American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

Did the US / UK invade the Solomans when they signed security agreements with China? Those used to be ours, we should clearly go take them back! China could station nukes there! They could threaten supply lines to Australia! They are building a naval base there.

Aren't you describing the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I think MOST people when they are talking about reconstruction didn't go far enough are talking about protecting civil rights. I'm not saying there aren't people who say what you are saying, but its far from a majority. I prefer to usually go with what most people say and not to group people into the worst grouping. You often treat a group of people as a monolith and of course the monolith you choose is the worst one (a criticism I've noted before btw).

Most people are moderates with moderate opinions. Extremists are still the ones to watch out for, despite being a minority, because they are willing to fight to great lengths for their extreme beliefs. In the present day, "woke" policies are near universally unpopular, but will never be ditched by the Democratic machine because there are a bunch of extremely woke staffers who refuse to compromise on any of their positions. And you've poured most of your worries into the machinations of what Trump's team could do, rather than the median GOP position of reducing inflation.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Looks like RCV repeal might fail in AK. Doesn't change me 2026 Senate ratings because Mary Pelota has filed for the House seat in the meantime. This could change but my ratings consider what people say.

Solid: Everything else

Likely R: TX, AK, FL (DeSantis might mess up appointment), IA (DEMs actually have bench here), Edit: KS if Kelly declares, (KY would be here but Beshar said he's not running, Tester also seems unlikely to run for MT)
Lean R: OH (DEMs are going to get good candidate, even if Brown doesn't run, here because the incoming gerrymander is going to kick DEMs out of the House)
Tilt R: Nothing
Tilt D: Nothing
Lean D: NC. If Cooper doesn't declare for this seat it goes to Tilt D, but I'm very sure he will because he declined a VP slot. GA. (If Kemp ruins for this seat or Stacey Abrams ruins for governor a third time it goes to Tilt D. If both happen it is Tilt R).
Likely D: MI, NH (Trump lost here but he's weaker than a generic republican for the NE region), ME (Collins is running, but here margin last cycle was actually very low due to RCV)

[Mjmd]

I mean there is a large different between placing nukes and could place. There is also a lot of tech advancement since then. Nowadays there could be a nuke armed sub off your countries coast any time so it doesn't really matter. IE its a stupid excuse that "nukes could be placed there". But we COULD use it as a justification. Its always easy to justify war if you want.

It really depends what you mean by "woke". I don't know if there is a universal definition. It seems to be used mainly as a catch all term for things Republcians don't like and they don't want to sound like they are being assholes (IE they don't just want to come out and say they hate gay and trans people). I'm of the opinion, it makes me uncomfortable, I don't get it, but that goes for a lot of things people do. Government should probably stay out of it. Its a very Republican and libertarian view except when they don't like something. Is that woke, your mileage may vary. What is the GOP plan to reduce inflation? I've been waiting since 2022 for it, but the republican house didn't pass a single bill in relation to it. Republicans seem to like complaining about it, but is the solution really tariffs and mass deportations? Most economists (and common sense) seem to think no.

[BING_XI_LAO]

We all know you don't actually believe any of that, you can stop pretending to.

I went to school at a cathedral that was built 800 years ago, I've read books which are not just centuries but a couple of them thousands of years old (Xenophon and Thucidides are fun and easy reads). And of course Jesus' teachings are from 2,000 years ago. But I couldn't possibly despise something which was first invented 100 years ago and only grew widespread 10 years ago?

I couldn't possibly see it through the framing of the ancient religions which sacrificed people? Instead I have to see it through the frivolous modern framing of individual rights and choices? Just like everyone has to see the Ukraine and Taiwan as 'independent' because that's what the people there claim. Can't have any other definition of nationhood other than the one stemming from the American rebellion. Even if I grew up in England, in a vestige of its mediaeval culture, from before the American betrayal was ever conceived of, from before we smashed a single stained-glass window, closed a single monastery, or murdered the king. I can't see things from the premodern point of view, only from the point of view of the rootless American...

Do you think the Taliban were just pretending when they defeated you 3 years ago? (Maybe you aren't an American, but you've been culturally colonised by them)

My bad, I assumed at least a functional level of sanity from RB. Evil ideas sure, but not just insanity. Guess I should've applied Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by someone being a crazy cultist who believes in fairy tales.

Also no, intergender, transgender and other types of non gender conforming people have been around longer than your desert cultism. Genderfluidity occurs in stories as long as we've written down stories. Not our modern gender identities, but then those ARE actually an invention of the past 100 years, since they are continually evolving.

Genderfluidity? 10 years: (google ngram)

[greenline]

Woke is a poor phrase for saying, things progressives insist on. Progressives insist on police defunding and de-escalation, terrible art and movies celebrating minorities for existing, draping the ever changing rainbow flag on everything, putting men in women's sports if they call themselves women, thinking that America is a country with a uniquely bad history, and thinking that straight white men are the cause of all evils in the world, and making it legally required that any organization has an HR department that is filled with obnoxious harpies that only exist to harass employees and enforce progressive rules. These are all generally unpopular things, but they are popular with a small minority of highly educated and rich gremlins who never stop pushing their crap, so the rest of the country must put up with it.

"Genderfluid" did not exist in the past. The progressives who bring it up refer to things like 'two spirits', but don't really understand that a two spirit was a primitive tribe's way of saying, "You are so bad at clubbing seals that you should dress up like a woman and dance to amuse us." Not at all compatible with a progressive worldview, but the vast majority of progressives are morons with no real knowledge of human history or anthropology.

[Charr Babies]

Did the US / UK invade the Solomans when they signed security agreements with China? 

No, but the UK did invade the Solomon Islands; so that you have the nerve to say it used to be yours. Just like we committed genocide on the natives here and call it yours.

Those used to be ours, we should clearly go take them back! 

How? Nuke them?

[Mjmd]

The police defunding thing lasted like 6 months by a few. I'm sure there are a couple out there still, but its hardly mainstream. Police de-escalation, ya that one I get and I'm curious as to your objection to. I mean if they make terrible movies its up to the public if they want to watch it /shrug. Hardly something government should be involved in. Men in womens sports is VASTLY exaggerated. You know like a women gold medalist boxer being called trans by Fox news among others even though she wasn't...... My opinion is that is something for the sports organizations to regulate and at the point they care about sports enhancing drugs then yes it makes sense to ban. But again is that a huge issue? No, its almost nonexistent and is that something the government should be involved in? No, seems like a sports organization decision. On education as a lot of Republican "education" involves not talking about it, there is something to be said for teaching ACTUAL history. America does not have a uniquely bad history, but we should be aware of the parts of it that are bad. You know like using a 1797 law to round up Japanese citizens because people were unreasonable afraid of them. My ancestors were only forced to buy war bonds to prove loyalty (German and yes these are passed down stories), but its important history to remember. We shouldn't skip over them or pretend they didn't happen. I would love to know what laws you are talking about in regards to HR, I'm guessing you are exaggerating again. I would wager, and hear me out, that you live with a lot of media telling you these things are more common and more exaggerated than they really are. Or they use a small number of examples to say its this way 100%. You know grouping everything into a hated monolith and then assuming everything is in said monolith. Sound familiar?

Lets assume you are right (you aren't, but this is called an iron man argument). Should the government be involved in regulating? As a father with a daughter that isn't even a teenager yet, the Taliban dress codes look slightly attractive to me. I have kept her from signing up for dance classes because I don't like what they wear, but should the government dictate that to everyone? Beauty pageants of young girls weird me out. Should the government ban them? I don't really understand old people marrying young people. That always makes me feel uncomfortable. Like is it love or gold digging? Because I'm uncomfortable seeing it should the government ban it? Just because you don't understand something or it weirds you out, doesn't mean the government should step in to stop it. I'm very anti telling people how they can or can't live their lives. Again, this is a very libertarian way of viewing.

[Mjmd]

Did the US / UK invade the Solomans when they signed security agreements with China? 

No, but the UK did invade the Solomon Islands; so that you have the nerve to say it used to be yours. Just like we committed genocide on the natives here and call it yours.

Those used to be ours, we should clearly go take them back! 

How? Nuke them?

This is the problem with typed writing, you completely missed my sarcasm / the point I was trying to make.

[greenline]

My opinion is that is something for the sports organizations to regulate and at the point they care about sports enhancing drugs then yes it makes sense to ban. But again is that a huge issue? No, its almost nonexistent and is that something the government should be involved in?

If it is really just a small issue, why not abandon it from the platform? If trans rights and privileges are truly a small issue, then there's no reason to make it a core part of the progressive platform. And yet.

Lets assume you are right (you aren't, but this is called an iron man argument). Should the government be involved in regulating?

The best way to get the government to stop regulating these cultural matters would be removing the category of protected classes. The second best way would be to purge the government and corporations of the nagging progressives who enforce the rules surrounding protected classes.

[Mjmd]

Well one side is saying they shouldn't be allowed to exist. Saying they SHOULD be allowed to exist doesn't seem radical to me? And the question can be turned on you. IT IS a really small issue, so why did Republicans spend 1/3 of their marketing budget on it? I'll give you a hint, they teach about it in good history classes! People don't like the "other". They don't like change. They hate what they don't understand. It is very human, but that doesn't make it right.

I a white male was once in an interview with another white male where the interviewer said "women don't really understand us guys, they just don't get us". The whole finance department was indeed white males. Pretending discrimination doesn't exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'll admit its a tricky issue and I don't like a lot of the current solutions. It doesn't mean its NOT an issue though and the solution is to do nothing! My preferred solution is to at least do blind resumes (IE no name) and maybe even blind interviews at least for first round.