights people, insisting that they were the hateful, sexist ones, while those men never actually wanted to take anything away from women.


You will tell me that the documentary was obviously skewed, and you're right. Documentaries are all skewed, and all have a message that they're trying to get across (though several of the points they made can be backed up with my own experiences and observations). The thing that made this one interesting for me to watch was the journey for Cassie Jaye herself, who didn't come into this planning to change her own beliefs. Her history shows us that she's not some wacky conservative stooge. And I think that ultimately, the point of the movie isn't about men's rights or anti-feminism. It's about what happens when you stop being defensive, and make an honest attempt to understand the other side of an issue (even if you don't agree with them).

You don't have to be anti-women's rights in order to be pro-men's rights. You don't have to support everything these groups say in order to agree on certain points. You don't have to take from group A in order to give to group B. This has always been my point of view, which is why I don't talk about "cops killing black people" as much as I talk about specific cases, or why I don't support politicians as much as I support points of view (and believe me, the republicans are pissing me off plenty right now).

I see a lot of very angry people who are totally incapable of explaining why they're spewing venom and breaking windows. At some point, it stopped being about any real point of view and started being about whose team can scream the loudest.


Anyway, good movie. Definitely more relevant to politics than to a normal status update or random thought, so I posted it here.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Are you god-damn serious? Are you sincerely asserting that the men's rights movement is an effort to cast attention towards male victims of sexual assault? As opposed to what it actually is -- a movement of misogyny and rape culture designed by people who either perpetrate acts of prejudice and violence towards women or feel disinclined to consider how half the population is marginalized and mis-used simply for being born with a different chromosome.

A movement that dismisses and denies the harassment and mistreatment women suffer constantly in order to cast its own proponents as victims. A movement that has been completely exposed as people who hate women trying to achieve social legitimacy but largely deals in threatening to rape and kill women who demand equality. Even for someone who claimed that people who find Trump's racist remarks offensive can't unfiltered conversation, endorsing the men's rights movement is a pretty sad step downward.

And anyone who is proud to not be a feminist is simply sick in the head. To steal from Aziz Ansari, if you believe that men and women should be equal, then you have to identify as a feminist. A medical practitioner who addresses ailments of the teeth can't protest that calling him a dentist is too aggressive and forward a term.

This has got to be a joke. This has got to be a phishing endeavour. Clearly, Sliders.tv's old nemesis, Transmodiar, has hacked Sliders.tv's forum, co-opted Informant's account and posted a message where Informant declares his support for men's right activism and spoken out against feminism. Holy crap, Matt. I realize you were irritated that I would run nonsensical SLIDERS plots past you just to get a dumbfounded reaction to post on the Bboard, but you've gone too far this time.

... I guess I'll watch THE RED PILL next weekend.

729 (edited by Informant 2017-06-25 21:34:42)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, you get an A+ for saying exactly what you're supposed to say.

The problem is that you didn't actually read what I wrote or respond to what I said. You saw keywords, which triggered pre-programmed responses, filled with lots of flashy words and phrases which have probably been put through hundreds of focus groups on Madison Avenue, but which don't really apply to the conversation at hand. You don't have opinions, you have algorithms. And to top it all off, you demonstrated what I actually did say perfectly.

If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I was talking about the fact that people don't even listen to what the other side says, and this is the problem with our culture. What I was saying was that the movie highlighted the fact that you can agree with a little bit of what someone says without agreeing with everything they say. You would have seen that I specifically stated that I don't agree with everything that the men's rights people said in the movie, but I did agree with some of it. (mostly based on years of my own research, not any group website or slogan)


____ from this point on, I'm just responding to you. None of this is even what I was talking about in my original post ___

You also contradicted yourself. If I must consider myself a feminist because I believe that a woman should have the right to work or vote, or whatever, then you too must be a men's rights activist if you believe that a woman shouldn't be allowed to beat the shit out of a man without facing any legal ramifications. If men's rights groups are perpetuating rape culture, then the women who deny the significant number of male victims of sexual assault would also be guilty of perpetuating rape culture.

But of course, rape culture isn't really about all rape against all people. It's about certain kinds of rape, committed against the right kinds of people.

By your own standards, you are a hypocrite. But, good news! By my standards, you're not! By my standards, you don't have to label yourself a feminist or a men's rights activist just because you believe in some common-sense issues that they put on their posters. Neither of these things are philosophies, they are organizations. Much like cults, they use the sensible, common-sense ideas to draw people in, and the next thing you know, they're using you to march in favor of Sharia Law (guess which group did that... seriously, guess). Feminism is just another means by which people can be grouped together, for easier herding. And this is why I'm not a feminist, nor a men's rights activist, nor a black lives matter activist, nor a Tea Party activist, nor a member of any other organization that will pin my name to whichever belief they feel like supporting at any given moment. I don't even belong to a church because I got tired of this crap. I don't even have a real political label... I'm certainly not a republican. I call myself a conservative, but I also have libertarian views on some subjects.

I don't get how liberals can believe in a hundred and fifty genders, but their view of complex issues is so incredibly binary.

No, I'm not a feminist. I don't give a crap what some half-rate comedian declares to be true. Seriously, why are liberals taking all of their life philosophies from comedians these days? Y'all are following the court jester into battle there.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree that I said exactly what I should say -- that the men's rights movement is composed largely of men who are upset that oppressed women are finding voices and agency. Upset that abusive men can't as easily get away with the harassment and mistreatment that they have customarily inflicted upon women. This latest attempt at re-branding men's rights as a social justice movement defending the innocent is the equivalent of hiring a serial arsonist to be a fire fighter. A movement based on reclaiming the male privilege of immunity in assaulting women is incapable of addressing the plight of male victims.

Oh, good lord, THE RED PILL's star subject is Paul Elam. I've changed my mind, I don't have time to watch THE RED PILL because I've spent quite enough time reading the words of Paul Elam, a lunatic who spews hate speech such as declaring that all rapists should go free, blaming rape victims for being assaulted and declaring that Asian women must never be trusted and other horrific garbage.

This has got to be a joke, right? Transmodiar, this is you pranking me, isn't it?

I'd just like to add that Informant's views are always welcome here and I don't respond to argue as much as not wanting the internet to think Sliders.tv is entirely a band of alt-right Trump supporters. We're home to lots of strange people including this one crazy person who considers Quinn Mallory a 90s era Jesus and that eunuch who asked us to advise him on his girl problems.

(It wasn't weird that he was a eunuch; it was weird that he would ask US for relationship advice, a proposition that at the time was asking the blind to lead the blind.)

731 (edited by Informant 2017-06-26 23:12:38)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I agree that I said exactly what I should say -- that the men's rights movement is composed largely of men who are upset that oppressed women are finding voices and agency. Upset that abusive men can't as easily get away with the harassment and mistreatment that they have customarily inflicted upon women. This latest attempt at re-branding men's rights as a social justice movement defending the innocent is the equivalent of hiring a serial arsonist to be a fire fighter. A movement based on reclaiming the male privilege of immunity in assaulting women is incapable of addressing the plight of male victims.

I'm no expert on the whole system or how it works. I'm not a part of it, nor is Cassie Jaye. I know what she spoke to Men's Rights Activists about in her film, and I agree with a lot of it, but disagree with some of it. I also know that there isn't one "men's rights movement", so when you say that it's made up of a bunch of crazies, you're going to have to specify which group you're talking about. I know there's a Reddit group that sounds crazier than other groups.


Oh, good lord, THE RED PILL's star subject is Paul Elam. I've changed my mind, I don't have time to watch THE RED PILL because I've spent quite enough time reading the words of Paul Elam, a lunatic who spews hate speech such as declaring that all rapists should go free, blaming rape victims for being assaulted and declaring that Asian women must never be trusted and other horrific garbage.

No, Paul Elam is not the star subject. You need to stop getting all of your information from angry articles that have obvious bias. Elam was interviewed, but it was just on of many people interviewed. Jaye did not ask him many hard hitting questions, but she also didn't do that with the feminists that she interviewed. She took the approach of letting them speak for themselves, which I think works best for a documentary. It's not a hard-hitting interview.

That said, when it comes to Elam's comments that you mentioned about, one of four things is happening:

1. You are willfully misrepresenting what the man was trying to say.
2. I am looking at the wrong videos/articles written by him (I only looked at two of the three that you mentioned, due to lack of time and my back killing me)
3. You're getting your information about these comments from third or fourth hand sources who are distorting what he said in order to misinform people.
4. This is like one of those optical illusions where we can look at the same thing but see totally different pictures.

In regards to Asian women, the video that I watched with Elam had him responding to comments made by some rather stupid sounding men in his comments section, where they declare that they're going to go get them some Asian women, because they're more submissive. Elam spoke about how there are basic cultural differences when it comes to relationship dynamics in some areas of Asia, which mean that these men might be expecting a 1950's American wife, but that's not what they'll be getting. He also spoke to the fact that those cultures are changing, so these men could very well end up with a radical feminist. And he said that anyone wife that you get from shopping around on the internet is probably going to be a bad idea (typically, we refer to Russian mail-order brides, not Asians, but I guess it's the same concept). The moral to his video was that these people need to stop being stupid and be realistic about women. You find a mate by meeting people and getting to know them.

And in regards to "all rapists should go free" thing... not remotely what you said it was, if the article that I looked at was correct. It was an article discussing how many men have been cleared of rape charges since their DNA could be checked against evidence, and how there are an alarming number of false allegations of rape around the country. There are also laws that are meant to protect victims of rape from further stress, but these laws are sometimes used to prevent relevant evidence from being seen, and often present the man accused as being guilty in the courtroom, despite the fact that he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

He talked about how this is an incredibly complicated subject, but if you are on a jury and can't be sure that you are being given all of the information needed to decide a case, how are you supposed to decide that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

And... that's a good point. Sorry, but it is. We've had a shit-ton of rape allegations that have been proven false, and in most of those cases, the life of the man (or men) accused is still ruined. This is a very, very complicated subject because nobody wants to do more harm to a victim, but we also can't work under the assumption that the person that is being accused is actually guilty until a verdict is reached. Which means that any action taken against the accused in order to shield the accuser is going to be biased.

The article was written with a deliberately startling concept, but it wasn't presented a great option. It was presented as a need for a real examination of this issue to take place, because a lot of officials are more interested in getting a conviction than getting the truth.


So, did I read the wrong article and watch the wrong video? Or did you get your impressions from articles written about the comments? Or do you look at the same thing as me and just see something completely different? Because I'm sure as hell not a supporter of rapists, and I have no dog in this race of feminists vs. men's rights activists. I'm sure there are plenty of loons on both sides. So... I don't get where you're coming from here. If you wouldn't mind making some actual comments about the issues, rather than vague references to things that don't seem to fit what you're saying, maybe I could see your view more easily. (I realize that that sentence could be read as snarky, but I didn't mean it to be snarky)

This has got to be a joke, right? Transmodiar, this is you pranking me, isn't it?

I'd just like to add that Informant's views are always welcome here and I don't respond to argue as much as not wanting the internet to think Sliders.tv is entirely a band of alt-right Trump supporters. We're home to lots of strange people including this one crazy person who considers Quinn Mallory a 90s era Jesus and that eunuch who asked us to advise him on his girl problems.

I'm not alt-right. Nor am I a Trump supporter.

(It wasn't weird that he was a eunuch; it was weird that he would ask US for relationship advice, a proposition that at the time was asking the blind to lead the blind.)

Maybe I should write an erotica trilogy based on that experience...


Or not.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Why am I getting dragged into this? What did I do to deserve it?

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Transmodiar, you are public enemy number one of this Bboard, I should at least get a few laughs out of it.

**

In the past, due to Informant's comments asking me to try to see things from his end, I've read PRIMETIME PROPAGANDA  in which Ben Shapiro asserts that TV shows featuring gay characters and a belief in equality and tolerance for difference indicates hostility towards Republicans (whom he apparently considers against truth and justice). I've rewatched Sarah Palin's interviews and James O'Keefe's videos and these people come off as alternatively deceitful or deranged with their only redeeming virtue being that they claim to be on Informant's end of the political spectrum. 

Long before this thread, I encountered Elam's hate speech. One of Elam's more disturbing essays includes the view: "I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED. They are freaking begging for it. Damn near demanding it."
https://www.scribd.com/document/2346962 … ce-for-Men

I just don't have anymore energy left to look into Informant's experts of choice. And I am not watching a documentary that tries to legitimize this man nor would I trust his statistical analysis of rape reports. I'm also not going to worry about convincing Informant. I just want it on the record that I consider Paul Elam a women-hating loon and I cannot stress enough in the name of all that is holy that Informant's views do not represent the views of Sliders.tv.

Informant's opinions are welcome here; I just don't want them mistaken for a Bboard consensus. Not that there is a consensus. I mean, we can't even agree on the correct episode order for Season 2.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Transmodiar, you are public enemy number one of this Bboard, I should at least get a few laughs out of it.

103 posts in two years. Public enemy number one. I must be doing something right (wrong?).

Can we at least all agree that "As Time Goes By" was not the season two finale?

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I can't agree with that. You are free to watch it in production order, of course, but I feel that "As Time Goes By" is, as Ian McDuffie put it, the unplanned series finale of SLIDERS.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

In the past, due to Informant's comments asking me to try to see things from his end, I've read PRIMETIME PROPAGANDA  in which Ben Shapiro asserts that TV shows featuring gay characters and a belief in equality and tolerance for difference indicates hostility towards Republicans (whom he apparently considers against truth and justice). I've rewatched Sarah Palin's interviews and James O'Keefe's videos and these people come off as alternatively deceitful or deranged with their only redeeming virtue being that they claim to be on Informant's end of the political spectrum.

And again, I'm not a follower of any one of these people. I agree with some of their points, and I think that it's somewhat amusing that you easily dismiss O'Keefe for not being legitimate in your eyes, while constantly relying on distorted media reports that lie on a regular basis. As with anything, my belief is that you take in the information and process it accordingly.

Long before this thread, I encountered Elam's hate speech. One of Elam's more disturbing essays includes the view: "I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED. They are freaking begging for it. Damn near demanding it."
https://www.scribd.com/document/2346962 … ce-for-Men

Yup, and that's a douche-y essay that he wrote. I won't disagree with that. However, you were misrepresenting the other comments that he made, and I don't see anything to be gained by blindly believing in false claims.

I just don't have anymore energy left to look into Informant's experts of choice.

You seem to not get me on a very fundamental level. My expert of choice is me. I listen. I read. I think. I draw my conclusions. You keep saying that I follow this person or that I believe that that person is beyond reproach. And while I might be a fan of someone in the same way that I might enjoy an author or actor, I am not a follower of anyone. I have never said or believed that anyone was beyond reproach.

The problem that I'm having here is that you claim to keep looking into all of these different sources, to try to get a grasp of what I believe, and yet you are constantly ignoring the words that I type myself. My actual beliefs and opinions. Stop looking to understand my by listening to someone else. I'm right here. Listen to what I say and ask me what I think, and that's how you'll understand where I come from.


And I am not watching a documentary that tries to legitimize this man nor would I trust his statistical analysis of rape reports. I'm also not going to worry about convincing Informant. I just want it on the record that I consider Paul Elam a women-hating loon and I cannot stress enough in the name of all that is holy that Informant's views do not represent the views of Sliders.tv.

And this is what you do. You create the story, and then rebel against what you've created. I've told you that the movie doesn't focus on Elam. It's not about Elam. He is one person of many, from both sides of the spectrum. The movie has many people, talking about many aspects of the men's rights issues. It is not about women, or feminism at all, and it's kinda arrogant for the feminists who are protesting the movie to think that everything a man thinks must revolve around them.

My original post said that the main takeaway from the movie, for me, was in seeing what happens to a person when they are just willing to listen to what the other side has to say, instead of being defensive and feeling as though they are trying to take something away from you. It's something that is sadly missing in our culture, and you're demonstrating that in this thread.

You don't want to watch the movie, not because you think it is trying to legitimize Elam or rape culture or whatever. You don't want to watch the movie because you're happy to live in the Matrix.


You are so dismissive of all of the issues raised by anyone who speaks out for men's rights, and it doesn't make sense. Let's say that Elam is an extremist who hates women. You use that to dismiss every point that might be raised in the movie. However, you insist that I *must* identify as a feminist if I believe that women should be able to vote and work. You are telling me to disregard the women who say that all men should be killed or castrated. You're telling me to ignore the women who believe that a male's instinct is to rape and that boys must be taught how to not be rapists. You're telling me to ignore people who say that a woman is allowed to beat the shit out of her spouse, and if he pushes back to defend himself, *she* is the victim.

If Elam is wrong (which he is) and evil for saying what he said about women begging to be raped, then every woman who says that all men are rapists are just as wrong. If the entire topic of men's rights must be dismissed because Elam is a nutter, then feminism must be dismissed because of those women. This is your own logic.


Again, I am not a men's rights activist. I do not associate with any of those groups, just as I do not associate with feminist groups. I agree with some of their causes, as I agree with some women's causes. I am not a fan or a follower of Paul Elam. I didn't know who he was a week ago, and now that I've gone over some of his work, I'm still not a huge fan. But that doesn't mean that I don't agree with him on some of the issues, or that I'm going to nod along with everyone who misrepresents what he's said.


Watch the friggin movie. If I can get through ten episodes of Dear White People, you can get through two hours of a movie that was produced by a feminist who came at the project with the same mindset that you have right now. I promise you, nobody is going to try to convince you that rapists should go free or that women are asking for it. At best, you might agree with some of what's said. At worst, you'll at least be able to discuss the movie from an informed position. We need to get over this mentality that it's either/or. If you truly believe in equality between the genders, then you should be open to listening to both genders. Unless you're just assuming that any man who has a concern of his own is automatically an anti-woman loon. And that would be sexist.

I watched episode one of The Handmaid's Tale today, by the way. It was infuriating.



This is actually an interesting topic. On YouTube, there are a few feminist SJW types who have been attacked recently, by their own side. It's not because they changed their views of the world or because they've given up on women's rights. The thing that has changed is that they're actually engaging in conversations with the other side and listening to what the other side is saying. They're not assuming that the other side is the enemy, and because of that, they're able to find some issues that both sides can actually agree on. It's the team mentality that keeps people fighting. It's the idea that if you agree with them, you're taking points away from us. It's a ridiculous notion, but it is the driving force behind so much of our culture's interaction these days.

The only thing that would keep people from engaging in conversation is the fear that they might learn something that they didn't know before or change a belief that they hold. That fear is irrational, and just keeps people more divided.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I got it! I know how to explain it! Finally!

Think of world views as Sliders. Yes, I identify as a fan of Sliders, however, my actual position is much more nuanced than that. I am a fan of some episodes, but probably not a fan of most episodes, and saying that I'm a fan of Sliders technically puts me in the same corner as some people that I'd rather not be associated with. So saying that I'm a fan of Sliders could lead people to a lot of wrong conclusions about my tastes in general, while still being a true statement. The only way to actually know what I think on the specific Sliders-related issues would be to ask me.

And Jerry O'Connell would be a good representation of politicians and commentators. While I generally think he had the talent to be on the show, I do not always support the way he behaved while working on the show, the character choices that were made, and even today... Jerry kinda annoys me. His sense of humor reminds me of one of those embarrassing dads who is always trying to be "on" and funny, but just comes across as lame. Seems like a nice guy and he appears to have embraced the Slider within, but there's just something that irritates me when I'm watching him on talk shows.

In general, my views tend to be all shades of gray, rather than the on/off switch approach that is so popular today.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Changing gears a little bit.  I understand why people laugh at Donald Trump.  I get why they're embarrassed of him. What I don't get (and what I'm having a harder time getting the more he's president) is why people are *afraid* of him.

From what I've heard, he's functionally illiterate.  He comes off as childish and, frankly, dumb.  He's been unable to pass any meaningful legislation and fundamentally threw away his most important 100 days in office.  This all with a supermajority in both the Senate and the House.  He might appear to be a fascist, but he has none of the other traits of one.  A fascist would've taken complete control of the situation and passed all sorts of crazy laws.  Putin took complete control of Russia in the six months that Trump's been given.

Even some of the weird/scary stuff (like removing journalists from briefings and barring cameras) seems more about embarrassment than power (the briefings became a laughing stock so the administration is trying to spare itself of more public ridicule).

Where you might get me is stuff on the international stage.  But even then, Trump is a child, but there are other grownups around.  If North Korea decided to go crazy, there are people in charge of other powerful nations that could do something about it (I've always maintained that the US isn't the right country to deal with them, anyway - it's China).  Same with Syria.  Same with Russia.  Unless Putin decides, for some reason, that he wants to die, then nuclear war is pointless for him.  It doesn't accomplish anything for him.

He's a childish, immature, possibly illiterate moron.  He's a bad president.  He's an embarrassment to the country.  But we've had childish presidents and immature presidents and illiterate presidents and bad presidents.  We've had embarrassing presidents.  The US has gotten through it, and I don't see any reason the country can't get through this one.

And outside of some executive order and whatever garish stuff the next president has to redecorate around, I don't even think there's gonna be much cleanup.  He's accomplished virtually nothing.  All the damage, for the most part, is psychological.  And we're *great* at dealing with that smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's a story. Honestly, that's it. It's a story that was created by all sorts of activists and journalists, and each added something new before passing it on. Trump's a rapist! Trump's a sexist! Trump's a racist! Trump's a Russian spy! Trump's a homophobe!

Flashback to:

The primaries. There were about seventeen thousand republican candidates. Most of them were probably more capable of doing the job of President (there are one or two that I'd put at about Trump's level). Most of them could be mature, but strong. Most could work with the other side, while not betraying what the people elected them for in the first place.

But what fun was that? None. A bunch of old white dudes (ignore the black guy, the woman and the hispanics, who count as white in certain situations anyway) are boring! And what's worse, they're the kind of boring that could actually beat Hillary, because she's the devil and just about nobody in the world would want to have her in office.

This is why the media started focusing on Trump. He was insane, and they loved it. Probably 90% of their coverage of republicans went to Trump, because during the primaries, the media was pulling for Trump. It was a joke within the media, because it would stick republicans with a moron, and Hillary could glide right on through to the Oval Office.

They failed to consider a couple of things, like the fact that most people hate Hillary Clinton, and also, Hillary is senile. Putting her next to Trump didn't make him look more crazy. If anything, it made her look slightly less crazy.

So, Trump is the republican candidate, and that's when the press starts attacking him (remember, they were building him up before this). Next thing you know, it doesn't even matter what Trump says or doesn't say. They pin every label on him, from "racist" to "Hitler".

And... he still wins the election. Because people f***ing hate Hillary Clinton. The more they made him the anti-Hillary, the more people bought a ticket to that crazy train.

Now he's in office. The activists and journalists are flipping the hell out, because he isn't just crazy, he's uncontrollable. He doesn't care if they say mean things about him. He doesn't seem to care about the appearance of caring about all of their causes. And the louder they scream, the more he just doesn't care.

The mistake here is in assuming that Trump is the only one who is crazy and childish. Everything he does is matched by the press and the activists, and the other politicians, and the celebrities. This isn't *because* of Trump. It's just that Trump was one of them and now he's on the other side. Now their crazy is on full display for all the world to see.

They want him gone, so they're just making stuff up about him. They're ignoring actual stories, in order to focus on more sensational stories. They are creating the narrative of a dictator.


And now it's gotten to the point where people are cosplaying oppression ( http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/handma … 202479843/ ). Why? Because it's romantic (like any other cosplay). It makes them feel like they are righteous about something. Like their lives mean more than they actually do. The idea of being oppressed makes them feel empowered. It's sick, but that's what happens when a group of activists live in a place that simply isn't holding them down.

It's a horror story. It gives people a monster to be afraid of and a bad guy to fight. The truth is, Trump's not remotely fascist for calling out news outlets, and none of the people who supporting those outlets gave a damn when Obama did it to Fox News or others.

I'm watching The Handmaid's Tale on Hulu, and then I see articles talking about how timely it is and how relevant it is to the current administration. And it's all just a big giant role playing game. I can't think of any other way to view it, because that view is so incredibly detached from reality that it's unbelievable to see it popping up in "reputable" publications.


Trump is crazy. Trump's a liar. Trump is a manipulator. Trump is many, many things that I don't like, and I would rather have someone else in that office. But he's ain't the only crazy one. Hell, he isn't even the only one to have that job within the past year. And he's still less scary than Hillary.

The story is comforting. It allows people to disconnect from reality and throw an epic tantrum in a way that makes them feel connected to other people. It's cosplay.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

740 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2017-06-30 09:06:20)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, this is something else

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 … 3880429568

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, that's bad (if it's true), and unacceptable. But let's not act as though Trump is the first President to do something like this. Are we going to suddenly start acting shocked and outraged when a President targets his political enemies? (That is not me condoning it or excusing it. But I ran out of pearls to clutch a long time ago)


Bright side: at least he didn't use a federal agency to do his attacking! Using a tabloids must have saved taxpayers a ton of money!

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Yeah, that's bad (if it's true), and unacceptable. But let's not act as though Trump is the first President to do something like this. Are we going to suddenly start acting shocked and outraged when a President targets his political enemies? (That is not me condoning it or excusing it. But I ran out of pearls to clutch a long time ago)


Bright side: at least he didn't use a federal agency to do his attacking! Using a tabloids must have saved taxpayers a ton of money!

Well, besides the fact that what he did feels quite wrong, one has to wonder if he's focused at the job at hand, at all.  It's almost as if he's in it for himself, and not the country, or even his supporters.  You get the impression with him it's as if the only reason he appreciates his supporters is what they do for him.  Like they are some tool.  Sad!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, that sorta goes into what I was saying.  The guy is a kid, both mentally and emotionally.  If he wants to spend all day tweeting and golfing and being mad at people who were mean to him....isn't that exactly what we want?  If he's a bad leader....shouldn't we want him wasting his time?  It's embarrassing but he's going to be an embarrassment either way.  Wouldn't we rather he be an embarrassment that gets nothing done?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well, that sorta goes into what I was saying.  The guy is a kid, both mentally and emotionally.  If he wants to spend all day tweeting and golfing and being mad at people who were mean to him....isn't that exactly what we want?  If he's a bad leader....shouldn't we want him wasting his time?  It's embarrassing but he's going to be an embarrassment either way.  Wouldn't we rather he be an embarrassment that gets nothing done?

Well, sometimes I'm glad for it, but other times, I'm quite concerned.  I get the idea of not doing anything means no harm done, but there are people that are struggling and they need people in power to be working for them, rather than having to wait it out four years.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Agreed 100%, and at that point, we have to hope that the other 99% of politicians in Washington are doing their jobs.  More positive change can happen out of Congress anyway (I believe Trump would sign/veto basically anything they told him to do as long as they told him he'd be a great president because of it).  Trump's incompetence actually is highlighting the issues in both parties as far as I'm concerned.  The Republicans should be able to push through their legislation with control of both houses (and they've been doing a terrible job of that). and the Democrats don't seem to be doing anything but focusing on Trump.

The DNC suffered major losses in the last election (way beyond the presidential race), and they've done just about nothing to clean anything up.  It's why I 100% expect Hillary to be the Democratic nominee again in 2020.  They've made zero changes that would delay it, and Hillary's going to keep trying until either she's president or she's dead.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Hillary-Donald II would be a heck of a ratings draw.  Hopefully, though other quality candidates on both sides step up.  That's what tends to happen when things get terrible, the best people realize they are needed and step up.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

Well, besides the fact that what he did feels quite wrong, one has to wonder if he's focused at the job at hand, at all.  It's almost as if he's in it for himself, and not the country, or even his supporters.  You get the impression with him it's as if the only reason he appreciates his supporters is what they do for him.  Like they are some tool.  Sad!


I hate to sound like I'm dismissing something that is obviously not good, but I have to say once again that Trump isn't even unusual for a President, aside from the fact that he's less graceful in dealing with the press. Obama's ego easily matched Trump's. It became such a joke that people started keeping count of how many times he mentioned himself in every speech he gave. He was petty. He was more interested in himself than any part of the general population. He went after his enemies, and used government departments to do it... sometimes quite illegally. And to make matters worse, the press was totally cleaning up after him, keeping all of his big stories buried down as far as possible. By the end, you had them praising him for going eight years without a scandal, which is ridiculous to anyone who has actually been following the news.

It's not just Obama. I mean... this is just politics. They didn't base House of Cards on Donald Trump, after all.


Like I said, I'm not dismissing the fact that this is bad, but people are acting as though Donald Trump is somehow the worst that there's ever been, and he's not. While he is very undignified in terms of how he presents himself and how he deals with people, his actual actions as President aren't even that bad when compared to others. Some part of me even appreciates the fact that there is absolutely no filter on him, because it saves me the time and effort of having to figure out the normal political double-speak.

I know that to people who just got off of eight years of having someone they liked in office, it must seem like a train just went off the rails. Not only do you have to deal with someone who has the personality of a Brillo pad, but you disagree with him on every issue, and then you have the press doing its best to make people feel like Dr. Evil was just elected and the world is doomed... it would suck to be a democrat these days. But, aside from the press creating stories and trying to cause panic in the public, you're pretty much just dealing with what the other side had been dealing with for eight years prior.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump. I don't like him at all, actually. But I'm coming from a totally different direction from you. At times it might sound like I'm defending him, but the truth is that from where I'm sitting, Donald Trump is still a step up from where we were, and a hell of a lot better than where we could have gone.

Sorry to tell you this, but that sick feeling in your stomach isn't going away anytime soon. Believe me.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:
RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

Well, besides the fact that what he did feels quite wrong, one has to wonder if he's focused at the job at hand, at all.  It's almost as if he's in it for himself, and not the country, or even his supporters.  You get the impression with him it's as if the only reason he appreciates his supporters is what they do for him.  Like they are some tool.  Sad!


I hate to sound like I'm dismissing something that is obviously not good, but I have to say once again that Trump isn't even unusual for a President, aside from the fact that he's less graceful in dealing with the press. Obama's ego easily matched Trump's. It became such a joke that people started keeping count of how many times he mentioned himself in every speech he gave. He was petty. He was more interested in himself than any part of the general population. He went after his enemies, and used government departments to do it... sometimes quite illegally. And to make matters worse, the press was totally cleaning up after him, keeping all of his big stories buried down as far as possible. By the end, you had them praising him for going eight years without a scandal, which is ridiculous to anyone who has actually been following the news.

It's not just Obama. I mean... this is just politics. They didn't base House of Cards on Donald Trump, after all.


Like I said, I'm not dismissing the fact that this is bad, but people are acting as though Donald Trump is somehow the worst that there's ever been, and he's not. While he is very undignified in terms of how he presents himself and how he deals with people, his actual actions as President aren't even that bad when compared to others. Some part of me even appreciates the fact that there is absolutely no filter on him, because it saves me the time and effort of having to figure out the normal political double-speak.

I know that to people who just got off of eight years of having someone they liked in office, it must seem like a train just went off the rails. Not only do you have to deal with someone who has the personality of a Brillo pad, but you disagree with him on every issue, and then you have the press doing its best to make people feel like Dr. Evil was just elected and the world is doomed... it would suck to be a democrat these days. But, aside from the press creating stories and trying to cause panic in the public, you're pretty much just dealing with what the other side had been dealing with for eight years prior.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump. I don't like him at all, actually. But I'm coming from a totally different direction from you. At times it might sound like I'm defending him, but the truth is that from where I'm sitting, Donald Trump is still a step up from where we were, and a hell of a lot better than where we could have gone.

Sorry to tell you this, but that sick feeling in your stomach isn't going away anytime soon. Believe me.

Forget Trumps problems and how he went about his issue with the Morning Joe folks.  It just seems like he's dicking around in the White House, the way an angry old dude would be living in a senior home, ranting at the tv. He's the president, and this stuff seems to be too large of his focus, get him way too riled up.  It's like he is constantly watching tv hoping for some sort of approval.  What about the people?  I just don't think truly doing the day to day of being a president really fits with his interests or capacities.  Moreover, I'm not sure he realizes the opportunity he has sitting in that role to do good. It's become an embarrassment at this point how disinterested he seems to be with the job and how much this whole thing is about Donald.

I don't feel like we have a president right now, at all, and I doubt most of America does either.  Hopefully we do some self-examination at what got us into this mess, and change for the better, but it will likely take much longer than an election cycle or more to get this whole Republican-Democrat, Coastal-Inland thing worked out.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

Well, this is something else

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 … 3880429568

Trump's comments are very odd to say the least; but whenever I think of Mika, I think of this:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/12/vanity_fair_profiles_mika_brzezinski_and_joe_scarborough_guess_who_poses_on_top_of_a_table_/1347389953723.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

I have no sympathy or respect for someone who allowed themself to be marketed as a piece of meat on a butcher block.  I mean, literally - a butcher block.  This is supposed to be some kind of journalist or respected authority on women's rights?

750 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2017-06-30 15:15:49)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:
RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

Well, this is something else

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/8 … 3880429568

Trump's comments are very odd to say the least; but whenever I think of Mika, I think of this:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/12/vanity_fair_profiles_mika_brzezinski_and_joe_scarborough_guess_who_poses_on_top_of_a_table_/1347389953723.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

I have no sympathy or respect for someone who allowed themself to be marketed as a piece of meat on a butcher block.  I mean, literally - a butcher block.  This is supposed to be some kind of journalist or respected authority on women's rights?

I just googled pictures of butcher blocks, and I'm not sure that is literally supposed to be one.  Maybe its just a table.  I think the whole photo could be interpreted differently.  But regardless, she can pose like that and hasn't lost any of my respect. I don't think she thinks of herself as a piece of meat at all, it's not like she's some guest on howard stern, she has a political talk show.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have no respect for them, but just based on their work.

As for Trump, there are plenty of Presidential day-to-day things that are being done, but the press doesn't cover them. They want the ratings. Ratings come from his tweets and the Russia fanfic that they're publishing. It doesn't really come from economy, or jobs, or environmental stuff, or any of that.

I do hope that having Trump in office makes everyone think hard about what they want next time. But while that's happening, I hope that he continues to highlight the fact that the press is a circus, so they can't sway the election next time. Trump is their monster and now they can't control him. It's horrible, but not entirely un-awesome to watch.

People say that he isn't acting Presidential. As though the presidents are royalty and bound to some rules of etiquette. In reality, they've been all over the place. Some have been blindingly stupid, some have been douchebags like Trump, some have been cold manipulators, and a few have been really swell guys. It's the nature of the beast.

(I left out the ones who were quite probably murderers)

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You simply cannot defend Trump on this.  The media should be covering the Republican health care plan that will act like a bomb on the current healthcare system.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The current healthcare system is a bomb. I don't like what the republicans have offered so far, don't get me wrong. They should be doing much more to get rid of Obamacare entirely.

The thing I find hilarious is that the democrats are complaining about the republicans working on it behind closed doors. This is funny because the republicans are being way more open than the dems were with Obamacare, and the fact that there is any conversation happening at all is way more than we got when they were running things.

And then they all go on TV and talk about how many people are going to die. It's a friggin comedy routine.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

It's a friggin comedy routine.

There is only one party with one set of goals.  This is all a show to keep the public at each other's throats and distracted; it's been that way for a couple of decades now.

Don't believe it?  Republicans have full control, but they can't lower taxes or even do something as simple as repeal Obamacare and release restrictions so that all insurance companies can compete in the free market (which would lower prices).  Along that line, let's also ask where tort reform is which would lower doctors expenses on their own liability insurance (which is their excuse for such high prices).

Republicans don't want to do these things - they have the same agenda as Democrats.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree with that. That's the problem with our system right now, and why we need term limits. I think that there are some who would actually work to make a difference, but they don't have the power to do it.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I agree with that. That's the problem with our system right now, and why we need term limits. I think that there are some who would actually work to make a difference, but they don't have the power to do it.

Term limits for senators was one of the things trump actually had on his 100 day agenda.  I do believe it could do some good, but also think there's a learning curve and a know how to the role, so I have mixed feelings about it.  I'm not sure if career politicians is a good thing though.

Anyway, Trump wanted to set some very short limits.  But not surprisingly, nothing has happened with it.  It would be hard for anyone to pull off.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, everyone basically has to be willing to do away with their own money and power. It is a messed up system. But at this point, it's pretty clear that anyone in long-term political office (think Pelosi or McCain) is useless to the American people and more interested in themselves.

It would probably also help if these politicians actually had to live in the communities that they represent, instead of just passing through every once in a while.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

Republicans don't want to do these things - they have the same agenda as Democrats.

I'm OUTRAGED.

As a Republican/Democrat, I'm HORRIFIED that you'd accuse Republicans/Democrats of siding with Republicans/Democrats!  Republicans/Democrats are SAINTLY, GODLIKE men and women, and Republicans/Democrats are EVIL, SUB-HUMAN slime.  Did you know the Republicans/Democrats want to steal our babies and eat them?  If not for the Republicans/Democrats, they'd get their way!  Republicans/Democrats are out there working hard for our benefits, and Republicans/Democrats just want to line their pockets with GREED and DECEPTION.  If Republicans/Democrats had their way, there'd be no democracy at all.

Thank God for Republicans/Democrats!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

CNN... Oh, CNN

I am starting to wonder if this network has a future at all. Over the past year, they've been hit by one scandal after another. Leaking debate questions to Hillary, running with fake news stories about Russian hookers, or tying Trump to Russia interference in the election despite having absolutely no evidence... they've just been petty and childish. And now this political gif that Trump tweeted, which is so benign that nobody would have even noticed it if the press (mostly CNN) hadn't tried to turn it into a huge story. Now that it is a huge story, it's turned on CNN because they pursued the gif's source and threatened to dox him. And for what? Posing a harmless gif that the President then tweeted?

CNN isn't just looking like a joke anymore, their corruption is showing through more and more every day, and it's getting harder to just shrug it off.

I know, ireactions is probably rolling his eyes at the James O'Keefe of it all, but O'Keefe's videos aren't revealing anything that we didn't already know. There was no Russia story, so every time they hit that angle, it was a lie. We knew that. There was no Russian prostitute story, so when they reported it, it was a lie. We knew that. We know that it's all about ratings. We know that they're betting on the American people being stupid, and the fact that we have them directly saying it isn't very shocking.

The part where they're attacking private citizens and threatening to dox them because of a stupid gif is a little surprising. And I don't know about the guy who posted it. I don't know if he is a racist or a sexist or whatever, but it also doesn't matter. He could post racist stuff every day and that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to do it. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to privacy. Most of us don't put our names or home addresses on the internet, including the people who work at CNN. Their threat to start doxing anyone they don't like or who says mean things about them is going to backfire. Every employee and every anchor could have their info posted online, because there are people who are not going to react well to these threats.


We also have the reveal that CNN edited interviews with Trump supporters, to reframe their comments and make them look bad. Since ireactions has been so outspokenly opposed to the practice of releasing edited video that could change comments or context, can we all agree that it's just as bad when a major news outlet does it?


Any one of these stories or scandals would blow over easily. I'm just not sure how many more of these scandals CNN can handle before they're ruined forever. Their credibility is shot, and while this isn't shocking to any of us who actually pay attention and have recognized their false reporting for years, it's so blatant now that even casual viewers will find it harder to ignore.

People say that Trump hasn't accomplished anything, but I think this shows that he has. He has shown the press for what they are, more than any President that I know of. And yeah, it made Trump look bad along the way, but it's not like we had high standards and expectations for him to begin with.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I do wonder if we're about to see HBO's "The Newsroom" play out in real life (which would be ironic given that season two of the series was a recreation of a scandal that rocked CNN in the 80's).

In the final season of Newsroom, the news network is spun off from the main company and left as a stand alone entity to fend for itself or die.  They end being bought by a young, Silicon Valley billionaire, and he pushes for the network to become pure tabloid tv.  In our reality, this could easily happen - imagine someone like Zuckerburg buying CNN and tying it into Facebook.

I do think that CNN is about to be left out in the cold, though.  The AT&T / Warner merger is on the horizon, and the AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and Trump seem to get along well.  CNN may end up being a sacrifice to Trump to get the merger passed through.  But to be honest, I think Trump likes CNN being out there; it's a good punching bag for his entertainment urgings.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

With regards to CNN, I completely agree with Informant and it's a lengthy pattern of what alternates between journalistic malpractice and journalistic bullying that cannot be allowed to stand. The Intercept has a fairly good overview of recent media recklessness at https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cnn … ia-threat/ and their outrage over CNN threatening citizens at https://theintercept.com/2017/07/05/cnn … ddit-user/ is how I feel about it too.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

"An on that day, the sky broke open and toads began to rain down upon the earth. Rivers turned to blood. Sliders was revived with its original cast. A cow gave birth to a litter of snakes. And ireactions agreed with Informant in a political post. These were the signs of the fracture in space and the end of all time."


I don't even get why they made the gif into a news story. Even the President posting it wasn't newsworthy, and pursuing the original creator of the gif as though he were a terrorist mastermind is just ridiculous. They've spent more time covering this stupid gif and looking serious as they report on HanAssholeSolo than they have spent on some much more serious topics lately. I get that they're trying to take Trump down and reporting on this as some sort of call to violence feeds into that narrative (though honestly, it's a stretch), but I honestly don't know what they were thinking when they decided to target some random gif creator on Reddit. It's insane.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

I do wonder if we're about to see HBO's "The Newsroom" play out in real life (which would be ironic given that season two of the series was a recreation of a scandal that rocked CNN in the 80's).

In the final season of Newsroom, the news network is spun off from the main company and left as a stand alone entity to fend for itself or die.  They end being bought by a young, Silicon Valley billionaire, and he pushes for the network to become pure tabloid tv.  In our reality, this could easily happen - imagine someone like Zuckerburg buying CNN and tying it into Facebook.

I do think that CNN is about to be left out in the cold, though.  The AT&T / Warner merger is on the horizon, and the AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and Trump seem to get along well.  CNN may end up being a sacrifice to Trump to get the merger passed through.  But to be honest, I think Trump likes CNN being out there; it's a good punching bag for his entertainment urgings.


forgot to reply to this.

I can see this happening. CNN is going to have to change, one way or the other. Producers, on-air talent and online "journalists" have all been exposed as being incredibly unreliable, so there's no way to go on with business as usual. (he said, right before this whole story was forgotten and people went back to quoting CNN articles about Trump's relationship with Russia)

But does the world need another E! News? I suppose they could go by way of MTV or The Learning Channel. Reality shows, etc.

I feel like the political connection to this narrative is going to be overlooked though. It's not simply a corruption of journalism here, it's the fact that journalists were working to push the agenda of certain politicians. All of those Russia stories were created to serve a political purpose and to undermine the office of the President. There is a much larger, much more disturbing picture here, and it's not just about ratings.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

CNN has become the left wing equivalent of Fox News, pretending to be journalists when they're actually propagandists.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

CNN has become the left wing equivalent of Fox News, pretending to be journalists when they're actually propagandists.

+1

I watched a ton of CNN during the election, and they were all so anti-Trump that it started to be noticeable.  I think they realized that a) they weren't going to get many conservative viewers who were already firmly at Fox News and b) they could get stronger ratings if they stopped trying to be unbiased.  I think it simply started with hosts like Wolf Blitzer and Ashleigh Banfield leaning slightly left, but I think it's gotten more targeted since then.  I remember the Republican Convention had a mostly-even panel between Republicans and Democrats, and then Democratic Convention panel was about 9 Democrats and 1-2 Republicans.

If they want to respond to Fox News and take the other half of the country, that's fine.  The problem is that CNN still means something to some people.  It used to be a name you could rely on.  To suddenly become Fox News under the guise of something that's better than Fox News is upsetting to me as a former journalist myself.  I almost wish they'd started a new network if that's the direction they were going to go.

Where is Will McEvoy when you need him?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The funny thing is, people on the right started to get frustrated with Fox News at some point as well. MSNBC was always seen as the super extreme left network, so CNN became the middle ground. People thought that they'd start to take the lead as people grew tired with the other two networks. Now, CNN has always had biased reporting, don't get me wrong. They've always been left of center and they've always held back certain details, while twisting other facts to suit their needs. However, they were seen as a network that did this less than others.

So now we have CNN's sins in the spotlight more than ever, and the other two networks gloating... while still being on shaky ground themselves.

I'm not convinced that there should be 24-hour news networks. I'm not sure that the concept works, once you figure in the need for ratings and advertisers, and the fact that there will be many days when the news is just not that thrilling. So, they start to inflate the news artificially. Then, once that line is crossed, they might as well skew that inflation in the direction of their choosing. Is there a way for this to be sustained without being corrupted?


I saw another clip of some CNN contributor talking about how sickened and outraged they were that the President would incite violence in such a manner that is unbecoming of a President. She was playing it super sincere too, not like a joke. So the gif is an outrageous incitement of violence, but when they're failing to report certain details and directly lead into riots and racial violence, that's just respectable journalism. When they're manufacturing the Russia scandal and influencing federal agencies with their lies, that's just respectable journalism.

It's impossible to watch anything they do with a straight face anymore.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I'm not convinced that there should be 24-hour news networks. I'm not sure that the concept works, once you figure in the need for ratings and advertisers, and the fact that there will be many days when the news is just not that thrilling. So, they start to inflate the news artificially. Then, once that line is crossed, they might as well skew that inflation in the direction of their choosing. Is there a way for this to be sustained without being corrupted?

We had this conversation the other day.  We compared it, actually, to ESPN.  ESPN used to fill their programming with stuff like the World's Strongest Man competitions.  The Outdoor Games (lumberjack events).  The X-Games.  Maybe classic sports.  Then, at night, they'd do some live sports (if they could).  Then SportsCenter....which was their money cow.

Then two things happened: the Internet made SportsCenter much less relevant (if you wanted to watch a sports clip, you could watch it whenever you wanted...you didn't have to wait to catch it on SportsCenter) and ESPN got rights to big-named sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, etc).

With their big moneymaker much less powerful, they focused more on their newest toys.  But they felt they were cheapening their "legitimate" sports when they showed the "odd/quirky" stuff like World's Strongest Man.  So that disappeared.  Since they were a legit sports network that only showed legit sports, they needed to fill their time with legit sports news....and that's when opinion shows started to creep in.  They couldn't show legit sports all day, but they could talk about it all day.  So that's what they did.  Sports and politics are very similar - you pick your team and you live and die with it.  There's a clear hero and a clear enemy.  If someone talks the way you think, you tune in.  If not, you either hate-watch or don't watch at all.

It's the same with cable news.  You'd tell the news and it was fine.  But it was repetitive.  You'd tell the same 8 "mundane" news stories over and over again.  Then stuff like 9/11 happened and ratings went through the roof.  They could talk about one thing all day and cover tons of new angles.  They could bring on experts to talk about it.  To keep "breaking news" alive, more stuff had to be considered "breaking news."  Breaking news brought ratings, and they needed ratings.

With politics, they found another moneymaker.  People loved to tune in to hear people that thought like them.  And, in some cases, loved to tune in to hear people that they hated who thought differently.  Elections brought big ratings.  So how can they talk about elections when there isn't an election?  Make the elections last a year!  Even more!  Spin everything politically.  Bring in people who are there for their opinions.  Let the hosts give a few more editorials.

It's a slippery slope but they're similar.  Being big fish in small pools wasn't enough.  Once they had access to bigger pools, they had to evolve to grow.  But they stopped being who they were, and they evolved into something that was unrecognizable and counter to everything they started with.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Ugh, there is so much "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" in government today.  The story being reported is that the Democrats have beaten the Republicans in the Health Care debate.  That's simply not true.  The Democrats and a group of Republicans beat a Republican-led initiative to overhaul health care.  The side led by Democrats won, but this was a bi-partisan effort.  If it was United Red vs. United Blue, then Red would have won.  It took Republicans to defeat the "Republican" bill.

I don't think anything is being made of the Republicans who crossed the line and voted with the Democrats.  In the Senate and in the House.

There's just "Republicans want people to die" and "Democrats are the only decent humans in Congress."  The whole thing makes me nauseous.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The issue isn't being discussed in the media in any real way. It's democrats win, republicans lose, and moving on to the latest baseball scores. The truth is, we're all losing. Obamacare shouldn't have passed to begin with. It was never debated or discussed, or revised or even really planned for. It did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and there is no way that it can survive. It will collapse, because it was a house built without a foundation. It was a show that was put on for the public.

Repealing Obamacare is difficult, because there are only so many times that you can change the entire system in one decade. Repealing anything is always harder than passing it. But the truth is, most of the politicians don't want to repeal it. They don't have to live by it, and it doesn't hurt anyone they love, but it serves their political purposes. Republicans who ran on grand promises to repeal Obamcare are now showing that they have no desire to touch the damn thing. They're cowards and liars, and shouldn't be in office.

However, this isn't a win for democrats. The general public still wants it gone. So while this crop of republicans may lose their jobs, that doesn't mean that the democrats will take them over. Obamacare is still failing. People are still hurting.

Liberals tend to think that the more a government controls something and hands things out to the people, the more stable the world will be and the more people will be provided for. I obviously disagree with this philosophy, and I think that you can observe it failing all over the world.

The truth is that, as with most things, a more competitive market with less government involvement would probably help more than anything that the government would do. It would drive down prices for insurance. It would drive down prices for treatment and medication. Opening the market would force competition, and when companies are competing for our business, the consumer usually benefits.

But the politicians are politicians. It would be a mistake to think that they're debating the best course of action for the American people. The truth is, they're doing what's best for them and the careers that should have been over decades ago for most of them. This isn't even about healthcare for most of them, it's about putting on a show about healthcare.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

770 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2017-07-22 08:12:35)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Ugh, there is so much "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" in government today.  The story being reported is that the Democrats have beaten the Republicans in the Health Care debate.  That's simply not true.  The Democrats and a group of Republicans beat a Republican-led initiative to overhaul health care.  The side led by Democrats won, but this was a bi-partisan effort.  If it was United Red vs. United Blue, then Red would have won.  It took Republicans to defeat the "Republican" bill.

I don't think anything is being made of the Republicans who crossed the line and voted with the Democrats.  In the Senate and in the House.

There's just "Republicans want people to die" and "Democrats are the only decent humans in Congress."  The whole thing makes me nauseous.

I haven't gotten this sense at all.  Everything that has come our sure seems like (1) Republicans don't have anything close to consensus on what healthcare should look like -- you have people within the party who want it very very different than others  (2) the ACA has increased in popularity among the public and now the constituents of some Republicans are making it known they are worried about the new bills, which analysis of from the CBO and other institutions has not been positive.

If the Republicans had agreement with what healthcare would look like, the Democrats would't stand a chance.  But the Republican party is almost like two parties on this.  I really haven't gotten the sense the media has seen this as driven by the Democratic Party at all.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well the Democratic Party is a mess too.  Recently, a poll came out, and the Democrats don't seem to stand for anything but "not Trump" which is weird because the Republican Party has recently just been "not Obama"

(This is probably a good time to say that I think both parties are spinning their wheels).

And a lot of this is more people I see talking on social media.  There were a handful of somewhat-prominent liberal celebrities saying stuff like "well, John McCain wants to take away people's health care, I guess it serves him right that he got brain cancer"  There's just so much hatred toward people who have (slightly?) different beliefs.  It's really crazy to me.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well the Democratic Party is a mess too.  Recently, a poll came out, and the Democrats don't seem to stand for anything but "not Trump" which is weird because the Republican Party has recently just been "not Obama"

(This is probably a good time to say that I think both parties are spinning their wheels).

And a lot of this is more people I see talking on social media.  There were a handful of somewhat-prominent liberal celebrities saying stuff like "well, John McCain wants to take away people's health care, I guess it serves him right that he got brain cancer"  There's just so much hatred toward people who have (slightly?) different beliefs.  It's really crazy to me.


America is extremely diverse. To the point where what may be good for one state is bad for another.  But our union is so intertwined that it's difficult to just let each state do what it wants without others being affected (even though I recognize that was part of America's design -- but we have to keep in mind a lot more technology exists today that makes travel/communication completely different than it was centuries ago, creating a social and economic impact).

Point being, when you have such diversity, people are going to look at things different.  You can either try to "win" and get your way knowing others will suffer as a result or you can go into it trying to compromise.  Once we have very passionate beliefs and want to completely win, then it becomes a game... and as part of that game we start using tactics that are useful for short term gains.  But then it creates a long-term mess.  So the question is the human species intelligent enough to not take the candy and wait for more candy later, or will we always be trying to grab the candy now, like little children?  As great as the human species has been, at times we are not the most impressive bunch and I am not sure what that means for our long term survival.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The healthcare issue is a farce. Most of the people arguing over it don't really care either way, and just want to line their pockets while exempting themselves from anything that might happen. The few who do actually want to put some work into figuring out what works best are screaming into the wind.

Obamacare isn't an option. It never was. It will collapse, and it will do a lot of damage on its way down. Universal healthcare (sometimes called "free" by people who  are slow) will be great if we want higher taxes, lower quality care, and the inability to make our own medical decisions. I don't view that as a good option either. Then again, the old system didn't work either. It drove the cost of healthcare up to ridiculous levels because of the negotiating methods of insurance companies.

The best solution is to lessen the government's role (when do they ever help anything?) and create a competitive market for healthcare. There are places now that don't accept insurance and just perform surgeries with up-front payments, with prices clearly listed on their websites. Those prices are much lower than what you get through normal methods, there is less bullsh-t to deal with, and some people choose that option because they end up spending less than they would if they went through their Obamacare insurance.

Supply and demand. Healthcare isn't a right, it is a business. The problem is, too many people who aren't in that business are trying to control the market. This never works out well and as long as insurance companies are paying politicians to make sure that every citizen must buy a crappy version of their product, this problem isn't going anywhere.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Healthcare isn't a right, it is a business.

The problem with this is when someone walks into an emergency room, whether they have health insurance or not, public hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. I have a hospital near me that went out of business.  Hospitals are public institutions and someone will always end up paying any way.  We have to accept that people without medical insurance are going to inevitably want care when someone urgent has come up and their will be costs around society for that.  We need to build a model that spreads those costs.  And we need to focus on driving down healthcare costs (it's out of control here, and life expectancy is lower than many other countries) which are playing a role in such large insurance premiums and deductibles. 

I just don't see the healthcare industry as a business, to be treated the same way.  People are going to always want it when trouble comes whether they have bought insurance or not and human beings have that great thing called empathy -- developed over thousands of years by evolution because its in our best interest -- that makes it unreasonable to think all of a sudden we are going to start barring people from emergency care.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

That wouldn't happen. Nobody is going to be turned away. The problem is that before Obamacare, it was easier to work with hospitals, negotiating prices and payments (costs are wildly inflated because of insurance companies).

No business is a business like any other. The key to any of them is finding a way to make the business work. That needs to happen on much more local scale, and the federal government really doesn't have a large role to play. The more they get involved, the more expensive it will be, and the standards of care will drop. Obviously, there would be regulations on what can and can't be allowed, but the VA has proven that the government can't run healthcare.

After my father had his stroke in 2009, we did all kinds of negotiating for his care and rehab. He had insurance, but it didn't cover everything. The companies involved had programs for people whose insurance didn't cover the full cost of their equipment, so we ended up paying nothing. This is because the price of the equipment was inflated because the insurance companies paid a lot. The same thing happens with hospital fees. Once you get down to a patient talking to the hospital, costs go down.

The system was messed up for sure... But now the companies that we were working with don't have those programs anymore. They're out of business because they couldn't make the new system work. And these were well known, big companies.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

We should adopt Singapore's health care system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRp3veAd234

Or - and here's a shocking idea! - give every American the same health care plan members of Congress have.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Transmodiar wrote:

Or - and here's a shocking idea! - give every American the same health care plan members of Congress have.

I've been for that for years.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Rest in peace Charlie Gard. sad

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So to those of you adamantly anti-Trump....what's your best case scenario for a Trump presidency?  Do you want him to make / have made a greivous enough mistake that he has to be impeached before 2018?  Or just after 2018 when the Democrats might have more seats in Congress?  Do you want him to do enough damage to ensure a win in 2018/2020?  Do you want him to mess up and make mistakes so you have something to make fun of?  Or do you genuinely want him to succeed, knowing that his successes would be conservative ones?

It's really hard for me to tell.  The "resistance" loves to make fun of Trump's mistakes ("The Mooch" being the latest, but there have been tons) while also being "horrified" by them.  But when things run smoothly and stuff gets done (say, the travel ban) then that's also horrifying.

Understanding your hatred for him at a personal and professional level, is there anything he could do that would make you happy? 

Because, from my vantage point, the Trump presidency has actually been pretty optimal.  He's not doing a ton of damage, the rest of the world seems to be holding everything else pretty steady, we aren't in any wars, and there's an investigation to see if anything he's done to get elected is shady.  He's not doing anything outlandish or fascist (he's too incompetent for the latter), and he can't get anything pushed through a Republican-majority Congress.

And the revolving door of people in and out the White House is actually good in my eyes.  If Trump is constantly trying to work through chaos, he can't be instigating North Korea or doing anything stupid.  If he spends 90% of his time in office hiring and firing people, then that's only 10% of the time he has to do anything else.  To me, that's a win.

(This is why I feared Hillary more than Donald.  She would've actually governed, but poorly, for probably 8 years.  Donald is going to keep the country in neutral for probably less than four.  And standing still is better than going backwards).

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is showing how unqualified for the job he really is.  The question is whether he can handle a real crisis.  Suppose the next North Korean missile test hits Japan.  What are the odds of getting a reasonable, proportional response from the US?