My problem with politics...

Over the years, the political climate has become a cartoon, and people who have the cognitive ability to form a different, informed opinion than the mass narrative, are stepped all over.

For example, if I were to disagree with anyone's bandwagon opinion, I'm labeled a Trump supporter. If I provide examples of evidence that formed my opinion, I'm called stupid. I post article links I use as reference, they're immediately discredited and my character is demeaned.

I'm called racist for stating things that have nothing to do with race.

I'm called sexist for not bringing gender into my conversations.

I ask for an intelligent counter argument, and all I get are insults on my character.

This is why the world is a mess. No one has the ability to come together and discuss solutions and compromises to very real issues. Instead, everything always results to name calling and dismissal, unless that person is given everything they want for nothing in return.

Is this really where the human race has regressed to? The mentality of four-year-olds? This saddens me deeply.

But that's enough of my ranting. Let's all go back to watching our 50,000 different news stations that were all written by the same people, and continue to be forcefed the same 7 Trump jokes every night on every Late Night TV show. We get it - his skin is orange. I'm ready for some actual comedy now.

@Zuon: what are these example of your views?

@Zuon:

People should not be hive-minded though.

I'm not familiar with you and what you post, but if:

" I post article links I use as reference, they're immediately discredited and my character is demeaned."

you post sources that are easily discredited and you take offence to that, perhaps the core issue isn't with others.

Oh look, another Trump supporter. :P

The Left has gone insane after Trump’s win. Any support for him, even if it aligns with Democrat policies, and they’ll try their best to discredit you. Not occasionally, but every damn time. Their protests turn violent, verbally aggressive, racist, and downright unAmerican. In fact, many of them don’t even support democracy - the very word their party’s name is derived from.

@mattbbpl: That would be a good point, if people discredited my sources for legitimate reasons such as ownership being traced back to an uncreditable source, but most of these dismissals are done simply because the individual doesn't want to believe it.

But here is just one of my controversial beliefs. I have come to all of my opinions through a mix of my upbringing and statistical research:

White people are not the oppressors anymore, and are not even the richest (Asians hold that title.) They are not even one race - they come from multiple different heritages.

In the west, Caucasian individuals were the agressors for many years, but in the past 100 or so, people of every race, gender, and status, have attained equality in the eye of the law.

There are still legitimately racist and sexist people, without a doubt, but the narrative has changed. It is now widely believed that only Caucasians are bigoted, even in cases when such ideas haven't crossed their mind. Caucasians, especially men, are told on a daily basis that they are responsible for events that happened hundreds of years ago, while minorities and women are offered encouragement that they can be whoever they want to be.

The truth is, everyone can be bigoted, no matter your skin color, gender, or heritage.

But why are we still arguing things on such superficial features in 2019? Instead, we should be embracing each other despite our differences and use our experiences to better one another.

We don't need to constantly be arguing. We could all do great things together, if we all had the mentality.

Glad to see there are a few people with open minds these days. I applaud you good sir, your knowledge is impressive!

@Zuon: you are right that every person no matter the race can be bigoted. But in the us. And west it still are white that have the majority of the wealth. Though now it's a much of that that wealth is in a vastly small percentage then before.

Asians are more wealth on the international market and even then it's small percentage.

Laws in concept are race blind....but in practice. Their issue of people who up hold those laws not being so racial blind. But more so the rich get away with more then the poor.

But one look at the Charlottesville March last year and you can see racism is still here....but it's more fuel by desperate poor whites being tools of the rich.

And that is the issue. Instead of focuaing on racism focus on wealth inequality.

It'd be pretty funny if he was

@drlostrib: I don't support individuals themselves. I only support individuals on a per action basis. I support Trump on some things, but there are also many others I disapprove of.

It is not wise to blindly support a person, party, group, or government. We should vote based on our values, not on whoever wears the same shiny red or blue vest that we do.

Not everyone is bigoted, though. I've posted here multiple times and have a thread where I mentioned because of my upbrining race isn't an issue for me. For example the comment of "Asians are the oppressors" is bewildering for me and also Caucasians were the agressors, but that wasn't all of them - there were a lot of whites that were against slavery and conquest.

The truth is that the same people that say that we shouldn't be arguing about the issue are the same ones that have an issue when black people protest against police brutally or why people find it offensive for confederate statues to be placed.

I'd like to see some examples so we can all weigh in on his 'sources'.

@blackballs: I said Asians were on the whole, richer, not that they were the oppressors.

And I use to believe not everyone was bigoted, but over the years, Avenue Q's "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" seems to make more sense.

We all have different upbringings and experiences, which results in differing opinions of other social groups. Opinions will be established in all of us for someone else, whether we want to admit it or not.

It is important however, that we can separate objective bigorty from implied bigotry. For example, if someone takes offense to "African Americans make up the majority of arrests, in the USA," that bigotry is implied due to it being factual. However, if someone were to be offended by someone saying "Black people are criminals through and through," that offense is justified, as the statement is not objectively true, and the bigotry is definite.

Exactly, don't know what your point is. You seem to be logical. Unless for example you actively talk about race, I mean I don't talk about it unless its about protecting minorites - same as gender.

@blackballs: I try not to talk about it unless someone else makes it the subject. But an an example was asked for, and that's what I provided.

I do have to say though, I appreciate you more in this thread than in the other two I've seen you in. I guess we never got down to understanding where we came from. Not that there was any war between us to begin with, but, will you accept my truce?

I have warned people that this radical left zealotry permeating through the media, online platforms, forums and COC's is going to backfire on the left. And this concerns me greatly, because I am leftist. The deceit, the harassment, the silencing, the attack on gender and race, and the attempt to control the narrative and words we use to bypass reasoning is RUINING the ability for the left to be taken seriously. The actual arguments that the left have are in danger of being swamped by all these unethical authoritarian methods to hurt people. You don't want people in power who advocate a book burning. I am still very much convinced that the left can live through any debate or argument if only we stick to the truth of the matter. We need to cut ties with the extremists in a way that makes it absolutely clear where we stand.

The MAGA kids controversy for instance is destroying the left. The media is shown to be catering to 'progressive' views not caring one iota about the truth and they will lose in court or will be forced to settle. Hundreds of serious threats sent to the school? And it's just one of a thousand things right now that the radical left is doing wrong to make the whole left look like crooks. You don't get to silence your opposition without it hurting your argument. You already lost the debate if you can't handle criticism. It's that simple. You. Treat. People. Like. People. First. You don't antagonize a group of people based on arbitrary traits. The left should know that.

If I were a USA citizen I would be leaning towards Tulsi Gabbard for 2020, at the moment. Why? I know very little about the arguments that the candidates bring forward (so my opinion can change over time) but she at the very least voluntarily stepped down from the DNC because of the maltreatment of Bernie Sanders. No matter what you think about Bernie Sanders, she made a sacrifice for what she thinks is ethical not for what she thinks looks politically better. Very few people stand that test when it involves looking beyond your own opinion and gains at the reality of things. That to me, tells me she is probably a great person, and I wouldn't say that about politicians normally.

You can tell because they always play the victim card :D

See?

"Those rabid democrats will tear you to shreds! The animals! All I wanted was to overthrow democracy by electing a despotically-minded billionaire! Is that so wrong?"

Ever the victim, never looking inward.

Show me one objective piece of evidence demonstrating trump being a tyrant. Not a "tendency", but him ACTUALLY doing something that resembles what a tyrant would do.

https://deadline.com/2018/07/white-house-bans-reporter-donald-trump-questions-michael-cohen-vladimir-putin-cnn-kaitlin-collins-1202433727/

First off, a few things:

1. I never said tyrant, I said "despot" (or rather, referred to it)

2. It was a joke

3. Why do you quote "tendency"? If it quacks like a duck...

4. If you would like evidence of it, I would cite the following actions and observations:

• Shutting down the government based on his own personal feelings would be quite representative of a despot and tyrant; someone who is "happy to do so" would be a bit of a tyrant, imo.
• Historically, tyrants and despots have been pretty paranoid, and tend to layoff, execute, or otherwise "disappear" their cabinet members; those that are not taken care off tend to flee as well. How many original cabinet members does Trump have left from when he started?
• Lying. Not just lying or distorting the truth, but quite literally making up fictions.
• Charismatic and charming, but also at the same time completely devoid of empathy.
• Historically, tyrants and despots make the media the enemy of the people. They also try to set up their own media outlet. Trump has done, or tried, to do both.

Luckily laws are in place to prevent that. Checks and balances and all that.

However since you went with resembles what a tyrant would do. Attacking the media, repeatedly spreading lies, restricting press briefings, "winning by a landslide/massive victory" even if that is not the case. I also think appointing friends or family to high positions falls within what a tyrant does. That's all I could think of right now.

With that said, I would also like to link to this article. Given the checks and balances, it is impossible for him to be a dictator or tyrant if you prefer that name. Well not by himself, he would need a large amount of help, as in those who are in the positions to "check and balance" has to not do their job. Something perhaps Mitch McConnell has shown the last 3 weeks. He has also shown to appoint people who disagree with him, something very untyrant of him.

Time to invoke Godwins law, I guess I will regret this. Like the Trump is Hitler that was shouted by some in the beginning of his presidency. It (likely) has some truth to it but requires cautious use by the one using it.

The plus side with this I guess it might be enlightening (especially for younger I reckon) for people. My two cents.

If you think things are different now to how they’ve always been that’s just because you’re young or don’t read history.

Politicians gerrymander and bang their drums at election time. People shout for attention and the media digests and regurgitates it all in the crassest way possible.

It would look pretty dramatic through the eyes of Fox News or even the BBC.

But the story on ground level is much the same as it’s always been.

Politics actually happens very slowly and one presidential term is usually pretty uneventful in the larger scheme of things.

I've seen the video of Katie Collins "asking" Trump questions. Considering she did not want to leave the room after being asked repeatedly, and continuously shouting, I can understand where his frustration is coming from. Individual Reporters have been banned from a plethora of different type of events too, yet I see nobody screaming censorship?

I personally would not consider it authoritarian. CNN can simply send another reporter to ask the exact same questions. I would be extremely worried if Trump banned CNN's platform as a WHOLE.

Was he ignoring the questions? Possibly. But from what I've noticed, she was not considerate of the other reporters who also have questions for Trump, and instead of asking in a respectful manner, she wanted all the time. This seems more of a case of removing a disrespectful reporter, not platform censorship.

Read the article. Your entire statement above is already addressed and dismissed.

"Luckily laws are in place to prevent that. Checks and balances and all that." As would be expected.

"However since you went with resembles what a tyrant would do. Attacking the media, repeatedly spreading lies, restricting press briefings, "winning by a landslide/massive victory" even if that is not the case. I also think appointing friends or family to high positions falls within what a tyrant does. That's all I could think of right now." He isn't the only president who has done all of what you have mentioned, so do you condemn all those presidents or just him?

Well that's how the current system works. You need to garner support in order to make changes. You want real proof of authoritarian demonstration by Trump?

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/

This law DIRECTLY breaches the 2nd amendment. This what people should be worrying about. The founding fathers created the 2nd amendment to fight Tyranny. Look at communist china when it was first formed, or Hitler. You want to know what happened what they did first? Remove guns and the ability to protect themselves. Has led to over 100 million deaths. The founders of USA knew this and that's why they made it a constitutional right.

Btw, many Americans do not know this, but the US is not a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.

Thank you for the insight though, you do bring up very valid points

LOL what? I read the entire article and watched 2 different viewpoints of Kaitlin Collins, and you can clearly see her demeanor.

Well done. You're the type of person that lets the media do the thinking for you, so what they preach is gospel. Learn to look at information objectively and form your own opinions, not what someone else parrots for you

Wow. You read two of my posts and you already know me.

Not. But I can certainly already ascertain that you're one of those people ready to jump to personal insults when the bridge gets weak.

Here's the relevant paragraph, since you seem to miss it:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

White House insists Collins was banned for “shouting questions” and declining to leave immediately “despite being repeatedly asked to do so.” That’s really rich, given that it is an accurate description of what many reporters typically do at these softball photo ops, as anyone who has been watching coverage of Donald Trump’s presidency well knows. That’s because Trump is too chicken to hold traditional news conferences and these exercises in photo op-ery often are White House correspondents only chance to ask questions of the President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BTW, I'm a technocrat. If you don't have the qualifications and experience for a specified position, no amount of political good will should win that position for you.

Definition of Despot: A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

-From my understandings, the democrats did not give in to republicans demand for funding, therefore a shut down occurred. This was a result of disagreement between two parties that led to it. Trump may have the ability to declare a shutdown, but BOTH parties are to blame for not coming to an agreement.

-And how many of those cabinets are now fleeing for their lives?

-Agree on the lying part. I have seen him lie almost as much as Obama, at least he's a bit more stupid so its more obvious, whereas Obama is deceptive and smiles at you the next second, the worst kind.

-Obama was very charming too?

-6 corporations control 90% of the media, and your going to tell me the wealthy elite are trying to represent the average person? C'mon man, I hope you're not THAT delusional.

https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/

Thats rich. You seem to pretend this only occurs during his presidency and not during any other presidency in history

Nice joke. Do you condemn Obama, George Bush, and a plethora of other presidents who have done the same, or will you remain hypocritical and only blame trump?

Alright Technocrat, is Hilary Clinton better for the role of president than trump? This is my most important question

I have not seen another president bar a reporter for asking questions.

Hilary Clinton would have been more qualified than Trump. Trump even has to rely on his aides to tell him his shit is illegal (Per Rex Tillerson, et al.) Hilary at least had experience and knowledge of the machinery of government, an area of knowledge Trump is sorely lacking in.

Here's an example of Obama doing this to MSM, not including to the plethora of individual reporters. So are you going to condemn Obama and call him the same things as you did about Trump?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

You really need to be a bit more informed my friend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e726810d67b5

Remember, anytime someone tells you their a politician, majority of the time, they're just a corrupt individual being paid to follow orders.

Trumps more qualified because he knows how to run a business. Don't use the "look how many business' have failed " or "look at all the lawsuits hes facing" arguments. Millionaires/billionaires have ventured into COUNTLESS different opportunities and failed, so its not a counterargument.

Germany's reduction in who could own a gun came from the Treaty of Versailles. If I remember correctly, the laws became stricter in early 1920's before loosing up again around 1928-1929. I think Hitler relaxed some of those laws even more before WWII began. More guns in Germany would not have prevented Hitler from rising to power, propaganda and spread of misinformation had more effect. Also there is no way the founding fathers of US could know about how gun laws could affect China or Germany in 20th century. On the other hand I guess they knew if only the police and army had access to such lethal weapons, the common folk would have no chance to fight a dictator. How it was in China I have no idea about.

You got that right(bold part).

"I think Hitler relaxed some of those laws even more before WWII began" You are correct, thank you for providing the correction information.

"Also there is no way the founding fathers of US could know about how gun laws could affect China or Germany in 20th century" The point I am trying to make is the fathers knew that an armed American people, would make it extremely difficult/near impossible for a tyrannical government to take over. And it makes logical sense.

Governments have killed the most people in the 20th century (Germany, Communist China, Soviet Union, etc) and in a majority of these cases, the people had no method of self defense against governments armed with weapons.

Who said Clinton wasn't corrupt? I said she was better qualified. And running a business does not qualify you to run government. The two are orchestrated on completely different architectures of operation.

Trump lacks any sense of decorum or tact. He is boisterous, uninformed, speaks poorly and shows no interest in educating himself or allowing himself to be educated. He is a shady used car salesman type who just happened to have a rich daddy. There is nothing inherently admirable nor inspiring about him. He's a populist, risen to power on a wave of apathy from one side and anger from the other.

History will not be kind to him.

Elaborate on how the governments and business' are so different then

Definition of populist: A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

Whats so bad about a populist?

Given the US military technology, the people has no chance if the military goes against the people. I get what you are trying to say, just that times have changed and a firearm alone isn't really enough.

Just today, I've been flagged 6 times. I've looked back and noticed all my posts fall within the terms of this thread. The people who are flagging me are simply afraid of an opposing view that completely contradicts their opinion. They don't stand for the constitution and the right to speech. They are authoritarian. They don't believe in free speech. They don't believe in the principles the US provides other with, that countries around the world don't.

It's absolutely sad and pathetic.

Here, let me help.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people. In the second half of the 20th century, populism came to be identified with the political style and program of Latin American leaders such as Juan Perón, Getúlio Vargas, and Hugo Chávez. Populist is often used pejoratively to criticize a politician for pandering to a people’s fear and enthusiasm. Depending on one’s view of populism, a populist economic program can therefore signify either a platform that promotes the interest of common citizens and the country as a whole or a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth to gain popularity, without regard to the consequences for the country such as inflation or debt.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^^https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism

That. He's a facade. Like those old Hollywood sound stages, there's nothing behind the paint but a few creaky support beams. He's built his own reality without regard to tangible fact.

And then he sold it.

well that's the thing. Is the US military really going send tanks against their own people? By the time this situation occurs, people will realize the tyranny at hand. Which is why its so important to have that method of self protection. A gun is the next best thing that can protect ones own endangered life at a distant.

I've owned and operated a couple of businesses. It's about profit. You squeeze every margin you can without debasing your product. There are so many outflows and only one inflow: the customer. It's finding that balance where both you and the customer are as far to the margins as either of you are willing to go that determines whether you business will fail or succeed.

^^That is business. If you ever want business described to you, there you go.

Government has far more to concern itself with than the balance book, though that is indeed a consideration as well. Government ultimately determines the definitions of lawful justice and personal rights and freedoms. These considerations need men of philosophic quality.

So the issue at hand is not the definition of a populist, but the people supporting it. If that is the definition, than I am a populist myself. But that does not mean I will follow Donald Trump no matter what. I have already shown how he has demonstrated himself being anti-american and anti-constitution, aka Red Flag Laws.

The issue is the people who BLINDLY follow the elected, in this manner I agree with you. This is why labels can be so dangerous. People blindly follow so and so because their a democrat, republican, etc, rather than looking at what is the POLICIES the elected is interested in. So the fault is not in populists, but misinformed populists.

Perfect, you know how a business operates.

You have also admitted that the government, in some manner, also runs as a form of business. Hillary Clinton does not have the expertise Trump has in terms of running a business. Hilary has also proven she is morally corrupt and not interested in serving the american people, as per her millions of foreign donations.

So once again, in what manner is Hilary Clinton better suited for role as president?

Yes. Rational logic seems lacking in public discourse these days. People are unable to separate their personal opinions from their political opinions. There are things that I hold to be personally amoral but fully support someone else's right to do. I recognize my personal bias but I do not let it affect my political leanings, which are: Don't step on my toes and we're good.

Let's see...would I have preferred the train I'm riding on into 2020 to maintain the status-quo or the current slow-motion train wreck? Hmmm...

I am glad I have taken the time to discuss with you. You could not have said anything better in that statement. I am glad to see you spend time to have a political discourse that involves RATIONALIZATION, which you do, but majority of others, do not. We do not have to agree on everything, but through rationalization and the ability to SPEAK your own mind, knowledge increases on BOTH sides of the discussion. I commend you

Well that depends on WHO you consider to be WHAT....

Both Trump and Hilary are serving a political agenda, I just believe Hilary's is much, much worse.

No matter which side of the debate you are on, this is a truism: We face the real possibility right now of an ex-president dying in prison.

Think about that.

who is this ex-president you speak of?

Trump. Who else?