US Politics Thread

[4petesake]

15 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Who said I would not let my kid read it?   I have two straight boys that I would love no less if they happened to be gay.   If I had a daughter who was not straight you can bet I would be no less loving and supportive.   And I would not be censoring what she read any more than I censored what my boys read.

 

My wife has her own views on things and I'm sure her initial reactions to that book would differ from mine.   I'm not sure what her final conclusions would be.

 

You sure know how to pick a line or two to respond to.  Can you tell me now how 'Liberals have set back racial tensions 30 years' ?

 

 

 

 

Library books in schools are a giant red herring. Whether we like it or not kids have access to material that makes banned library books the modern day equivalent of the underwear section of the Sears catalogue or the pen with the lady on it wearing a bikini that would disappear when you turned it upside down. Titillating to a child but of little interest once you discover your older brother’s Playboy stash. If you see your child with a book just be happy they bother picking one up. If the book is like the one posted by @Wiggums talk to them about their interest in it, use it as a conversation starter.

 

What limited censoring we can do for kids needs to be done in the home by teaching values. As for groups like Moms for Liberty and such Ron F sums up my feelings best with his response to this :

 

 

 

[nuckin_futz]

22 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

can this be challenged in the federal Supreme Court @Sabrefan1?

 

 

Yes. Though the Supreme Court has declined to hear the other cases he brought forth.

[nuckin_futz]

 

I don't think they bothered to read the ruling before responding as the Court stayed it's own ruling until approx January 24th.

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Wiggums said:

 

Sorry you said it would likely ruffle your feathers.  Fine, If you wanna let your 12 year old read pornographic material with strap-ons and vagina juice tasting, you do you. 

 

Would take all day to talk about and I'm not into that.  For the last 10 years I've had to listen to liberals claim racism at every opportunity, referring to Trump has Hitler, CNN labelling each and every person by their skin color first and name second,  the cancellation of history ie statues, retail products, names etc.  There has been more racial tension the last 10 years than there was the previous 20.    How is BLM doing these days anyways?  

 

 

 

Back then things were natural, today in Hollywood it is forced to meet liberal ideologies. 

 

Have you seen Seth Rogen's Christmas show, "Santa Inc"    It's about a girl who wants to be Santa but it's hard because Santa and the North Pole are just oppressive white males..  These are the types of things coming out of Hollywood now lol. 

Ok my last word.  Yes, I admit it would ruffle my feathers.  That's a figure of speech that's often used for minor reactions.   After I said that, I expressed by support for inclusion of those who feel excluded.   Why not focus on that if you wish to disagree?

 

As for your other points:

- claims of racism are, sadly, too often true.

- No one refers to Trump AS Hitler.   Lately,  people have been pointing out alarming similarities between lines in their speeches.  Others have pointed out procedural similarities.

- I have no idea what your CNN comment means and can make no comment of my own.

- I support removal of statues of racists and the re-naming of public sites named after them.  No one is cancelling anyone.   Just no longer putting them on a pedestal.  

- I never understood why Aunt Jemima was not just seen as somebody's aunt so it looks like we agree!

- BLM is doing just fine and is thankfully just a little less busy than it was.  It really had some work to do for  a while there.

 

We could probably both agree that a lot of things suck in the 21st century.   We might disagree as to why, who is to blame, and who is best to fix it.

[AatuD2]

2 hours ago, Wiggums said:

 

Yes, how dare these mothers for thinking these types of books are inappropriate for children.... 

 

 

 

 

Is this some softcore porn?!? 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Sharpshooter
Inappropriate content

[24K]

27 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

Would take all day to talk about and I'm not into that.  For the last 10 years I've had to listen to liberals claim racism at every opportunity, referring to Trump has Hitler, CNN labelling each and every person by their skin color first and name second,  the cancellation of history ie statues, retail products, names etc.  There has been more racial tension the last 10 years than there was the previous 20.    How is BLM doing these days anyways?  

 

Like it or not institutional racism was always there in the US. Red lining, is clear example of that. You hear it because it is fact. 

 

CNN and such pushing identity politics is annoying that I can agree. 

 

Trump is openly embracing his comparison to Hitler with recent direct quotes from Mein Kampf. You can't complain about an accurate comparison at this point. 

 

Removing of confederate statues should have been done a long time ago. Heck it shouldn't even be there to begin with. Why the heck is US celebrating ots traitors? It make no sense. 

 

Product is mostly companies doing corporate shannigans as not many are subjected to any pressure from anyone before doing it. 

 

Not sure what you are talking about with regards to names. 

 

There are 'more' racial tensions because of social media. The tension was always there. You are just more aware of it cause social media and the internet disseminate those tensions more than print or word of mouth can 20 years ago. 

 

27 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Back then things were natural, today in Hollywood it is forced to meet liberal ideologies. 

No one is forcing Hollywood to do anything. Market dictate what it wants as do the creators and actors behind them. Market research done by studios must have shown they can get broader market with those messages included. Studios ain't charities. 

 

27 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

Have you seen Seth Rogen's Christmas show, "Santa Inc"    It's about a girl who wants to be Santa but it's hard because Santa and the North Pole are just oppressive white males..  These are the types of things coming out of Hollywood now lol. 

Your first mistake is to take anything Seth Rogen make seriously. The guy live to stir up this kind of shit. Saw sausage party? 

 

[AatuD2]

1 hour ago, 24K said:

Do you really believe Putin would not invade Ukraine if they didn't want to join NATO?

 

It was always in Putin's plans for Russia to take back Ukraine be it annexed or an obedient puppet. 

 

The peaceful plan went out of the window after the Euromaiden protest and you can't blame the US or any other European leaders for that as it is a home grown movement. 

 

As for the Istanbul treaty. Signing it would just delay the invasion down the road when Putin can regroup after his botched invasion. 

 

Honestly Ukraine is probably the one thing Biden did right as far as foreign policy goes. 

 

As far as Trump goes for not starting wars, he almost did with Iran by assassinating their general. Just be glad cooler head prevailed in Iran. 

 

Yes, Putin would not have invaded if it wasn't for NATO enlargement. 

 

From Burns, then Ambassador to Russia (current head of CIA): 

 

"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war." 

 

Here are the words from Jens Stoltenberg, the current press secretary of NATO: 

 

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that." 

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

55 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Pretty sure it can.....and will be.

 

The question is: will the SCOTUS hear it? My guess is yes, but who knows? They have been all about respecting lower court decisions lately. We'll see if that holds when Bone Spurs in involved.

States Rights v Supreme Court? 
 

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

Yes, Putin would not have invaded if it wasn't for NATO enlargement. 

 

From Burns, then Ambassador to Russia (current head of CIA): 

 

"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war." 

 

Here are the words from Jens Stoltenberg, the current press secretary of NATO: 

 

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that." 

 

 

Pootin needed to be nipped in the bud when Obama was Potus in 2014. If Biden was president back then Ukraine would have been helped and not given up to Poo Head. 

[Sharpshooter]

11 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

Yes, Putin would not have invaded if it wasn't for NATO enlargement. 

 

From Burns, then Ambassador to Russia (current head of CIA): 

 

"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war." 

 

Here are the words from Jens Stoltenberg, the current press secretary of NATO: 

 

"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that." 

 

 

Move further discussion to the Ukraine Thread please. 
 

Thank you. 

[AatuD2]

30 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Ok my last word.  Yes, I admit it would ruffle my feathers.  That's a figure of speech that's often used for minor reactions.   After I said that, I expressed by support for inclusion of those who feel excluded.   Why not focus on that if you wish to disagree?

 

As for your other points:

- claims of racism are, sadly, too often true.

- No one refers to Trump AS Hitler.   Lately,  people have been pointing out alarming similarities between lines in their speeches.  Others have pointed out procedural similarities.

- I have no idea what your CNN comment means and can make no comment of my own.

- I support removal of statues of racists and the re-naming of public sites named after them.  No one is cancelling anyone.   Just no longer putting them on a pedestal.  

- I never understood why Aunt Jemima was not just seen as somebody's aunt so it looks like we agree!

- BLM is doing just fine and is thankfully just a little less busy than it was.  It really had some work to do for  a while there.

 

We could probably both agree that a lot of things suck in the 21st century.   We might disagree as to why, who is to blame, and who is best to fix it.

 

I actually agree with @Wiggums here... 

 

-there is much less racism today then in the past, but the way the left frames everything you'd think that we're back in 1950s. 

 

-Trump was just referred to as Hitler a couple of pages back. Right wing people are insinuated to be Nazis all the time. Calling 50% of the population Nazis can't be good long term. 

 

- BLM proved to be a big scam that collected money and made no positive difference. Look at Portland for a great example of what BLM and Antifa's legacy is. It's a shit hole, I was there 10 months ago and used to go every year for 6-7 years.  I find that Republicans have a much better stance on race issues then Democrats who promote a culture of victimhood. 

 

Anyways I get where you're coming from, but I feel like you might have some blind spots which is easy to do these days as internet recommends you things that align with your view. I have blind spots as well.  

 

On the race relations in the US, this was a great watch: 

 

 

 

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

I actually agree with @Wiggums here... 

 

-there is much less racism today then in the past, but the way the left frames everything you'd think that we're back in 1950s. 

 

-Trump was just referred to as Hitler a couple of pages back. Right wing people are insinuated to be Nazis all the time. Calling 50% of the population Nazis can't be good long term. 

 

- BLM proved to be a big scam that collected money and made no positive difference. Look at Portland for a great example of what BLM and Antifa's legacy is. It's a shit hole, I was there 10 months ago and used to go every year for 6-7 years.  I find that Republicans have a much better stance on race issues then Democrats who promote a culture of victimhood. 

 

Anyways I get where you're coming from, but I feel like you might have some blind spots which is easy to do these days as internet recommends you things that align with your view. I have blind spots as well.  

 

On the race relations in the US, this was a great watch: 

 

 

 

I won't reply even though I see holes in many of those statements and am tempted.    Enjoy the game.

[AatuD2]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Pootin needed to be nipped in the bud when Obama was Potus in 2014. If Biden was president back then Ukraine would have been helped and not given up to Poo Head. 

 

 

I won't dwelve further off-topic here but Biden was extremely hawk-ish back in 2014 when he was Obama's vice president in charge of Ukraine. 

 

Really not shocked to see Hunter Biden (his son) getting millions of dollars from Ukraine. 

 

Nikki Haley, Joe Biden, and Chris Christie are three candidates under whom the risk of a nuclear war will increase, that's why I'm not in favour of any of those three. 

 

US politics affect us in terms of security, economy, and culture in Canada. 

 

Nuclear war is number 1 on my list of things I'd like to avoid. 

 

Seeing other countries around the world destroyed is number 2. 

[The Arrogant Worms]

Trump Ruled Ineligible For Presidency By Colorado Supreme Court, Disqualified From State Ballot

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-disqualified-presidency-colorado-supreme-court_n_65822452e4b06a9c652964c4?0ua

 

[Sabrefan1]

18 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

States Rights v Supreme Court? 
 

 

 

Now that the Democrats have gotten a ruling through a state, the Supreme Court will either take up the case on an expedited basis or it will be allowed to go into effect and Biden will automatically get those possibly crucial electoral college votes.

 

There is a scenario where other states will disqualify him one by one if they don't have to fear being overturned by the Supreme Court.  In that case, the RNC will remove Trump from contention or he'll drop out of the race entirely and Nikki Haley will run in his stead.

[AatuD2]

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I won't reply even though I see holes in many of those statements and am tempted.    Enjoy the game.

 

Haha we can resume another time! 

 

I want to hear more from people like you, @bishopshodan, and @24K. 

Interesting points to take into account. 

 

Hearing talking points from opinion news like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC do nothing for me. I've seen these media sources spin news for the last 30 years and they're frankly morally bankrupt. 

 

Enjoy the game! 

[AatuD2]

Just now, Sabrefan1 said:

 

 

Now that the Democrats have gotten a ruling through a state, the Supreme Court will either take up the case on an expedited basis or it will be allowed to go into effect and Biden will automatically get those possibly crucial electoral college votes.

 

There is a scenario where other states will disqualify him one by one if they don't have to fear being overturned by the Supreme Court.  In that case, the RNC will remove Trump from contention or he'll drop out of the race entirely and Nikki Haley will run in his stead.

 

 Nikki Haley would be the absolute worst case scenario. 

 

She declared bankruptcy, formed a military contractor company, and then became a millionaire after getting into office and making deals that benefit her personally. 

 

If she gets in, we will see one more Eastern European country destroyed, and probably at least one more Middle Eastern country enter a war. 

 

Chances of an armed conflict in Taiwan or Hong Kong will also increase. 

 

[Sabrefan1]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

can this be challenged in the federal Supreme Court @Sabrefan1?

 

 

Anything can be.  They have final say over federal elections.  If the Supreme Court picks this case up on an emergency basis, my guess is odds are better than 50/50 Trump prevails.  If they let this drag into the lower court system, Trump may be screwed.  Other state courts have been side-stepping the issue.  If the Supreme Court won't get involved, the dominoes may begin to fall on Trump's candidacy.

[Sabrefan1]

1 minute ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 Nikki Haley would be the absolute worst case scenario. 

 

She declared bankruptcy, formed a military contractor company, and then became a millionaire after getting into office and making deals that benefit her personally. 

 

If she gets in, we will see one more Eastern European country destroyed, and probably at least one more Middle Eastern country enter a war. 

 

Chances of an armed conflict in Taiwan or Hong Kong will also increase. 

 

 

 

I'm neither a fan of her or of Biden.  The US suffers while greedy fools continue to run the government.

[Sabrefan1]

20 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Trump Ruled Ineligible For Presidency By Colorado Supreme Court, Disqualified From State Ballot

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-disqualified-presidency-colorado-supreme-court_n_65822452e4b06a9c652964c4?0ua

 

 

You're a bit late on the post.  A few have beaten ya to it. 

[RupertKBD]

41 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

I actually agree with @Wiggums here...

 

Imagine that....

[The Arrogant Worms]

28 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

You're a bit late on the post.  A few have beaten ya to it. 

I am old.

[24K]

1 hour ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

 

Now that the Democrats have gotten a ruling through a state, the Supreme Court will either take up the case on an expedited basis or it will be allowed to go into effect and Biden will automatically get those possibly crucial electoral college votes.

 

There is a scenario where other states will disqualify him one by one if they don't have to fear being overturned by the Supreme Court.  In that case, the RNC will remove Trump from contention or he'll drop out of the race entirely and Nikki Haley will run in his stead.

Honestly, the supreme court not touching this may be the biggest blessing for the RNC. 

 

Their establishment can finally get rid of him without getting their hands dirty. 

 

They also have build in excuse of not able to do anything to the justices or judges. 

[Sabrefan1]

 

[Sabrefan1]

7 minutes ago, 24K said:

Honestly, the supreme court not touching this may be the biggest blessing for the RNC. 

 

Their establishment can finally get rid of him without getting their hands dirty. 

 

They also have build in excuse of not able to do anything to the justices or judges. 

 

 

I'm willing to bet that's what they are hoping for.  Their fundraising efforts will take a hit though.  That's the only reason why they are spending millions in donor cash on Trump's criminal and civil defense.  His ROI is worth the cost.

 

I know the rest of the Republican candidates are cautiously optimistic.  Krispy Kreme is likely already calling good ol' Nikki and kissing her lady parts hoping to be her VP pick.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Sabrefan1