American Politics

[M3J]

black lives matters has proven to be racists and almost terrorists and offensive to cops. How do they protest cops when there are black cops, I dont understand their logic or positions and they are too disruptive.


College is a privilege that people should buy into, having everyone and their grandma receive full tuition support from tax payers is baffling and offensives. Its too risky to support people bound to fail.



Which is why I said thats going to happen to them, since they wont be getting the support for tuition like public schools will, who will reasonably pay top dollar costs to go to them?

How are they racist? What's racist about not wanting people of your race to be killed by cops? How are cops not racist for treating Dylann Roof to fast food, but shooting Philando for cooperating? You should be angry because a cop shot and killed a person who owned gun legally and had a permit. Yet, gun rights defenders and NRA haven't said anything. Another example of white privilege, only white people are allowed to own guns.

Most people don't understand Black Lives Matter, they're too ignorant or the media is too full of shit (the media is definitely not liberal, although I think some major online media are, like Buzzfeed). I don't understand why you brought black cops into this, given the group is talking about all cops and how quick they are to kill black men who aren't even armed. There's nothing terrorist about what they do, protesting isn't terrorism. This whole 'offensive to cops' thing is absolute bullsit, it's the cops and cop defenders taking offense at the idea that black people don't want cops to kill them for no reason or justification. It's scary how many people and cops are unhappy at the idea of people protesting against murder and lack of accountability.


If you want people to get ahead, then you should be able to give them aid and hope they accept it. You seem to be quite two-faced/double standard about this, like with almost everything else. There's nothing offensive about having people who aren't well off get full tuition support, especially if they're bright and need opportunities. You don't know who'll fail, and you seem to be unaware that even if it's expensive, cost doesn't prevent people from failing.

 

[xi0]

Which is why I said thats going to happen to them, since they wont be getting the support for tuition like public schools will, who will reasonably pay top dollar costs to go to them?

I mean, the same people with the privilege to do it now? Who cares really? Private universities are a private enterprise. The fact is, public university tuition is still a small fortune for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Despite that, they're still cheaper than private colleges. What's next, tuition should go up so the poor private schools don't go out of business? Using this kind of logic, in-state tuition shouldn't exist either as it's unfair to private industry.

A bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. In such an environment, why should tuition continue to climb year in, year out? And to top it all off, these schools already receive funding through taxes. All of which goes to state of the art sports facilities, none of which have anything to do with the supposed goal of post-secondary education. Public education isn't a for-profit industry for K-12, so why the hell should it be after that?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I think so too, which is why we need to take steps to solve this, not accuse Muslims of being terrorists or making all of them apologize for actions of few. People like Trump will just make things worse.

What's wrong with shutting down coal mining?

There's always the option is helping building the Middle East from ground up after the whole conflict resolves, but first, there needs to be a stronger-type of government that can deal with issues like ISIS without spreading like plague. It has happened before in history, and I can say it confidently that it can happen again (see Marshall Plan that helped save Europe from ruins after WWII). However, in order for that to work, we need other wealthy Middle Eastern countries' assistance if that were to happen.

The problem about shutting down coal mining is that states like West Virginia and Wyoming are extremely dependent on coal for economic purposes. Taking that away would destroy the states.
Now if it were finding a replacement/substitution for the resource, then it can be possible. However, it's going to take time for those states to replace Coal.


About what happened today: It looks like Sanders endorsing Hillary has definitely hurt his campaign. Granted, he's in a position where he doesn't have much choice, and I wouldn't blame him. Now the aftermath of this is going to hurt Hillary's campaign badly, since Trump can take advantage over Sanders' supporters. As much as I like Sanders, he's not the nominee, and complaining about it won't do anything.
However, I do believe there *can* be a turn of events for Sanders Supporters, and that is for Hillary to pick Sanders as her VP instead of the rumored Elizabeth Warren. I'll think of it common sense-wise: Hillary picks Sanders, so many Sanders supporters can finally support Hillary to win the race. The drawback for Hillary is that she has potential of getting impeached, which allows Sanders to ascend and become the next President (that is, assuming Hillary does get impeached).
Not saying this is going to be true, but this *can* work to both Sanders and his supporters' advantage. Sanders endorsing Hillary won't work on his supporters, but there's a good chance that him being her VP could work.

 

[xi0]

Not saying this is going to be true, but this *can* work to both Sanders and his supporters' advantage. Sanders endorsing Hillary won't work on his supporters, but there's a good chance that him being her VP could work.

Seems like a pipe dream to me. VP or not, he'd still be a part of her administration, not a true partner. I'd think that he wouldn't accept such an offer, but I thought there were plenty of reasons for him not to endorse her either...

 

[kkck]

Who puts that much weight in campaign promises? If he honestly believes he can trust Clinton of all people with such things, he's a moron. If you're to believe what he says, the reason he's endorsing her is because she isn't Trump. And this is the thinking most undecided voters are probably going to use in November as well.

To the best of my knowledge, literally everyone... Isn't that what this whole thing is about? What exactly is it that you think clinton is going to do here? I get that there is plenty of controversy around here and I agree with you that by any logic she shouldn't be electable (the donors thing and hawkishness, though I don't think there is anything else there that would make her unelectable) however it's not like the moment she becomes president she is going to cackle maniacally while ranting "I TRICKED YOU ALL! I AM A FAR RIGHT WING NUTJOB! WAS EVEN THE ONE THAT PROGRAMMED MARCO RUBIO TO ASSAULT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WITH GENERIC REPUBLICAN DOGMA! I EVEN KEPT HIS BACKUP FILES IN MY PRIVATE SERVER!'". I don't think there is much reason to think she would actually just flip on the platform. And even if she does something of the sort, it's not just hillary that adopted some of his policies, it's the democratic party as a whole.

As for sanders only supporting hillary because of trump... Do you really think trump is that different in sander's eyes from any other republican? Ok, trump is richer than most republicans and some of his policies are overtly stupid however safe for those few things trump is not that different from other republicans. If you looked at a point by point comparison of trump's campaign with that of other moderate republicans it would have been 90% similar (with the 10% being the wall that can't work, his US debt handling that would cause a worldwide depression and so on). With that in mind, if what sanders truly cared about was policy then the 90% that trump has in common with republicans should be enough to make this a good deal. It's not like not accepting the deal would help him get his policies through, if anything this is the best chance sanders will ever get of his policies becoming mainstream regardless of who the republican opponent it (hillary still has to win for that though).

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Seems like a pipe dream to me. VP or not, he'd still be a part of her administration, not a true partner. I'd think that he wouldn't accept such an offer, but I thought there were plenty of reasons for him not to endorse her either...

Even if it were under her administration, I just think that the Sanders supporters dislike Hillary, rather than her campaign itself (not that there aren't any who like her campaign).
It's interesting to see how things playout that way, but I have doubts that she'll pick Sanders. This is an election year where literally anything could happen.

 

[xi0]

What exactly is it that you think clinton is going to do here?

It's not really about what she is going to do with the power, we can already sort of guess about that. At best it'll be status quo IMO. The real issue is whether she's really deserving of the office, knowing what we know about her. I think deep down in his heart Sanders knows this. That's what makes me question the reasons he gave for endorsing her. That and a ton of things are said during campaigns, and Clinton's history of saying anything to get elected.

Even if it were under her administration, I just think that the Sanders supporters dislike Hillary, rather than her campaign itself (not that there aren't any who like her campaign).
It's interesting to see how things playout that way, but I have doubts that she'll pick Sanders. This is an election year where literally anything could happen.

I don't know, if I was one of Sander's more loyal supporters, I'd be REALLY dubious of him being her VP. I'd have the same sort of reaction to it that I had when I saw Elizabeth Warren licking her boots...

 

[SharkBait]

Most people don't understand Black Lives Matter, they're too ignorant or the media is too full of shit (the media is definitely not liberal, although I think some major online media are, like Buzzfeed). I don't understand why you brought black cops into this, given the group is talking about all cops and how quick they are to kill black men who aren't even armed. There's nothing terrorist about what they do, protesting isn't terrorism. This whole 'offensive to cops' thing is absolute bullsit, it's the cops and cop defenders taking offense at the idea that black people don't want cops to kill them for no reason or justification. It's scary how many people and cops are unhappy at the idea of people protesting against murder and lack of accountability.

The protesting this terroristic group does is terrorism, arent they responsible for the killing of cops. The events keep happening around areas where protests are happening, notice what was happening in texas and lousisina, protests by blm, then the targeting of cops. Terrorism.

There's nothing offensive about having people who aren't well off get full tuition support, especially if they're bright and need opportunities. You don't know who'll fail, and you seem to be unaware that even if it's expensive, cost doesn't prevent people from failing.

I paid somewhat for college so its unfair to me if these people dont have to pay. I didnt get a free handout so why should they, its not right.

It looks like Sanders endorsing Hillary has definitely hurt his campaign.

He had no campaign, he lost months ago, his supporters just had some false belief that he could somehow lose the popular vote and end up the nominee.

What's next, tuition should go up so the poor private schools don't go out of business? Using this kind of logic, in-state tuition shouldn't exist either as it's unfair to private industry.

I think in-state is beneficial, states deserve someway to make themselves more compelling for the residents who have paid its taxes loyally and also had some say in the legislature that supports the school, this is especially true for land-grant universities in the state.

All of which goes to state of the art sports facilities, none of which have anything to do with the supposed goal of post-secondary education.

Are you sure, most schools sports programs are well off enough that they end up supporting themselves with only the salary of the coach and other staff paid by the university but everything else from the profits and endorsements to support the at least division sports. Unless you think schools ought not even support club activities and other activities to foster students health and fitness.

Also Im fine with the cost of school going up, as in a republican focused economy with the opportunity for true american values to be active in the workplace, people graduating with advanced degrees in high brain powered fields, graduates would be making tons of money once they are hired.

 

[M3J]

There's always the option is helping building the Middle East from ground up after the whole conflict resolves, but first, there needs to be a stronger-type of government that can deal with issues like ISIS without spreading like plague. It has happened before in history, and I can say it confidently that it can happen again (see Marshall Plan that helped save Europe from ruins after WWII). However, in order for that to work, we need other wealthy Middle Eastern countries' assistance if that were to happen.

I feel like we shouldn't interfere at all, given the damage we did to Middle East and as result, to ourselves.

The problem about shutting down coal mining is that states like West Virginia and Wyoming are extremely dependent on coal for economic purposes. Taking that away would destroy the states.
Now if it were finding a replacement/substitution for the resource, then it can be possible. However, it's going to take time for those states to replace Coal.

Wouldn't it make things safer, and less environmentally damaging?

About what happened today: It looks like Sanders endorsing Hillary has definitely hurt his campaign. Granted, he's in a position where he doesn't have much choice, and I wouldn't blame him. Now the aftermath of this is going to hurt Hillary's campaign badly, since Trump can take advantage over Sanders' supporters. As much as I like Sanders, he's not the nominee, and complaining about it won't do anything.
However, I do believe there *can* be a turn of events for Sanders Supporters, and that is for Hillary to pick Sanders as her VP instead of the rumored Elizabeth Warren. I'll think of it common sense-wise: Hillary picks Sanders, so many Sanders supporters can finally support Hillary to win the race. The drawback for Hillary is that she has potential of getting impeached, which allows Sanders to ascend and become the next President (that is, assuming Hillary does get impeached).
Not saying this is going to be true, but this *can* work to both Sanders and his supporters' advantage. Sanders endorsing Hillary won't work on his supporters, but there's a good chance that him being her VP could work.

What campaign now? He hasn't a chance of winning, and all he can do is prevent the worse choice from winning. Having him as her vice president would hurt Bernie, and I hope he says no. Him being her VP would truly make him a sellout and lose support.

Seems like a pipe dream to me. VP or not, he'd still be a part of her administration, not a true partner. I'd think that he wouldn't accept such an offer, but I thought there were plenty of reasons for him not to endorse her either...

Nah, there's one most important reason for him to endorse Hillary - Trump. Anyone with common sense would fear Trump becoming president.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 13, 2016 ---

The protesting this terroristic group does is terrorism, arent they responsible for the killing of cops. The events keep happening around areas where protests are happening, notice what was happening in texas and lousisina, protests by blm, then the targeting of cops. Terrorism.

Can you prove they're killing cops? Again, read actual sources, not biased crap. The Dallas shooter admitted he had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, and the NYC killer was mentally ill. What other situation is there where black people killed cops? BLM is not a terrorist group and has done nothing terrorist. All they want is for the police to stop killing black people. It's baffling why people are against this idea.

What happened in Louisiana? I don't see any violence of sort. There is nothing wrong with protests, and to claim there is is to take away the rights to complain about something. I don't think you know what terrorism means, although the two people who killed the cops were terrorists.

I paid somewhat for college so its unfair to me if these people dont have to pay. I didnt get a free handout so why should they, its not right.


He had no campaign, he lost months ago, his supporters just had some false belief that he could somehow lose the popular vote and end up the nominee.

I think in-state is beneficial, states deserve someway to make themselves more compelling for the residents who have paid its taxes loyally and also had some say in the legislature that supports the school, this is especially true for land-grant universities in the state.

Are you sure, most schools sports programs are well off enough that they end up supporting themselves with only the salary of the coach and other staff paid by the university but everything else from the profits and endorsements to support the at least division sports. Unless you think schools ought not even support club activities and other activities to foster students health and fitness.

Also Im fine with the cost of school going up, as in a republican focused economy with the opportunity for true american values to be active in the workplace, people graduating with advanced degrees in high brain powered fields, graduates would be making tons of money once they are hired.

It's unfair to these people who can't go to college even though they want to because they don't have money, while you can go to college and be more likely to be successful because you or your parents have money. It's not right. If you have money, you shouldn't get a free handout. That's very wrong.

He had a campaign, and it's equality for everyone and giving them chances to be successful or be able to make ends meet. Many people for some reason were either against the idea or they were Trump all along, which shows that there are many bad people in this country.

What? Colleges are cheaper for people who live in the same state, and probably cheaper if in same or close proximity to the college.


Republican focused economy would be very bad. Republicans in power are bad as it is, and they'll keep making things worse. Luckily though, many politicians are not as ignorant as you, they know what real world is like, to a degree.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I don't know, if I was one of Sander's more loyal supporters, I'd be REALLY dubious of him being her VP. I'd have the same sort of reaction to it that I had when I saw Elizabeth Warren licking her boots...

Normally, I would agree with you. I'm just thinking outside the box about the possibilities that could happen. I really don't know what possibilities could Hillary gain the Sanders supporters; it only had a minor impact to her advantage and possibly a massive advantage to Trump. Sure, the 3rd Party are grabbing the Sanders Supporters' attention and all, but they're irrelevant (as in, none of them have a chance at winning the election year; not the type of irrelevance that makes no difference, because they are making an impactful difference between one candidate winning or losing).
I've heard good things about Elizabeth Warren (or, I should say I've known a guy who says a lot of good things about her), and it would be very interesting if Hillary picks her as VP. Sure, it would hurt her loyal supporters, but it's still a ticket to the White House in my book.

He had no campaign, he lost months ago, his supporters just had some false belief that he could somehow lose the popular vote and end up the nominee.

But he still has his campaign running, it's just a dying campaign that hasn't been called off yet. I guess they were waiting for Hillary to be indicted, which allows Sanders to be the nominee. But with all that in the past, it's definitely time for Sanders to throw the flag.

I feel like we shouldn't interfere at all, given the damage we did to Middle East and as result, to ourselves.

While I do believe that we shouldn't interfere, this is more about recovering the destroyed nations. Just imagine if the US didn't interfered the destroyed Europe: Communism would've most likely worked to the Soviet Union's advantage. We've interfered with Iraq, but left the government in a weakened state that Extremists managed to take advantage.
If a Marshall Plan Vr. 2 were to be in effect after the Syrian Civil War and the fall of ISIS, then it would not only help developing nations to grow, it would also lessen up the Syrian Refugee Crisis and even return to their homes.

Wouldn't it make things safer, and less environmentally damaging?

Yes, but it still takes a ton of time for any substitutions to happen. Maybe sometime in the future, states like Wyoming can find other means of resources.
But my point isn't really about Coal Mining being a good thing or a bad thing for both economic and environmental subjects; this is about how Hillary stated that she's going to shut down Coal Mines, which upsets Coal Miners in those states.

What campaign now? He hasn't a chance of winning, and all he can do is prevent the worse choice from winning. Having him as her vice president would hurt Bernie, and I hope he says no. Him being her VP would truly make him a sellout and lose support.

It is a theory tho. I don't think Sanders being her VP would truly hurt him, but help him. The only problem is if what I said comes true or not (let's also not forget if Hillary even wins the race).
His endorsement has already made him a sellout, but what other options does he have? The Green Party's purpose is to take away votes, and he already pointed out that his goal is to beat Trump. Whether we agree or not, he has a point: Hillary is the only candidate who can beat Trump.

 

[xi0]

Are you sure, most schools sports programs are well off enough that they end up supporting themselves with only the salary of the coach and other staff paid by the university but everything else from the profits and endorsements to support the at least division sports. Unless you think schools ought not even support club activities and other activities to foster students health and fitness.

They can support themselves NOW, sure. But if they can do that now, then why does tuition still need to go up, or even exist?

I didn't say they shouldn't support club activities. The issue is when schools have a for-profit attitude towards the people who pay taxes. The very people who become the foundation of the future. What use is a college degree if graduates will be in debt until their own children are college-aged (and that's IF things go well for them) ? The entire system is a terrible racket, whether you're fortunate to have the means to afford it or not. I'm of the belief that the only obstacles to someone furthering their education should be academic in nature, not financial.

Nah, there's one most important reason for him to endorse Hillary - Trump. Anyone with common sense would fear Trump becoming president.

Err, I said that before?

 

[kkck]

It's not really about what she is going to do with the power, we can already sort of guess about that. At best it'll be status quo IMO. The real issue is whether she's really deserving of the office, knowing what we know about her. I think deep down in his heart Sanders knows this. That's what makes me question the reasons he gave for endorsing her. That and a ton of things are said during campaigns, and Clinton's history of saying anything to get elected.

Ok, I get that. Sometimes the whole thing gets a tad weird (at least for me) because people speak of a hillary presidency as it would immediately cause the world to burst into flames or something of the sort. Which doesn't really seem to fit with the things which actually are legitimately questionable about her. Some of the reactions to her potential presidency occasionally seem off (without more context at least).

Do the clintons really have a history of that? I thought that is something all politicians do. Which is not to say it is ok for them to do it and then pretend it didn't happen but rather that it is not correct to say this is a clinton issue. Sanders said plenty of relatively nasty things about clinton and even then he endorsed her when he got policy concessions. Should he not have acted that way? It's not like not endorsing hillary would help him get the policy changes he wants anyways. Maybe his fans wouldn't be butthurt but other than that sanders really had nothing to loose here.

 

[xi0]

Do the clintons really have a history of that? I thought that is something all politicians do.

To a degree, perhaps. But it's a bit bizarre when the person you endorse is a perfect fit for the type of thing you were railing against in your campaign.

 

[kkck]

To a degree, perhaps. But it's a bit bizarre when the person you endorse is a perfect fit for the type of thing you were railing against in your campaign.

Well, yeah, but it is not like Hillary is that much of a perfect fit in that specific regard. She is a moderate establishment candidate however as a democrat her policy proposals are generally on the moderate/liberal end of the spectrum. If sanders sees hillary as a perfect fit of what he is campaigning against then I can't even fathom what he thinks of moderate republicans. His opinion of marco rubio or jeb bush would be far and wide lower than mine (and I already think both of them ignorant jackasses whose positions are incompatible with science and knowledge in general on most issues).... Sanders and Hillary are perhaps only somewhat more different than trump and other republicans when it comes to policy... Wouldn't the old democrat platform be in general at worst a step in the right direction for someone more on the progressive side? That is not to say the differences aren't important (specially considering clinton and her donors and democrat's free trade, lack of political will to add legislation to remove money from politics and so on) but there is a fair bit of common ground as well. Had that common ground not existed to begin with it would have been absolutely impossible for the democrat party and hillary to adopt bernie's policy proposals. It's not like they outright disagreed, they just thought bernie's proposals weren't all that realistic in at least several cases (well, that is my impression anyways).

 

[Franckie]

Who puts that much weight in campaign promises? If he honestly believes he can trust Clinton of all people with such things, he's a moron. If you're to believe what he says, the reason he's endorsing her is because she isn't Trump. And this is the thinking most undecided voters are probably going to use in November as well.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

 

[xi0]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

So, 67% is somehow an acceptable number that should satisfy people putting any weight to them?

To clarify, I wasn't mentioning campaign promises as in Clinton breaking them herself. A lot of whether things get done or not depends on who controls congress.

 

[shionoro]

So, 67% is somehow an acceptable number that should satisfy people putting any weight to them?

To clarify, I wasn't mentioning campaign promises as in Clinton breaking them herself. A lot of whether things get done or not depends on who controls congress.

I certainly do think 67% is a very acceptable number if we talk other effects preventing politicians from seeing their promises through (or making it necessary to make them) into our questioning of that number.
Campaign promises have always to be taken with a grain of salt, but they do show a general direction of where the candidate wants to go if the circumstances do not change a lot.
He might do the opposite of what he said if they do, but you usually get an idea of what the candidate thinks are topics for the people right now and thus which topics he or she will put effort into.

Clinton did get to know by now that more liberal policies give her a popularity boost. She knows that the democratic middle usually accepts them and the democratic left even demands them. That is why she changed her tone accordingly.

That does not mean that she will see through all the stuff she says by now (i am exspecially sure that all her talk about feminism as 'the first female president' is absolute nonsense and will not have any effect), but she knows she should at least put some effort into some of the topics to make her significant voter groups happy

 

[GrySun]

Plz be a good choice.

Inb4 it's John Miller.

 

[z.5]

Please be the pinnacle of brilliance, Sarah Palin!

 

[kkck]

So, 67% is somehow an acceptable number that should satisfy people putting any weight to them?

To clarify, I wasn't mentioning campaign promises as in Clinton breaking them herself. A lot of whether things get done or not depends on who controls congress.

So.... what point are you trying to make? Frankie makes the point that politicians at least try to make good on their campaign promises and you make the point that getting them done depends on who controls congress and over half are actually kept..... Isn't this perfectly consistent? Wouldn't this mean that the promises are unequivocally important because at the very least a genuine attempt at keeping the promises will be made?